The URL can be used to link to this page

09-17-13 Searchable packet Table of Contents Agenda4 Proclamation Recognizing the Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter No written materials11 Cupertino student delegates share their experience in Toyokawa, Japan No written materials12 Parks and Recreation proclamation for Fall Prevention Awareness Day No written materials13 Approve the August 20 City Council minutes A - Draft Minutes14 Accept Accounts Payable for period ending July 26, 2013 A - Draft Resolution20 Accept Accounts Payable for period ending August 2, 2013 A - Draft Resolution33 Accept Accounts Payable for period ending August 9, 2013 A - Draft Resolution45 Accept Accounts Payable for period ending August 16, 2013 A - Draft Resolution57 Accept Accounts Payable for period ending August 23, 2013 A - Draft Resolution70 Accept Accounts Payable for period ending August 30, 2013 A - Draft Resolution79 Second Amendment to the Agreement between the City of Cupertino, the Cupertino Union School District, and the Cupertino Schools Public Facilities Financing Corporation pertaining to the maintenance and improvement of certain open space areas within certain school sites Staff Report88 A - Proposed MOU90 B - Redline of Proposed Second Amendment to Agreement92 Reimbursement of up to $2,000 in travel expenses for travel to Toyokawa, Japan, by a City Council Member to attend an invited cultural event and a long-standing Sister City relations Staff Report100 Authorize the Mayor to sign a letter from the Technology Information and Communication Commission (TICC) to be sent to the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) opposing the encryption of basic cable service Staff Report101 A - Letter from TICC to the CPUC102 Parks and Recreation Commission Work Plan for FY 2013 - 2014 Staff Report104 1 Alcoholic Beverage License Application, Beija Flor Cafe, 19622 Stevens Creek Boulevard Staff Report107 A - Application108 Set a public hearing and adopt a resolution related to the City intent to vacate Pruneridge Avenue, between Wolfe Road and Tantau Avenue, and twelve various public easements Staff Report110 A - Draft Resolution112 B - General Exhibit of Pruneridge Avenue Vacation Area159 Summarily vacate a portion of the slope easement along 22084 Clearwood Court Staff Report160 A - Draft Resolution161 Adopt a resolution granting real property to the State of California for the Don Burnett Bicycle-Pedestrian Bridge Staff Report164 A - Draft Resolution165 B - Map170 Applications for a subdivision of a single-family zoned lot into three (3) residential lots and one (1) private roadway area, and rezoning of a single-family zoned property from R1-10 to R1-7.5 Staff Report171 A - Planning Commission Staff Report175 B - TM PC Reso180 C - Draft Z CC Ordinance193 D - Arborist Report198 E - Initial Study206 F - ERC Recommendation309 G - Plan Set310 Consider approval of the Library Commissions recommendation for the appointment of the new Cupertino Poet Laureate Staff Report317 A - Draft Resolution319 B - Resume320 Consider a City sponsorship request from the non-profit organization, Quota International of Cupertino, for the November 5, 2013 Silicon Valley Positive Aging Forum: Housing, Community & Longevity Staff Report321 A - Silicon Valley Positive Aging Forum 2013 Draft Program322 Amicus Brief in No Toxic Air, Inc. v. Santa Clara County, et al. (Calif. Court of Appeal Case No. H039547, Appeal from Santa Clara Co. Superior Court Case No. 111CV201900) Staff Report323 Public Works Construction Project Updates 2 No Written Materials325 3 AGENDA CUPERTINOCITYCOUNCIL~REGULARMEETING 10350TorreAvenue,CommunityHallCouncilChamber Tuesday,September17,2013 6:45PM CITYCOUNCILMEETING PLEDGEOFALLEGIANCE ROLLCALL CEREMONIALMATTERSANDPRESENTATIONS 1.Subject:ProclamationRecognizingtheSierraClubLomaPrietaChapter RecommendedAction:Presentproclamation Nowrittenmaterials Page:Nowrittenmaterialsinpacket 2.Subject:CupertinostudentdelegatessharetheirexperienceinToyokawa,Japan RecommendedAction:Receivethepresentation Nowrittenmaterials Page:Nowrittenmaterialsinpacket 3.Subject:ParksandRecreationproclamationforFallPreventionAwarenessDay RecommendedAction:Presentproclamation Nowrittenmaterials Page:Nowrittenmaterialsinpacket POSTPONEMENTS 4 Tuesday,September17,2013CupertinoCityCouncil ORALCOMMUNICATIONS Thisportionofthemeetingisreservedforpersonswishingtoaddressthecouncilon anymatternotontheagenda.Speakersarelimitedtothree(3)minutes.Inmostcases, Statelawwillprohibitthecouncilfrommakinganydecisionswithrespecttoamatter notlistedontheagenda. CONSENTCALENDAR Unlessthereareseparatediscussionsand/oractionsrequestedbycouncil,staffora memberofthepublic,itisrequestedthatitemsundertheConsentCalendarbeactedon simultaneously. :ApprovetheAugust20CityCouncilminutes 4.Subject RecommendedAction:Approvetheminutes ADraftMinutes Page:14 5.Subject:AcceptAccountsPayableforperiodendingJuly26,2013 RecommendedAction:AdoptResolutionNo.13072acceptingAccountsPayable forperiodendingJuly26,2013 ADraftResolution Page:20 6.Subject:AcceptAccountsPayableforperiodendingAugust2,2013 RecommendedAction:AdoptResolutionNo.13073acceptingAccountsPayable forperiodendingAugust2,2013 ADraftResolution Page:33 7.Subject:AcceptAccountsPayableforperiodendingAugust9,2013 RecommendedAction:ApproveResolutionNo.13074acceptingAccountsPayable forperiodendingAugust9,2013 ADraftResolution Page:45 8.Subject:AcceptAccountsPayableforperiodendingAugust16,2013 RecommendedAction:ApproveResolutionNo.13075acceptingAccountsPayable forperiodendingAugust16,2013 ADraftResolution Page:57 5 Tuesday,September17,2013CupertinoCityCouncil 9.Subject:AcceptAccountsPayableforperiodendingAugust23,2013 RecommendedAction:AdoptResolutionNo.13076acceptingAccountspayable forperiodendingAugust23,2013 ADraftResolution Page:70 10.Subject:AcceptAccountsPayableforperiodendingAugust30,2013 RecommendedAction:AdoptResolutionNo.13077acceptingAccountsPayable forperiodendingAugust30,2013 ADraftResolution Page:79 11.Subject:SecondAmendmenttotheAgreementbetweentheCityofCupertino,the CupertinoUnionSchoolDistrict,andtheCupertinoSchoolsPublicFacilities FinancingCorporationpertainingtothemaintenanceandimprovementofcertain openspaceareaswithincertainschoolsites RecommendedAction:AuthorizetheCityManagertoexecuteaSecond AmendmenttotheAgreement StaffReport AProposedMOU BRedlineofProposedSecondAmendmenttoAgreement Page:88 12.Subject:Reimbursementofupto$2,000intravelexpensesfortraveltoToyokawa, Japan,byaCityCouncilMembertoattendaninvitedculturaleventandalong standingSisterCityrelationship RecommendedAction:Approvereimbursementofupto$2,000intravelexpenses fortraveltoToyokawa,Japan,forCityCouncilinternationaltravelexpensesfrom theCityCouncilbudgetlineitem StaffReport Page:100 13.Subject:AuthorizetheMayortosignaletterfromtheTechnologyInformationand CommunicationCommission(TICC)tobesenttotheCaliforniaPublicUtilities Commission(CPUC)opposingtheencryptionofbasiccableservice RecommendedAction:AuthorizetheMayortosigntheletter StaffReport ALetterfromTICCtotheCPUC Page:101 6 Tuesday,September17,2013CupertinoCityCouncil 14.Subject:ParksandRecreationCommissionWorkPlanforFY20132014 RecommendedAction:ApprovetheParksandRecreationCommissionWorkPlan StaffReport Page:104 15.Subject:AlcoholicBeverageLicenseApplication,BeijaFlorCafe,19622Stevens CreekBoulevard RecommendedAction:ApproveAlcoholicBeverageLicense,BeijaFlorCafe,19622 StevensCreekBoulevard StaffReport AApplication Page:107 16.Subject:Setapublichearingandadoptaresolutionrelatedtothe"¯º¿¹intentto vacatePruneridgeAvenue,betweenWolfeRoadandTantauAvenue,andtwelve variouspubliceasements RecommendedAction:AdoptresolutionNo.13078,settingapublichearingfor October15,2013at5:00pm StaffReport ADraftResolution BGeneralExhibitofPruneridgeAvenueVacationArea Page:110 17.Subject:Summarilyvacateaportionoftheslopeeasementalong22084Clearwood Court RecommendedAction:AdoptResolutionNo.13079 StaffReport ADraftResolution Page:160 18.Subject:AdoptaresolutiongrantingrealpropertytotheStateofCaliforniaforthe DonBurnettBicyclePedestrianBridge RecommendedAction:AdoptResolutionNo.13080,authorizingtheCityManager toexecutetheGrantDeedtocompletethegrantingofrealpropertytotheStateof California StaffReport ADraftResolution BMap Page:164 SECONDREADINGOFORDINANCES 7 Tuesday,September17,2013CupertinoCityCouncil PUBLICHEARINGS 19.Subject:Applicationsforasubdivisionofasinglefamilyzonedlotintothree(3) residentiallotsandone(1)privateroadwayarea,andrezoningofasinglefamily zonedpropertyfromR110toR17.5 RecommendedAction:ConductthefirstreadingofOrdinanceNo.132112:An OrdinanceoftheCupertinoCityCouncilapprovingtherezoningofa.96grossacre lot,fromR110(minimumlotsizeof10,000squarefoot)toR17.5(minimumlotsize of7,500squarefeet)locatedat20840McClellanRd,APN35920031;ThePlanning CommissionrecommendsthattheCityCouncilapproveapplicationTM201203per ResolutionNo.6722;ConductthefirstreadingandapproveapplicationZ201201 perResolutionNo.6723;andapprovetheMitigatedNegativeDeclaration :ApplicationNo(s):TM201203,Z201201EA201204;Applicant: Description JamesChen(Cherryland,LLC);Location:20840McClellanRoad;ParcelMapto subdivideanexistingsinglefamilylotinto3residentiallotsand1commonarealot; ReZoningofa.96acreparcelfromSingleFamilyResidential(R110)toSingle FamilyResidential(R17.5) StaffReport APlanningCommissionStaffReport BTMPCReso CDraftZCCOrdinance DArboristReport EInitialStudy FERCRecommendation GPlanSet Page:171 ORDINANCESANDACTIONITEMS 20.Subject:ConsiderapprovaloftheLibrary"µ³³¯¹¹¯µ´¹recommendationforthe appointmentofthenewCupertinoPoetLaureate RecommendedAction:AdoptResolutionNo.13081approvingtheLibrary CommissionrecommendationandappointingthenewCupertinoPoetLaureate StaffReport ADraftResolution BResume Page:317 8 Tuesday,September17,2013CupertinoCityCouncil 21.Subject:ConsideraCitysponsorshiprequestfromthenonprofitorganization, QuotaInternationalofCupertino,fortheNovember5,2013SiliconValleyPositive AgingForum:Housing,Community&Longevity RecommendedAction:Approveordenytherequesttocosponsorthisevent StaffReport ASiliconValleyPositiveAgingForum2013DraftProgram Page:321 22.Subject:AmicusBriefinNoToxicAir,Inc.v.SantaClaraCounty,etal.(Calif.Court ofAppealCaseNo.H039547,AppealfromSantaClaraCo.SuperiorCourtCaseNo. 111CV201900) RecommendedAction:ConsiderjoiningtheMidpeninsulaRegionalOpenSpace District ,1.2#! theTownofLosAltosHills,theCityofLosAltosandany othercitiesthatmaychoosetoparticipateinanamicuscuriaebriefinthelitigation listedabove,andauthorizingamonetarycontributionforpreparationoftheamicus brief StaffReport Page:323 REPORTSBYCOUNCILANDSTAFF 23.Subject:PublicWorksConstructionProjectUpdates RecommendedAction:PresentConstructionProjectUpdateReport NoWrittenMaterials Page:Nowrittenmaterialsinpacket ADJOURNMENT AdjourntoTuesday,October1beginningat3:00p.m.forajointstudysessionwith thePlanningCommissionregardingAppleCampus2.QuinlanCommunityCenter CupertinoRoom,10185N.StellingRd.,Cupertino,CA95014 9 Tuesday,September17,2013CupertinoCityCouncil TheCityofCupertinohasadoptedtheprovisionsofCodeofCivilProcedure§1094.6;litigation challengingafinaldecisionoftheCityCouncilmustbebroughtwithin90daysafteradecisionis announcedunlessashortertimeisrequiredbyStateorFederallaw. Priortoseekingjudicialreviewofanyadjudicatory(quasijudicial)decision,interestedpersonsmust fileapetitionforreconsiderationwithintencalendardaysofthedatetheCityClerkmailsnoticeofthe "¯º¿¹decision.ReconsiderationpetitionsmustcomplywiththerequirementsofCupertinoMunicipal Code§2.08.096.ContacttheCity"²«¸±¹officeformoreinformationorgoto http://www.cupertino.org/index.aspx?page=125forareconsiderationpetitionform. IncompliancewiththeAmericanswithDisabilitiesAct(ADA),theCityofCupertinowillmake reasonableeffortstoaccommodatepersonswithqualifieddisabilities.Ifyourequirespecialassistance, pleasecontactthecity©²«¸±¹officeat4087773223atleast48hoursinadvanceofthemeeting. AnywritingsordocumentsprovidedtoamajorityoftheCupertinoCityCouncilafterpublicationof thepacketwillbemadeavailableforpublicinspectionintheCity"²«¸±¹OfficelocatedatCityHall, 10300TorreAvenue,duringnormalbusinesshoursandinCouncilpacketarchiveslinkedfromthe enda/minutesaeontheCuertinowebsite. agpgp 10 CITYCOUNCILSTAFFREPORT Meeting:September17,2013 Subject:ProclamationRecognizingtheSierraClubLomaPrietaChapter NOWRITTENMATERIALSINPACKET 11 CITYCOUNCILSTAFFREPORT Meeting:September17,2013 Subject:CupertinostudentdelegatessharetheirexperienceinToyokawaJapan NOWRITTENMATERIALSINPACKET 12 CITYCOUNCILSTAFFREPORT Meeting:September17,2013 Subject:ParksandRecreationproclamationforFallPreventionAwarenessDay NOWRITTENMATERIALSINPACKET 13 DRAFTMINUTES CUPERTINOCITYCOUNCIL RegularMeeting TuesdayAugust20,2013 CITYCOUNCILMEETING PLEDGEOFALLEGIANCE At6:53p.m.MayorOrrinMahoneycalledtheCityCouncilmeetingtoorderinthe CommunityHallCouncilChamber,10350TorreAvenue,Cupertino,CAandledthe PledgeofAllegiance. ROLLCALL Present:MayorOrrinMahoney,ViceMayorGilbertWong(7:00p.m.),andCouncil membersBarryChang,MarkSantoro,andRodSinks.Absent:None. CEREMONIALMATTERSANDPRESENTATIONS None POSTPONEMENTS None ORALCOMMUNICATIONS HollyLofgren,Sunnyvaleresident,talkedaboutherconcernswiththeCupertino VillageDevelopmentregardingtrafficandparking,especiallywiththepotentialApple Campus2development. CONSENTCALENDAR WongmovedandSinkssecondedtoapprovetheitemsontheConsentCalendaras recommended.Ayes:Chang,Mahoney,Santoro,Sinks,andWong.Noes:None. Abstain:None. :ApprovetheJuly16CityCouncilminutes 1.Subject RecommendedAction:Approvetheminutes 14 Tuesday,August20,2013CupertinoCityCouncil 2.Subject:AcceptAccountspayableforperiodendingJune21,2013 RecommendedAction:AdoptResolutionNo.13065acceptingAccountspayable forperiodendingJune21,2013 3.Subject:AcceptAccountsPayableforperiodendingJune28,2013 RecommendedAction:AdoptResolutionNo.13066acceptingAccountsPayable forperiodendingJune28,2013 4.Subject:AcceptAccountsPayableforperiodendingJuly5,2013 RecommendedAction:AdoptResolutionNo.13067acceptingAccountsPayable forperiodendingJuly5,2013 5.Subject:AcceptAccountsPayableforperiodendingJuly12,2013 RecommendedAction:AdoptResolutionNo.13068acceptingAccountsPayable forperiodendingJuly12,2013 6.Subject:AcceptAccountsPayableforperiodendingJuly19,2013 RecommendedAction:AdoptResolutionNo.13069acceptingAccountsPayable forperiodendingJuly19,2013 7.Subject:TreasurersInvestmentandBudgetReportforQuarterEndingJune2013 RecommendedAction:Acceptthereport 8.Subject:ApproveAlcoholicBeverageLicenseforSafewayStore3251,20620 HomesteadRoad RecommendedAction:ApproveAlcoholicBeverageLicenseforSafewayStore3251, 20620HomesteadRoad Description:ApplicationforInstructionalTastingLicense(86) 9.Subject:ApproveAlcoholicBeverageLicense,YoshidaRestaurant,10700SDeAnza Boulevard RecommendedAction:ApproveAlcoholicBeverageLicense,YoshidaRestaurant, 10700SDeAnzaBoulevard Description:ApplicationforOnSaleBeerandWine(41) 15 Tuesday,August20,2013CupertinoCityCouncil 10.Subject:ApproveAlcoholicBeverageLicense,MikadoCupertino,19645Stevens CreekBoulevard RecommendedAction:ApproveAlcoholicBeverageLicense,MikadoCupertino, 19645StevensCreekBoulevard Description:ApplicationforOnSaleBeerandWine(41) 11.Subject:ApproveAlcoholicBeverageLicense,Gokaku,10789SBlaneyAvenue RecommendedAction:ApproveAlcoholicBeverageLicense,Gokaku,10789S BlaneyAvenue Description:ApplicationforOnSaleBeerandWine 12.Subject:ResolutionapprovinganAgreementtocreatetheSantaClaraCounty RecyclingandWasteReductionTechnicalAdvisoryCommittee RecommendedAction:AdoptResolutionNo.13070approvinganagreementwith 15otherjurisdictionstocreatetheSantaClaraCountyRecyclingandWaste ReductionTechnicalAdvisoryCommittee(TAC)andfindthatapprovalofthe agreementisexemptfromCaliforniaEnvironmentalQualityAct(CEQA)review pursuanttosection15308oftheCEQAGuidelinesasanactiontakenbyregulatory agenciesforprotectionoftheenvironment :2013ReconstructionofCurbs,GuttersandSidewalks,ProjectNo.201302 13.Subject RecommendedAction:AuthorizetheDirectorofPublicWorkstoawardacontract toBreneman,Inc.,intheamountof$243,392.50andapproveaconstruction contingencyof$24,000.00,foratotalof$267,392.50 SECONDREADINGOFORDINANCES 14.Subject:ConductthesecondreadingofanOrdinancerescindingandreenacting CupertinoMunicipalCodeChapter14.08regardingobstructionandencroachments intoCityrightsofway RecommendedAction:ConductthesecondreadingandenactOrdinanceNo.13 2110; ´OrdinanceoftheCityCounciloftheCityofCupertinorescindingand readoptingCupertinoMunicipalCodeChapter14.08(Encroachmentsanduseof CityRightsof6§¿! WrittencommunicationsforthisitemincludedanemailfromtheCupertino ChamberofCommerceGovernmentAffairsSpecialistMarkMatsumotoandan amendedpageofthedraftordinancedeleting14.08.160C.6.o. CityClerkGraceSchmidtreadthetitleoftheordinance. 16 Tuesday,August20,2013CupertinoCityCouncil PeggyGriffindistributedahandoutandtalkedaboutexceptionstopermit requirementregardinginstallationandmaintenanceofresidentialdrivewaysand pathways. WongmovedandChangsecondedtoreadtheordinancebytitleonlyandthatthe City"²«¸±¹readingwouldconstitutethesecondreadingthereof.Ayes:Chang, Mahoney,Santoro,Sinks,andWong.Noes:None.Abstain:None. WongmovedandChangsecondedtoenactOrdinanceNo.132110asamendedto delete14.08.160C.6.o.Ayes:Chang,Mahoney,Santoro,Sinks,andWong.Noes: None.Abstain:None. PUBLICHEARINGS None ORDINANCESANDACTIONITEMS 15.Subject:ConsidercancelingtheSeptember3CityCouncilmeeting RecommendedAction:ConsidercancelingtheSeptember3meeting WongmovedandSinkssecondedtocanceltheSeptember3meeting.Themotion carriedunanimously. STUDYSESSION :StudysessiontodiscusswhethertheHeartoftheCitySpecificPlanshould 16.Subject beamendedand,ifso,specificissuesthatanamendmentshouldaddress RecommendedAction:IftheCouncilwishestoproceedwithchanges,staffwill evaluatethescopeofproposedchangesanddeterminetheappropriateapproach WrittencommunicationforthisitemincludedastaffPowerPointpresentation. SeniorPlannerAkiHondaSnellingreviewedthestaffreport. JenniferGriffinsaidthatshelikestheHeartoftheCityPlan(HOC),isproudofthe treesplantedintheCity,wouldwantthecornersetbacksintheHOCtobesimilarto MainStreet,andwantstobesurethereisenoughparkingintheCity. DarrelLum,speakingonbehalfoftheConcernedCitizensofCupertino(CCC) offeredthefollowingsuggestions:1.Retainthe35footsetbackfromStevensCreek Boulevard;2.Determineanadequatecornerlotsetbacksimilartootherplansinthe 17 Tuesday,August20,2013CupertinoCityCouncil City;3.Retainthecurrentexceptionprocess;4.Rescindthezoningordinance regardingstreetsquarefootagetodeterminegrosslotdensity.Healsosuggested thatplanningstaffreviewtheCCCcommentsfromthehearingsonthePrometheus, Islands,andSaichWayprojectstonotetheirconcerns. Councilgavethefollowingdirectiontostaff: 1.InitiateanamendmenttotheHeartoftheCitySpecificPlantoprovide recommendationsonsidestreetsetbackrequirementsforpropertiesinHeartof theCity. 2.ThefollowingwouldbestudiedinconjunctionwiththeGeneralPlan AmendmentandHousingElementasappropriateorafterthoseprojectsand broughtbackforCouncilreview: a.Densitycalculations:RevisetheHeartoftheCitySpecificPlantoinclude residentialdensitybasedonnetlotarea. b.Approvalprocess:Reviewwhethertorevisetheapplicationreviewthreshold toallowtheCityCounciltoreviewandapproveprojectsthatarelessthan 50,000squarefeetintheHeartoftheCityarea.TheCityCouncilrequested thatstaffprovidetheCouncilwiththresholdalternatives. c.InvitethepublictoprovidecommentsfortheHeartoftheCityareaaspartof theGeneralPlanprocess. 3.TheCityCouncildecidednottopursuefurtherdiscussiononthefollowingitems unlesstherewereoverwhelminginputfromthepublicaskingforachange: a.PercentageofretailfrontagealongStevensCreekBoulevard 4.TheCityCouncildecidednottopursuefurtherdiscussiononthefollowingitem: a.Parkingrequirementsforrestaurants b.35footfrontsetback c.Desirabilityofsurfacelotparkinglocations REPORTSBYCOUNCILANDSTAFF CityManagerDavidBrandtnotedthatthe"µ³³¯¹¹¯µ´«¸¹dinnerwouldtakeplaceon August28. Councilmembershighlightedtheactivitiesoftheircommitteesandvariouscommunity events. 18 Tuesday,August20,2013CupertinoCityCouncil ADJOURNMENT At9:42p.m.,themeetingwasadjournedtoSeptember5beginningat3:00p.m.fora studysessionregardingLehigh. ____________________________ GraceSchmidt,CityClerk Staffreports,backupmaterials,anditemsdistributedattheCityCouncilmeetingare availableforreviewattheCity"²«¸±¹Office,7773223,andalsoontheInternetat .ClickonAgendas&Minutes,thenclickontheappropriatePacket. www.cupertino.org MostCouncilmeetingsareshownliveonComcastChannel26andAT&TUverse Channel99andareavailableatyourconvenienceatwww.cupertino.org.Clickon Agendas&Minutes,thenclickArchivedWebcast.Videotapesareavailableatthe CupertinoLibrary,ormaybepurchasedfromtheCupertinoCityChannel,7772364. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3110 www.cupertino.org CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Meeting: September 17, 2013 Subject SecondAmendmenttotheAgreementbetweentheCityofCupertino(City),the CupertinoUnionSchoolDistrict(CUSD)andtheCupertinoSchoolsPublicFacilities FinancingCorporationpertainingtothemaintenanceandimprovementofcertainopen spaceareaswithincertainschoolsites. RecommendedAction AuthorizetheCityManagertoexecuteaSecondAmendmenttotheAgreement. Description CUSDapproachedtheParksandRecreationDepartmentinlate2012astotheirneedto provideadditionalinstructionalfacilitiesatFariaElementarySchool.TheirMasterPlan requiredencroachmentintoourFariaballfield.Thissitewasestablishedinour1991 AgreementpertainingtojointuseofopenspaceareasbetweentheCityandCUSD. CUSDrepresentativesweretoldthatareplacementsitewouldneedtobeidentifiedand negotiatedbeforeworkonadditionalinstructionalfacilitiescouldbeginatFariaSchool. OnThursday,June20,ourstaffwasnotifiedthattheFariaballfieldhadbeenremoved. NegotiationsbetweentheCityandCUSDcommencedimmediatelytoidentifya replacementsiteandtosetforthaninterimarrangementuntiltheJointUseAgreement couldbeformallyamended(ExhibitA). Discussion TheSecondAmendmenttotheAgreement(ExhibitB)setsforththeresultsofthose discussionsandidentifiesareplacementballfieldandtimelines.Thedistrictwas allowedtoremovefromserviceasrecreationalopenspacetheexistingsoutheast baseballfieldadjacenttoFariaElementarySchoolinordertoconstructadditional classrooms.Inexchange,theDistrictwill,atitssolecostandexpense,provideanin 88 kindreplacementbaseballfieldatthesoutheastcornerofopenspaceadjacenttoCollins ElementarySchool.Thefieldisscheduledtobecompletedandreadyforplayby February15,2014. Preparedby:CarolAtwood,DirectorofParksandRecreation&Administrative Services Reviewedby: ApprovedforSubmissionby:DavidBrandt,CityManager Attachments: AKProposedMemorandumofUnderstanding BKProposedSecondAmendmenttoAgreement 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 CITY MANAGER’S OFFICE, PUBLIC AFFAIRS DIVISION CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3262 FAX: (408) 777-3366 CITYCOUNCILSTAFFREPORT Meeting:September17,2013 Subject Reimbursementofupto$2,000intravelexpensesfortraveltoToyokawa,Japan,byaCity CouncilMembertoattendtheadultdelegationcommemoratingthefiveyearanniversary ofthelongstandingSisterCityrelationship. Recommendation Approvereimbursementofupto$2,000intravelexpensesfortraveltoToyokawa,Japan, forCityCouncilinternationaltravelexpensesfromtheCityCouncilbudgetlineitem. Discussion Under"»¶«¸º¯´µ¹municipalcode,Chapter2.1:City"µ»´©¯²L2§²§¸¯«¹ Section2.16.030 regardingreimbursement,councilmembersmaybereimbursedforactualandnecessary expensesincurredbyhim/herintheperformanceofofficialdutiesfortheCity.These expendituresmayincludeinternationaltraveluponapprovalbytheCityCouncil. Underthe /µ²¯©¯«¹andGuidelinesonSisterCitiesfortheCityof"»¶«¸º¯´µ !Toyokawa, Japan,hashadanaffiliationwithCupertinodatingback35yearsandaCityCouncil representativehastraditionallyaccompaniedtheSisterCityadultdelegationateachfive yearanniversery. _____________________________________ Preparedby:RickKitson,DirectorofPublicAffairs ApprovedforSubmissionby:DavidBrandt,CityManager Attachments: None 100 OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3262 www.cupertino.org CITYCOUNCILSTAFFREPORT Meeting:September17,2013 Subject AuthorizetheMayortosignaletterfromtheTechnologyInformationandCommunication Commission(TICC)tobesenttotheCaliforniaPublicUtilitiesCommissionopposingthe encryptionofbasiccableservice. RecommendedAction AuthorizetheMayortosigntheletter. Discussion AttheSeptember4meetingoftheTechnologyInformationandCommunicationCommission (TICC),thecommissionunanimouslyapprovedtheattachedletterasanexpressionofconcern regardingComcastsproposaltoencryptbasiccable.Theencryptionappearstobecounterto thegoalsofthestatefranchiseandtoserveonlytorequirecertaincustomerstouseadditional equipment ComcasthasappliedtotheCaliforniaPublicUtilitiesCommission(CPUC)ofthecable providersdesiretoalertcustomersthatitisabouttoencryptbasiccablesignals,forcing customerstoorderadigitaladapteriftheywanttocontinuetoreceivebasicprogramming throughtheservice.Comcastismakingadaptersavailableforfreefortwoyearsinselect markets ConsumerswhoalreadyuseaComcastprovidedsettopboxonalloftheirTVsetswillnotbe effected,theirservicewillcontinuetoworkasbefore.ButifresidentshaveaTVthatishooked uptotheircableoutletwithoutasettopbox,thentheyaregoingtohavetogetanadapterto keepitworking.Seniorsandotherbudgetorientedcustomerscanexpecttobe disproportionatelyimpactedbythischange. _____________________________________ Preparedby:AndreaSanders,OfficeAssistanttothePublicAffairsDirector ApprovedforSubmissionby:RickKitson,PublicAffairsDirector Attachments: AKLetterfromTICCtotheCPUCopposingtheencryptionofbasiccableservice 101 OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER CITY HALL 10 10300 TORRE AVENUE CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3212 www.cupertino.org CityofCupertino 10300TorreAvenue Cupertino,CA950143202 Technology,Information,andCommunicationsCommission September4,2013 MichaelR.Peevey PresidentandChair CaliforniaPublicUtilitiesCommission 505VanNessAvenue SanFrancisco,CA94102 DearMr.PeeveyandHonorableCommissioners: TheTechnology,Information,andCommunicationsCommissionofCupertino respectfullyrequestyourconsiderationofproposedchangesbyComcastXfinityCable regardingimplementationofencryptedbasicdigitalcabletransmission. TheCommissionbelievesthatthischangelimitstheassuranceoffairaffordable universalaccessandincreasesthebarriertoafullycompetitivemarket. WeareawareofFCCB1EncryptionOrderdatedOctober12,2012whichallows,but doesnotrequireencryptionofdigitalbasicprogramming.Wealsobelievethatunder statefranchiseregulationdirectiveforlocalmarketsandconsumerprotectionsthiscan bedeterminedorregulatedbyCPUC. InFCCB1EncryptionOrder,discussionandcommentsallbenefitsareaffordedthe providerandconsumerprotectionsrequiringtransitionalequipmentprovisionsare timeboundedby25yearsdependingonincomeaffordability.Nobenefitaffordedby theFCCB1EncryptionOrderisreturnedtotheconsumercommunity. Assuch,thiscurrentchangewillresultinanincreaseofconsumerfeesandnota reductionofcostsoradditionalconsumerbenefit.Thischangelimitstechnological advancesinconsumerapplicationstodigitalbasicservicesandrestrictscompetitionfor futureservices.WebelievethesestepsbyComcastoranyotherproviderarecounterto 102 theDIVCA2006goalstocreateafairandlevelplayingfieldforallmarketcompetitors thatdoesnotdisadvantageoradvantageoneserviceproviderortechnologyover another. Thankyouforyourconsiderationandsupport. Sincerely, 103 PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT CITY HALL 10 10300 TORRE AVENUE CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3110 www.cupertino.org CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Meeting:September17,2013 Subject ParksandRecreationCommissionWorkPlanforFiscalYear2013K2014. RecommendedAction ApprovetheParksandRecreationWorkPlan. Description TheCupertinoParksandRecreationCommissionheldtheirannualworkplan preparationretreatonJuly24,2013.TheCommissiondiscussedandprioritizedthe issuestobecoveredinthenextFiscalYear. Discussion AtitsJuly24,2013WorkPlanDevelopmentsession,theParksandRecreation CommissionreviewedthesuggestionsandotherprioritiestoconsiderforthisFiscal Year.Followingdiscussionandpriorityidentification,theCommissionaskedstaffto prepareadraftworkplanforFY20132014.Thedraftworkplanwaspresentedtothe CommissiononSeptember5,2013andtheapprovedworkplanisbelow.Additional programandprojectupdateswillbeaddedasneeded. September5,2013 TeenCenter/TeenCommissionupdatebyLaurenNeff,RecreationCoordinator FriendsofStevensCreekTrailannualreportbyAaronGrossman,Executive DirectorandAnneNg,BoardMember ApproveFY2013/2014DraftWorkPlan October3,2013 IntroduceCityManager,DavidBrandt UpdateonCitytreesfromCityArborist,JonathanFerrante November7,2013KholdmeetingatSeniorCenter ReportonJointUsePermitwithSantaClaraCountyWaterDistrictforthe McClellanRanchPreservepropertyKGailSeeds,ParkRestorationManager 104 ReportonpossiblepartnershipwiththeRanchoRinconadaRecreationCenterin conjunctionwithswimlessonsandlapswim Updateonpurchaseandinstallationofsheltertrailerforemergencysuppliesat QuinlanCommunityCenter December5,2013 IncreaseparkawarenessbyusingsocialmediaKTeriGerhardt,GISCoordinator BegindiscussiononStevensCreekCorridorPhaseIIMasterPlan,including plansfortheMcClellanRanchWest/Simmsproperty January2,2014 ReportonHaulRoadprogressKAartiShrivastava,Director,Community Development February6,2014 BeginpreparationsforacomprehensiveprogramsurveybyGodbeResearch March6,2014 UpdateonLindaVistaParkponds VerbalreportonLawrence/MittyParkandCreeksideTrail(nearCityHall) April3,2014KholdmeetingatBlackberryFarmRetreatCenter BlackberryFarm/ScenicCircleupdateKMollyJames,RecreationCoordinator BeginstaffinvestigationofothervenuesforBlackberryFarm(alsoalongterm project),includedinPhaseIIMasterPlan May1,2014 Investigatesmallneighborhood ¶µ©±«º!parks;consideraddingevents/games forchildrenandseniorsKincludeLauraDomondonLee,BlockLeadersStaff Liaison June5,2014 AnnualCIPReportKTimmBorden,DirectorofPublicWorksandKatyJensen, CIPManager July3,2013Kcancel&rescheduletoWorkPlanmeetinginJuly August7,2014 UpdateonSportsCenterretainingwallandsportcourt 105 September4,2014 Programupdates RECOMMENDATION ApprovetheFY20132014WorkPlanschedule.Pleasenote:agendaitemsaresubject rs. tochangeduetoconstructionschedulesandavailabilityofspeake _____________________________________ Preparedby:CarolAtwood,Director,ParksandRecreation Reviewedby: ApprovedforSubmissionby:DavidBrandt,CityManager Attachments:None 106 COMMUNITYDEVELOPMENTDEPARTMENT CITYHALL 10300TORREAVENUE'CUPERTINO,CA950143255 TELEPHONE:(408)7773308www.cupertino.org CITYCOUNCILSTAFFREPORT Meeting:September17,2013 Subject AlcoholicBeverageLicense,BeijaFlorCafé,19622StevensCreekBoulevard RecommendedAction ApproveapplicationforOnSaleBeerandWine Description NameofBusiness:BeijaFlorCafé Location:19622StevensCreekBoulevard TypeofBusiness:Restaurant TypeofLicense:OnSaleBeerandWine(41) ReasonforApplication:OriginalFees,AnnualFee,FederalandStateFingerprints Discussion Therearenozoningorusepermitrestrictionswhichwouldprohibitthesaleofalcohol asproposedandstaffhasnoobjectiontotheissuanceofthislicense.LicenseType41 authorizesthesaleofbeerandwineforconsumptiononoroffthepremiseswheresold. _____________________________________ Preparedby:JuliaKinst,PlanningDepartment Reviewedby:GaryChao,CityPlanner;AartiShrivastava,DirectorofCommunity Development ApprovedforSubmissionby:DavidBrandt,CityManager Attachment:AApplication 107 108 109 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CITY HALL 10 10300 TORRE AVENUE CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3354 www.cupertino.org CITYCOUNCILSTAFFREPORT Meeting:September,17,2013 Subject Setapublichearingandadoptaresolutionrelatedtothe"¯º¿¹intenttovacate PruneridgeAvenue,betweenWolfeRoadandTantauAvenue,andtwelvevarious publiceasements. RecommendedAction AdoptresolutionNo.13_____,settingapublichearingforOctober15,2013at5:00p.m. Discussion OnAugust9,2012,AppleInc.submittedanapplicationfordevelopmentof th approximately176.3acresofland,commonlyknownasthe ¶¶²«Campusu! development,locatedNorthofHighway280,WestofNorthTantauAvenue,Southof HomesteadRoad,EastofNorthWolfeRoadandbothNorthandSouthofPruneridge Avenue.TheapplicationproposesthevacationofaportionofPruneridgeAvenue(as generallyshowninAttachmentBandfurtherdescribedintheattachedDraft ResolutionasExhibitsAandB)inordertofulfillthedesignintent.TheCityowns PruneridgeAvenueinfee,andwillbeprovidedmonetarycompensationforthe vacation. TherearealsotwelvevariouseasementslocatedwithintheAppleCampus2properties andalongPruneridgeAvenuethatwillneedtobevacatedconcurrentlywiththe vacationofPruneridgeAvenue.Therearesixpublicutilityeasements,five roadway/streeteasementsandonelightandaireasement.Theseeasementsarenot ownedinfeebytheCity.TheseeasementsaresubsequentlyincludedwiththeIntentto VacatePruneridgeAvenue.PlatMapsandLegalDescriptionsfortheseeasementsare showninExhibitsCthroughO(includedwiththeattachedDraftResolution). AdoptionoftheresolutionexpressingtheIntenttoVacatePruneridgeAvenueand associatedeasementsprovidesnoobligationfortheCityCounciltoadoptaresolution vacatingPruneridgeAvenue,butsimplysetsadatewhereCityCouncilhastheoption todiscussandprovideapprovaltovacatesaidlandsandeasementsatitsdiscretion. ThedateproposedforthisdiscussionisOctober15,2013,at5:00p.m.,ataregularly scheduledCityCouncilmeeting. 110 StaffhasdeterminedthatadoptionoftheresolutionexpressingtheIntenttoVacate PruneridgeAvenuecanoccurwithoutadverseaffect. FiscalImpact TherewillbenofiscalimpactincurredforapprovingtheIntenttoVacatePruneridge Avenue. ___________________________________ Preparedby:ChadMosley,SeniorCivilEngineer Reviewedby:TimmBorden,DirectorofPublicWorks ApprovedforSubmissionby:DavidBrandt,CityManager Attachments: AKDraftResolution BKGeneralExhibitofPruneridgeAvenueVacationArea 111 ATTACHMENT A RESOLUTION NO. 13- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO ORDER VACATION OF A PORTION OF THE PRUNERIDGE AVENUE RIGHT-OF-WAY AND VARIOUS EASEMENTS BOUNDED BY NORTH WOLFE ROAD, HOMESTEAD ROAD, NORTH TANTAU AVENUE, AND HIGHWAY 280, SETTING THE TIME AND PLACE FOR A PUBLIC HEARING AND PROVIDING FOR NOTICE THEREOF TO ALL PERSONS INTERESTED WHEREAS, pursuant to Streets and Highways Code Section 8300 of the et seq. State of California, the City of Cupertino is authorized to vacate street rights-of-way; and WHEREAS, the City intends to extinguish its interest in that portion of the Pruneridge Avenue right-of-way between North Wolfe Road and North Tantau Avenue, more particularly described in Exhibit A (Legal Description) and shown in Exhibit B (Plat) attached hereto and made a part hereof (the Fee Vacation Area); and WHEREAS, the City intends to extinguish certain easement interests in assorted access, public utility, and light and air easements within the proposed Apple Campus 2 development, generally bounded by North Wolfe Road, Homestead Ro Tantau Avenue, and Highway 280, more particularly described in Exhibits C through O (Legal Descriptions and Plats) attached hereto and made a part hereof (the Easement Vacation Area); and WHEREAS, the Fee Vacation Area and the Easement Vacation Area, collectively known as Vacation Areas, are necessary for the proposed Apple Campus 2 Project, which consists of redevelopment of an existing office park into and WHEREAS,The Director of Public Works has determined that the Vacation Areas unnecessary for present or prospective public use; and are WHEREAS, the City Council elects to proceed pursuant to the prov Section 8320 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California; and et seq. WHEREAS, the documents for said Vacation Areas will not be recorded until such time that all necessary public utilities have been substantially relocated to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works and Pruneridge Avenue is closed to public traffic; and 1 112 WHEREAS, the City Council finds that it is in the public interest to proceed to order said vacations, subject to completion of environmental review for the Apple Campus 2 project, approval of the Apple Campus 2 project, relocation of necessary public utilities, and closure of Pruneridge Avenue to public use. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council hereby declares its intention to vacate the Vacation Areas. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: 1. Notice is hereby given that the 15 day of October, 2013, at 5:00 p.m., in th the Community Hall, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California, is the time and place fixed for a hearing on the above proposed vacation at which all persons interested in or objecting to the proposed vacation may appear before the Council; 2. That the aforesaid date is not less than 15 days from passage of this resolution pursuant to law; 3. That the City Clerk shall cause a certified copy of this resolut published in the manner prescribed by law, and shall cause certi along the line of said property proposed to be vacated at least 10 days befo hearing and no more than 300 feet apart with a minimum of 3 bein PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of t Cupertino this 17 day of September, 2013, by the following vote: th Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: ____________________________ _____________________________________ Grace Schmidt, City Clerk Orrin Mahoney, Mayor, City of Cupertino 2 113 114 115 116 PRUNERIDGE AVENUE 2 VACATION CUPERTINO CA 4 117 PRUNERIDGE AVENUE 3 VACATION CUPERTINO CA 4 118 PRUNERIDGE AVENUE 4 VACATION CUPERTINO CA 4 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 Plan Notes Total area of Street Vacation: Portion of Pruneridge not taken: Total area of Pruneridge before vacation: 39'-0" Street Vacation Area Portion of Pruneridge Avenue not vacated 91'-0" Pruneridge Ave 159 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CITY HALL 10 10300 TORRE AVENUE CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3354 www.cupertino.org CITYCOUNCILSTAFFREPORT Meeting:September17,2013 Subject Summarilyvacateaportionoftheslopeeasementalong22084ClearwoodCourt. RecommendedAction AdoptResolutionNo.13____. Background Theownerofthesubjectpropertyhasproposedtobuildanadditiontohishomethat wouldencroachwithinanexistingslopeeasementlocatedalongthesouthernportionof theproperty.Theproposedadditionwillnotbepermittedifaportionoftheeasement isnotvacated.Theslopeeasementwasoriginallyacceptedtohelpmaintainslopesthat werecreatedwiththeconstructionofStevensCreekBoulevard,andtoaccommodate possiblefutureslopesforapotentialwideningofStevensCreekBoulevard.TheCityno longerintendstowidenStevensCreekBoulevardinthisarea. Afteracarefulreviewoftheexistingsiteconditions,staffhasdeterminedthatvacating aportionoftheeasement(asshowninExhibitBattachedtotheDraftResolution) wouldnotrestrictaccessofequipmentthatwouldbeneededformaintenanceofthe existingslope.AdoptionofthisresolutionwillallowtheCitytosummarilyvacatea portionoftheexistingslopeeasementonthesubjectproperty. FiscalImpact Therewillbenofiscalimpactincurredbyapprovingthesummaryvacationofaportion oftheslopeeasementalong22084ClearwoodCourt. _____________________________________ Preparedby:ErwinChing,AssociateCivilEngineer Reviewedby:TimmBorden,DirectorofPublicWorks ApprovedforSubmissionby:DavidBrandt,CityManager Attachments: ADraftResolution 160 ATTACHMENT A RESOLUTION NO. 13- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO SUMMARILY VACATING A PORTION OF A SLOPE EASEMENT FRED SABOUR, 22084 CLEARWOOD CT, APN 326-18-032 WHEREAS, Fred Sabour, owner of the property at 22084 Clearwood Court, made an application to the City of Cupertino to vacate slope easement on his more particularly described in the legal description and map attached hereto property, and made part hereof as Exhibits ; WHEREAS,the City Council elects to proceed pursuant to the provisions of Section 8335 et seq. of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of Ca WHEREAS, the Director of Public Works has determined that pursuant to Section 8333(c) et seq. of the Streets and Highways Code of the state of California, the vacated portion of the slope easement has been determined to be excess, public facilities located within the easement; and WHEREAS, upon approval of this Resolution, the NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of hereby summarily vacates a portion of the slope easement at 22084 Clearwood Court in as shown and described on the attached plat and legal PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the Cupertino this 17th day of September, 2013, by the following City of Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: ____________________________ _____________________________________ Grace Schmidt, City Clerk Orrin Mahoney, Mayor, City of Cupertino 161 162 163 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CITY HALL 10 10300 TORRE AVENUE CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3354 www.cupertino.org CITYCOUNCILSTAFFREPORT Meeting:September17,2013 Subject AdoptaresolutiongrantingrealpropertytotheStateofCaliforniafortheDonBurnett BicyclePedestrianBridge. RecommendedAction AdoptResolutionNo.13_____,authorizingtheCityManagertoexecutetheGrant DeedtocompletethegrantingofrealpropertytotheStateofCalifornia. Discussion InaccordancewiththecooperativeagreementwiththeStateofCaliforniatheCityis requiredtogranttotheStateofCaliforniarealpropertyforthelocationofthebridge towerfoundationandthenewsoundwall.Thisfinalactionwillfulfilltheagreement requirementsfortheconstructionoftheDonBurnettBicyclePedestrianBridge (formularyMaryAvenueBicyclePedestrianBridge). FiscalImpact Therewillbenofiscalimpactincurredbyapprovingthisgrantoftherealproperty. ___________________________________ Preparedby:CarmenLynaugh,PublicWorksProjectManager Reviewedby:TimmBorden,DirectorofPublicWorks ApprovedforSubmissionby:DavidBrandt,CityManager Attachments: ADraftResolution BMap 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 COMMUNITYDEVELOPMENTDEPARTMENT CITYHALL 10300TORREAVENUE'CUPERTINO,CA950143255 TELEPHONE:(408)7773308'www.cupertino.org CITYCOUNCILSTAFFREPORT Meeting:September17,2013 Subject Applicationsforasubdivisionofasinglefamilyzonedlotintothree(3)residentiallotsandone (1)privateroadwayarea,andrezoningofasinglefamilyzonedpropertyfromR110toR17.5. RecommendedAction StaffrecommendsthattheCityCouncilapprove: 1.MitigatedNegativeDeclaration(EA201204)(recommendedbyERCforapproval, AttachmentF); 2.Rezoning(Z201201)(inaccordancewiththeordinance,AttachmentC)and; 3.TentativeMap(TM201203)(inaccordancewiththedraftresolution,AttachmentB). Description A.ApplicationSummary Applications:TM201203,Z201201,EA201204 Applicant:JamesChen PropertyOwner:SueJaneHan Location:20840McClellanRd B.ProjectDescription 1.MitigatedNegativeDeclaration(EA201204)forthe20840McClellanRdRezoningand Subdivision; 2.Rezoning(Z201201)a.96acreparcelfromsinglefamilyresidential(R110)(10,000sqft minimumlotsize)tosinglefamilyresidential(R17.5)(7,500sqftminimumlotsize);and 3.TentativeMap(TM201203)toallowaParcelMaptosubdivideanexistingsinglefamily lotintothree(3)residentiallotsandone(1)commonarealot. C.ProjectDataSummary PROJECTDATAEXISTINGPROPOSED GeneralPlan LowDensity(15DwellingLowDensity(15Dwelling Designation:Units/GrossAcre)Units/GrossAcre) ZoningDesignation: R110(SingleFamilyResidentialR17.5(SingleFamily K10,000squarefeetminimum)ResidentialK7,500squarefeet minimum) 171 TotalGrossLotArea: 41,973squarefeet(.96acre)11,80015,500squarefeet TotalNetLotArea: 38,973squarefeet(.89acre)8,051K9,448squarefeet ProposedLotAreas: ParcelA:8,051squarefeet ParcelB:8,399squarefeet ParcelC:9,448squarefeet ParcelD13,075squarefeet (PrivateRoad): ExistingDensity: 1.04dwellingspergrossacre3.12dwellingpergrossacre ProjectConsistencywith GeneralPlan: YesYes Zoning: No,RezoningRequestedYes,ifZoningisapproved ParkingRequired: 4spaces(2enclosedgarage12spaces(2enclosedgarage spacesand2drivewayspacesspacesand2drivewayspaces perhome)perhome) ParkingProvided: 4spaces(2enclosedgarage12spaces(2enclosedgarage spacesand2drivewayspacesspacesand2drivewayspaces perhome)perhome) Environmental MitigatedNegativeDeclaration Assessment: Discussion A.Background OnAugust27,2013,thePlanningCommissionreviewedthesubdivisionandrezoning application(filenos.TM201203,Z201201,andEA201204).Therequestinvolvedthe subdivisionofa.96acreparcelintofour(4)lots,three(3)ofwhichwillbeusedforsinglefamily residential,andone(1)lotusedforprivateroadwayaccess.Theresidentiallotsrangeinsize from8,051squarefeetto9,448squarefeet.TheapplicantisalsorequestingarezoningfromR1 10,froma10,000squarefootminimumlotsize,toR17.5,foraminimumlotsizeof7,500square feet.ThedetailedbackgroundinformationfortheprojectisincludedinthePlanning Commissionstaffreport(SeeAttachmentA)andotherattachments(SeeAttachmentsDG). Staffwouldliketonotethattheprojectdoesnotincludepermitsforthesinglefamilyhomes, whichwouldbereviewedseparately. ThePlanningCommissionunanimouslyrecommendedapprovalforthesubdivisionand rezoningrequestbecausetheproposedlotsizes/patternsandthezoningdesignationare consistentwiththeGeneralPlanandthepredominantsurroundingresidentialneighborhood pattern. B.EnvironmentalReview TheInitialStudy,preparedbyenvironmentalconsultantDavidJ.Powers&Associates,was presentedbeforetheEnvironmentalReviewCommittee(ERC)forreview.AMitigated NegativeDeclarationwasunanimouslyrecommendedforapprovalbytheEnvironmental ReviewCommitteeandPlanningCommission.Herearethekeyissuesofinterest: 172 1.Trees Onlyoneprotectedtreeexistsonsiteperthe"¯º¿¹ProtectedTreeOrdinance(Tree#38,avy! CoastLiveOaktree).AlthoughthesoilbeneaththeOaktreecanopyisimpactedwithelevated levelsofpesticides,aplanforremediationtosavethetreehasbeenreviewedandapprovedby the"¯º¿¹consultingarboristandtheCountyofSantaClara,DepartmentofEnvironmental Health.Additionalconfirmationsamplingwillbetakenafterremediationtoensureno impactedsoilremains.MoreinformationcanbefoundwithinthePlanningCommissionstaff reportandarboristreport(SeeAttachmentsAandD). 2.SoilRemediation TheapplicanthascommissionedthepreparationofaPhaseIandPhaseIIenvironmental assessment.Additionalreportswerecommissionedwhichindicatedelevatedlevelsoflead, arsenic,andpesticideswheresitesamplesweretaken,mostlikelyattributedtoprior agriculturalandgardeninguse.Theprojectisrequiredtoremediatethesitebyremovingand disposingimpactedsoilasprescribedbytheCountyofSantaClara,Departmentof EnvironmentalHealth.Aconditionofapprovalhasbeenaddedtoreflectthisrequirement. PleaserefertothePlanningCommissionstaffreportandinitialstudyformoreinformation (AttachmentsAandE). C.OtherDepartment/AgencyReview The"¯º¿¹PublicWorksDepartment,BuildingDivision,theSantaClaraCountyFire Department,andtheCupertinoSanitaryDistrictreviewedtheproposalandhavenoobjections totheproject.Theirprehearingcommentshavebeenincorporatedasconditionsofapproval. D.PublicComments AtthePlanningCommissionhearing,afewresidentsexpressedconcernsregardingthefuture proposedhomeorientationsandinterfaceissueswithafewoftheneighboringproperties.The followingarestaffresponsesin italics toconcernsandquestionsexpressedatthePlanning Commissionhearing: 1.ParcelBmaynegativelyimpacttheexistingsolarpanelslocatedontherooftopofan existingneighboringhome. Thefutureproposedhomesmustcomplywiththe"¯º¿¹residentialordinance,whichprescribes minimumbuildingsetbackstandards,heightlimitations,andsinglestorybuildingenvelope requirementstoensurethatreasonableaccesstolightandairbetweenpropertiesaremaintained. The"¯º¿¹Ordinancedoesnotprescribeanyspecificdevelopmentstandardspertainingto buildingproximityand/ororientationfromexistingorfuturesolarpanels. 2.Theprojectmaycreateprivacyimpactstoadjacenthomes.Theremayalsobe undesirableshadingimpactscreatedbytheproposedprivacytrees. Theprojectisrequiredtocomplywiththe"¯º¿¹privacyscreeningrequirements.Theapplicant hastheoptionofsecuringawaiverfromtheneighboringpropertyownerstoplanttreesorshrubs thatarenotonthe"¯º¿¹approvedlistbutareacceptabletotheneighbors.Further,theneighbors havetheabilitytowaivethe"¯º¿¹privacyrequirementsiftreesorshrubsarenotdesired. 173 3.Theproposedprivacytreesmayimpacttheexistingbuildingand/orimprovements (fenceandyardfeatures)oftheadjacenthomes. Pleaseseestaffresponsein#2. 4.Whatisthereviewprocessfortheproposedfuturehomes? Thecurrentsiteplanandelevationsareconceptualandaremeanttodemonstratethatthenew lotscanfacilitatereasonableandcompatiblehousedesigns.Thefuturehomes,twostoryorsingle story,mustmeetallR1siteandbuildingdevelopmentregulations.Alltwostoryhomesmust undergoanadditionaltwostorypermit/residentialdesignreviewprocessperChapter19.28prior toissuanceofbuildingpermits.Neighborsadjacenttotheprojectwillbenotifiedofanyfuture twostoryproposalsandwillbegivenopportunitiestoreviewtheplansandprovideadditional input. 5.Isthereawaytoinitiatetheundergroundingofexistingabovethegroundutilities locatedonadjacentproperties? AllutilityupgradesandassociatedimprovementsthattheCityisrequiringarelocatedeither alongtheprojectpublicfrontageand/orontheprojectproperty.Anyothernonprojectrelated utilityupgradesorimprovementswillhavetobeinitiatedbytherespectivepropertyownersin conjunctionwiththereviewandapprovalfromthepertinentpublicutilitycompanies. E.Conclusion StaffrecommendsapprovaloftheMitigatedNegativeDeclaration,Rezoning,andParcelMap sincetheprojectisnotanticipatedtohavesignificantimpactstothecommunityorimmediate area.Additionally,theprojectisconsistentwiththegeneralplan,subdivisionsordinance,and conformstothepredominantlysinglefamilyresidentialdevelopmentpattern,consistentwith Chapters18.20and19.28oftheCupertinoMunicipalCode. ____________________________________ Preparedby:SimonVuong,AssociatePlanner Reviewedby:GaryChao,CityPlannerandAartiShrivastava,CommunityDevelopment Director ApprovedforSubmissionby:DavidBrandt,CityManager Attachments: A.PlanningCommissionStaffReport,datedAugust27,2013 B.TM201203draftPlanningCommissionresolution C.Z201201CityCouncilordinance D.AnEvaluationoftheExistingTreesat20840McClellanRoad,Cupertino,California, preparedbyMichaelL.Bench,datedDecember20,2011 E.InitialStudyforthe20840McClellanRoadRezoningandSubdivision,preparedbyDavid J.Powers&Associates,datedJuly2013 F.EnvironmentalReviewCommitteerecommendation,datedAugust1,2013 G.PlanSet 174 OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE ¤ CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 (408) 777-3308 ¤ FAX (408) 777-3333 ¤ planning@cupertino.org PLANNINGCOMMISSIONSTAFFREPORT AgendaItemNo.AgendaDate:August27,2013 Application:TM201203,Z201201(EA201204) Applicant:SueJaneHanofCherrylandLLC ProjectLocation:20840McClellanRd ApplicationSummary: 1.ParcelMaptosubdivideanexistingsinglefamilylotintothree(3)residentiallotsandone(1) commonarealot;and 2.Rezoningofa.96acreparcelfromsinglefamilyresidential(R110)(10,000sqftminimumlot size)tosinglefamilyresidential(R17.5)(7,500sqftminimumlotsize) RECOMMENDATION: StaffrecommendsthatthePlanningCommissionrecommendtotheCityCouncilapprovalofthe followingapplications: MitigatedNegativeDeclarationfortheproject(EA201204); TentativeMap(TM201203)perthedraftresolution(Attachment1); Rezoning(Z201201)perthedraftresolution(Attachment1). PleasenotethatthefinaldecisionontheprojectwillbemadebytheCityCouncilatthefirstreading tentativelyscheduledforSeptember17,2013,withasecondreadingtentativelyscheduledforOctober 15,2013. PROJECTDATA GeneralPlanDesignation:LowDensity(15DwellingUnits/GrossAcre) ZoningDesignation:R110(SingleFamilyResidentialK10,000squarefeetminimum) TotalGrossLotArea:41,973squarefeet(.96acre) TotalNetLotArea:38,973squarefeet(.89acre) ProposedLotAreas: ParcelA:8,051squarefeet ParcelB:8,399squarefeet ParcelC:9,448squarefeet ParcelD(PrivateRoad):13,075squarefeet ExistingLandUse:Singlefamilyresidential ProposedLandUse:Singlefamilyresidential ExistingDensity:1.04dwellingspergrossacre 175 TM-2012-03, Z-2012-01(EA-2012-04) McClellan Road Subdivision August 27, 2013 ProposedDensity:3.12dwellingpergrossacre ProjectConsistencywith GeneralPlan:Yes Zoning:No,RezoningRequested EnvironmentalAssessment:MitigatedNegativeDeclaration BACKGROUND SiteDescription ThesubjectpropertyislocatedoffofMcClellanRdandissurroundedbyothersinglefamilyproperties withsimilarzoning(R110,R17.5,andR16)andgeneralplanlandusedesignations(LowDensity Residential,15dwellings/grossacre).Furthertothewestisachurchpropertyzonedquasi public/institutional.Currently,thesiteconsistsofasinglefamilyhomewithcarportsandsheds;all structuresonsiteareproposedtobedemolishedpriortotherecordationoftheparcelmap. w u w w u aw -/;7 w w . v w w w u w SubjectProperty b DISCUSSION: SubdivisionDesign Theprojectproposestocreatethreelotsthatareorientednorthtosouth,withvehicular,pedestrian,and emergencyaccesstobeprovidedbyanewprivateroadway/culdesacconsistentwiththeSantaClara 176 TM-2012-03, Z-2012-01(EA-2012-04) McClellan Road Subdivision August 27, 2013 CountyFireDepartmentrequirementsforaccess.Theproposedprivateculdesacisexpectedtobea shareddrivewaytofacilitateaccesstoanyfuturesubdivisionrequestforthesinglefamilyproperty immediatetothewestoftheproject. Apreliminarysiteplanhasbeenprepareddemonstratinghowthefuturedevelopmentswillcomply withtheR1regulations,parkingrequirements,andlandscapedfront,side,andrearyardareas.The projectdemonstratescompatibleyardtoyardrelationships:reartorearandsidetosidethathelpmake thedevelopmentpatterncompatiblewiththesurroundingarea. StreetFrontageImprovements TheprojectproposesanewdetachedsidewalkalongMcClellanRd.Inaddition,thefirstvsofthe propertyshallbereservedforstreetfrontageimprovements.Theprivateaccessroadwayandculdesac willincludeanewmonolithicsidewalk,curbandgutter,anddriveways.Priortofinaloccupancy,the applicantwillberequiredtoworkwithstafftorecordalandscapeeasementlocatedadjacenttoandeast ofthemonolithicsidewalktobemaintainedaslandscapingontheprivatelots.Aconditionofapproval hasbeenaddedtoreflectthisrequirement. ConceptualTwoStoryPlans Theapplicanthassubmittedconceptualsiteplanandelevationsdemonstratingthatthenewlotscan facilitatereasonableandcompatiblehousedesigns.Theelevations,architecturaldetails,andfaçade treatmentillustratedinAttachment5areintendedtoberepresentativeofthefutureresidencesandare compatiblewiththeexistingneighborhood.Theapplicant/propertyownerisrequiredtogothrougha separatedesignreviewprocesspriortotheconstructionofthenewhomes. GeneralPlanConformance TheGeneralPlanLandUsedesignationis +µ½DensityResidential(15dwellingspergross§©¸«!and theapplicantisproposingadensityof3.12dwellingunit/acre,whichisconsistentwith"¯º¿¹general plan. Rezoning TheprojectalsoincludesazoningrequesttorezonethepropertyfromR110(minimumlotsize10,000 squarefeet)toR17.5(minimumlotsizesof7,500squarefeet).Staffsupportstherezoningrequest becausetheR17.5zoningdistrictisconsistentwithpredominatezoningclassificationofthe neighborhood.Inaddition,theproposedparcelsmeetallothersinglefamilyresidentialsite developmentregulations. Trees Anarboristreportwaspreparedbyoneofthe"¯º¿¹consultingarboristfortheproposedproject(see Attachment2).TheCityArboristsurveyedapproximately100treesontheproperty,mostofwhichwere smallfruittrees,wellbelowthecitystandardforprotection.Thearboristconsidered27ofthe100treesto besignificantinsize.Ofthe27trees,onlyoneisconsideredaprotectedtreeperthe"¯º¿¹ProtectedTree Ordinance(Tree#38,avy!CoastLiveOaktree).AlthoughthesoilbeneaththeOaktreecanopyis impactedwithelevatedlevelsofpesticides,aplanforremediationtosavethetreehasbeenreviewedand approvedbythe"¯º¿¹consultingarboristandtheCountyofSantaClara,DepartmentofEnvironmental Health.Additionalconfirmationsamplingwillbetakenafterremediationtoensurenoimpactedsoil remains.Ifaftertheremediationthehealthofthetreedeclines,aseparatetreeremovalpermitwillbe 177 TM-2012-03, Z-2012-01(EA-2012-04) McClellan Road Subdivision August 27, 2013 requiredtobeappliedforandapprovedpriortoremoval.Aconsultingarboristwillberequiredto reviewallconstruction,grading,trenching,orexcavationworkproposednearTree#38.The recommendationsareincorporatedasconditionsorapproval. AnEnglishWalnuttree(Tree#46)locatedatthesouthwestcornerofthepropertywillalsoremain; however,allothertreeswillberemovedaspartoftheprojecttofacilitatethefutureresidencesandthe privateroad.Itisanticipatedthatfuturestreettreesandprivacytreeplantingwillhelpcompensatefor thistreeloss. ENVIRONMENTALASSESSMENT TheInitialStudy(Attachment3)waspresentedbeforetheEnvironmentalReviewCommittee(ERC)atits meetingofAugust1,2013.TheERCvotedunanimouslytorecommendaMitigatedNegativeDeclaration fortheprojecttothePlanningCommission(Attachment4).Additionalmitigationmeasureswillbe requiredasconditionsofapprovaltoreduceimpactsoftheprojecttoalessthansignificantlevel.They includemitigationfor: BiologicalResources(TreeRemovals,SurveysofNestingBirds&Bats,andTreeProtection Requirements) CulturalResources(ArchaeologicalorPaleontologicalDepositsorHumanRemainsand/orCultural Material) HazardousMaterial(LeadandPesticideImpactedSoil,SurveyforAsbestosandLeadBasedPaint) Noise(RestrictioninConstructionHoursandEquipment,andDesignationofa #¯¹º»¸¨§´©« "µµ¸ª¯´§ºµ¸! SoilRemediation TheapplicanthascommissionedthepreparationofaPhaseIandPhaseIIenvironmentassessment. Additionalreportswerecommissionedwhichindicatedelevatedlevelsoflead,arsenic,andpesticides wheresitesamplesweretaken,mostlikelyattributedtoprioragriculturalandgardeninguse.The projectisrequiredtoremediatethesitebyremovinganddisposingimpactedsoilasprescribedby CountyofSantaClaraEnvironmentalHealthDepartment.Aconditionofapprovalhasbeenaddedto reflectthisrequirement.Pleaserefertotheenvironmentalassessmentsectionaboveforadditional information. OtherDepartment/AgencyReview The"¯º¿¹PublicWorksDepartment,BuildingDivision,theSantaClaraCountyFireDepartment,and theCupertinoSanitaryDistrictreviewedtheproposalandhavenoobjectionstotheproject.Theirpre hearingcommentshavebeenincorporatedasconditionsofapproval. PERMITSTREAMLININGACT ThisprojectisnotsubjecttothePermitStreamliningActsincetheadoptionoramendmentofazoning ordinanceisalegislativeaction.Thefollowingareapplicationmilestones: Projectreceived:May29,2012 Deemedincomplete:June29,2012,August24,2012,andOctober19,2012 Deemedcomplete:August13,2013 178 TM-2012-03, Z-2012-01(EA-2012-04) McClellan Road Subdivision August 27, 2013 ThePlanningCommissionwillmakearecommendationtotheCityCounciltorenderafinaldecisionon theprojectonSeptember17,2013,unlessappealedforreconsideration. PUBLICNOTICING&OUTREACH Thefollowingtableisabriefsummaryofthenoticingdoneforthisproject: NoticeofPublicHearing,SiteNotice&LegalAdAgenda SiteSignagePostedontheCitysofficialnotice (14dayspriortothehearing)bulletinboard(oneweekpriortothe Legaladplacedinnewspaper hearing) (atleast10dayspriortothehearing)PostedontheCityof"»¶«¸º¯´µ¹Web 64noticesmailedtopropertyownerswithinsite(oneweekpriortothehearing) 300feetoftheprojectsite (10dayspriortothehearing) CONCLUSION StaffrecommendsapprovaloftheParcelMapandRezoningsincetheprojectisnotanticipatedtohave significantimpactstothecommunityorimmediatearea.Additionally,theprojectisconsistentwiththe generalplan,subdivisionsordinance,andconformstothepredominantlysinglefamilyresidential developmentpattern,consistentwithChapters18.20and19.28oftheCupertinoMunicipalCode. Preparedby:SimonVuong,AssistantPlanner Reviewedby:Approvedby: /s/AartiShrivastava /s/GaryChao GaryChaoAartiShrivastava CityPlannerCommunityDevelopmentDirector ATTACHMENTS: 1KDraftResolutionsTM201203,Z201201 2KAnEvaluationoftheExistingTreesat20840McClellanRoad,Cupertino,California,preparedby MichaelL.Bench,datedDecember20,2011 3KInitialStudyforthe20840McClellanRoadRezoningandSubdivision,preparedbyDavidJ.Powers &Associates,datedJuly2013 4KEnvironmentalReviewCommitteerecommendation,datedAugust1,2013 5KPlanSet 179 TM201203 CITYOFCUPERTINO 10300TorreAvenue Cupertino,California95014 RESOLUTIONNO.6722 OFTHEPLANNINGCOMMISSIONOFTHECITYOFCUPERTINORECOMMENDING APPROVALTOSUBDIVIDEA.96GROSSACRELOTINTOFOURLOTS:ONELOTISFOR APRIVATEROADTOTALING13,075SQUAREFEET,ANDTHEREMAININGTHREE LOTSRANGEINSIZEFROM8,051TO9,448SQUAREFEETTOBEDEVELOPEDAS SINGLEFAMILYHOMES,LOCATEDAT20840MCLELLANRD,APN35920031 SECTIONI:PROJECTDESCRIPTION&RECITALS ApplicationNo.:TM201203 Applicant:JamesChen(Cherryland,LLC) PropertyOwner:SueJaneHan(Cherryland,LLC) Location:20840McClellanRd(APN35920031) Subject:Subdivisionintofourlots(oneforaprivateroad) WHEREAS,thePlanningCommissionoftheCityofCupertinoreceivedanapplicationforaTentative MapasdescribedinSectionIofthisResolution;and WHEREAS,thenecessarypublicnoticeshavebeengivenasrequiredbytheProceduralOrdinanceofthe CityofCupertino,andthePlanningCommissionheldapublichearingonAugust27,2013inregardto theapplication;and NOW,THEREFORE,BEITRESOLVED: Aftercarefulconsiderationofthe,maps,facts,exhibits,testimonyandotherevidencesubmittedinthis matter,thePlanningCommissionherebyrecommendsapprovalofApplicationno.TM201203based uponthefindingsdescribedinSectionIIofthisresolution,thepublichearingrecordandtheMinutesof PlanningCommissionMeetingofAugust27,2013,andsubjecttotheconditionsspecifiedinSectionIIIof thisresolution. SECTIONII:FINDINGS ThattheproposedsubdivisionmapisconsistentwiththeCityofCupertinoGeneralPlan. 1. ThesubdivisionisinconformancewiththeGeneralPlanLandUseMapoftheCityofCupertino,sincethe landusedesignationwillbeidentical(LowDensity,15densityunits/grossacre)andtheproposalfurthersthe policiesstipulatedintheGeneralPlan.Forexample,theprojectisproposingadditionalhousingunitsfora morebalancedratioofjobsandhousing(GPPolicy219). ThatthedesignandimprovementsoftheproposedsubdivisionareconsistentwiththeGeneralPlan. 2. ThesubdivisiondesignandimprovementsareinconformancewiththeGeneralPlan. Thatthesiteisphysicallysuitableforthetypeandintensityofdevelopmentcontemplatedunderthe 3. approvedsubdivision. 180 ResolutionNo.6722TM201203August27,2013 Thepropertyinvolvedisphysicallysuitableinsizeandshapetoconformtodevelopmentstandardsandis appropriatelyconfiguredtoaccommodatereasonablesinglefamilydwellingunits.Theproposedsubdivisionis compatiblewiththeadjoininglandusesandnophysicalconstraintsarepresentthatwouldconflictwith anticipatedlandusedevelopment. Thatthesiteisphysicallysuitablefortheproposeddensityofdevelopment. 4. Thepropertyinvolvedisphysicallysuitableinsizeandshapetoconformtodevelopmentstandardsandis appropriatelyconfiguredtoaccommodatereasonablesinglefamilydwellingunits.Theproposeddensityis3.12 dwellingunitsperacre,where15dwellingunitsperacreareallowed. Thatthedesignofthesubdivisionortheproposedimprovementsarenotlikelytocausesubstantial 5. environmentaldamagenorsubstantiallyandunavoidableinjurefishandwildlifeortheirhabitat. Theproposedsubdivisiondesignisnotlikelytocausesubstantialenvironmentaldamagenorsubstantiallyand unavoidablyinjurefishandwildlifeortheirhabitat;mitigationmeasuresrelatedtobiologicalresourceswillbe incorporatedaspartoftheCEQAreviewprocesstomitigatepotentialimpactstoalessthansignificantlevel. Thatthedesignofthesubdivisionorthetypeofimprovementsassociatedtherewithisnotlikelyto 6. causeseriouspublichealthproblems. Theproposedsubdivisiondesignortypeofimprovementsassociatedtherewithisnotlikelytocauseserious publichealthproblems,asrelevantmitigationmeasureswillbeincorporatedaspartoftheCEQAreview processtomitigatepotentialimpactstoalessthansignificantlevel. Thatthedesignofthesubdivisionanditsassociatedimprovementswillnotconflictwitheasements 7. acquiredbythepublicatlargeforaccessthroughoruseofpropertywithintheproposed subdivision. Theproposedsubdivisiondesignortypeofimprovementswillnotconflictwitheasementsacquiredbythe publicatlargeforaccessthroughoruseofpropertywithintheproposedsubdivision;aportionoftheproperty willbededicatedtotheCityforstreetfrontageimprovements,andaprivateroadisproposedforaccesstothe lotscreatedbytheproposedsubdivision. SECTIONIII:CONDITIONSADMINISTEREDBYTHECOMMUNITYDEVELOPMENTDEPT. /²§´´¯´#¯¼¯¹¯µ´ APPROVEDEXHIBITS 1. ApprovalisbasedontheplansetreceivedSeptember19,2012,consistingoffoursheetslabeled1,2, 3,C1,entitled, 3«´º§º¯¼«,§¶!drawnbyCivilandStructuralEngineers;andtheconceptual elevationsdatedMay20,2012consistingofthreesheetslabeledA3.1,A3.2,andA3.3,entitled, ¸©® DesignUnderSeparated(sic)/«¸³¯º!drawnbyH.M.C.Associates,LLP,exceptasmaybe amendedbyconditionsinthisresolution. ACCURACYOFPROJECTPLANS 2. Theapplicant/propertyownerisresponsibletoverifyallpertinentpropertydataincludingbutnot limitedtopropertyboundarylocations,buildingsetbacks,propertysize,buildingsquarefootage, anyrelevanteasementsand/orconstructionrecords.Anymisrepresentationofanypropertydata mayinvalidatethisapprovalandmayrequireadditionalreview. 181 ResolutionNo.6722TM201203August27,2013 ANNOTATIONOFTHECONDITIONSOFAPPROVAL 3. Theconditionsofapprovalsetforthshallbeincorporatedintoandannotatedonthefirstpageofthe buildingplans. PLANNINGPERMITSREQUIREDFORNEWHOMES 4. Theapplicantand/orownershallobtaintheappropriateapprovalsfromtheCityforallofthe .Proposalsfortwostoryresidences proposedresidentialhomespriortorecordationofthefinalmap shallbesubjecttoeitheraTwoStoryorResidentialDesignReviewpermitpertheSingleFamily .Theproposalsshallclosely Residential(R1)ZoningOrdinancepriortoapplyingforbuildingpermits resemblethequalityanddesignasindicatedontheconceptualdrawingssubmittedwiththe applicationforTM201203. BUILDINGPERMITS 5. TheapplicantshallconsultwiththeCityBuildingDivisiontoobtainthenecessarybuildingpermits forthefutureresidentialdwellingunits. DEVELOPMENTAPPROVALANDALLOCATION 6. Approvalisgrantedtosubdividea.96grossacreparcelintofourlots:onelotwillbedevelopedasa privateroadtotaling13,075squarefeet,andthethreeremaininglotsrangeinsizefrom8,051to9,448 squarefeet,tobedevelopedassinglefamilyhomes. TheCityshalldeducttworesidentialunits(toaccountforthe¶¸µ°«©º¹netincreaseoftwounits) fromtheGeneralPlanallocationfor .º®«¸ ¸«§¹ ! CONCURRENTAPPROVALCONDITIONS 7. Theconditionsofapprovalcontainedinfileno.Z201201shallbeapplicabletothisapproval. CONDITIONALAPPROVAL 8. TheSubdivisionrequestisonlyconditionallyapprovedcontingentupontheconcurrentapprovalof theRezoningapplication(Z201201). BELOWMARKETRATEHOUSINGPROGRAM 9. Theapplicantshallparticipateinthe"¯º¿¹BelowMarketRate(BMR)HousingProgrambypaying thehousingmitigationfeesaspertheHousingMitigationManual.ThemitigationfeeratesforFY 20132014are$2.93persquarefootofnetaddition,paymentofwhichisduepriortoissuanceof buildingpermits. COVENANTS,CONDITIONS,ANDRESTRICTIONS 10. RequirementsforlandscapingandfencingshallbeincorporatedwithintheCovenants,Conditions,& Restrictions(CC&Rs)ofthedevelopmentproposal.ThefinalCC&Rs,whichaddressesmaintenance andupkeepoftheprivateroad,sidewalk,streets,trees,fencing,andlandscaping,shallbesubmitted totheCityforstaffandCityAttorneyreviewpriortorecordationoftheparcelmap.TheCC&Rs shallalsostipulatethatiffuturedevelopmentofthepropertytothewesttakesplace,theCC&Rswill includelanguageforreciprocalaccessoftheprivateroad,constructioneasementstoallowforfuture constructionworkwithintheprivateroad,andothernecessarylanguagetofacilitatereasonable development. 182 ResolutionNo.6722TM201203August27,2013 ENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSANDMITIGATIONMEASURES 11. PerthemitigationmeasuresoutlinedintheMitigationMonitoringandReportingProgrambasedon theInitialStudydatedJuly2013,entitled us{wsMcClellanRoadRezoningand2»¨ª¯¼¯¹¯µ´! preparedbyDavidJ.PowersandAssociatesandadoptedasMitigatedNegativeDeclarationEA 201204,thefollowingisanoutlineofmitigationmeasures(MM)thatapply,exceptasmaybe amendedbyconditionsinthisresolution: i.BiologicalResources a.MMBIO1.1 b.MMBIO1.2 c.MMBIO1.3 d.MMBIO2.1 e.MMBIO2.2 f.MMBIO3.1 ii.CulturalResources a.MMCUL1.1 b.MMCUL1.2 iii.HazardsandHazardousMaterials a.MMHAZ1.1 b.MMHAZ1.2 c.MMHAZ1.3 d.MMHAZ1.4 e.MMHAZ1.5 f.MMHAZ2.1 g.MMHAZ2.2 h.MMHAZ2.3 iv.Noise a.MMNOI1.1 b.MMNOI2.1 c.MMNOI3.1 d.MMNOI3.2 e.MMNOI3.3 f.MMNOI3.4 g.MMNOI3.5 h.MMNOI3.6 i.MMNOI3.7 j.MMNOI3.8 k.MMNOI3.9 l.MMNOI3.10 Inadditiontothemitigationmeasureslistedabove,thefollowingcategoriesincludestandard mitigationmeasuresthatarealsoconditionsofprojectapproval(refertotheMitigationMonitoring andReportingProgrambasedontheInitialStudyformoredetailedinformation): v.AirQuality vi.GeologyandSoils vii.WaterQuality viii.Parkland 183 ResolutionNo.6722TM201203August27,2013 SOILREMEDIATION 12. Theapplicantwillberequiredtoremediatethesiteinaccordancewiththe 1«¼¯¹«ªSiteMitigation /²§´! preparedbyPIERSEnvironmentalServices,Inc.datedMarch11,2013andapprovedbythe CountyofSantaClara,DepartmentofEnvironmentalHealth(letterdatedMarch14,2013).All th excavationworkandassociatedmonitoringshouldbeoverseenbyanenvironmentalconsultant. ThisworkshouldbesummarizedinatechnicalreportandsubmittedtotheCityandSantaClara CountyDepartmentofEnvironmentalHealthforreviewandapproval,priortoissuanceofbuilding permits. TREEPROTECTION 13. TheexistingCoastLiveOaktree(Tree#38)toremainshallbeprotectedduringconstructionperthe arboristreportpreparebyMichaelL.Bench,entitled ´EvaluationoftheExistingTreesat20840 McClellanRd,Cupertino,"§²¯¬µ¸´¯§! datedDecember20,2011.Hisrecommendationsare reproducedhere: A.Irecommendthataconsultingarboristberequiredtoreviewalloftheproposedplans,includingthe UtilityPlan,thefinalGradingandDrainagePlan,theSitePlan,andtheLandscapePlan,toaddress thepotentialriskstoTree#38. B.Irecommendthattherebenograding,trenching,orexcavationinthecriticalrootzoneareaofTree#38 withinaradiusdistanceof30feetofthetrunk.Thereareminorexceptions,whichwouldrequirethe reviewandsupervisionofaConsultingArborist(thisisapersonwithahigherleveloftrainingand experiencethanaCertifiedArborist). The"¯º¿¹standardtreeprotectionmeasuresshallbelistedontheplans,andprotectivefencingshall . beinstalledaroundthetreespriortoissuanceofbuildingpermits Additionally,an (´¼«¹º¯§º¯¼«ReportandRevisedMitigation/²§´! preparedbyPIERS EnvironmentalServices,Inc.datedJuly9,2013,andapprovedbytheCountyofSantaClara, th ,2013),includesaremediationplan DepartmentofEnvironmentalHealth(letterdatedJuly15 th proposedtoproperlymitigateimpactedsoilbeneaththetreebranchcanopyoftheCoastLiveOak tree,theworkofwhichshallbeoverseenbyaconsultingarborist.Ifafterthesoilremediationthe CoastLiveOaktreeexhibitsadeclineinhealthordisplaysotherdetrimentalsigns,aseparatetree removalpermitwillberequiredtobefiledandapprovedbytheCitypriortoremoval. Areportascertainingthegoodhealthofallremainingtreesonsiteshallbeprovidedpriorto issuanceoffinaloccupancy. LANDSCAPEPROJECTSUBMITTAL 14. ,theapplicantshallsubmitafulllandscapeprojectsubmittalper Priortoissuanceoffinaloccupancy sections14.15.040A,B,C,andDoftheLandscapingOrdinance.TheWaterEfficientDesign Checklist(AppendixAofChapter14.15),LandscapeandIrrigationDesignPlans,andWaterBudget CalculationsshallbereviewedandapprovedtothesatisfactionoftheDirectorofCommunity landscapingplanshallberequiredpriortoissuanceofbuildingpermits. Development.Aconceptual LANDSCAPEINSTALLATIONREPORT 15. 184 ResolutionNo.6722TM201203August27,2013 Priortofinalinspection,alandscapeinstallationauditshallbeconductedbyacertifiedlandscape professionalafterthelandscapingandirrigationsystemhavebeeninstallediftheprojectissubjectto theLandscapeOrdinance.Thefindingsoftheassessmentshallbeconsolidatedintoalandscape installationreport. Thelandscapeinstallationreportshallinclude,butisnotlimitedto:inspectiontoconfirmthatthe landscapingandirrigationsystemareinstalledasspecifiedinthelandscapeandirrigationdesign plan,systemtuneup,systemtestwithdistributionuniformity,reportingoversprayorrunoffthat causesoverlandflow,andpreparationofanirrigationschedule. Thelandscapeinstallationreportshallincludethefollowingstatement: 3®«landscapeand irrigationsystemhavebeeninstalledasspecifiedinthelandscapeandirrigationdesignplanand complieswiththecriteriaoftheordinanceandthe¶«¸³¯º ! LANDSCAPEANDIRRIGATIONMAINTENANCE 16. PertheLandscapeOrdinance(CMC,Chapter14.15),amaintenancescheduleshallbeestablishedand submittedtotheDirectorofCommunityDevelopmentorhis/herdesignee,eitherwiththelandscape applicationpackage,withthelandscapeinstallationreport,oranytimebeforethelandscape installationreportissubmitted. a)Schedulesshouldtakeintoaccountwaterrequirementsfortheplantestablishmentperiodand waterrequirementsforestablishedlandscapes. b)Maintenanceshallinclude,butnotbelimitedtothefollowing:routineinspection;pressure testing,adjustmentandrepairoftheirrigationsystem;aeratinganddethatchingturfareas; replenishingmulch;fertilizing;pruning;replantingoffailedplants;weeding;pestcontrol;and removingobstructionstoemissiondevices. c)Failedplantsshallbereplacedwiththesameorfunctionallyequivalentplantsthatmaybesize adjustedasappropriateforthestageofgrowthoftheoverallinstallation.Failingplantsshall eitherbereplacedorberevivedthroughappropriateadjustmentsinwater,nutrients,pestcontrol orotherfactorsasrecommendedbyalandscapingprofessional. LANDSCAPINGMAINTENANCEAGREEMENT 17. Priortofinalinspectionsandfinaloccupancy,theowner(s)ofthepropertyshallenterintoaformal writtenlandscapemaintenanceagreementwiththeCity.TheCityshallrecordthisagreement, againstthepropertyorpropertiesinvolved,withtheCountyofSantaClaraRecordersOfficeandit shallbebindingonallsubsequentownersoflandservedbytheproposedlandscape.Thelandscape maintenanceagreementshallrequirethattheinstalledlandscapenotbemodifiedandthat maintenanceactivitiesnotalterthelevelofwaterefficiencyofthelandscapefromitsoriginaldesign, unlessapprovedbytheCitypriortothecommencementoftheproposedmodificationor maintenanceactivity. NOISECONTROL 18. AllnoisegeneratedbytheprojectshallnotexceedthoselevelslistedintheCommunityNoise ControlOrdinance,CupertinoMunicipalCodechapter10.48.Iftherearedocumentedviolationsof theCommunityNoiseControlOrdinance,theDirectorofCommunityDevelopmentorNoise ControlOfficerhasthediscretiontorequirenoiseattenuationmeasurestocomplywiththe ordinance. DEMOLITIONOFSTRUCTURES 19. 185 ResolutionNo.6722TM201203August27,2013 Priortorecordationofthefinalmap,theapplicantshalldemolishandremoveallstructuresonthe property.Alldemolishedbuildingsandsitematerialsshallberecycledtothemaximumextent feasible. CONSTRUCTIONMANAGEMENTPLAN 20. Aconstructionmanagementplanshallbepreparedbytheapplicantandapprovedbystaffpriorto issuanceofbuildingpermitsdetailinghowconstructionactivitieswillbeconducted.Theplanshall address,butnotbelimitedtothefollowingactivities: a.Constructionstagingarea(shallnotoccurwithin15feetofneighboringresidentialproperty lines) b.Constructionscheduleandhours c.Constructionphasingplan,ifany d.Contractorparkingarea e.Treepreservation/protectionplan f.Sitedust,noiseandstormrunoffmanagementplan g.Emergency/complaintandconstructionsitemanagercontacts UTILITYSTRUCTURES 21. Allnewutilitystructuresshallberequiredtobelocatedundergroundorscreenedfrompublicview. CONSTRUCTIONHOURS 22. ConstructionactivitiesshallbelimitedtoMondaythroughFriday,7a.m.to8p.m.andSaturdayand Sunday,9a.m.to6p.m.Constructionactivitiesarenotallowedonholidays.Thedevelopershallbe responsibleforeducatingallcontractorsandsubcontractorsofsaidconstructionrestrictions.Rules andregulationpertainingtoallconstructionactivitiesandlimitationsidentifiedinthispermit,along withthenameandtelephonenumberofadeveloperappointeddisturbancecoordinator,shallbe postedinaprominentlocationattheentrancetothejobsite. FENCINGREQUIREMENT(PARCELA) 23. AsindicatedintheInitialStudydatedJuly2013,entitled us{wsMcClellanRoadRezoningand 2»¨ª¯¼¯¹¯µ´! preparedbyDavidJ.PowersandAssociatesandadoptedasMitigatedNegative DeclarationEA201204,developmentonParcelAshallincorporatesolidfencing(e.g.,highquality woodfencingwithnospaces)fortherearyardtoreducenoisefromMcClellanRd(MMNOI1.1). Theapplicantshallsubmitthefinaldesignandlocationofthefencingplantobereviewedand forthe approvedbytheDirectorofCommunityDevelopmentpriortoissuanceofbuildingpermits futureresidences. CONSULTATIONWITHOTHERDEPARTMENTS 24. Theapplicantisresponsibletoconsultwithotherdepartmentsand/oragencieswithregardtothe proposedprojectforadditionalconditionsandrequirements.Anymisrepresentationofany submitteddatamayinvalidateanapprovalbytheCommunityDevelopmentDepartment. EXPIRATION 25. Theapprovalorconditionalapprovalofatentativesubdivisionmapshallexpirethirtysix(36) monthsfromthedateofCityCouncilapproval.Anextensionorextensionsmaybeapprovedas providedinSection18.20.080,orwhenrequiredbytheSubdivisionMapAct. INDEMNIFICATION 26. 186 ResolutionNo.6722TM201203August27,2013 Totheextentpermittedbylaw,theApplicantshallindemnifyandholdharmlesstheCity,itsCity Council,itsofficers,employeesandagents(the ¯´ª«³´¯¬¯«ª¶§¸º¯«¹!fromandagainstanyclaim, action,orproceedingbroughtbyathirdpartyagainsttheindemnifiedpartiesandtheapplicantto attack,setaside,orvoidthisordinanceoranypermitorapprovalauthorizedherebyfortheproject, including(withoutlimitation)reimbursingtheCityitsactual§ººµ¸´«¿¹feesandcostsincurredin defenseofthelitigation.TheCitymay,initssolediscretion,electtodefendanysuchactionwith attorneysofitschoice. NOTICEOFFEES,DEDICATIONS,RESERVATIONSOROTHEREXACTIONS 27. TheConditionsofProjectApprovalsetforthhereinmayincludecertainfees,dedication requirements,reservationrequirements,andotherexactions.PursuanttoGovernmentCodeSection 66020(d)(1),theseConditionsconstitutewrittennoticeofastatementoftheamountofsuchfees,and adescriptionofthededications,reservations,andotherexactions.Youareherebyfurthernotified thatthe90dayapprovalperiodinwhichyoumayprotestthesefees,dedications,reservations,and otherexactions,pursuanttoGovernmentCodeSection66020(a),hasbegun.Ifyoufailtofilea protestwithinthis90dayperiodcomplyingwithalloftherequirementsofSection66020,youwill belegallybarredfromlaterchallengingsuchexactions. SECTIONIV:CONDITIONSADMINISTEREDBYTHEPUBLICWORKSDEPARTMENT STREETWIDENING 1. PublicstreetwideninganddedicationsshallbeprovidedinaccordancewithCityStandardsand specificationsandasrequiredbytheCityEngineer. CURBANDGUTTERIMPROVEMENTS 2. Curbsandgutters,sidewalksandrelatedstructuresshallbeinstalledinaccordancewithgradesand standardsasspecifiedbytheCityEngineer. PEDESTRIANANDBICYCLEIMPROVEMENTS 3. DevelopershallprovidepedestrianandbicyclerelatedimprovementsconsistentwiththeCupertino BicycleTransportationPlanandthePedestrianTransportationGuidelines,andasapprovedbythe CityEngineer. STREETLIGHTINGINSTALLATION 4. StreetlightingshallbeinstalledandshallbeasapprovedbytheCityEngineer.Lightingfixtures shallbepositionedsoastoprecludeglareandotherformsofvisualinterferencetoadjoining properties,andshallbenohigherthanthemaximumheightpermittedbythezoneinwhichthesite islocated. GRADING 5. GradingshallbeasapprovedandrequiredbytheCityEngineerinaccordancewithChapter16.08of theCupertinoMunicipalCode.401Certificationsand404permitsmayberequired.Pleasecontact ArmyCorpofEngineersand/orRegionalWaterQualityControlBoardasappropriate. DRAINAGE 6. DrainageshallbeprovidedtothesatisfactionoftheCityEngineer.Hydrologyandpreandpost developmenthydrauliccalculationsmustbeprovidedtoindicatewhetheradditionalstormwater controlmeasuresaretobeconstructedorrenovated.Thestormdrainsystemmayinclude,butisnot limitedto,subsurfacestorageofpeakstormwaterflows(asneeded),bioretentionbasins,vegetated 187 ResolutionNo.6722TM201203August27,2013 swales,andhydrodynamicseparatorstoreducetheamountofrunofffromthesiteandimprove waterquality.Thestormdrainsystemshallbedesignedtodetainwateronsite(e.g.,viaburied pipes,retentionsystemsorotherapprovedsystemsandimprovements)asnecessarytoavoidan increaseofthetenpercentfloodwatersurfaceelevationtothesatisfactionoftheCityEngineer.Any stormwateroverflowsorsurfacesheetingshouldbedirectedawayfromneighboringprivate propertiesandtothepublicrightofwayasmuchasreasonablypossible. UNDERGROUNDUTILITIES 7. DevelopershallcomplywiththerequirementsoftheUndergroundUtilitiesOrdinanceNo.331and otherrelatedOrdinancesandregulationsoftheCityofCupertino,andshallcoordinatewithaffected utilityprovidersforinstallationofundergroundutilitydevices.Developershallsubmitdetailed plansshowingutilityundergroundprovisions.Saidplansshallbesubjecttopriorapprovalofthe affectedUtilityproviderandtheCityEngineer. IMPROVEMENTAGREEMENT 8. TheprojectdevelopershallenterintoadevelopmentagreementwiththeCityofCupertino providingforpaymentoffees,includingbutnotlimitedtocheckingandinspectionfees,stormdrain fees,parkdedicationfeesandfeesforundergroundingofutilities.Saidagreementshallbeexecuted priortoissuanceofconstructionpermits Fees: a.Checking&InspectionFees:$Percurrentfeeschedule($2,707.00or5%) b.GradingPermit:$Percurrentfeeschedule($2,542.00or6%) c.DevelopmentMaintenanceDeposit:$2,000.00 d.StormDrainageFee:$TBD e.MapCheckingFees:$Percurrentfeeschedule($4,130.00) f.ParkFees:$Percurrentfeeschedule($31,500) g.StreetTreeByDeveloper Bonds: FaithfulPerformanceBond:100%ofOffsiteandOnsiteImprovements Labor&MaterialBond:100%ofOffsiteandOnsiteImprovement OnsiteGradingBond:100%ofsiteimprovements. Thefeesdescribedaboveareimposedbaseduponthecurrentfeescheduleadoptedbythe CityCouncil.However,thefeesimposedhereinmaybemodifiedatthetimeofrecordationof afinalmaporissuanceofabuildingpermitintheeventofsaidchangeorchanges,thefees changedatthattimewillreflectthethencurrentfeeschedule. TRANSFORMERS 9. Electricaltransformers,telephonecabinetsandsimilarequipmentshallbeplacedinunderground vaults.ThedevelopermustreceivewrittenapprovalfromboththePublicWorksDepartmentand theCommunityDevelopmentDepartmentpriortoinstallationofanyabovegroundequipment. ShouldabovegroundequipmentbepermittedbytheCity,equipmentandenclosuresshallbe screenedwithfencingandlandscapingsuchthatsaidequipmentisnotvisiblefrompublicstreet areas,asdeterminedbytheCommunityDevelopmentDepartment.Transformersshallnotbe locatedinthefrontorsidebuildingsetbackarea. 188 ResolutionNo.6722TM201203August27,2013 WATERBACKFLOWPREVENTERS 10. DomesticandFireWaterBackflowpreventersandsimilarabovegroundequipmentshallbeplaced awayfromthepublicrightofwayandsitedrivewaystoalocationapprovedbytheCupertino PlanningDepartment,SantaClaraCountyFireDepartmentandthewatercompany. TRAFFICSIGNS 11. TrafficcontrolsignsshallbeplacedatlocationsspecifiedbytheCity. TRAFFICCONTROLPLAN 12. ThedevelopermustsubmitatrafficcontrolplanbyaRegisteredTrafficEngineertobeapprovedby theCity.Theplanshallincludeatemporarytrafficcontrolplanforworkintherightofwayaswell asaroutingplanforallvehiclesusedduringconstruction.Alltrafficcontrolsignsmustbereviewed andapprovedbytheCitypriortocommencementofwork.TheCityhasadoptedManualon UniformTrafficControlDevices(MUTCD)standardsforallsignageandstripingworkthroughout theCity. BESTMANAGEMENTPRACTICES 13. UtilizeBestManagementPractices(BMPs),asrequiredbytheStateWaterResourcesControlBoard, forconstructionactivity,whichdisturbssoil.BMPplansshallbeincludedingradingandstreet improvementplans. NPDESCONSTRUCTIONGENERALPERMIT 14. WhenandwhereitisrequiredbytheStateWaterResourcesControlBoard(SWRCB),thedeveloper mustobtainaNoticeofIntent(NOI)fromtheSWRCB,whichencompassespreparationofaStorm WaterPollutionPreventionPlan(SWPPP),useofconstructionBestManagementPractices(BMPs)to controlstormwaterrunoffquality,andBMPinspectionandmaintenance. C.3REQUIREMENTS 15. C.3regulatedimprovementsarerequiredforallprojectscreatingand/orreplacing10,000S.F.or moreofimpervioussurface(collectivelyovertheentireprojectsite).Thedevelopershallreservea minimumof4%ofdevelopablesurfaceareafortheplacementoflowimpactdevelopmentmeasures, forstormwatertreatment,onthetentativemap,unlessanalternativestormwatertreatmentplan, thatsatisfiesC.3requirements,isapprovedbytheCityEngineer. Thedevelopermustincludetheuseandmaintenanceofsitedesign,sourcecontrolandstormwater treatmentBestManagementPractices(BMPs),whichmustbedesignedperapprovednumericsizing criteria.AStormWaterManagementPlan,StormWaterFacilitiesEasementAgreement,Storm WaterFacilitiesOperationandMaintenanceAgreement,andcertificationofongoingoperationand maintenanceoftreatmentBMPsareeachrequired. AllstormwatermanagementplansarerequiredtoobtaincertificationfromaCityapprovedthird partyreviewer. EROSIONCONTROLPLAN 16. 189 ResolutionNo.6722TM201203August27,2013 DevelopermustprovideanapprovederosioncontrolplanbyaRegisteredCivilEngineer.Thisplan shouldincludeallerosioncontrolmeasuresusedtoretainmaterialsonsite.Erosioncontrolnotes shallbestatedontheplans. WORKSCHEDULE 17. Every6months,thedevelopershallsubmitaworkscheduletotheCitytoshowthetimetableforall grading/erosioncontrolworkinconjunctionwiththisproject. OPERATIONS&MAINTENANCEAGREEMENT 18. DevelopershallenterintoanOperations&MaintenanceAgreementwiththeCitypriortofinal occupancy.TheAgreementshallincludetheoperationandmaintenancefornonstandard appurtenancesinthepublicroadrightofwaythatmayinclude,butisnotlimitedto,sidewalk, pavers,andstreetlights. REFUSETRUCKACCESS 19. DevelopershallobtainclearancefromtheEnvironmentalProgramsManagerinregardstorefuse truckaccessfortheproposeddevelopment. STREETTREES 20. StreettreesshallbeplantedwithinthePublicRightofWaytothesatisfactionoftheCityEngineer andshallbeofatypeapprovedbytheCityinaccordancewithOrdinanceNo.125. FIREPROTECTION 21. FiresprinklersshallbeinstalledinanynewconstructiontotheapprovaloftheCity. SANTACLARACOUNTYFIREDEPARTMENT 22. AletterofclearancefortheprojectshallbeobtainedfromtheSantaClaraCountyFireDepartment priortoissuanceofbuildingpermits.Clearanceshouldincludewrittenapprovalofthelocationof anyproposedFireBackflowPreventers,FireDepartmentConnectionsandFireHydrants(typically BackflowPreventersshouldbelocatedonprivatepropertyadjacenttothepublicrightofway,and firedepartmentconnectionsmustbelocatedwithintssofaFireHydrant). FIREHYDRANT 23. FirehydrantsshallbelocatedasrequiredbytheCityandSantaClaraCountyFireDepartmentas needed. SANJOSEWATERCOMPANYCLEARANCE 24. ProvideSanJoseWaterCompanyapprovalforwaterconnection,servicecapabilityandlocationand layoutofwaterlinesandbackflowpreventersbeforeissuanceofabuildingpermitapproval. DEDICATIONOFUNDERGROUNDWATERRIGHTS 25. Developershall ·»¯º©²§¯³!totheCityallrightstopump,takeorotherwiseextractwaterfromthe undergroundbasinoranyundergroundstrataintheSantaClaraValley. SANITARYDISTRICT 26. AletterofclearancefortheprojectshallbeobtainedfromtheCupertinoSanitaryDistrictpriorto issuanceofbuildingpermits. UTILITYEASEMENTS 27. 190 ResolutionNo.6722TM201203August27,2013 Clearanceapprovalsfromtheagencieswitheasementsontheproperty(includingPG&E,PacBell, andCaliforniaWaterCompany,and/orequivalentagencies)willberequiredpriortoissuanceof buildingpermits. SECTIONV:CONDITIONSADMINISTEREDBYTHESANTACLARACOUNTYFIREDEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENTPROPOSAL 1. ReviewofthisDevelopmentalproposalislimitedtoacceptabilityofsiteaccessandwatersupplyas theypertaintofiredepartmentoperations,andshallnotbeconstruedasasubstituteforformalplan reviewtodeterminecompliancewithadoptedmodelcodes.Priortoperforminganyworkthe applicantshallmakeapplicationto,andreceivefrom,theBuildingDepartmentallapplicable constructionpermits. FIREAPPARATUS(ENGINE)ACCESSROADSREQUIRED 2. Provideaccessroadwayswithapavedallweathersurface,aminimumunobstructedwidthof20 feet,verticalclearanceof13feet6inches,minimumcirculatingturningradiusof36feetoutsideand 23feetinside,andamaximumslopeof15%.ForinstallationguidelinesrefertoFireDepartment StandardDetailsandSpecificationssheetA1.CFCSec.503. FIREDEPARTMENT(ENGINE)ROADWAYTURNAROUNDREQUIRED 3. Provideanapprovedfiredepartmentengineroadwayturnaroundwithaminimumradiusof36feet outsideand23feetinside.InstallationsshallconformwithFireDepartmentStandardDetailsand SpecificationsheetA1.CulDeSacDiametersshallbenolessthan72feet.CFCSec.503. TIMINGOFREQUIREDROADWAYINSTALLATIONS: 4. Requiredaccessroads,upthroughfirstliftofasphalt,shallbeinstalledandacceptedbytheFire Departmentpriortothestartofcombustibleconstruction.Duringconstruction,emergencyaccess roadsshallbemaintainedclearandunimpeded.Notethatbuildingpermitissuancemaybewithheld untilinstallationsarecompleted.Temporaryaccessroadsmaybeapprovedonacasebycasebasis. CFCSec.501. PUBLICFIREHYDRANT(S)REQUIRED 5. Providepublicfirehydrant(s)atlocation(s)tobedeterminedjointlybytheFireDepartmentandSan JoseWaterCo.Maximumhydrantspacingshallbe500feet,withaminimumsinglehydrantflowof 1500GPMat20psi,residual.Firehydrantsshallbeprovidedalongrequiredfireapparatusaccess roadsandadjacentpublicstreets.CFCSec.507,andAppendixB,TableB105.1andAppendixC. TIMINGOFREQUIREDWATERSUPPLYINSTALLATIONS 6. Installationsofrequiredfireservice(s)andfirehydrant(s)shallbetestedandacceptedbytheFire Department,priortothestartofframingordeliveryofbulkcombustiblematerials.Buildingpermit issuancemaybewithhelduntilrequiredinstallationsarecompleted,tested,andaccepted.CFCSec. 501. STRUCTURALPLANS 7. Conditionsforconstructionwillbeprovideduponsubmittalofcompletestructuralplans. SECTIONVI:CONDITIONSADMINISTEREDBYTHECUPERTINOSANITARYDISTRICT SANITARYSEWERSERVICE 1. 191 ResolutionNo.6722TM201203August27,2013 SanitarysewerserviceisavailablefortheproposedsubdivisiononMcClellanRoad.The owner/applicantwillberesponsibleforengineeringandconstructionofthesewermain. IMPROVEMENTPLANS 2. ImprovementplansforthesubjectprojectshallbesubmittedtotheDistrictforreview. FEESANDPERMIT 3. CupertinoSanitaryDistrictFeesandPermitsshallberequiredforthesubjectapplication. SECTIONVII:CEQAREVIEW AMitigatedNegativeDeclarationfortheSubdivisionwaspreparedinaccordancewiththeCalifornia EnvironmentalQualityAct(CEQA)persection15070(DecisiontoPrepareaNegativeorMitigated NegativeDeclaration)oftheCEQAGuidelinesbecausetheinitialstudyidentifiedpotentiallysignificant effectsthatwouldbemitigatedtoapointwhereclearlynosignificanteffectswouldoccur. PASSEDANDADOPTEDthis27thdayofAugust,2013,RegularMeetingofthePlanningCommission oftheCityofCupertino,StateofCalifornia,bythefollowingrollcallvote: AYES:COMMISSIONERS:ChairSun,ViceChairBrophy,Lee,Gong,Takahashi NOES:COMMISSIONERS:none ABSTAIN:COMMISSIONERS:none ABSENT:COMMISSIONERS:none ATTEST:APPROVED: /s/DonSun /s/GaryChao GaryChaoDonSun CityPlannerChair,PlanningCommission G:\Planning\PDREPORT\RES\2012\TM201203res.doc 192 ORDINANCE NO. 13- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL APPROVING THE REZONING OF A .96 GROSS ACRE LOT, FROM R1-10 (MINIMUM LOT SIZE OF 10,000 SQUARE FOOT) TO R1-7.5 (MINIMUM LOT SIZE OF 7,500 SQUARE FEET) LOCATED AT 20840 MCLELLAN RD, APN 359-20-031 WHEREAS, an application was received by the City (Application no-2012-01) for the rezoning of a property from R1-10 (Single-Family Residential, minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet) to R1-7.5 (Single-Family Residential, minimum lot size of 7,500 square feet); and WHEREAS, the rezoning will be consistent with the City's General proposed uses and surrounding uses; and WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given as requireProcedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission held one public hearing on August 27, 2013, recommending to the City Council that the rezoing be granted per resolution No. 6723 (Z-2012-01); and WHEREAS, the City Council finds the following: 1.That the proposed zoning is in accord with this title of the Mun the City's Comprehensive General Plan. The rezoning is in conformance with the General Plan Land Use Ma Cupertino, since the land use designation will be identical (Low Density, 1-5 density units/gross acre) and is consistent with all prov For example, the project is proposing additional housing units for a more and housing (GP Policy 2-19). 2.The proposed zoning is in compliance with the provisions of the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). biological resources, cultural resources, hazardous material, noise, air qu quality, parkland and other potential environmental impacts in accordance with CEQA requirements. The Initial Study determined that these potential environmental impacts were either less than significant or will be less than significant wi required mitigation measures identified in the MND. 193 3.The site is physically suitable (including, but not limited to, utilities, compatibility with adjoining land uses, and absence o for the requested zoning designation(s) and anticipated land usent(s). The property involved is adequate in size and shape to conform t designation and is appropriately configured to accommodate reaso-family dwelling units. The proposed rezoning is compatible with the add no physical constraints are present that would conflict with antici Provision of utilities and related infrastructure to service the the future development. 4.The proposed zoning will promote orderly development of the City. The rezoning promotes the orderly development of the city in tha development of additional housing units where municipal servicescurrently available. The proposed rezoning mirrors existing single-family development pattern within the surrounding neighborhood. 5.That the proposed zoning is not detrimental to the health, safet general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborho parcels. The proposed rezoning is not detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals and general welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood of subject parce, as relevant mitigation measures will be incorporated as part of the CEQA review process to mitigate potential impacts to a less than significant level, in addition to adherence to all City regulations. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED AS FOLLOWS: That after careful consideration of the, maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, the City Council based upon the findings described above, the public hearing record and the Minutes of Planning Commission Mee 2013, and subject to the conditions specified below: Section 1. That the property described in attached Exhibits A & B, are hereby rezoned to: R1-7.5 (Single-Family Residential); and that Exhibit A attached hereto is made part of the Master Zoning Map of the City of Cupertino; Section 2. That t he Rezoning is contingent upon the final recordation of the tentative nd parcel map indicated as a concurrent approval (TM-2012-03); a Section 3. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) day passage. 194 INTRODUCED at a regular adjourned meeting of the City Council of City of Cupertino the 17th day of September 2013 and ENACTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino the ____day of __________,3, by the following vote: Vote: Members of the City Council: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: ______________________________ _____________________________ Grace Schmidt, City Clerk Orrin Mahoney, Mayor, City of Cupertino G:\Planning\PDREPORT\ORD\2012\Z-2012-01 ord.doc 195 Exhibit A 196 Exhibit B 3211,2801557 NqcdqMtladq9 O`fdMtladq95 KDF@KCDRBQHOSHNM Qd`koqnodqsxhmsgdBhsxneBtodqshmn+BntmsxneR`ms`Bk`q`+R enkknvr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n Evaluation of the Existing Trees at 20840 McClellan Road, Cupertino AN EVALUATION OF THE EXISTING TREES AT 20840 McCLELLAN ROAD CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Assignment I was asked by Aki Honda –Snelling, Senior Planner for the City of Cupertino, to evaluate the existing trees located at 20840 McClellan Road, Cupertino. The plan provided for this evaluation is the Conceptual Grading and Drainage Plan, prepared by an engineer identified as JC, dated 12/1/11. Summary There are approximately 100 trees on this property. However, many of the trees are small fruit trees, well below the city standard for protection. Several of the fruit trees are in poor condition. For this inventory I have included 27 trees, which are significant in size. I have described each one briefly and have rated the healthand structural integrity of each specimen separately on a scale of 1-5: (1) Excellent, (2) Good, (3) Fair, (4) Poor, (5) Extremely Poor. Metallic labels have been affixed to the trees starting with 6530 and ending with 6549. Because all of the trees start with the same two digits (65), I have used only the last two digits for this report and for the mark-up of the map. Trees are referenced in this report by only the last two digits. The attached map shows the locations of the 27 trees. Tree # 34 represents a row of 8 European olive trees, all of similar size and condition. Tree # 38 is a large coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) in excellent condition. It appears that it may be a challenge to preserve this tree, but the mitigations required to preserve it would be well worth it. Not only would its survival depend on the final plans, and on the care exhibited by the contractors, but ultimately on the activities of 2 adjacent home owners. Methods I measured the trunks of the 27 trees using a standard measuring tape at 4 ½ feet above soil grade (referred to as DBH or Diameter at Breast Height),except those specimens whose form does not allow for a representative measurement at this height. When possible, the trunk measurement is taken below the lowest fork on the trunk of a multi- stem specimen. I measured large coast live oak Tree # 38 with a forestry service “diameter tape” for greateraccuracy. The canopy height and spread are estimated using visual references only. The estimated shape of the canopy relative to the other nearby trees has been added to the attached map. Prepared by Michael L. Bench, Consulting Arborist December 20, 20111 198 An Evaluation of the Existing Trees at 20840 McClellan Road, Cupertino The condition of each tree was done by visual assessment only from a standing position without climbing or using aerial equipment. No invasive equipment was used. Consequently, it is possible that individual tree(s) may have internal defects, which are not detectable by visual inspection. Invasive exploratory inspection and analysis is beyond the scope of this evaluation. Observations There are 27treesincluded in this tree survey. The attached map shows the locations of all 27 trees and their approximate canopy dimensions. Metallic labels have been affixed to thetrees for field reference. The 27 trees are classified as follows: Trees # 30, 31 –Southern magnolia (Magnolia grandiflora) Trees # 32, 33, 34 (representing 8 trees) –European olive (Olea europea) Trees # 35, 46, 47, 48, 49 –English walnut (Juglansregia) Trees # 36, 37, 38 –Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) Tree # 39 –Pecan (Carya illinoinesis) Trees # 40, 42 –Monterey pine (Pinus radiata) Tree # 41 –Italian stone pine (Pinus pinea) Trees # 43, 44 –Apple (Malus species) Trees # 45 –CanaryIsland pine (Pinus canariensis) All of these 27 trees are listed by number on the attached data sheet.Thisdata sheet provides the basic data about each of the trees, including trunk diameter, height, spread, health, structural integrity. Thehealthand structural integrity of each specimen is rated on a scale of 1-5: (1) Excellent, (2) Good, (3) Fair, (4) Poor, (5) Extremely Poor. There are numerous small fruit trees on this property as well. Many of the fruit trees are in fair to poor condition. Comments about Specific Trees The southern magnolia Trees # 30 and 31, located adjacent to McClellan Road, have been topped for line clearing. The growth of the stems following “Topping” is inherently weak and prone to failure. For this reason, the value and importance of this trees to this site are greatly reduced as a result. Tree # 36, a coast live oak, and Tree # 42, a Monterey pine, have co-dominant leaders with included bark. This condition often results in a major limb failure as the tree matures.The common method to manage this weakness is to install cables, which in most cases prevents failures of this type. Prepared by Michael L. Bench, Consulting Arborist December 20, 20112 199 An Evaluation of the Existing Trees at 20840 McClellan Road, Cupertino Tree # 38, is a 36 inch diameter coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia). Its health is excellent and its structure is quite good. The canopy is approximately 40 feet in height and the Tree # 38 is by far the largest and the best canopy spread is approximately 60 feet. specimen among the trees on this property. Protected Trees The City of Cupertino ( Chapter 14.18 ) “ finds that the preservation of specimen and heritage trees on private and public property, and the protection of all trees during construction, is necessary for the best interests of the City and of the citizens and the public thereof.” The City “finds it is in the public interest to enact regulations controlling the care and removal of specimen and heritage trees…” A “Heritage Tree” means “any tree or grove of trees which, because of factors, but not limited to, its historic value, unique quality, girth, height or species, has been found by the Architectural and Site Approval Committee to have a special significance to the community.” A “Specimen tree” means any of the following: Species Measurement from Single Trunk Multi-Trunk Natural Grade Diameter/Circumference Diameter/Circumference Oak trees; 4 ½ feet 10 inches (31 inches C ) 20 inches D (63 inches C) California Buckeye Big Leaf 4 ½ feet 12 inches (38 inches C ) 25 inches D (79 inches C) Maple; Deodar Cedar; Blue Atlas Cedar Risks to Trees By Proposed Construction The current conceptual plan would require the removal of the following trees: Trees # 33, 34 (8 olivetrees), Trees # 35, 36, 37, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 47, 48, and 49. Although some of these would not be directly in the path of a construction feature, they would be so severely damaged (root damage and canopy losses) that they could not be expectedto survive. These include Tree # 34, 43, 44, 47, 48, and 49. Although Tree # 46 may survive construction, the English walnut species (Juglans regia) species, commonly performs poorly in most landscapes, and usually has a very short life span in urban developments. Because the plans are conceptual and preliminary, it is not possible to assess all of the potential risks to Tree # 38. In my opinion, it would be essential that a consulting arborist review all of the proposed plans, including the Utility Plan, the final Grading and Drainage Plan, the Site Plan, and the Landscape Plan, to address the potential risks to Prepared by Michael L. Bench, Consulting Arborist December 20, 20113 200 An Evaluation of the Existing Trees at 20840 McClellan Road, Cupertino Tree # 38. However, the sacrifice of all of the aforementioned trees would be worth the preservation of Tree # 38, provided the developer, the contractor and the new home owners would be willing to make the necessary modifications and changes that may be required to preserve Tree # 38. Recommendations 1.I recommend that a consulting arborist be required to review all of the proposed plans, including the Utility Plan, the final Grading and Drainage Plan, the Site Plan, and the Landscape Plan, to address the potential risks to Tree # 38. 2.I recommend that there be no grading, trenching, or excavation in the critical root zone area of Tree# 38 within a radius distance of 30 feet of the trunk. There are minor exceptions, which would require the review and supervision of a Consulting Arborist (this is a person with a higher level of training and experience than a Certified Arborist). Respectfully submitted, Michael L. Bench, Consulting Arborist International Society of Arboriculture Certification # WE 1897 American Society of Consulting Arborists Member Attachments Field Data Sheets Conceptual Gradingand Drainage Plan Mark Up Assumptions and Limiting Conditions Prepared by Michael L. Bench, Consulting Arborist December 20, 20114 201 An Evaluation of the Existing Trees at 20840 McClellan Road, Cupertino Prepared by Michael L. Bench, Consulting Arborist December 20, 20115 202 Suejane Han Property 20840 McClellan Road Cupertino, California Field Data Sheet 20840 McClellan Road Cupertino, CA T # Tree Name DBHDBHHghtSprdHlthStrcCD/IBTppd Notes Southern magnolia16152514YesTopped for Line Clearing 6530 Magnolia grandiflora Southern magnolia12152014YesTopped for Line Clearing 6531 European olive20152511 6532 Olea europea European olive1413152511 6533 European olive101515128 Trees - Similar in 6534 Size & Condition English walnut11152523 6535 Juglans regia Coast live oak9202013Yes 6536 Quercus agrifolia Coast live oak9201511 6537 Coast live oak36406012 6538 Pecan11403511 6539 Carya illinoinesis Monterey pine21504513 6540 Pinus radiata Italian stone pine19303512 6541 Pinus pinea Monterey pine22603514Yes 6542 Apple10101524Trunk decay 6543 Malus species Apple14152013 6544 Canary Island pine27503011 6545 Pinus canariensis English walnut10202523 6546 English walnut15203022 6547 English walnut14153024 6548 English walnut14152043 6549 Prepared by Michael BenchConsulting Arborist December 20, 2011 203 204 Michael L. Bench - 7 - Consulting Arborist ISA #1897, ASCA (831) 594-5151 Fax (831) 663-0373 7327 Langley Canyon Rd., Prunedale, CA 93907 Subject: 20840 McClellan Road Property Cupertino, California December 20, 2011 Assumptions and Limiting Conditions 1. Any description provided to the appraiser/consultant is assumed to be correct. Any titles and ownerships to any property are assumed to be good and marketable. No responsibility is assumed for legal matters in character nor is any opinion rendered as to the quality of any title. 2. It is assumed that any property is not in violation of any applicable codes, ordinances, statutes, or other governmental regulations. 3. Care has been taken to obtain information from reliable sources. All data has been verified insofar as reasonably possible. However, the appraiser/consultant can neither guarantee nor be responsible for the accuracy of information provided by others. 4. The appraiser/consultant shall not be required to give testimony or to attend court by reason of this appraisal unless written arrangements are made, including payment of additional fees for services. 5. Loss or removal of any part of this report invalidates the entire appraisal/evaluation. 6. Possession of this report, or any copy thereof, does not imply right of publication or use for any purpose by any person other than to whom this report is addressed without written consent of this appraiser/consultant. 7. Neither all nor any part of the contents of this report, nor copy thereof, shall be used for any purpose by anyone but the client to whom this report is addressed, without the prior written consent of the appraiser/consultant; nor shall it be conveyed by anyone, including the client, to the public through advertizing, public relations, news, sales, or other media, without the written consent and approval of the author; particularly as to value considerations, identity of the appraiser/consultant to any professional society or institute or to any designation conferred upon by the appraiser/consultant as stated in his/her qualifications. 8. This report and the values expressed herein represent the opinion of the appraiser/consultant. value nor upon any finding or recommendation reported. 9. Sketches, diagrams, graphs, photos, etc., in this report are intended as visual aides and are not done necessarily to scale and should not be construed as engineering information or specifications. 10. This report has been made in conformity with generally acceptable appraisal/evaluation/diagnostic reporting methods and procedures and is consistent with practices recommended by the International Society of Arboriculture and the American Society of Consulting Arborists. 11. The appraiser/consultant takes no responsibility for any d described in this report/evaluation has been climbed, unless otherwise stated, and, as such, structural defects that could only have been discovered by climbing are not reported. Likewise, a root collar inspection, consisting of excavation of soil around the tree for the purpose of uncovering major root defects/weaknesses, has not been performed, unless otherwise stated. 205 Initial Studyfor the 20840 McClellan Road Rezoning and Subdivision Prepared by the City of Cupertino July2013 206 207 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page SECTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE......................................................................3 SECTION 2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION..................................................................................4 2.1PROJECT TITLE...........................................................................................4 2.2PROJECT LOCATION.................................................................................4 2.3LEAD AGENCY CONTACT.......................................................................4 2.4PROPERTY OWNER/PROJECT PROPONENT.........................................4 2.5ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NUMBER..............................................................4 2.6GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION AND ZONING DISTRICT.................4 SECTION 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION....................................................................................8 3.1OVERVIEW..................................................................................................8 3.2PROPOSED REZONING..............................................................................8 SECTION 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, CHECKLIST, AND DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS...............................................................................................................13 4.1AESTHETICS..............................................................................................13 4.2AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES..................................17 4.3AIR QUALITY............................................................................................19 4.4BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES.....................................................................26 4.5CULTURAL RESOURCES........................................................................36 4.6GEOLOGY AND SOILS.............................................................................40 4.7GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS............................................................44 4.8HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS........................................52 4.9HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY.................................................58 4.10LAND USE..................................................................................................66 4.11MINERAL RESOURCES...........................................................................68 4.12NOISE..........................................................................................................69 4.13POPULATION AND HOUSING................................................................78 4.14PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES....................................................84 4.15RECREATION............................................................................................84 4.16TRANSPORTATION..................................................................................86 4.17UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS....................................................90 4.18MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.....................................94 SECTION 5.0 REFERENCES.......................................................................................................98 SECTION 6.0 LEAD AGENCY AND CONSULTANTS.........................................................101 Photos Photo 1.................................................................................................................................................14 Photo 2.................................................................................................................................................14 City of Cupertino1Initial Study 20840 McClellan Road Rezoning and SubdivisionJuly2013 208 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Figures Figure 2.2-1Regional Map.............................................................................................................5 Figure 2.2-2Vicinity Map..............................................................................................................6 Figure 2.2-3Aerial Photograph and Surrounding Land Uses........................................................7 Figure 3.2-1Proposed Subdivision and Conceptual Building Plan.............................................10 Figure 3.2-2Conceptual Elevations (Parcel A)............................................................................11 Figure 3.2-3Preliminary Tree Replacement Plan........................................................................12 Tables Table 3.2-1Development Summary.............................................................................................8 Table 4.3-1Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan Applicable Control Measures................................22 Table 4.4-1Summary of Tree Species and Size.........................................................................26 Table 4.4-2Tree Replacement Ratios.........................................................................................32 Table 4.7-1Climate Change Scoping Plan –Recommended Actions Compared to Project Features....................................................................................................................48 Table 4.12-1Land Uses and Acceptable Noise Levels.................................................................70 Table 4.12-2Examplesof Acceptable Brief Daytime Incidents...................................................71 Appendices Appendix ATree Survey Appendix BPreliminary Geotechnical Investigation Appendix CHazardous Materials Reports City of Cupertino2Initial Study 20840 McClellan Road Rezoning and SubdivisionJuly2013 209 SECTION 1.0INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE This Initial Study of environmental impacts has been prepared to conform to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations 15000 et. seq.) and the regulations and policies of the City of Cupertino.The City of Cupertino is the Lead Agency under CEQA and has prepared this Initial Study to address the impacts of the proposed 20840McClellan Road Rezoning and Subdivisiononthe 0.96-acre project site south of McClellan Road at its intersection with Bonny Drive. The project proposes a four-lot subdivision to construct a private roadway and single-family residenceson three parcels.An existing single-family residence and smaller residential building with associated carports and sheds would be demolished to accommodate the proposed development. Tiering of Environmental Review CEQA Section 21093 (b) states that environmental impact reports shall be tiered whenever feasible, as determined by the lead agency. “Tiering” refers to using the analysis of general matters contained in a broader Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (such as one prepared for a general plan or policy 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 issues at each level of environmental 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. In several areas, such asland use and population and housing this Initial Study tiers off the analysis of planned growth and development in the 2005 City of Cupertino General Plan Final EIR. This Initial Study evaluates the project specific environmental impacts that were not addressed in the General Plan Final EIR and those that might reasonably be anticipated to result from the implementation of the proposed 20840 McClellan Road Rezoning and Subdivision project. City of Cupertino3Initial Study 20840 McClellan Road Rezoning and SubdivisionJuly2013 210 SECTION 2.0PROJECT INFORMATION 2.1PROJECT TITLE 20840 McClellan Road Rezoning and Subdivision 2.2PROJECT LOCATION The 0.96-acre project site is located on the south side of McClellan Road atits intersection with Bonny Drivein Cupertino.The project site is bounded by McClellan Roadto the north and residential properties to the south, east, and west. Regional and vicinity maps of the project site are shown in Figures 2.2-1 and 2.2-2. An aerial photograph showing surrounding land uses is shown on Figure 2.2-3. 2.3LEAD AGENCY CONTACT City of Cupertino Community Development Department Simon S. Vuong,AssistantPlanner 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA95014 (408)777-1356 2.4PROPERTY OWNER/PROJECT PROPONENT Suejane Han Cherryland, LLC 21881 Dolores Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 2.5ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NUMBER 354-20-031 2.6GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONAND ZONING DISTRICT General Plan Designation:Low Density Residential(1-5 DU/Gr. Ac.) Zoning District:R1-10-Single Family Residential City of Cupertino4Initial Study 20840 McClellan Road Rezoning and SubdivisionJuly2013 211 MENLOFREMON PARK PALO ALTO 280 MOUNTAIN VIEW 680 101 LOS ALTOS 237 M 85 SUNNYVALE 82 SANTA CLARA CUPERTINO SAN 880 JOSE PROJECT SITE SARATOGA 280 CAMPBELL 101 SACRAMENTO SAN FRANCISCO 87 SAN JOSE 17 85 LOS GATOS LOS ANGELES 82 SAN DIEGO 5 212 S DE ANZA BLVDS DE ANZA BLVD FELTON WAY WESTLYNN WAY JOHN WAY LONNA LANE KIM STEET MCCLELLAN PL. BONNY DRIVE TULA LANE ORLINE CT. S STELLING ROAD S STELLI ARKWAY D 6 213 7 214 SECTION 3.0PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3.1OVERVIEW The approximately 0.96-acreproject site fronts McClellan Road at its intersection with Bonny Drive in the City of Cupertino.The project site contains two residences with an associated carport and two sheds. Theproposed rezoningof the site would result in demolition of the existing buildings and allow for construction ofthree (3) two-story residences and a private driveway. The project site is located in a residential area of Cupertino and is designated in the City’s General Plan for Low Density Residential (1-5 DU/Gr. Ac.)land uses.The project site is zoned R1-10-Single Family Residentialwhich allows for single-family residential development on 10,000 square foot lots. The proposed project would rezonethe site to R1-7.5-Single Family Residentialto allow future construction of three single-family residences on lots exceeding 7,500 square feet. 3.2PROPOSED REZONING Proposed Parcels The project proposes the subdivision of the property Table 3.2-1 into four lots to allow the future construction ofthree Development Summary (3) single-family residences and a privateroad(refer Parcel Size Allowed Residence Parcel to Figure 3.2-1).Parcels A through C on the site 1 (s.f.)Size (s.f.) would be redeveloped withsingle-familyresidences Parcel A8,0513,622 (refer to Figure 3.2-2)and Parcel D would be the Parcel B8,3993,779 private road serving these residences. The proposed Parcel C9,4484,251 parcels and allowed residence sizes are shown in Parcel D13,075-- Table 3.2-1. Notes: s.f.= square feet 1 Based on the R1-7.5-Single Family Residential Zoning District maximum floor area ratio of 45% of the net lot area. Site Development Standards Site development standards for the proposed zoning district (R1-7.5-Single Family Residential) include: Minimum lot size of 7,500 square feet with a minimum lot width of 60 feet; Conformance with the Landscape Ordinance; Maximum floor area ratio of 45 percent of the net lot area; Minimum first floor front setback of 20 feet, side yard setback of 15 feet combined, and rear yard setback of 20 feet Minimum second floor front setback of 25 feet, side yard setback of 25 feet combinedor 30 feet combined to avoid Residential Design Review, and rear yard setback of 25 feet Maximum height 28 feet, no more than two stories. City of Cupertino8Initial Study 20840 McClellan Road Residential July 2013 215 Section 3.0–Project Description Site Access and Parking The project would provide vehicular access to the site via a private road off of McClellan Road. Sidewalks would be provided along the south and east sides of the private road and along the McClellan Road frontage of the site.As shown on Figure 3.2-1, visitor parking could be provided by six curb side parking spaces on the proposed private road. Demolition and Grading An existing single-family residence and smaller residential building with associated carports and sheds would be demolished to accommodate future development of residential structures on the site. Approximately 98 existing orchard and landscape trees would also be removed as a part of site clearing (refer to Figure 3.2-1 and Section 4.4.2.2 Trees).The project site is flatand, therefore, minimal grading is required to prepare the site for future development. Remediation work on the site will also require the removal of 0.5 to 1.5 feet of top soil from contaminated areas of the site and the importation of clean fill (referto Section 4.8.2.1). Landscaping A preliminary planting plan for the site is shown on Figure 3.2-3. Two existing trees couldbe retained on site, including a large oak tree on Parcel A and a walnut tree on Parcel C at the southwest corner of the property (refer to Figure 3.2-3).Retention of the large oak tree on Parcel A is contingent on the completion of remediation activities beneath its canopy withoutsignificantly impactingthe root structure and overall health of the tree (refer to Section 4.8.2.1).If retained,the final disposition of the tree will be determined following remediation of the site based upon an evaluationby the City’s consulting arborist. Right-of-Way Dedication The project will dedicate 3,000 square feet (approximately 0.07 acres) of the frontage of the site to the City of Cupertino. The project site currently extends to the center line of McClellan Road and includes an AT&T telecommunications easement. The 30-foot wide street right-of-way along the length of the projectfrontage will be owned and maintained by the City. City of Cupertino9Initial Study 20840 McClellan Road Rezoning and SubdivisionJuly2013 216 N 1002060100 PROPOSED SUBDIVISION AND CONCEPTUAL BUILDING PLANFIGURE 3.2-1 10 217 11 218 38 (E) 40” OAK PRELIMINARY TREE REPLACEMENT PLANFIGURE 3.2-3 12 219 SECTION 4.0ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, CHECKLIST, AND DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS This section describes the existing environmental conditions on and near the project area, as well as environmental impacts associated with the proposed project. The environmental checklist, as recommended in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, identifies 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 section. Mitigation measures are identified for all significant project impacts. “Mitigation Measures” are measures that will minimize, avoid, or eliminate a significant impact (CEQA Guidelines §15370). 4.1AESTHETICS 4.1.1Setting 4.1.1.1 Project Site The project site contains a single-family residence which fronts McClellan Road. An additional residence is located behind the main residence and is not visible from the public right-of-way. Views of the project site from McClellan Road are mostly obscured by mature trees and vegetation (refer to Photos 1 and 2). The 1950s era residences are constructed of wood and stucco. The property is accessed by a semi-circular driveway with two entry points from McClellan Road. The site is flat and public views of the site are limited to local views from the adjacent roadways. 4.1.1.2 Surrounding Visual Character The project site is surrounded by existing suburban residential development and aroadway. One and two-storywood and stucco clad single family residential buildings are located on adjacent properties. McClellan Road also contains quasi-public uses west of the project site(e.g. daycare, school, churches)and commercial uses are located east of the site at its intersection with DeAnza Boulevard. McClellan Road is an east/west minor collector roadway used by automobiles and buses. Mature landscape trees and shrubs in the neighborhood provide a visual buffer between residences and the heavily travelled roadway. City of Cupertino13Initial Study 20840 McClellan Road Residential July 2013 220 Section 4.0 –Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts Photo 1– View of 20840McClellan Road looking southfrom the northwest corner of McClellan Road and Bonny Drive. Photo 2– View of 20840 McClellan Road looking south from the northeast corner of McClellan Road and Bonny Drive. City of Cupertino14Initial Study 20840 McClellan Road Rezoning and SubdivisionJuly2013 221 Section 4.0 –Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts 4.1.1.3 Scenic Views 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 resourcesfrom public vantage points.Views of the foothills from the project site are obscured by vegetation. 4.1.2Aesthetic Impacts Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Checklist Significant With Significant No Impact Source(s) ImpactMitigation Impact Incorporated Would theproject: 1.Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic 1,2 vista? 2.Substantially damage scenic resources, 1 including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? 3.Substantially degrade the existing visual 1 character or quality of the site and its surroundings? 4.Create a new source of substantial light or 1 glare which will adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Aesthetic values are, by their nature, very subjective. Opinions as to what constitutes a degradation of visual character will differ among individuals. One of the best available means for assessing what constitutes a visually acceptable standard for new buildings are the City’s design standards and implementation of those standards through the City’s design process. The following discussion addresses the proposed changes to the visual setting of the project area and factors that are part of the community’s assessment of the aesthetic values of a project’s design. 4.1.2.1 Impact to Scenic Views or Scenic Resources 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 state scenic highway. Redevelopment of this suburban site, therefore, would not have a direct adverse effect on a scenic vista or damage scenic resources. As discussed previously, scenic views from the project vicinity are limited. In addition, views of the site are limited to the immediate area. The foothills west and south of the site are generally obscured by existing development and landscape trees. Implementation of the proposed project would not City of Cupertino15Initial Study 20840 McClellan Road Rezoning and SubdivisionJuly2013 222 Section 4.0 –Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts substantially block scenic views andis not anticipated to have a substantial effect on a scenic vista. (NoImpact) 4.1.2.2 Change in Visual Character The visual character of buildings is a function of design features including roof design (for example 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 modulated) in ways that add interest or soften a building’s interface with the street. For example, building heights can be “stepped back” with shorter elevations in the front and varying roof shapes and heights can reduce the apparent mass of a building and create an appearance that fits into an area with different heights and varying roof styles. The design of building entrances, including use of awningsor porches, and other features can reduce the mass and perception of overall building scale at street and pedestrian interfaces. The scale and mass of buildings on the project site would increase under the proposed project. The proposed project would replace an existing single-story residence, visible from the roadway, with a private road and two-story residences visible from the public right-of-way. A representative conceptual elevation for these residences is shown in Figure 3.2-2. New trees will be planted on the site and along the street frontage that wouldsoften views of the new development.The project would dedicate 30 feet of right-of-way along the street frontage which would allow for the construction of a sidewalk where none exists today. Final building and landscaping design would be determined during the Two-Story Permit process. The allowed building size and conceptual elevations for future residences on the site are similar to more recent(mid-1990s) development located east of the site. Residences allowed on the site, therefore, would not substantially degrade the visual character and quality of the project site or area. (Less Than Significant Impact) 4.1.2.3 Light and GlareImpacts The project would havewindows andlighting typical of two-story residential construction (refer to Figure 3.2-2). Additional residential lighting on the project site would not be substantially greater than that created by existing residences in the project area. The project, therefore, would not result in substantial light or glare impacts that would adversely affect residences or other land uses (Less Than Significant Impact) surrounding the project site. 4.1.3Conclusion (Less Than The proposed project would not result in significant visual or aesthetic impacts. Significant Impact) City of Cupertino16Initial Study 20840 McClellan Road Rezoning and SubdivisionJuly2013 223 Section 4.0 –Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts 4.2AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRYRESOURCES 4.2.1Setting 4.2.1.1 Agricultural Resources According to the Santa Clara County Important Farmland 2010map, the project site is designated as Urban and Built-Up Land. Urban and Built-Up Landis defined as residential land with a density of at least six units per 10-acre parcel, as well as land used for industrial and commercial purposes, golf courses, landfills, airports, sewage treatment, and water controlstructures. 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 Cupertino and there is no property used for agricultural purposes adjacent tothe project site. 4.2.1.2 Forestry Resources The project site does not contain any forest land and no forest or timberland is located in the vicinity of the project site. 4.2.2Agriculture and Forestry Resources Impacts Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Checklist Significant With Significant No Impact Source(s) ImpactMitigation Impact Incorporated Would the project: 1.Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, 3 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 agricultural 3 use, or a Williamson Act contract? 3.Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause 1,2 rezoning of, forest land (as 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))? 4.Result in a loss of forest land or conversion 1 of forest land to non-forest use? City of Cupertino17Initial Study 20840 McClellan Road Rezoning and SubdivisionJuly2013 224 Section 4.0 –Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Checklist Significant With Significant No Impact Source(s) ImpactMitigation Impact Incorporated Would the project: 5.Involve other changes in the existing 1 environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agriculturaluse or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? 4.2.2.1 Agricultural Resource Impacts As discussed above, the project site is not designated as farmland or used for agricultural purposes. For these reasons, the proposed project would not result in any significant impacts to agricultural (No Impact) resources. 4.2.2.2 Forestry Resource Impacts None of the properties adjacent to the project site or in thevicinity are used for forestryand, (No Impact) therefore,the proposed project would not impact forest resources. 4.2.3Conclusion (No The proposed project would not result insignificant impacts to agriculture or forestry resources. Impact) City of Cupertino18Initial Study 20840 McClellan Road Rezoning and SubdivisionJuly2013 225 Section 4.0 –Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts 4.3AIR QUALITY 4.3.1Setting 4.3.1.1 Climate and Topography The City of Cupertino is located in the Santa Clara Valley within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. The project area’s proximity to both the Pacific Ocean and the San Francisco Bay has a moderating influence on the climate. This portion of the Santa Clara Valley is bounded to the north by the San Francisco Bay and the Santa Cruz Mountains to the southwest. The surrounding terrain greatly influences winds in the valley, resulting in a prevailing wind that follows along the valley’s northwest-southwest axis. Pollutants in the air can cause health problems, especially for children, the elderly, and people with heart or lung problems. Healthy adults may experience symptoms during periods of intense exercise. Pollutants can also cause damage to vegetation, animals, and property. 4.3.1.2 Regional and Local Criteria Pollutants Major criteria pollutants, listed in “criteria” documents by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) include ozone, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and suspended particulate matter (PM). These pollutants can have health effects such as respiratory impairment and heart/lung disease symptoms. 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 state or federal ambient air quality standards for ground level ozoneand PM and state standards for PM.The area is considered 2.510 attainment or unclassified for all other pollutants. 4.3.1.3 Local Community Risks/Toxic Air Contaminants and Fine Particulate Matter Besides criteria air pollutants, there is another group of substances found in ambient airreferred to as Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs). These contaminants tend to be localized and are found in relatively 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 as 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 exposure to PMcan cause a wide range 2.5 of health effects. Common stationary source types of TACs and PMinclude gasoline stations, dry cleaners, and 2.5 diesel backup generators which are subject to permit requirements. The other, often more significant, common source is motor vehicles on freeways and roads. City of Cupertino19Initial Study 20840 McClellan Road Rezoning and SubdivisionJuly2013 226 Section 4.0 –Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts 4.3.1.4 Sensitive Receptors BAAQMD defines sensitive receptors as facilities where sensitive receptor population groups (children, the elderly, the acutely ill and the chronically ill) are likely to be located. These land uses include residences, school playgrounds, child-care centers, retirement homes, convalescent homes, hospitals and medical clinics. Existing sensitive receptors near the project site include the residential uses to the north, east, west, and southof the project siteand the daycare center/school to the west (refer to Figure 2.2-3). 4.3.1.5 Regulatory Setting 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 its subsequent amendments) and the state (California Clean Air Act of 1988 and its subsequent amendments). Regional air quality management districts such as the BAAQMD must prepare air quality plans specifying how state standards would be met. The BAAQMD’s most recently adopted Clean Air 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 sources. The 2010 CAP provides an updated comprehensive plan to improve Bay Area air quality and protect public health, taking into account future growth projections to 2035.Some of these measures or programs rely on local governments for implementation. The 2010 CAP also includes measures designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 4.3.2Air Quality Impacts Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Checklist Significant With Significant No Impact Source(s) ImpactMitigation Impact Incorporated Would the project: 1.Conflict with or obstruct implementation of 1,4 the applicable air quality plan? 2.Violate any air quality standard or contribute 1,5 substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? 3.Result in a cumulatively considerable net 1,5 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? City of Cupertino20Initial Study 20840 McClellan Road Rezoning and SubdivisionJuly2013 227 Section 4.0 –Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Checklist Significant With Significant No Impact Source(s) ImpactMitigation Impact Incorporated Would the project: 4.Expose sensitive receptors to substantial 1,5 pollutant concentrations? 5.Create objectionable odors affecting a 1 substantial number of people? 4.3.2.1 Project-Level Significance Thresholds The thresholds of significance for criteria air pollutants are a net increase of 54 pounds or more per day of reactive organic gas (ROG), nitrous oxide (NO), and/or PM; or 82 pounds or more a day of x2.5 1 PM. These thresholds are based on thresholds identified by BAAQMD in 2011. 10 The BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines recommendthat projects be evaluated for community risk when they are located within 1,000 feet of freeways, high traffic volume roadways (10,000 average annual daily trips or more), and/or stationary permitted sources of TACs. The thresholds for TACs are an increased cancer risk of greater than 10.0 in one million, increased non-cancer risk of 3 greater than 1.0 on the hazard index (chronic or acute), or a PMincrease of 0.3 µg/m. 2.5 4.3.2.2 Clean Air Plan Consistency Determining consistency with the 2010 CAP involves assessing whether applicable control measures contained in the 2010 CAP are implemented. Implementation of control measures improve air quality and protect public health. These control measures are organized into five categories: 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 project’s consistency with them are summarized in Table 4.3-1,below. The proposed project is generally consistent with the control measures. 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 thresholdsadopted by BAAQMD in its 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, the Superior Court issued a Statement of 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 regarding the substance or evidence supporting the 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 evidence (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(b)). The City 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 Bay Area Air Basin. Evidence supporting these thresholds has been presented in the following documents: a) Bay Area Air Quality ManagementDistrict. 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 Cupertino21Initial Study 20840 McClellan Road Rezoning and SubdivisionJuly2013 228 Section 4.0 –Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts Table 4.3-1 Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan Applicable Control Measures Control MeasuresDescriptionProject Consistency Transportation Control Measures Implement Safe Facilitate safe routes to As discussed in Section 4.14,the project is Routes to Schools schools and transit by located approximately 0.4 miles to 1.6miles and Safe Routes to providing funds and working from public schools serving the site.Sidewalks Transitwith transportation agencies, will be provided on the project frontage and local governments, schools, sidewalks exist on surroundingstreets leading and communities toimplement to local schools. Bike lanes are also provided safe access for pedestrians and on major roadways providing accessing to the cyclists.school sites. As discussed in Section 4.16 Transportation, the project site is also served by existing bustransit.For these reasons, the project is consistent with 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 Stelling Road and Facilitiesemployment sites, educational DeAnza Boulevard. The project will dedicate and cultural facilities, right-of-way on McClellan Road to the City of residential areas, shopping Cupertino.No bike lanes are currently planned districts, and other activity for this section of McClellan Road but are centers.located on this roadway west of Stelling Road. The projectis located proximate to bicycle facilities andwould not interfere with planned bicycle facilities. Therefore,the projectis consistent with this control measure. Improve Pedestrian Improve pedestrian access to The project will providesidewalks on the Access and transit, employment, and McClellan Road frontage,where no sidewalks Facilitiesmajor activity centers.currently exist, and along the proposed private road.The project site is served by transit and bike lanes are present on major roadways in the project area which can be safely accessed from the sidewalks proposed by the project. The project is consistent with this control measure. Energy and Climate Measures Energy EfficiencyIncrease efficiency and The project will comply with the 2008 conservation to decrease fossil California Energy Code and reduce residential fuel use in the Bay Area.energy consumption by 15 percent over 2005 Title 24 standards. Tree-PlantingPromote planting of low-The project will preserve the largest existing VOC-emitting shade trees to shade tree on the site, if feasible after reduce urban heat island remediation activities,and willplant new trees effects, save energy, and on the site which will reduce the urban heat absorb COand other air island effect. The proposed project, therefore, 2 pollutants.is generally consistent with this control measure. City of Cupertino22Initial Study 20840 McClellan Road Rezoning and SubdivisionJuly2013 229 Section 4.0 –Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts 4.3.2.3 Short-Term Construction-Related Impacts Criteria Air Pollutantsand Precursors Construction activities would temporarily affect local air quality. Construction activities such as earthmoving, construction vehicle traffic, and wind blowing over exposed earth would generate exhaust emissions and fugitive particulate matter emissions that affect local and regional air quality. Construction activities are also a source of organic gas emissions. Solvents in adhesives, non-water based paints, thinners, some insulating materials, and caulking materials would evaporate into the atmosphere and would participate in the photochemical reaction that creates urban ozone. Asphalt used in paving is also a source of organic gases for a short time after its application. 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 creates a high potential for dust generation when and if underlying soils are exposed to the atmosphere. Construction activities would increase dustfall and locally elevated levels of PMdownwind. 10 The project is not of a size (threesingle-family units) that it would contribute significantly to criteria pollutant emissions.For all proposed projects, BAAQMD recommends implementation of the Basic Construction Mitigation Measures whether or not construction-related emissions exceed applicable thresholds. Consistentwiththe BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, the project includes the implementation of the following updated dust and construction equipmentexhaust control measures to reduce construction-related air pollutant emissions. The project shall implement the following dust and diesel exhaust control measures recommended by BAAQMDand required by the City during the construction phase of the project: All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material on-site shall be covered. 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 power sweeping is prohibited. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph. All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the lead agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. Idling times shall be minimized eitherby shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. City of Cupertino23Initial Study 20840 McClellan Road Rezoning and SubdivisionJuly2013 230 Section 4.0 –Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer‘s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified visible emissions evaluator. The construction emissions from the project are below the BAAQMD thresholds of significance used in this evaluationand the Basic Construction Mitigation Measures will be included on project plan documents prior to issuance of any building permits for the construction of residences on the site. The proposedproject, therefore, would not result in a significant construction-related air quality (Less Than Significant Impact) impact. Local Community Risks and HazardsDuring Construction Construction equipment and associated heavy-duty truck traffic generates diesel exhaust, which is a known TAC. Health risks from TACs are a function of both concentration and duration of exposure. The proposed project does not involve substantial grading on the site thus the potential for large construction equipment to emitsignificantquantities of TACs over prolonged periods of time is minimal. The project construction period requiring heavy equipment is estimated to last a few months and involve the use of a limited amount of diesel-fueled construction equipmentfor grading, excavation, and paving. The project will implement BAAQMD’s recommended Basic Construction Mitigation Measures to reduce dust and diesel exhaust emissions. Construction of the proposed (Less Than project would not significantly increase health risks on adjacent sensitive receptors. Significant Impact) 4.3.2.4 Operational-Related Impacts The2011BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelinescontains a screening threshold of 325single- family dwelling unitsfor operational-related impacts due to criteria pollutant emissions and their precursors (e.g., NO , ROG, particulate matter).The screening criteria provide lead agencies with a x conservative indication of whether a project could result in significant air quality impacts.The project would allow construction of three single-family residenceswhich iswellbelow the screening threshold and, therefore, the project would not result in a significant air quality impact due to (Less Than Significant Impact) emissions of criteria air pollutantsand their precursors. 4.3.2.5 Local Community Risks and Hazards Impacts As described abovein Section 4.3.2.1, the BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelinescall for evaluation of projects for community risk when they are located within 1,000 feet of freeways, high traffic volume roadways (10,000 average annual daily trips or more), and/or stationary permitted sources of TACs. There are nopermitted stationary sources of TACs within 1,000 feet of the project site. Stelling Road and De AnzaBoulevard are the only roadways within 1,000 feet of the project site that exceed 10,000 average daily trips. Neither roadway would exceed the threshold for increased cancer risk of 10.0 in one million, increased non-cancer risk of greater than 1.0 on the hazard index (chronic or 3 acute), or a PMincreaseof 0.3 µg/m.The emission of TACs from vehicles along high volume 2.5 City of Cupertino24Initial Study 20840 McClellan Road Rezoning and SubdivisionJuly2013 231 Section 4.0 –Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts roadways in the vicinity of the site would not exceed TAC and PMthresholds and future residents 2.5 (Less Than of the project site would not, therefore, be significantly impacted from TACs. Significant Impact) 4.3.3Conclusion The proposed project would not result in exceedances of the criteria pollutant emissions thresholds or place sensitive receptors in an area subject to significant risks from TACsand includes measures to (Less Than Significant Impact) reduce air pollutant emissions from construction activities. City of Cupertino25Initial Study 20840 McClellan Road Rezoning and SubdivisionJuly2013 232 Section 4.0 –Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts 4.4BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES The following discussion is based in part ona tree survey completed by Michael L. Bench, Consulting Arboristin December 2011.A copyof the tree survey isincluded in AppendixAof this Initial Study. 4.4.1Setting 4.4.1.1 Existing Conditions The 0.96-acre project site is located within a developed area of Cupertino. The project siteis currently developed with two residences an associated carport and two sheds. In addition to the existing buildings, the project site contains a remnant orchard. Habitats in developed urban areas are relatively low in species diversity. Species that use this habitat are urban and suburban adapted birds, such as Rock Dove, Mourning Dove, House Sparrow, Scrub Jay, and Starling. Based upon the developed habitats found on the site,no special-status plant or animal species are expected to be present on the site. A tree survey was completed Table 4.4-1 for the project site in Summary of Tree Species and Size December 2011. The survey Diameter in inches SpeciesTotal found nine (9)tree species Up to 1213-1819-36Over 36 present; approximately 100 Apple 11002 trees wereidentified on the Canary Island 00101 project site, and 27 of these pine trees were surveyed. The 1 Coast live oak 20103 remaining 73 trees on the English 23005 walnut site are small fruit trees European which were not surveyed 802010 olive due to their size and lack for Italian stone potential protected status 00101 pine under the City’s Municipal Monterey pine 00202 Code. A summary of the Pecan 10001 tree survey is included in Southern 11002 Table 4.4-1. magnolia 1557027 Total 1 Note: Neither of these trees exceeds 10 inches and, therefore, do not qualify as Specimen Trees. City of Cupertino26Initial Study 20840 McClellan Road Rezoning and SubdivisionJuly2013 233 Section 4.0 –Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts 4.4.1.2 Regulatory Setting Special-Status Species Threatened and Endangered Species State and federal “endangered species” legislation has provided the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) with a mechanism for conserving and protecting plant and animal species of limited distribution and/or low or declining populations. Permits may be required from both the CDFWand USFWS if activities associated with a proposed project will result in the take of a species listed as threatened or endangered. To “take” a listed species, as defined by the State of California, is “to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture or kill” said species (California Fish and Game Code, Section 86). “Take” is more broadly defined by the federal Endangered Species Act to include “harm” of a listed species (16 USC, Section 1532(19), 50 CFR, Section 17.3). Bats Bats, such as the pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus), may use hollows of larger, older oak trees for roosting in open-canopy oak woodland, and the California myotis (Myotis californicus) and long- eared myotis (Myotis evotis) can occur in areas of oak woodland with a closed canopy.Pallid bats are listed in California as a Species of Special Concern. 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 migratory 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 California under provisions of the State Fish and Game Code, Section 3503.5, (1992), which states that it is “unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any birds in the order Falconiformes or Strigiformes (birds of prey) or to take, possess, or destroy the nest or eggs of any such bird except as otherwise provided by this code or any regulation adopted pursuant thereto.” 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 “taking” by the CDFW. City of Cupertino27Initial Study 20840 McClellan Road Rezoning and SubdivisionJuly2013 234 Section 4.0 –Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts Trees The City of Cupertino recognizes the substantial economic, environmental, and aesthetic importance of its tree population. The City finds that the preservation of specimen and heritage trees on private and public property, and the protection of alltrees during construction, is necessary for the best interests of the City and of the citizens and public (Municipal Code Chapter 14.18). The City’s Municipal Code calls for protection of “specimen” and “heritage” trees and requires a permit prior to their removal. Specimen Trees include the following species that have a minimum single-trunk diameter of 10-inches (31-inches in circumference) or minimum multi-trunk diameter of 20-inches (63-inches in circumference) measured at 4.5 feet from natural grade: oak (including coast live oak, valley oak, black oak, blue oak, and interior live oak), California buckeye, big leaf maple, deodar cedar, blue atlas cedar, bay laurel or California bay, and western sycamore (Municipal Code Chapter 14.18.050). Heritage Trees are any tree or grove of trees which, because of factors including, but not limited to, its historic value, unique quality, girth, height, or species, has been found by the Planning Commissionto have a special significance to the community. The removal of specimen trees, heritage trees, street trees, and any tree required to be planted or retained as part of an approved development application, building permit, tree removal permit or code enforcement action shall not be removedwithout first obtaining a tree removal permit (Municipal Code Chapter 14.18.140). Of the trees surveyed for the project none are street trees and one is a specimen tree (refer to Appendix A). There were no heritagetrees identified on the project site. 4.4.2Biological Resources Impacts Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Checklist Significant With Significant No Impact Source(s) ImpactMitigation Impact Incorporated Would the project: 1.Have a substantial adverse effect, either 1 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 Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife Service? 2.Have a substantial adverse effect on any 1 riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife Service? City of Cupertino28Initial Study 20840 McClellan Road Rezoning and SubdivisionJuly2013 235 Section 4.0 –Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Checklist Significant With Significant No Impact Source(s) ImpactMitigation Impact Incorporated Would the project: 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? 4.Interfere substantially with the movement of 1 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 1,6,7 ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? 6.Conflict with the provisions of an adopted 1 Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? 4.4.2.1 Impacts to Special-Status Species Special-Status Plant Species The project site is a developed urban property containing landscape (and orchard)plant species. Development of the proposed project would not result in significant impacts to special-status plant (NoImpact) species. Special-Status Animal Speciesand Species Protected Under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act Given the existing development on the site and lack of suitable habitat for many special-status animal species, the project is not anticipated to result in impacts to special-status animal species with the possible exception of tree nesting raptorsand bats.The trees on the site support potential habitat for tree nesting raptors,other birds, and roosting bat species (e.g. pallid bats, California myotis, long- eared myotis).Tree nesting raptors, along with all migratory birds,areprotected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and disturbance to nests which results in nest abandonment or death would be in violation of state and federal law.The proposed project may result in the loss of suitable habitat for City of Cupertino29Initial Study 20840 McClellan Road Rezoning and SubdivisionJuly2013 236 Section 4.0 –Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts pallid bats due to the removal of trees used as breeding or roosting sites. In addition, when trees that contain roosting colonies or individual bats are removed or modified, individual bats can be physically injured or killed; subjected to physiological stress as a result being disturbed during torpor; or be subjected to increased predation due to exposure during daylight hours. Further, project-related disturbance in close proximity to a maternity roost could potentially cause females to abandon their young. ImpactBIO –1: The development of the proposed project could result in direct impacts to (Significant nesting birds, if present on the site at the time of construction. Impact) Impact BIO-2:(Significant The proposed project may result in disturbance to pallid bats. Impact) Mitigation Measures: As a conditionof approval, the proposed project shall implement the following measures to avoid impacts to nesting raptors and special-status bat species: Tree Nesting Birds MM BIO-1.1: Removal of trees on the project site should be scheduled between September and December (inclusive) to avoid the nesting season for birds and no additional surveys would be required. MM BIO-1.2: If removal of the trees on-site is planned to take place between January and August (inclusive), a pre-construction survey for nesting birds shall be conducted by a qualified ornithologist to identify active nesting raptor or other bird nests that may be disturbed during project implementation. Between January and April (inclusive) pre-construction surveys shall be conducted no more than 14 days prior to the initiation of construction activities or tree relocation or removal. Between May and August (inclusive), pre-construction surveys shall be conducted no more than thirty (30) days prior to the initiation of these activities. The surveying ornithologist shall inspect all trees in and immediately adjacent to the construction area for nests. If an active raptor nest is found in or close enough to the construction area to be disturbed by these activities, the ornithologist shall, in consultation with the State of California, Department of Fish & Wildlife (CDFW), designate a construction-free buffer zonearound the nest until the end of the nesting activity. Buffers for other birds shall be determined by the ornithologist. MM BIO-1.3: A report summarizing the results of the pre-construction survey and any designated buffer zones or protection measures for tree nesting birds shall be submitted to the Community Development Director prior to the start of (Less Than Significant with Mitigation grading or tree removal. Incorporated) City of Cupertino30Initial Study 20840 McClellan Road Rezoning and SubdivisionJuly2013 237 Section 4.0 –Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts Bats MM BIO –2.1: A pre-demolition survey for roosting bats will be conducted prior to any removal of buildings or trees greater than or equal to 12 inches in diameter. A qualified bat specialist will look for individuals, guano, staining, and vocalization by direct observation and potentially waiting for nighttime emergence. The survey shall be conducted during the time of year when bats are active, between April 1 and September 15. If demolition is planned within this timeframe, the survey shall be conducted within 15 days of demolition. An initial survey could be conducted to provide early warning if bats are present, but a follow-up survey will be necessary within 15 days of demolition and site clearing. If no bats are observed to be roosting or breeding in structures or trees, then no further action would be required, and demolition can proceed. The survey will be conducted by a qualified bat biologist. No activities that will result in disturbance to active roosts should proceed prior to the completed surveys. If no active roosts are found, then no further action would be warranted. MMBIO –2.2: If an active nursery roost is located and the project cannot be redesigned to avoid removal of the occupied tree, removal of the tree shall commence before maternity colonies form or after young are volant (flying). This buffer shall be maintained from April 1st until the young are flying, typically after August 31st. If a non-breeding bat hibernacula (roost) is found in a tree scheduled to be removed, the individuals will be safely evicted, under the direction of a qualified bat biologistby opening the roosting area to allow air flow through the cavity or, if possible, one-way doors will be inserted into tree crevices to allow bats to exit, but not re-enter, the crevices. Trees with roosts that need to be removed should first have bats evicted at dusk, just prior to removal, to (Less Than Significant with allow bats to escape during the darker hours. Mitigation Incorporated) 4.4.2.2 Trees The tree survey completed for the project (refer to Appendix A) evaluated impacts to trees based on tree health and the site design.Trees in the building androadway footprints were assumed to be removed. It is anticipated that a total of 98trees would be removed to construct the proposed project. Approximately 73 of the trees proposed for removal arefruit trees associated with a remnant orchard that are in poor condition. The project has been designedto maintain the one specimen tree on the site, a coast live oak,on Parcel A and an English walnut on Parcel C. The coast live oak on Parcel A, however, may require removal due to soil remediation activities beneath the tree canopy (refer to Section 4.8.2.1). The soil remediation program beneath the canopy has been designed to avoid City of Cupertino31Initial Study 20840 McClellan Road Rezoning and SubdivisionJuly2013 238 Section 4.0 –Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts affects to the root structure and overall health of the tree. If additional soil removal is determined to be necessary to address soil contamination, removal of the coast live oak may be requiredalong with the application of a tree removal permit. Impact BIO –3: Development of the projectwould result in the removal of a substantial (Significant Impact) number of trees from the site. Mitigation Measures: As conditions of approval, the proposed project shall implement the following measures to reduce impacts to trees to a less than significant level: MM BIO –3.1: The project shall implement the following measuresto avoid impacts to trees proposed for retention and mitigate for tree removal: Protected trees to be removed shall be replaced at the following ratios per City 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 inchesOne 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 inchesOne 36-inch box tree All trees proposed for retention on the site shall have a designated Tree Protection Zone (hereinafter “TPZ”) based on the City Arborist’s recommendation and/or five to seven times the trunk diameter in all directions. The TPZ is where all grading, overexcavation, soil scraping, trenching and compaction shall be avoided except where otherwise approved. The City Arborist shall be consulted to determine an appropriateTPZfor trees proposed for retention on the site. Any stormwater treatment swales, bioswales and biofiltration areas should be established beyond TPZs. All utilities and services (e.g. storm drain, electrical, water, sewer, fiber optic, gas, etc.) should be routed beyond TPZs. In the event this is not feasible, the location andproximity to a tree’s trunk would dictate which of the following installation methods can offer sufficient mitigation: mechanically excavating, hand-digging, a pneumatic air device (such as an Air-Spade), or directional boring. For directional- boring, theground above any tunnel must remain undisturbed, and City of Cupertino32Initial Study 20840 McClellan Road Rezoning and SubdivisionJuly2013 239 Section 4.0 –Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts access pits and any infrastructure (e.g. splice boxes, meters and vaults) established beyond TPZs. Prior to grading or excavation, an on-site preconstruction meeting shall be completed between the project superintendent and arborist to review placement of tree fencing and other measures for tree protection. Tree protective fencing shall be installed prior to any demolition and grading for the purpose of restricting access into a TPZ; its precise location can be reviewed during the preconstruction meeting previously mentioned. The fencing should consist of five-to six-foot high chain link mounted on eight-foot tall, one and seven-eighths-inch diameter galvanized steel posts that are driven into the ground 24 inches deep, and spaced apart by no more than approximately ten feet. It should remain intact and maintained throughout construction, and only removed upon completion of construction. The staging area(s) and routes of access must be established beyond the TPZs. Fertilization, if properly applied, may benefit a tree’s health, vigor and appearance. Prior to doing so, however, soil samples shall first be obtained to identify the pH levels and nutrient levels so a proper fertilization program can be established. Any fertilization shall be performed under the direction and supervision of a certified arborist, and in accordance with ANSI A300 (Part 2) –2004 Fertilization standards. Unless otherwise approved, all construction activities must be conductedbeyond TPZs, to include, but not be limited to, the following: demolition, grading, subexcavation, stripping of topsoil, trenching, equipment cleaning, stockpiling or dumping materials, and equipment/vehicle operation and parking. The routes of any irrigation or utility line within or ten feet from a TPZ shall be reviewed with the project arborist before digging occurs. Spoils created during digging shall not be piled or spread on unpaved ground within a TPZ. If essential, spoils can be temporarily piled on plywood or a tarp. Tree trunks shall not be used as winch supports for moving or lifting heavy loads. Any approved digging or trenching within a TPZ shall be manually performed without heavy equipment or tractors operating on unpaved ground beneath canopies. Approved trenching or excavation shall not damage, scrape or gouge roots two inches and greater in diameter. In the event these roots are encountered, the project arborist shall be notified, and they shall be either covered with soil or wrapped in moistened burlap within a few City of Cupertino33Initial Study 20840 McClellan Road Rezoning and SubdivisionJuly2013 240 Section 4.0 –Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts hours or exposure. If burlap is used, it shall remain continually moist until the trench or area is backfilled. During trenching, roots encountered that have diameters less than two inches and require removal can be cleanly severed at right angles to the direction of root growth. In doing so, sharp cutting tools (e.g. loppers or handsaw) shall be used, and the cut shall occur against the tree side of the trench. Supplemental water must be supplied to impacted trees during the dry 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 tall berm established around the canopy’s perimeter (or as closeto the 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 diameter. Great care must be taken by equipment operators to position their equipment to avoid the trees’ trunks and branches. Where a conflict exists, the project arborist shall be advised to provide a feasible solution. The disposal of harmful products (such as cement, paint, chemicals, oil, and gasoline) is prohibited beneath canopies or anywhere on site that allows drainage beneath or near TPZs. Herbicides shall not be used with a TPZ; where used on-site, they shall be labeled for safe use near trees. Tree protection fencing can be removed once construction is complete and authorized during a final inspection. A three-to four-inch maximum layer of wood chip mulch shall be maintained (and replenished when necessary beneath each tree’s canopy. It shall remain at least six inches from all tree trunks. Any additional activity required within a TPZ shall be performed under the supervision of a qualified arborist. If deemed acceptable by the arborist, all work shall be manually performed using hand tools and wheelbarrows, tunneling, or using a pneumatic air device. Replacement tree plantings will off-set the removal of a specimen treefrom the site during construction. Oversight of construction activities by a certified arborist and implementation of specific tree protection measures will avoid substantial impacts to anymature trees that will be (Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated) retained on the site. 4.4.3Conclusion Impact BIO –1: The constructionof the proposed project, with the implementation of mitigationmeasuresMM BIO-1.1through MM BIO-1.3,would not result in (Less Than Significant Impact with significant impacts to nesting birds. Mitigation Incorporated) City of Cupertino34Initial Study 20840 McClellan Road Rezoning and SubdivisionJuly2013 241 Section 4.0 –Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts Impact BIO-2: The proposed project, with the implementation of mitigation measures MM BIO-2.1 to MM BIO-2.6, would reduce impacts to pallid bats to a less than (Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation significant level. Incorporated) Impact BIO –3: The proposed project, with the implementation of the mitigation measure MM BIO-3.1, would reduce impacts to protectedtrees to a less than (Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation significant level. Incorporated) City of Cupertino35Initial Study 20840 McClellan Road Rezoning and SubdivisionJuly2013 242 Section 4.0 –Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts 4.5CULTURAL RESOURCES 4.5.1Setting Cultural resources are evidence of past human occupation and activity and include both historical and archaeological resources. These resources may be located above ground or underground and have significance in the history, prehistory, architecture, architecture of cultural of the nation, State of 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 publicized (such as mammoth and dinosaur bones) to scientifically important fossils. 4.5.1.1 PrehistoricContext andResources The project site is located in the Santa Clara Valley. Native American occupation of the valley extended over 5,000 to 8,000 years and possibly longer. Before European settlement, Native Americans resided in the area that is now Cupertino and lived in the Rancho San Antonio area for over 3,000 years. TheSouth Bay Area’s favorable environment during the prehistoric period, 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 Clara Valley belong to a group known as the “Coastanoan” or Ohlone, who broadly occupied the central California coast from the northerntip of the San Francisco Peninsula to Big Sur inthe south and as far east as the Diablo Range. The Coastanoan/Ohlone people practiced a hunting, fishing and collecting economy focusing on the collection of seasonal plant and animal resources. This customary way of living of the Coastanoan/Ohlonepeople disappeared by about 1810 due to disruption by introduced diseases, a declining birth rate and the impact of the California mission system established by the Spanish in the San José/Santa Clara area in 1777. In the Cupertino area, areas likely to be archaeologically sensitive, are found along streamcourses and in oak groves. The project site is locatedapproximately 650 feet northwest of RegnartCreek on the valley floor. Extant or known former oak groves are not present in the immediate vicinity of the project site. 4.5.1.2 Historic Resources Based upon a review of building records,the project site was used for agricultural purposes until a residence was constructed on the site in 1950(refer to Appendix C).The residentialbuildings on the site are over 50 years old. The Cupertino General Plan identifies Historic Sites, Commemorative Sites and Community Landmarks currently present in the City (Figure 2-G of the Cupertino General Plan). Existing buildings on the projectsite at 20840 McClellan Roadare notidentified ashistoric structures and are City of Cupertino36Initial Study 20840 McClellan Road Rezoning and SubdivisionJuly2013 243 Section 4.0 –Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts not on a Historic Site, Commemorative Site or designated as a Community Landmarks inthe General Plan. Historical resources eligible for listing in the California Register must meet criteria of significance andretain enough of their historic character or appearance to be recognizable as historical character to convey the reasons for their significance. Giventhat neither the buildings nor the project site is identified in the City’s General Plan as a cultural resource, the architectural style of the residential buildings does not embody distinctive characteristics or method of construction,these structures appear to exhibit no historic significance. 4.5.1.3 Paleontological Resources As noted above, paleontological resources are the fossilized remains of organisms from prehistoric environments found in geologic strata. Geologic units of Holocene age are generally not considered sensitive for paleontological resources because biological remains younger than 10,000 years are not usually considered fossils. These sediments have low potential to yield fossil resources or to contain significant nonrenewable paleontological resources. The project site is underlain by late Pleistocene 2,3 alluvial fan materialdepositswhich have high potential to yield fossils. 4.5.2Cultural Resources Impacts Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Checklist Significant With Significant No Impact Source(s) ImpactMitigation Impact Incorporated Would the project: 1.Cause a substantial adverse change in the 1,2,8 significance of an historical resource as defined in §15064.5? 2.Cause a substantial adverse change in the 1,2,8 significance of an archaeological resource as defined in §15064.5? 3.Directly or indirectly destroy a unique 1 paleontological resource or site, or unique geologic feature? 4.Disturb any human remains, including those 1 interred outside of formal cemeteries? 2 C. Bruce Hanson. 2010. Paleontological Evaluation Report for the Envision San José 2040 General Plan, Santa Clara County, California. 3 U.S. Geological Survey. “Preliminary quaternary geologic maps of Santa Clara Valley, Santa Clara, Alameda, and San Mateo counties, California: A digital database”. Accessed March 21, 2013. Available at: < http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/1994/of94- 231/sccomap.pdf> City of Cupertino37Initial Study 20840 McClellan Road Rezoning and SubdivisionJuly2013 244 Section 4.0 –Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts The proposed project includes the demolition of the existingresidentialbuildings on the site to allow for the constructionofthreeresidential structures.Removal of building foundations and construction of the proposed project would require grading, excavation, and trenching onthe site to install utilities and remove contaminated soils (refer to Section 4.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials). 4.5.2.1 Prehistoric, Historic, and PaleontologicalResources Development throughout the Santa Clara Valley adjacent to established water courses, has uncovered numerous buried archaeological sites. The project is not located near a water course or former oak groves and it is unlikely that prehistoric materials associated with aboriginal settlements along RegnartCreek would be encountered during site grading and/or excavation. There are no historic structures located on the siteand demolition of the existing buildings would not result in an impact to a historical resource or a site recognized in the Cupertino General Plan as a Historic Site, Commemorative Site orCommunity Landmark. While unlikely, buried prehistoric or historic deposits which could provide information on prehistory or the history of this site, its inhabitants, and the role it played in the development of the Citycould be encountered. Impact CUL –1: Development oftheproposed project could result in significant impacts to (Significant Impact) buried cultural resources, if encountered. Mitigation Measures: As acondition 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 –1.1: In the event of the discovery of prehistoric orhistoric archaeological depositsor paleontological deposits,workshall be halted within 50 feetof the discovery and a qualified professional archaeologist(or paleontologist, as applicable)shall examine the find and make appropriate recommendations regarding the significance of the find and the appropriate mitigation. The recommendation shall be implemented and could include collection, recordation, and analysis of any significant cultural materials. MM CUL –1.2: In the event that human remains and/or cultural materials are found, all project-related construction shall ceasewithin a 50-foot radius of the find in order to proceed with the testing and mitigation measures required. Pursuant to Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code and Section 5097.94 of the Public Resources Code of the State of California: In the eventof the discovery of human remains during construction, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains. The Santa Clara County Coroner shall be notified and shall make a determination as to whether the remains are Native American. If the Coroner City of Cupertino38Initial Study 20840 McClellan Road Rezoning and SubdivisionJuly2013 245 Section 4.0 –Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts determines that the remains are not subject to his authority, he shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission who shall attempt to identify descendants of the deceased Native American. If no satisfactory agreement can be reached as to the disposition of the remains pursuant to this State law, then the land owner shall re-inter the human remains and items associated with Native American burials on the property in a locationnot subject to further subsurface disturbance. A final report summarizing the discovery of cultural materials shall be submitted to the Director of Community Developmentprior to issuance of building permits. This report shall contain a description of the mitigation program that was implemented and its results, including a description of the monitoring and testing program, a list of the resources found, a summary of the resources analysis methodology and conclusion, and a description of the disposition/curation of the resources. The report shall verify completion of the mitigation program to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning. 4.5.3Conclusion Impact CUL –1: The proposed project, with the implementation of the mitigation measures MM CUL-1.1and MM CUL-1.2, would not result in significant impacts to (Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation cultural resources. Incorporated) City of Cupertino39Initial Study 20840 McClellan Road Rezoning and SubdivisionJuly2013 246 Section 4.0 –Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts 4.6GEOLOGY AND SOILS The following discussion is based on a Geotechnical Investigation Report prepared by Capex Engineering, Inc.in November 2011.A copy of this report is included as Appendix Bof this Initial Study. 4.6.1Setting 4.6.1.1 Regional Geology The City of Cupertino is located within the Santa Clara Valley, which is a broad alluvial plain between the Santa Cruz Mountains to the southwest and west, and the Diablo Range to the northeast. Most of Cupertino is on level ground that rises gently to the west. The San Andreas Fault system, including the Monte Vista-Shannon Fault, exists within the Santa Cruz Mountains and the Hayward and Calaveras Fault systems exist within the Diablo Range. 4.6.1.2 On-Site Geologic Conditions Soilsand Groundwater The site is developed with residential structures and paving on the north end of the site with unpaved rear yard areas on the southern two-thirds of the site.Subsurface soils consist of light brown silt clay with sand and gravel to a depth of 15 feet below ground surface (bgs). The soils are moist and stiff to hard. The near-surface soilson-site haverelatively low percentage of finesand low expansion potential. Groundwater was not encountered during the subsurface exploration, which extended toa depth of 15 feet. Fluctuations in the level of the groundwater may occur due to variations in rainfall, underground drainage patterns, and other factors. Seismicityand Seismic Hazards The San Francisco Bay Area is one of the most seismically active regions in the United States. The significant earthquakes that occur in the Bay Area are generally associated with the crustal movements along well-defined active fault zones of the San Andreas Fault system, which regionally trend in the northwesterly direction. 4 The site is not located within a designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone or a Santa Clara 5 County Fault Hazard Zone.In addition, no known surface expression of active faults arebelieved to cross the site and fault rupture hazard is not a significant geologic hazard at the site. 4 California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology. Special Studies Zones Cupertino Quadrangle.Map. July 1, 1974. 5 County of Santa Clara. Geologic Hazard Zones. Map. October 26, 2012. City of Cupertino40Initial Study 20840 McClellan Road Rezoning and SubdivisionJuly2013 247 Section 4.0 –Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts Nearby active or potentially active faults include the Monte Vista-Shannon fault located approximately 1.5miles southwest of the site, the San Andreasfault located approximately 5.5miles southwest of the site, and the Hayward fault (southeast extension)located approximately 12.6miles 6 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 damage to structures. Liquefaction Liquefaction is the result of seismic activity and is characterized as thetransformation of loosely water-saturated soils from a solid state to a liquid state after ground shaking. There are many variables that contribute to liquefaction, including the age of the soil, soil type, soil cohesion, soil density, and groundwater level. 7 The project site is not located within a designatedState of California Liquefaction Hazard Zoneor a 8 Santa Clara County Liquefaction Hazard Zone.Based on an analysis of soils and the depth to groundwater, the liquefaction potential for the site is determined to be low. Seismically-Induced Differential Settlements If near-surface soils vary in composition both vertically and laterally, strong earthquake shaking can cause non-uniform settlement of soil layers. This results in movement of the near-surface soils. Thepotential for significant differential seismic settlement affecting the site is low(approximately 0.5-inches). Lateral Spreading Lateral spreading typically occurs as a form of horizontal displacement of relatively flat-lying alluvial material toward an open or “free” face such as an open body of water, channel, or excavation.There are no open faces on or near theproject site. 6 Association of Bay Area Governments. Bay Area Faults.Map. 2003. 7 California Department of Conservation, California Geologic Survey. Seismic Hazard Zones Cupertino Quadrangle. Map. September 23, 2002. 8 County of Santa Clara. Geologic Hazard Zones. Map. October 26, 2012. City of Cupertino41Initial Study 20840 McClellan Road Rezoning and SubdivisionJuly2013 248 Section 4.0 –Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts 4.6.2Geology and Soils Impacts Less Than Potentially SignificantLess Than Checklist Significant With Significant No Impact Source(s) ImpactMitigation Impact 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 fault, as 9 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 loss 1 of topsoil? 3.Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is 9 unstable, or that will 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 defined in 9 Section 1802.3.2 of the California Building Code (2007), creating substantial risks to life or property? 5.Have soils incapable of adequately 1,9 supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? 4.6.2.1 Soils and Groundwater Based on the geotechnical investigation prepared for the project, soils on the site are capable of supportingthe proposed structures if constructed in accordance with the recommendations of the project engineer. City of Cupertino42Initial Study 20840 McClellan Road Rezoning and SubdivisionJuly2013 249 Section 4.0 –Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts Groundwater beneath the site was not encountered to depths of 15 feet bgs but may fluctuate seasonally. Given the limited nature of subsurface construction required (utility trenching, grading, etc.), groundwater atdepths of greater than 15feetwould not pose any constraints to the proposed project. The proposed project would not be exposed tosubstantialslope instability, erosion,or landslide- related hazards due to the flat topography of the site. (Less Theproposed project would not besubject to substantialhazards related to soils on the site. Than Significant Impact) Seismicityand Seismic Hazards Theproject site is located in a seismically active region and, therefore, strong ground shaking would be expected during the lifetime of the proposed project. While no active faults are known to cross the project site, ground shaking on the site could damage buildings and other proposed structures. The liquefaction, lateral spreading,andseismically-induced differential settlement potential on the site are low. In conformance with standard practices in the City of Cupertino, the project shall be designed and constructed in conformance with the CaliforniaBuilding Code guidelines for Seismic Zone 4 to avoid or minimize potential damage from seismic shaking on the site.Implementation of building code requirements would reduce seismic and seismic-related hazards to a less than significant level. 4.6.3Conclusion The proposed project,with the implementation of the above standardpractices for building (Less Than construction, would not result in significant seismicity or seismic hazard impacts. Significant Impact) City of Cupertino43Initial Study 20840 McClellan Road Rezoning and SubdivisionJuly2013 250 Section 4.0 –Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts 4.7GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Unlike emissions of criteria and toxicair pollutants, which have local or regional impacts, emissions of Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) have a broader, global impact. Global warming associated with the “greenhouse effect” is a process whereby GHGs accumulating in the atmosphere contribute to an increase in the temperature of the earth’s atmosphere. The principal GHGs contributing to global warming and associated climate change are carbon dioxide (CO), methane (CH), nitrous oxide 24 (NO), and fluorinated compounds. Emissions of GHGs contributing toglobal climate change are 2 attributable in large part to human activities associated with the transportation, industrial/ manufacturing, utility, residential, commercial, and agricultural sectors. 4.7.1Existing On-Site GHG Emissions Two residences withassociated structures and landscaping are locatedon the project site. Existing GHG emissions from the residential development currently on the site are expected to be similar to existing single-family development throughout Cupertino. The greatest source of existing emissions are from mobile sources (vehicle trips to and from the site) followed by indirect and direct emissions from electricity and natural gas use for building heating, cooling, lighting and other uses. 4.7.2Regulatory Background 4.7.2.1 State of California AB 32,CEQA, and Other Laws and Regulations The Global Warming Solutions Act (also known as “Assembly Bill (AB) 32”)setsthe State of California’s 2020 greenhouse gas emissions reduction goal into law. The Act requires that the GHG emissions in California be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020. Prior to adoption of AB 32, the Governor of California also signed Executive Order S-3-05 which identified CalEPA as the lead coordinating State agency for establishing climate change emission reduction targets in California. Under Executive Order S-3-05, the state plans to reduce GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 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 State’s Renewables Portfolio Standardfor Energy Standard (Senate Bill 2X)and fleet-wide passenger car standards(Pavley Regulations). The California Natural ResourcesAgency, as required under state law (Public Resources Code Section 21083.05) has amended the state CEQA Guidelines to address the analysis and mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions.Under these sections of theCEQA Guidelines(§15064.4), Lead Agencies, such as the City of Cupertino, retain discretion to determine the significance of impacts from greenhouse gas emissions based upon individual circumstances. Neither CEQA nor the CEQA Guidelines provide a specific methodology for analysis of greenhouse gases and under the amendments to the CEQA Guidelines, a Lead Agency may describe, calculate or estimate greenhouse gas emissions resulting from a project and use a model and/or qualitative analysis or performance based standards to assess impacts. The CEQA Guidelines (§15183.5) also outline the City of Cupertino44Initial Study 20840 McClellan Road Rezoning and SubdivisionJuly2013 251 Section 4.0 –Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts required components of a “Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy”. Projects consistent with such a Strategy or Plan would reduce their contribution to cumulative GHG impacts to a less than significant level. 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 Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) that links transportation and land use planning togetherinto a more comprehensive, integrated process. The SCS is a mechanism for more effectively linking a land use pattern and a transportation system together to make travel more efficient and communities more livable. The result is reduced greenhouse gas emissions from passenger vehicles along with other benefits. The target for the Bay Area is a seven (7)percent per capita reduction in GHG emissions attributable to automobiles and light trucks by 2020 and a 15 percent per capita reduction by 2035. The base year for comparison of emission reductions is 2005. The 2013 Regional Transportation Plan,Plan 9 Bay Area, was released on March 22, 2013and isthe Bay Area’s 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 on March 9, 2012. 4.7.2.2 BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines and 2010 Bay Area Clean Air Plan The BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines outlinea methodology for estimating greenhouse gasesand analysis of projectand plan impacts.In jurisdictions where a qualified Greenhouse Gas Reduction 10 Strategyhas been reviewed under CEQA and adopted by decision-makers, compliance with the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy would reduce a project’s contribution to cumulativegreenhouse gas emission impacts to a less thansignificant level. 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 Basin. One of the key objectives in the CAP is climate protection. The 2010 CAP includes emission control measuresin five categories: Stationary SourceMeasures, Mobile Source Measures, Transportation Control Measures, Land Use and Local ImpactMeasures, and Energy and Climate Measures.Consistency of a project with current control measures is one measure of its consistency with the CAP. The current CAP also includes performance objectives, consistent with the state’s climate protection goals under AB 32 and SB 375, designed toreduce emissions of GHGsto 1990 levels by 2020 and 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2035. 9 One Bay Area. “Announcing Draft Plan Bay Area Release, Spring 2013 Meetings andPublic Outreach”. Accessed April 4, 2013. Available at: <http://onebayarea.org> 10 The required components of a “qualified” Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy or Plan are described in both the CEQA Guidelines (Section 15183.5Tiering 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 Cupertino45Initial Study 20840 McClellan Road Rezoning and SubdivisionJuly2013 252 Section 4.0 –Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts 4.7.2.3 City of Cupertino The Cupertino General Plan includes an Environmental Resources/Sustainability Section, with policies that call for energy efficiency,alternative transportation planning, and green building. These policies and the City’s Green Building and Green Business Programs include measures designed to 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 can indirectlyreduce GHG emissions by reducing the need to manufacture or mine new products or materials. 4.7.3Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impacts Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Checklist Significant With Significant No Impact Source(s) ImpactMitigation Impact Incorporated Would the project: 1.Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either 1,5 directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? 2.Conflictwith an applicable plan, policy or 1,5 regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? 4.7.3.1 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Thresholds The BAAQMDCEQA Air Quality Guidelines(dated May 2011) include quantitative thresholds for GHG emissions. Using a methodology that models how new land use development in the San Francisco Bay Area can meet statewide AB 32 GHG reduction goals, the BAAQMD Guidelines identifies a significance threshold of a net increase of 1,100 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents per year. In addition to this bright line threshold, the Guidelines include an “efficiency” threshold to be used for urban high density, transit oriented development projects that are intended to reduce vehicle trips but may still result in overall emissions greater than 1,100 metric tons per year. This 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 suggest a threshold of significance for short-term construction related GHG emissions. The City of Cupertino, and other jurisdictions in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin, recently have used the thresholds and methodology for assessing GHG emissions put forth by the BAAQMD based upon the scientific and other factual data prepared by BAAQMD in developing those thresholds. The City has carefully considered the thresholds prepared by BAAQMDand regards the quantitative thresholds to be based on the best information available for the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. Evidence supporting these thresholds has been presented in the following documents: City of Cupertino46Initial Study 20840 McClellan Road Rezoning and SubdivisionJuly2013 253 Section 4.0 –Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts BIA vs. BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District(BAAQMD). t In December 2010,he California Building Industry CEQA Air Quality Guidelines(Appendix Association (BIA) filed a lawsuit in Alameda County D).May 2011. Superior Court challenging toxic air contaminants and PMthresholds developed by BAAQMD for its CEQA Air 2.5 Quality Guidelines (California Building Industry California Air Resources Board. 2008. Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Climate Change Scoping Plan. Alameda County Superior Court Case No. RG10548693). (Statewide GHG Emission Targets) One of the identified concerns is that the widespread use of the thresholds would inhibit infill and smart growth in the 4.7.3.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions urbanized Bay Area. On March 5, 2012, the Superior Impacts from the Project Court found that adoption of thresholds by the BAAQMD in its CEQA Air Quality Guidelines is a CEQA project and BAAQMD is not to disseminate officially sanctioned air Operational Emissions quality thresholds of significance until BAAQMD fully complies with CEQA. No further findings or rulings were The BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines made on the thresholds of the updated BAAQMD Air contains a screening threshold of 56 single- Quality Guidelines. The City understands the effect of the family dwelling units for operational-related lawsuit to be that BAAQMD may have to prepare an impacts due to greenhouse gas emissions. The environmental review document before adopting the same or revised thresholds. However, the ruling in the case does screening criteria provide lead agencies with a not equate to a finding that the quantitative metrics in the conservative indication of whether a project BAAQMD thresholds are incorrect or unreliable for could result in significant greenhouse gas meeting AB 32’s climate protection goals. Per the State emissions impact. The project would allow CEQA Guidelines [Section 15064(b)], the determination of construction of three single-family residences whether a project may have a significant effect on the which is well below the screening threshold and, environment is subject to the discretion of each individual lead agency, basedupon substantial evidence. The therefore, the project would not result in a threshold used by the City of Cupertino for the assessment significant global climate change impact due to of impacts is noted above. Building Industry Association v. Bay (Less Than emissions of greenhouse gases. Significant Impact) 4.7.3.3 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 in the City of Cupertino that have completed environmental review and been adopted. Green Building and Emissions Reduction Features The proposed project would be built according to the Residential Mandatory Measures of the California Green Building Codeand, if applicable,the Cupertino Green Building Ordinance (in effect July 1, 2013)including exceeding Title 24 by 15 percent, reducing indoor water use by 20 percent, and reusing or recycling 50 percent of building materials. City of Cupertino47Initial Study 20840 McClellan Road Rezoning and SubdivisionJuly2013 254 Section 4.0 –Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts Comparison of Project Features to State of California Climate Change Scoping Plan Measures The CARB-approved Climate Change Scoping Plan outlines a comprehensive set of actions intended to reduce overall GHG emissions in California, improve the environment, reduce dependence on oil, diversify California’s energy sources, save energy, create new jobs, and enhance public health. The Scoping Plan includes 39 Recommended Actionsfor reducing GHG emissions. While the Scoping Plan focuses on measures and regulations at a statewide level, implementation of measures at the local level are also important. Recommended Actions that pertain to the project are noted in Table 4.7-1. Table 4.7-1 Climate Change Scoping Plan –Recommended Actions Compared to Project Features MeasureDescriptionApplicable Feature Transportation Pavley I and II –Light Duty Vehicle GHG T-1State Action –Not applicable Standards T-2Low Carbon Fuel StandardState Action -Not applicable Land use and transportation measures Regional Transportation-Related Greenhouse Gas included in the project that help reduce T-3 Targetsvehicle travel include proximity to transit, jobs, and services T-4Vehicle Efficiency MeasuresState Action –Not applicable T-5Ship Electrification at PortsState Action –Not applicable T-6Goods Movement EfficiencyState Action –Not applicable T-7Heavy-Duty GHG Emission Reduction MeasureState Action –Not applicable T-8Medium-and Heavy-Duty Vehicle HybridizationState Action –Not applicable T-9High Speed RailNot applicable Energy Efficiency/Electricity and Natural Gas CalGreen Building Codes will apply. Energy Efficiency, including more stringent building Energy efficiency standards are required E-1 standardsper the Cupertino Green Building Ordinance. Increase Combined Heat and Power (Co-generation) Not anenergy supply project; not E-2 Use by 30,000 GWhapplicable State Action –Not applicable, although E-3Renewables Portfolio Standardover time GHG emissions associated with electricity use will decline. E-4Million Solar Roofs/Solar InitiativeNot currentlyproposed. Energy Efficiency –Utility, Building and Appliance CR-1CalGreen Building Codes will apply. Standards CR-2Solar Water HeatingNot currently proposed. City of Cupertino48Initial Study 20840 McClellan Road Rezoning and SubdivisionJuly2013 255 Section 4.0 –Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts Table 4.7-1 Climate Change Scoping Plan –Recommended Actions Compared to Project Features MeasureDescriptionApplicable Feature Green Buildings CalGreen Building Codes and, if GB-1Green Buildingsapplicable,the Cupertino Green Building Ordinance will apply. 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 providing sustainable funding for implementing these actions. Project will use low flow plumbing W-1Water Use Efficiency fixtures. W-2Water RecyclingState or City Action –Not applicable. W-3Water System Energy EfficiencyNot applicable W-4Reuse Urban RunoffOn-site reuse is not proposed. State or City Action for Water System – W-5Increase Renewable Energy Production Not applicable. W-6Public Goods Charge (Water)Not applicable Industry I-1 through Energy Efficiency and Emission Reduction for Industry measures not applicable; I-5Large Industrial Sourcesresidential project. Recycling and Waste Management RW-1 Landfill Methane Control and CaptureNot applicable RW-2 Future residents would participate in City High Recycling/Zero Waste (including Commercial RW-3recycling and waste reduction programs, Recycling) as applicable. Forests and Agriculture F-1Sustainable Forest TargetNo impact to forest resources. A-1Methane Capture at Large DairiesState 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, localgovernments are expected to reduce GHG emissions by five million metric tons (statewide) through transportation and land use changes. In addition, local governments will play a key role in implementing many of the strategies contained in the Scoping Plan, such as energy efficient building codes, local renewable energy generation, and recycling programs. As 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, and water conservation features City of Cupertino49Initial Study 20840 McClellan Road Rezoning and SubdivisionJuly2013 256 Section 4.0 –Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts consistent with several recommended actions in the Scoping Plan and would not conflict with implementation of recommended actions in the Scoping Plan intended to reduce GHG emissions by the year 2020. Consistency with Local Plans, Policies, or Regulations Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan The Bay Area 2010 CleanAir Plan includes performance objectives, consistent with the state’s climate protection goals under AB 32 and SB 375, designed to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases to 1990 levels by 2020 and 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2035. The CAP identifies a range of Transportation Control Measures, Land Use & Local Impacts Measures, and Energy and Climate Measures that make up theCAP’scontrol strategyfor emissions, including GHGs. The proposedproject features a rezoning to allow three residences to replace two existing residences on a site proximateto transit, jobs, schools, shopping, parks, and other amenities. This would be consistent with Transportation Control Measure (TCM) D-2–Pedestrian Access and Facilities Improvement. As noted above, the project will be required to meet the City of Cupertino’s Green Building Code standards. This would be consistent with Energy Control Measure (ECM)-1–Energy Efficiency in the CAP. 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 conflict with any currently adopted local plans, policies, or regulations pertaining to greenhouse gas emissions. Sustainable Communities Strategy Regionally, a Sustainable Communities Strategy that links transportation and land use planning together into a more comprehensive, integrated process is under early development by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, BAAQMD, and the Association of Bay Area Governments. Under SB 375 (Redesigning Communities to Reduce Greenhouse Gases), the Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) has beendeveloped as part of the update of the Regional Transportation Plan for the Bay Area which was released in March 2013.The project is not located in Priority Development Area and given its size would not conflict with the Sustainable Community’s Strategy. The location, density, and measures included in the project to reduce greenhouse gas emissions would not conflict with plans, policies, or regulations for reducing greenhouse gas emissions adopted (Less Than Significant by the California legislature, CARB, BAAQMD, or City of Cupertino. Impact) City of Cupertino50Initial Study 20840 McClellan Road Rezoning and SubdivisionJuly2013 257 Section 4.0 –Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts 4.7.4Conclusion The project would not generate net new greenhouse gas emissions above the threshold of 1,100 MT COeper yearor conflict with plans,policies or regulations for reducing GHG. Therefore, the 2 (Less Than project would result in a less than significant impact to global climate change. Significant Impact) City of Cupertino51Initial Study 20840 McClellan Road Rezoning and SubdivisionJuly2013 258 Section 4.0 –Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts 4.8HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS The following discussion is based on a PhaseIEnvironmental Site Assessment(ESA), Phase II Environmental Site Assessment, Report of Additional Soil Investigation, Work Plan for Additional Site Characterization, Summary Report of Soil Investigations, Revised Site Mitigation Plan,and an Investigative Report and Revised Mitigation Planprepared by Piers Environmental, Inc. These reports were prepared from March 2012 to July2013 and are included in Appendix Cof this Initial Study. 4.8.1Setting 4.8.1.1 Background Information Hazardous materials include a broad range of common substances such as motor oil and 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 atmosphere in the event of an accident. 4.8.1.2 Site Conditions The 0.96-acre project site has been developed with residential uses since 1950. The site was previously used for agricultural purposes as an orchard. Nearby sensitive receptors include surrounding residential development and quasi-public uses (e.g. daycare, school, churches)to the west. On-Site Observations A site reconnaissance surveywas completed for the projectsitein March 2012. All exterior areas of the project sitewere inspected during the site reconnaissance. The interior of the smaller residence was examined and was visible from the outside. A portion of the main residence was observed from the exterior. The project siteincludes asphalt-paved driveways and parking areas at the front, a rear patio, and a large lawn at the rear with remnant orchard trees. The main residence is a two-bedroom structure with a third bedroom in the converted garage. A smaller residence behind the main residence contains two rooms. Two sheds and a carport are also located on the property. Historic Site Conditions Based on historical records and aerial photographs, the project sitewas in agricultural use prior to 1950when the existing residential use was constructed on the site. Prior to construction of the residences, the site and surrounding area contained orchards. The previous use of the property for agriculture implies the use of chemical pesticides and fertilizer, remnants of which are frequently found on developed properties previously used for agriculture in the Santa Clara Valley. City of Cupertino52Initial Study 20840 McClellan Road Rezoning and SubdivisionJuly2013 259 Section 4.0 –Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts 4.8.1.3 Potential On-Site Sources of Contamination Agricultural Use Impacts Due to the past agricultural use of project site, soil samples were collected and testedfor residual pesticides and metals in the near-surface soil. Concentrations of lead, arsenic,DDE, DDT, chlordane, dieldrin, heptachlor, and toxaphenewere detected in the on-site soils. Arsenic concentrations, although elevated, were not above background concentrations for Bay Area soils. Concentrations of lead and organochlorine pesticides (DDE, DDT, chlordane, etc.)were above the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) California Health Hazard ScreeningLevels (CHHSLs)for residential useat several sample locations. Lead was detected in on-site soils in the southern portion of the site at 390parts per million(ppm) approximately 0.25 feet below grade. Organochlorine pesticides at concentrations up to 8.3 ppm weredetected in soils approximately 0.25 feet and 1.5 feet below grade in the garden areas of the property behind the main residenceand directly west of the large oak tree on-site (refer to Appendix C).Within the oak tree canopy, organochlorine pesticides at concentrations from two to five times the residential CHHSL were detected in soils approximately 0.25 feet below grade. Based on the soil analyses completed, residual pesticides and metals in soils on the site are abovelevels consideredto pose health risks for people. 4.8.1.4 Potential Off-Site Sources of Contamination A regulatory database search was completed for the project site for the 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 materials. Based on information in these database records(refer to Phase IESAin Appendix C)including the type of release, current case status, and distance and direction from the site, no reported hazardous materials spills or releases in the vicinity of the site have a potential to affect the projectsite. 4.8.1.5 Other Hazards 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 located within an urban 11 areathat is notsubject to wildfires. 11 Association of Bay Area Governments, Earthquake and Hazards Program. Wildland Urban Interface Fire Threatened Communities. July 2009.Accessed April 11, 2013. Available at:<http://gis3.abag.ca.gov/Website/Fire_Threat_WUI/ viewer.htm> City of Cupertino53Initial Study 20840 McClellan Road Rezoning and SubdivisionJuly2013 260 Section 4.0 –Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts 4.8.2Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Checklist Significant With Significant No Impact Source(s) ImpactMitigation Impact Incorporated Would the project: 1.Create a significant hazard to the public or 1,8, the environment through the routine 10-15 transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? 2.Create a significant hazard to the public or 1,8, the environment through reasonably 10-15 foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into theenvironment? 3.Emit hazardous emissions or handle 1,8, hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, 10-15 substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? 4.Be located on a site which is included on a 1,8, list of hazardous materials sites compiled 10-15 pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, will it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? 5.For a project located within an airport land 1 use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles ofa public airport or public use airport, will 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 private 1 airstrip, will the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? 7.Impair implementation of, or physically 1,2 interfere with, an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? 8.Expose people or structures to a significant 16 risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? City of Cupertino54Initial Study 20840 McClellan Road Rezoning and SubdivisionJuly2013 261 Section 4.0 –Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts 4.8.2.1 Potential for Hazardous Materials Contamination Impacts Soil and Groundwater Conditions The proposed project would allow the development of three single-family residences on the site. Exposed soils would be present in the yards of the future residences. No groundwater was found to a depth of 15 feet on the site and would not come into contact with residents of the site. Levels of lead, DDE, DDT, chlordane, dieldrin, heptachlor, and toxaphene in near surface soils on the site exceed allowable levels set by DTSC for residential use. Impact HAZ-1: The project may expose residents of the site to lead and organochlorine pesticide concentrations exceeding state standardsfor residential uses. (Significant Impact) Mitigation Measures: As a condition of approval and in conformance with local, state, and federal regulations, the project shall implement the following mitigation measureswith the oversight of the Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health and City of Cupertinoto reduce impacts associated with redevelopment of the siteto a less than significant level: MM HAZ–1.1: The project shall excavate the area of lead-impacted soil to a depth of 1.5 feet in the area identified in the Revised Site Mitigation Plan. Soils will be tested, profiled, and granted acceptance to a landfill permitted to handle disposal of leadcontaminated soil prior to excavation of these soils directly into trucks for offhaul from the site. Dust control measures (watering) shall be employed prior to and during excavation and loading to eliminate or minimize dust creation. MM HAZ –1.2: Fromthe rear of the existing residence to the midpoint of the property, pesticide-impacted soils that would be located beneath pavement or covered by structures will be excavated to a depth of six inches and disposed of at a permitted landfill. Where impacted soils are present in future landscape areas, soils will be excavated to a depth of one foot below grade. In planned landscape areas, confirmation sampling will be completed to confirm pesticide-impacted soils have been removed. Contaminated soils from landscape areas up to a depth of six inches will be disposed of offsite. The remaining excavated landscape area soil from depths of six inches to one foot will be stockpiled on-site and eventually disposed at a permitted landfill or placed as fill beneathareas of pavement. MM HAZ –1.3: Within thebranchcanopy of the large oak tree on-site surface soil to a depth of approximately six to twelve inches below grade,willbe excavated by hand under the consultation anddirection of the City of Cupertino’s arborist. Prior to excavation,confirmation subsurface sampleswillbe collected at three-inch intervals from six inches to one foot below grade and analyzed toestablish City of Cupertino55Initial Study 20840 McClellan Road Rezoning and SubdivisionJuly2013 262 Section 4.0 –Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts excavation depths within the oak tree canopy.Confirmation sampling will be completed to confirm pesticide-impacted soils have been removed. MM HAZ –1.4: In the event confirmation samples reveal the presence of additional lead or organochlorine pesticides, additional excavation and sampling will be completed under the oversight of the Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health. MM HAZ –1.5: Remediation work on the site shall adhere to the procedures identified in the Site Mitigation Plan for Soil Management during Construction, including off- site disposal, dust control, reuse of on-site soils, and implementation of a (Less Than Significant Impact with contractor health and safety plan. Mitigation Incorporated) Asbestos-Containing Materials and Lead-Based Paint Buildings on the project site were constructed in 1950 and may have been constructed with asbestos- containing materials. The buildings are also assumed to have painted surfaces containing lead-based paint. No formal surveys for asbestos-containing materials or lead-based paint have been completed for the existing residences. Impact HAZ-2: Demolition of existing structures on the project site could expose construction workers and nearby sensitive receptors to harmful levels of asbestos and lead. (Significant Impact) Mitigation Measures: As a condition of approvaland in conformance with local, state, and federal regulations, the project shall implement the following standard mitigation measures to reduce possibleimpacts associated with building demolition to a less than significant level: MM HAZ –2.1: In conformance with federal and State regulations, a formal survey for ACBMs and lead-based paint shall be completed prior to the demolition of buildings on the site. MM HAZ –2.2: All potentially friable ACBMs shall be removed in accordance with National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) guidelines prior to building demolition or renovation that may disturb the materials. All demolition activities will be undertaken in accordance with Cal/OSHA standards, contained in Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR), Section 1529, to protect workers from exposure to asbestos. Materials containing more than one percent asbestos are also subject to Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) regulations. MM HAZ –2.3: During demolition activities, all building materials containing lead-based paint shall be removed in accordance with Cal/OSHA Lead in Construction Standard, Title 8, California Code of Regulations 1532.1, including employee City of Cupertino56Initial Study 20840 McClellan Road Rezoning and SubdivisionJuly2013 263 Section 4.0 –Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts training, employee air monitoring and dust control. Any debris or soil containing lead-based paint or coatings will be disposed of at landfills that (Less Than meet acceptance criteria for the waste being disposed. Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated) 4.8.3Conclusion Impact HAZ-1: The potential for the project to expose residents of the site to lead and organochlorine pesticide contamination would be mitigated through the implementation of mitigation measures MM HAZ –1.1 through MM HAZ – (Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated) 1.5. Impact HAZ-2: The potential for demolition of existing structures on the project site to expose construction workers and nearby sensitive receptors to harmful levels of asbestos and lead would be mitigated through the implementation of (Less Than mitigationmeasures MM HAZ–2.1through MM HAZ–2.3. Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated) City of Cupertino57Initial Study 20840 McClellan Road Rezoning and SubdivisionJuly2013 264 Section 4.0 –Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts 4.9HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 4.9.1Setting 4.9.1.1 Hydrology and Water Quality Surface Water The project site is located within an area described as the West Valley Watersheds by the Santa Clara 12 Valley Water District.The West Valley Watershed consists of an 85-square-mile area of multiple small-creek watersheds including the Calabazas Creek watershed.Surface runoff from the project site is conveyed to RegnartCreekwhich flows to Calabazas Creekand ultimately the San Francisco Bay. Approximately two-thirds of the project site consists of pervious surfaces (landscaping and rear yard).Runoff from the site is currently conveyed to a 12-inch storm drain line located in McClellan Road. Groundwater The project site is located in the SantaClara Valley Groundwater Basin between the Diablo Mountainsto the east and the Santa Cruz Mountains to the west. The Santa Clara Valley Groundwater Basin is filled byvalley floor alluvium and the Santa Clara Formation. Groundwater was not encountered during the subsurface exploration, which extended to a depth of 15 feet. Fluctuations in the level of the groundwater may occur due to variations in rainfall, underground drainage patterns, and other factors. Groundwater is expected to flow to the northeast, towards San Francisco Bay. 4.9.1.2 Flooding According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map, the site is located within Zone X, which is defined as areas of 0.2 percent annual chance flood, areas of percent chance flood with average depths of less than onefoot or with drainage areas less than one 13 square mile; and areas protected by levees fromthe onepercent chance flood. 4.9.1.3 Other Inundation Hazards Dam Failure The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) compiles the dam failure inundation hazard maps submitted to the State Office of Emergency Services by dam owners throughout the Bay Area. 12 Santa Clara Valley Water District. “West Valley”. Accessed April 5, 2013. <http://www.valleywater.org/services/WestValley.aspx>. 13 Federal Emergency Management Agency. Flood Insurance Rate Map. Panel 06085C0208H. May 18, 2009. City of Cupertino58Initial Study 20840 McClellan Road Rezoning and SubdivisionJuly2013 265 Section 4.0 –Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts 14 The project site is not located within a dam failure inundation hazard area. Sea Level Rise The project site is located at an elevation of approximately 285feet above mean sea level, and is not within a shoreline area vulnerable to projected sea level rise from global climate change of up to 55 15 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 mudflow. 4.9.1.4 Water Quality The water quality of streams, creeks, ponds, and other surface water bodies can be greatly affected by pollution carried in contaminated surface runoff. Pollutants from unidentified sources,known as “non-point” source pollutants, are washed from streets, construction sites, parking lots, and other exposed surfaces into storm drains. Surface runoff from roadsis collected by storm drains and discharged into Regnart Creek. The runoff often contains contaminants such as oil and grease, 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 adversely affect the aquatic habitats to which they drain. Under existing conditions, the project site contains two residences with associated structures, pavement, and landscaping. Runoff from the site may contain sediment, fertilizers, and pesticides from landscaped areas, and metals, trash, oils and grease from paved areas. 4.9.1.5 Regulatory Setting Federal Emergency Management Agency In 1968, Congress created the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) in response to the rising cost of taxpayer funded disaster relief for flood victims andthe increasing amount of damage caused by floods. The NFIP makes federally-backed flood insurance available for communities that agree to adopt and enforce floodplain management ordinances to reduce future flood damage. The Federal Emergency ManagementAgency (FEMA) manages the NFIP and creates Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) that designate 100-year floodplain zones and delineate other flood hazard areas. A 100-year floodplain zone is the area that has a one in one hundred (one percent) 14 Association of Bay Area Governments. Dam Failure Inundation Hazard Map for Cupertino.Map. October 20, 2003. Available at: <http://www.abag.ca.gov/cgi-bin/pickdamx.pl> 15 Bay Conservation and Development Commission. Living with a Rising Bay: Vulnerability and Adaptation in San Francisco Bay and on its Shoreline.2011. Page 28. Available at: <http://www.bcdc.ca.gov/BPA/LivingWithRisingBay.pdf> City of Cupertino59Initial Study 20840 McClellan Road Rezoning and SubdivisionJuly2013 266 Section 4.0 –Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts chance of being flooded in any one year based on historical data. Portions of the City are identified as special flood hazard areas with a one percent annual chance and 0.2percent annual chance of 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 California’s Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act are the primary laws related to water quality. Regulations set forth by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the State Water Resources Control Board have been developed to fulfill the requirements of this legislation. EPA’s regulations include the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program, which controls sources that discharge pollutants into the waters of the United States (e.g., streams, lakes, bays, etc.). These regulations are implemented at the regional level by the water quality control boards, which for the Cupertinoarea is the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Statewide Construction General Permit The State Water Resources Control Board has implemented a NPDESGeneral Construction Permit 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 prepared prior to commencement of construction. Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit (MRP)/C.3 Requirements The San Francisco Bay RWQCB also has issued a Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit (Permit Number CAS612008)(MRP). In an effort to standardize stormwater management requirements throughout the region, this permit replaces the formerly separate countywide municipal stormwater permits with a regional permit for 77Bay Area municipalities, including the City of Cupertino.Under provisions of the NPDES Municipal Permit, redevelopment projects that add and/or replacemore than 10,000 square feet of impervious surface, or 5,000 square feet of uncovered parking area, are required todesign and construct stormwater treatment controls to treat post- construction stormwater runoff. Amendments to the MRP require all of the post-construction runoff to be treated by using Low Impact Development (LID) treatment controls, such as biotreatment facilities. The MRP also identifies subwatershed and catchment areas subject to hydromodification management controls. The project site is locatedan area that is less than65 percent impervious; however, the project wouldnot add or replace one acre of impervious surfacesand, therefore would not be subject tothe hydromodification standard and associated requirements in the MRP would not 16 be applicable. 16 Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program. Hydromodification Management (HM) Applicability Map City of Cupertino.November 2010. Available at: <http://www.scvurppp-w2k.com/HMP_app_maps/Cupertino_HMP_Map.pdf> City of Cupertino60Initial Study 20840 McClellan Road Rezoning and SubdivisionJuly2013 267 Section 4.0 –Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts City of Cupertino Municipal Code Chapter 16.52 Prevention of FloodDamageof the City of Cupertino Municipal Codegoverns construction in Special Flood Hazard Areas (zone A, AO or A1-30 on FIRM maps)having special flood or flood-related erosion hazards.Under this regulation, the Director of Public Works reviews all development permits to determine that the permit requirements of this chapter have been satisfied, and that building sites are reasonably safe from flooding. Chapter 9.18 Stormwater Pollution Prevention and Watershed Protectionof the City of Cupertino Municipal Code outlines the City’s minimum requirements designed to control the discharge of pollutants into the City of Cupertino’s storm drain system and to assure that discharges from the City of Cupertino storm drain system comply with applicable provisionsof the Federal Clean Water Act and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit. 4.9.2Hydrology and Water QualityImpacts Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Checklist Significant With Significant No Impact Source(s) ImpactMitigation Impact Incorporated Would the project: 1.Violate any water quality standards or 1,2 waste discharge requirements? 2.Substantially deplete groundwater supplies 1 or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there will 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 will drop to a level which will not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? 3.Substantially alter the existing drainage 1 pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which will result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? 4.Substantially alter the existing drainage 1 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 will result in flooding on-or off-site? City of Cupertino61Initial Study 20840 McClellan Road Rezoning and SubdivisionJuly2013 268 Section 4.0 –Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Checklist Significant With Significant No Impact Source(s) ImpactMitigation Impact Incorporated Would the project: 5.Create or contribute runoff water which 1,2 will exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? 6.Otherwise substantially degrade water 1 quality? 7.Place housing within a 100-year flood 17 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 area 17 structures which will impede or redirect flood flows? 9.Expose people or structures to a significant 1,2 risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? 10.Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or 1,2 mudflow? 4.9.2.1 Hydrology and Drainage Redevelopment of the site mayresult in aslight increase in stormwater runoff from the project site given the large, unpaved, rear yard on the site.In accordance with the Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit, the project will be required to treat stormwater runoff from the siteprior to discharge to the storm drain systembecause it will add greater than 10,000 square feet of impervious surfaces. The project, with the incorporation of stormwater treatment measures, is not anticipated to substantially increase runofffrom the project site orexceed the capacity of the City’s existing storm (Less Than Significant Impact) drainage system. 4.9.2.2 Flooding As discussed previously, the project site is not within the 100-year, or onepercent flood zone. The project, therefore, would not place housing within a 100-yearflood hazard area or impede or redirect (No Impact) flood flows within a 100-year flood hazard area. City of Cupertino62Initial Study 20840 McClellan Road Rezoning and SubdivisionJuly2013 269 Section 4.0 –Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts 4.9.2.3 Other Inundation Hazards The project is not located in an area subject to inundation hazards from dam failure, projected sea (No Impact) level rise or earthquake induced waves or mudflows. 4.9.2.4 Groundwater Supply Impacts The project would use water supplied by San Jose Water Company. Water supply impacts of the project are addressed in Section 4.17Utilities and ServiceSystems. Theproject site does not include an in-stream groundwater recharge area and redevelopment of this site would not substantially interfere with groundwater recharge of the local aquifer used for drinking water supply. Grading for the project would be limited and would not encounter groundwater on the site. The project, therefore, would not result in substantial direct or indirect impacts to groundwater (Less Than Significant Impact) resources in the area. 4.9.2.5 Water Quality Construction Related Impacts Construction of the proposed project, as well as grading and excavation activities, may result in temporary impacts to surface water quality. Project grading and construction activities would affect the water quality of storm water surface runoff. Construction of the proposed buildings and paving of streetsand sidewalkswould also result in a disturbance to the underlying soils, thereby increasing the potential for sedimentation and erosion. When disturbance to underlying soils occurs, the surface runoff that flows across the site may contain sediments that are ultimately discharged into the storm drainage system. Post-Construction Impacts Redevelopment of the site would introduce new impervious surfaces, including new roofs and pavement. The amountof pollution carried by runoff from new residencesand pavement, therefore, couldincrease. The project also would increase traffic and human activity on and around the site, generating more pollutants and increasing dust, litter, and other contaminants that could be washed into the storm drain system. The project would,therefore, generate increases in water contaminants which could be carried downstream in storm water runoff from paved surfaces on the site. Stormwater from urban uses (including building rooftops) contains metals, pesticides, herbicides, and other contaminants such as oil, grease, lead, and animal waste. Runoff from the proposed project may contain increased oil and grease from parked vehicles, as well as sediment and chemicals (i.e., fertilizers and pesticides) from the landscaped areas. Redevelopment of the project site would increasethe amount of urban runoff from the site that could convey pollutants to Regnart Creek, Calabazas Creek,and San Francisco Bay. As a condition of approval and in conformance with the City of Cupertino’s Municipal Code Chapter 9.18, the project City of Cupertino63Initial Study 20840 McClellan Road Rezoning and SubdivisionJuly2013 270 Section 4.0 –Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts shall implement the following standard measures to reduce water quality impacts to a less than significant level: Construction Measures Condition HYD –1.1: The project shall implement construction BMPs to avoid impacts to surface water quality during construction, to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. Construction BMPs would include, but would not be limited to, the following measures: Preclude non-stormwater discharges to the stormwater system. Incorporate effective, site-specific Best Management Practices for erosion and sediment control during the constructionperiod. Cover soil, equipment, and supplies that could contribute to non- visible pollution prior to rainfall events or monitor runoff. Perform monitoring of discharges to the stormwater system. Post-Construction Measures Condition HYD –1.2: The project shall comply with Provision C.3 of NPDES Permit Number CAS612008, which provides enhanced performance standards for the management of storm water for new development. Prior to issuance of building and grading permits, each phase of development shall include provision for post-construction structural controls in the project design incompliance with the NPDES C.3 permit provisions, and shall include BMPs for reducing contamination in storm water runoff as permanent features of the project. The project includes the incorporation of biofiltration areas to treat and reduce the amount of runoff from the site. The specific BMPs to be used in each phase of development shall be determined based on design and site-specific considerations and will be determined prior to issuance of building and grading permits. Condition HYD –1.3: To protect groundwater from pollutant loading of urban runoff, BMPs which are primarily infiltration devices (such as infiltration trenches and infiltration basins) must meet, at a minimum, the following conditions: Pollution prevention and source control BMPsshall be implemented to protect groundwater; Use of infiltration BMPs cannot cause or contribute to degradation of groundwater; Infiltration BMPs must be adequately maintained; Vertical distance from the base of any infiltration device to the seasonal high groundwater mark must be at least 10 feet. In areas of highly porous soils and/or high groundwater table, BMPs shall be City of Cupertino64Initial Study 20840 McClellan Road Rezoning and SubdivisionJuly2013 271 Section 4.0 –Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts subject to a higher level of analysis (considering potential for pollutants such as on-site chemical use, level of pretreatment, similar factors); Unless storm water is first treated by non-infiltration means, infiltration devices shall not be recommended for areas of industrial or light industrial activity; areas subject to high vehicular traffic (25,000 or greater average daily traffic trips on main roadway or 15,000 or more average daily traffic trips on any intersecting roadway); automotive repair shops; car washes; fleet storage areas (bus, truck, etc); nurseries; and other land uses and activities considered by the City as high threats to water quality; and Condition HYD –1.4: Best Management Practices (BMPs) shall be selected and designed to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works in accordance with the requirements contained in the most recent versions of the following documents: City of Cupertino Post-Construction BMP Section Matrix; SCVURPPP “Guidance for Implementing Storm water Regulations for New and Redevelopment Projects;” 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) “Start at the Source” Design Guidance Manual; BASMAA “Using Site Design Standards to Meet Development Standards for Storm water Quality –A Companion Document to Start at the Source;” and City of Cupertino Planning Procedures Performance Standard. ConditionHYD –1.5: To maintain effectiveness, all storm water treatment facilities shall include long-term maintenance programs. Condition HYD –1.6: The applicant, the project arborist and landscape architect, shall work with the City and the SCVURPPP to select pest resistant plants to minimize pesticide use, as appropriate, and the plant selection will be reflected in the landscape plans. The proposed project, with the implementation of the above conditions, would not result in (Less Than Significant Impact) significant water quality impacts. 4.9.3Conclusion The proposed project, with the implementation of the City’s standard stormwater quality conditions, (Less Than Significant Impact) would not result in significant hydrology or water quality impacts. City of Cupertino65Initial Study 20840 McClellan Road Rezoning and SubdivisionJuly2013 272 Section 4.0 –Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts 4.10LAND USE 4.10.1Setting 4.10.1.1 General Plan and Zoning Designations The project site is located in a residential area of Cupertino and is designated in the City’s General Plan for Low Density Residential (1-5 DU/Gr. Ac.)land uses. This land use designation is intended to promote a suburban lifestyle of detached single-family homes and allows for planned residential communities if the development form is compatible with adjoining residential development. The project site is zoned R1-10-Single Family Residentialwhich allows for single-family residential development on 10,000 square foot minimum lots. 4.10.1.2 Existing and Surrounding Uses The 0.96-acre project site is developed with two residences, associated residential structures,and landscaping. Two-thirds of the site is a rear yard that is mostly unpaved and planted with trees. The project site is located in a residential neighborhood and fronts onto McClellan Road. Surrounding land uses includesingle-family residences in all directions with several quasi-public building uses located on the south side of McClellan Road to the west of the project site (refer to Figure 2.2-3). 4.10.2Land UseImpacts Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Checklist Significant With Significant No Impact Source(s) ImpactMitigation Impact Incorporated Would the project: 1.Physically divide an established 1,2 community? 2.Conflict with any applicable land use plan, 1,2,7 policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limitedto 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? City of Cupertino66Initial Study 20840 McClellan Road Rezoning and SubdivisionJuly2013 273 Section 4.0 –Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts 4.10.2.1 Consistency with General Plan and Zoning Ordinance The proposed residential useisconsistent with the existing General Plan land use designationwhich allows one to five dwelling units per acre on the site. The project site is 0.96-acres and would be subdivided into four lots to allow for construction of three single-family residences and aprivate roadway. The proposed project would rezone the site from R1-10-Single Family Residentialwhich allows for single-family residential development on 10,000 square foot minimum lots to R1-7.5-Single Family Residentialto allow construction of three single-family residences on lots exceeding 7,500 square feet.Development surrounding the project site contains a range of residential zoning from R1-6to R1-10.Residences on the site would be constructed consistent with the proposed zoningstandards (including building setbacks and heights)and would require approval of building permits and any applicable Planning permits, suchas aTwo-Story Permit. Rezoning of the site within the range of adjacent residential zonings would not result in any land use compatibility impacts. The proposed project would not physically divide an established community nor would it conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating (Less Than Significant Impact) environmental impacts. 4.10.2.2 Other Land Use Plans The project site is not located in an area with an adopted habitat conservation plan or natural (NoImpact) communityconservation plan. 4.10.3Conclusion The proposed project is compatible with residential development in the project area and would not physically divide any established community.Implementation of the project, therefore,would not (Less Than Significant Impact) result in significant land use impacts. City of Cupertino67Initial Study 20840 McClellan Road Rezoning and SubdivisionJuly2013 274 Section 4.0 –Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts 4.11MINERAL RESOURCES 4.11.1Setting The project site is not located in an area containing known mineral resources. 4.11.2Mineral ResourcesImpacts Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Checklist Significant With Significant No Impact Source(s) ImpactMitigation Impact Incorporated Would the project: 1,2 1.Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that will be of value to the region and the residents of the state? 2.Result inthe loss of availability of a locally-1,2 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 resources area and, therefore, development of the proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource. 4.11.3Conclusion The project would not result in a significant impact from the loss of availability of known mineral (No Impact) resources. City of Cupertino68Initial Study 20840 McClellan Road Rezoning and SubdivisionJuly2013 275 Section 4.0 –Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts 4.12NOISE 4.12.1Setting 4.12.1.1 Background Information Several factors influence sound as it is perceived by the human ear, including the actual level of sound, the period of exposure to the sound, the frequencies involved, and fluctuation in the noise level during exposure. Noise is measured on a “decibel” scale which serves as an index of loudness. Because the human ear cannot hear all pitches or frequencies, sound levels are frequently adjusted or weighted to correspond to human hearing. This adjusted unit is known as the “A-weighted” decibel or dBA. Although the A-weighted noise level may adequately indicate the level of environmental noise at any instant in time, community noise levels vary continuously. Most environmental noise includes a conglomeration of noise from distant sources that create a relatively steady background noise in which no particular source is identifiable. To describe the time-varying character of environmental 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, and 90 percent of a stated time period. A single number descriptor called the Lis also widely used. The Lis the average A-weighted eqeq noise level during a stated period of time.An A-weighted maximum noise level is L. max In determining the daily level of environmental noise, it is important to account for the difference in response of people to daytime and nighttime noises. During the nighttime, exterior background 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 nighttime noise levels, a descriptor, DNL (day/night average sound level), was developed. The DNL divides the 24-hour day into the daytime of 7:00 AM to 10:00 PM and the nighttime of 10:00 PM to 7:00 AM. The nighttime noise level is weighted 10 dB higher than the daytime noise level. The Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) is another 24-hour average that includes both an evening and nighttime weighting. 4.12.1.2 Applicable Noise Standards and Policies City of Cupertino General Plan –Health and Safety Element The Health and Safety Element establishes goals and policies designed to minimize noise exposure at noise sensitive land uses. Applicable goals and policies of the City of Cupertino are described below. Policy 6-61:Hours of ConstructionWork. Restrict non-emergency building construction work near homes during evening, early morning, and weekends by enforcing the noise regulations in the Municipal Code. City of Cupertino69Initial Study 20840 McClellan Road Rezoning and SubdivisionJuly2013 276 Section 4.0 –Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts Policy 6-62:Construction and Maintenance Activities. Regulate construction and maintenance activities. Establish and enforce reasonable allowable periods of the day, for weekdays, weekends and holidays for construction activities. Require construction contractors to use only construction equipment incorporating the best available noise control technology. Goal O:Buildings designed to diminish noise Policy 6-64:Building Code Sections on Exterior Noise Intrusion. Require the City Building Department to enforce all sections of the California Building Code for exterior sound transmission control. The General Plan also establishes noise and land use compatibility guidelines (Goal Land Policy 6- 50)to evaluate the suitability of the proposed land use with respect to the existing or future noise environment(refer toTable 4.12-1). Single-family residential uses are considered “normally acceptable” in noise environments up to 60 dBA CNELand“conditionally acceptable” in environments from 55to 70 dBA CNEL. In a noise environment between 70 and 75 dBA CNEL,single-family residential land uses are considered “normally unacceptable.”Above 75 dBA CNEL, this land use is considered “clearly unacceptable.” Table 4.12-1 Land Uses and Acceptable Noise Levels Community Noise Exposure Land Use(DNLor CNEL, dB) 55 6065 70 75 80 Residential – Low Density (Single Family, Duplex, Mobile Homes) Notes: Shading indicates Normally Acceptable noise levels indicates Conditionally Acceptable noiselevels indicates Normally Unacceptable noise levels indicates Clearly Unacceptable noise levels Municipal Code The City of Cupertino Noise Ordinance establishes regulations and standards regarding noise. 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 same property, shall not produce a noise level exceeding 60 dBA during the daytime or 50 dBA during the nighttime City of Cupertino70Initial Study 20840 McClellan Road Rezoning and SubdivisionJuly2013 277 Section 4.0 –Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts at residential property lines or 65 dBA during the daytime and 55 dBA during the nighttime 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 providing that the sum of the noise 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 StandardTwo-Hour Period 5 dBA15 Minutes 10 dBA10 Minutes 15 dBA5 Minutes 19 dBA1 Minutes Grading, Construction, and Demolition (Section 10.48.053).Grading, construction, and demolition activities shall be allowed to exceed the daytime noise limits provided that the equipment utilized has high-quality noise muffler and abatement devices installed and in good condition, and the activitymeets one of the following two criteria: 1) no individual device produces a noise level more than 87 dBA at a distance of 25 feet, or 2) noise level on any nearby property does not exceed 80 dBA. It is a violation to engage in any grading, street construction, demolition, or underground utility work within 750 feet of a residential area on Saturday, Sundays, and holidays, and during the nighttime period, except as provided in Sections 10.48.029 and10.48.030. Construction, other than street construction, is prohibited during nighttime periods unless it meets the nighttime standards of Section 10.48.040. 4.12.1.3 Existing Noise Conditions The project site is located adjacent to existing residential development to the east, south, and west. McClellan Road borders the site to the north.Vehicular traffic is the main source of noise in the project area.Based on the General Plan noise contours, noise levels on the site would be approximately 60 dBA to 65 dBA CNEL on the northern portion of the site along McClellan Road The project siteis not located within two miles of an airport or private airstrip, or within an airport land use plan. City of Cupertino71Initial Study 20840 McClellan Road Rezoning and SubdivisionJuly2013 278 Section 4.0 –Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts 4.12.2NoiseImpacts Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Checklist Significant With Significant No Impact Source(s) ImpactMitigation Impact Incorporated Would the project result in: 1.Exposure of persons to or generation of 1,2 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 of, 1 excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? 3.A substantial permanent increase in ambient 1 noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 4.A substantial temporary or periodic increase 1,7 in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 5.For a project located within an airport land 1 use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, will the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? 6.For a project within the vicinity of aprivate 1 airstrip, will 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 considered substantial. Typically, project- generated noise level increases of three (3)dBA CNEL or greater would be considered significant where exterior noise levels would exceed the normally acceptable noise level standard. Where noise levels would remain at or below the normally acceptable noise level standard with the project, noise level increases of five (5)dBA CNEL or greater would be considered significant. 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 environmental standards or plans or if noise generated by the project would substantially increase existing noise levels at sensitive receivers on a permanent or temporary basis. Based on the applicable noise standards and policies for the site, City of Cupertino72Initial Study 20840 McClellan Road Rezoning and SubdivisionJuly2013 279 Section 4.0 –Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts asignificant noise impact would result if exterior noise levels at proposed single-familyresidential land uses would exceed 65 dBA CNELor if interior day-night average noise levels would exceed 45 dBA 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 threedBA CNELor greaterat noise-sensitive receptors, with a future noise level of 60 dBA CNELor greater. A substantial temporary noise level increase would occurwhere noise from construction activities exceeds 60 dBA Land the ambient noise environment by at least fivedBA eq Lat noise-sensitive uses in the project vicinityfor a period of one year or more. eq 4.12.2.1 Noise Impacts to the Project Exterior Noise Impacts According to the 2020 noise contours identified in the City’s General Plan, noise levels on the site would exceed 60 dBA CNEL. The project, therefore,would expose people to noise levels in excess of the acceptable noise levels identified in the City’s General Plan.Traffic on McClellan Road would continue to be the dominant source of noise affecting the project site.Noise levels in excess of 60 dBA CNEL would extend approximately halfway through Parcel A if unobstructed by buildings on the site. The future exterior noise environment at the project site would exceed the “normally acceptable” noise level of 60 dBA CNEL, but would fall within the “conditionally acceptable” category (up to 70 dBA CNEL) for single-family residential uses. Based on the conceptual buildingplan (refer to Figure 3.2-1),exterior noise levels in the private yards of the proposed lots would onlyexceed 60 dBA CNELon Parcel A. Impact NOI-1: Based on the City’s General Plan noise contours, exterior noise levels in the private yard of Parcel A would exceed the normally acceptable noise level of (Significant Impact) 60 dBA CNEL. Mitigation Measures: As a condition of approval, the project applicant shall be responsible for implementing the following mitigation measures to reduce exterior noise impacts: MM NOI-1.1: Development on Parcel Ashall incorporate solid fencing(e.g.high quality wood fencing with no spaces)for the rear yard to reduce noise from McClellan Road.Shielding provided by the residenceandincorporation of solid fencing on Parcel A would ensure the rear yardprovidesexterior open (Less Than Significant Impact space thatmeets the City’s General Plan. with Mitigation Incorporated) Future Interior Noise Environment According to the 2020 noise contours identified in the City’s General Plan, noise levels on the site would exceed 60 dBA CNEL. Residential development located in areas with noise in excess of 60 City of Cupertino73Initial Study 20840 McClellan Road Rezoning and SubdivisionJuly2013 280 Section 4.0 –Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts dBA CNEL are conditionally acceptable (refer to Table 4.12-2)with the incorporation of adequate construction methods and features to reduce interior noise levels. Development of a residence on Parcel A would have the greatest exposure to noise levels exceeding 60 dBA CNEL. The City of Cupertino requiresthat interior noise levels within new residential units be maintained at or below 45 dBA CNEL. In buildings of typical construction, with the windows partially open, interior noise levels are generally 15 dBA lower than exterior noise levels. With the windows maintained closed, standard residential construction typically provides approximately20 to 25 decibels of noise reduction. For example, a unit exposed to exterior noise levels of 62dBA CNEL would be 47dBA CNEL inside with the windows partially open and 42 to 37 dBA CNEL with the windows closed.Without the incorporation of forced-air mechanical ventilation interior noise levels would continue to exceed the maximum allowable interior sound level of 45 dBA CNEL inside the residences constructed on the site. Attaining the necessary noise reduction from exterior to interior spaces is possible with proper wall construction techniques, the selections of proper windows and doors, and the incorporation of a forced-air mechanical ventilation system to allow the occupant the option of controlling noise by closing the windows. Impact NOI –2: Exterior noise levels are above 60 dBA CNEL at Parcel Awhich exceeds the City’s normally acceptable noise level standard for residential development. (Significant Impact) Mitigation 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 –2.1: Provide a suitable form of forced-air mechanical ventilation, as determined by the Director of Community Development, for units throughout the site, so that windows could be kept closed at the occupant’s discretion to control (Less Than noise and achieve the 45 dBA CNEL interior noise standard. Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated) 4.12.2.2 Noise Impacts From the Project Project-Generated Traffic Noise A doubling of traffic volumes on a roadway is required to increase noise levels by three (3) dBA. Given the slight increase in traffic(18 average daily trips)resulting from the projectand existing traffic volumes, noise levels in the project area would not be impacted by the proposed development. (Less Than Significant Impact) 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 times of the day (e.g., early morning, City of Cupertino74Initial Study 20840 McClellan Road Rezoning and SubdivisionJuly2013 281 Section 4.0 –Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts evening, or nighttime hours), the construction occurs in areas immediately adjoining noise sensitive land uses, or when construction lasts over extended periods of time. Construction activities generate considerable amounts of noise, especially during earth moving activities when heavy equipment is used. The highest maximum noise levels generated by project construction would typically range from about 90 to 95 dBA at a distance of50 feet from the noise source. Typical hourly average construction generated noise levels are about 81 dBA to 88 dBA measured at a distance of 50 feet from the center of the site during busy construction periods (e.g., earth moving equipment, impact tools, etc.). 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 levels at distant receptors. TheMunicipal Code allows construction and demolition activities during daytime hours; provided, that the equipment utilized has high-quality noise muffler and abatement devices installed and in good condition, and the activity meets one of the following two criteria: 1.No individual device produces a noise level more than eighty-seven dBA at a distance of twenty-five feet (7.5 meters); or 2.The noise level on any nearby property does not exceed eighty dBA. The project would require the demolition of two residences and associated structures. Remediation work on the site would also require the removal of 0.5to 1.5 feet of topsoil fromcontaminated areas ofthe site and the importation of clean fill. Following site grading, construction activities are anticipated to include the installation of underground utilities, construction of residential foundations, building shell construction, interior finishing, and landscaping. The project is anticipated to require a few months to demolish the existing development onthe site and complete soil remediation and grading prior to constructionof the proposed buildings.All exterior site preparation and construction would be completed within 12 months, and once construction moves indoors, minimal noise would be generated at off-site locations. Noise generated by construction activities would temporarily elevate noise levels at adjacent noise sensitive receptors, including adjacent residences and thequasi-public uses west of the site.Given the proximity of residences tothe site, construction noise levels could exceed one or both of the exemption criteria of 1) no individual device produces a noise level more than 87 dBA at a distance of 25 feet or 2) noise level on any nearby property does not exceed 80 dBA (Municipal Code Section 10.48.053). Impact NOI –3: Construction of the proposed projectwould result in temporaryconstruction- (Significant Impact) related noise impacts. Mitigation Measures: As a condition of approval, the project applicant shall be responsible for implementing the following mitigation measures to reduce construction-related noise impacts: MM NOI –3.1: Pursuant to the Municipal Code(Section 10.48.053), noise-generating activities shall be restricted at the construction site to daytime hours only. City of Cupertino75Initial Study 20840 McClellan Road Rezoning and SubdivisionJuly2013 282 Section 4.0 –Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts Construction within 750 feet of residences shall be prohibited on Saturdays, Sundays, holidays. MM NOI –3.2: All construction equipment shall conform to the following standards: 1) no individual device produces a noise level more than 87dBA at a distance of 25 feet; or 2) the noise level on any nearby property does not exceed eighty dBA(Cupertino Municipal Code Section 10.48.053). MM NOI –3.3: Equip all internal combustion engine driven equipment with intake and exhaust mufflers that are in good condition and appropriate for the equipment. MM NOI –3.4: Avoid the unnecessary idling of equipment and stage construction equipment as far as reasonable from residences adjacent tothe site (preferably more than 200 feet from these residences). MM NOI –3.5: Stationary noise generating equipment such as air compressors or portable power generators shall be located as far as possible from sensitive receptors. MM NOI –3.6: Temporary noise barriers shall be constructed to screen stationary noise generating equipment when located near adjoining sensitive land uses. MM NOI –3.7: “Quiet”air compressors and other stationary noise sources shall be utilized by contractors where technology exists. MM NOI –3.8: Noise from construction workers’ radios shall be controlled to a point that it isnot audible at existing residences bordering the project site. MM NOI–3.9: The contractor shall prepare and submit to the City for approval a detailed construction plan identifying the schedule for major noise-generating construction activities. MM NOI –3.10: Notify all adjacent businesses, residences, and other noise-sensitive land uses of the construction schedule in writing. MM NOI –3.11: A“disturbance coordinator”who would be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noiseshall be designated by the project applicant. The disturbance coordinator will determine the cause of the noise complaint (e.g., starting too early, bad muffler, etc.) and will require that reasonable measures warranted to correct the problem be implemented. The telephone number for the disturbance coordinator shall be conspicuously posted at the construction site and included in notices sent to neighbors regarding the construction schedule. City of Cupertino76Initial Study 20840 McClellan Road Rezoning and SubdivisionJuly2013 283 Section 4.0 –Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts Limiting construction hours would avoid potential impacts to sleep disturbance during nighttime hours. Limits on vehicle idling and using equipment with appropriately functioning mufflers would reduce or avoid substantially elevated construction noise levels. Providing for a construction noise coordinator responsible for responding to noise complaints and taking corrective actions, if necessary, would further reduce possible construction noise impacts to nearby residential uses. Providing advance information to residents creates opportunities for the scheduling of activities, (Less Than whereby interference due to construction noise can be minimized or avoided. Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated) 4.12.3Conclusion Impact NOI –1: The proposed project, with the implementation of mitigation measure MM NOI –1.1, would not result in significant exterior noise impacts to the (Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation proposed residential uses. Incorporated) Impact NOI –2: The proposed project, with the implementation of mitigation measureMM NOI –2.1, would not result in significant interior noise impactsto the (Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation proposed residential uses. Incorporated) Impact NOI –3: Construction of the proposed project,with the implementation of mitigation measuresMM NOI –3.1 to MM NOI –3.11, would not result in significant (Less Than Significant short-term construction-related noise impacts. Impact with Mitigation Incorporated) City of Cupertino77Initial Study 20840 McClellan Road Rezoning and SubdivisionJuly2013 284 Section 4.0 –Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts 4.13POPULATION AND HOUSING 4.13.1Setting Based on information from the California Department of Finance, the City of Cupertino population 17 was estimated to be approximately 59,022in 2012.The average number of persons per household 18 in Cupertinoin 2010was 2.87. Approximately 31,060jobs were provided within the City of Cupertino’s Sphere of Influence in 2005, and the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) Projections 2009shows a projected increase to 33,340jobs by the year 2020. The General Plan does not allocateadditional residential development to this area of the City. The General Plan; however, does allow for reallocation of development capacity from one area of the City to another if no significant environmental impacts are identified. 4.13.2Population and Housing Impacts Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Checklist Significant With Significant No Impact Source(s) ImpactMitigation Impact Incorporated Would the project: 1.Induce substantial population growth in an 1,2 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 existing 1,2 housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 3.Displace substantial numbers of people, 1,2 necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 17 State of California, Department of Finance. E-1 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties and the State with Annual Percent Change —January 1, 2011 and 2012. May 2012. Available at: <http://www.dof.ca.gov/research/demographic/reports/estimates/e-1/view.php> 18 U.S. Census Bureau. “American Fact Finder”. Profile of General Population and Housing Characteristics: 2010, for the City of Cupertino.Accessed April 5, 2013. Available at: <http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=DEC_10_AIAN_AIANDP1&prodType=tabl e> City of Cupertino78Initial Study 20840 McClellan Road Rezoning and SubdivisionJuly2013 285 Section 4.0 –Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts 4.13.2.1 Growth InducementImpacts The project site is located within the incorporated limits of the City of Cupertino and redevelopment of the project site would not result in an expansion of urban services or the pressure to expand beyond the City’s existing Sphere of Influence. As discussed above, the General Plan sets forth development allocations for residential uses for different areas of the City.The project site is not located in an area specifically allocated additional residential development capacity in the General Plan. The General Plan also allows for reallocation of development capacity between geographical areas of the City. The project site currently contains two residences which if replaced with the proposed three single-family residences would only require the reallocation of one dwelling unit to the project site. The project proposes toallowredevelopment of the site with threenew single-familyresidences. Conservatively using U.S. Census estimates of 2.87 residents per household in Cupertino, the project would result in a population increase of approximately two to eightresidentson the site. The population growth associated with redevelopment of the site would not inducesignificant (Less Than Significant Impact) unplanned growth in housing within the City. 4.13.2.2 Housing Displacement Impacts The project would result in the demolition of two existing residences and replacement with three (Less Than residences. The project would not displace substantial numbers of people or housing. SignificantImpact) 4.13.3Conclusion The project would not result in substantial growth inducement or impactstoexisting housingsupply. (Less ThanSignificant Impact) City of Cupertino79Initial Study 20840 McClellan Road Rezoning and SubdivisionJuly2013 286 Section 4.0 –Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts 4.14PUBLIC SERVICES 4.14.1Setting 4.14.1.1 Fire Service Fire safety and protection is provided by the Santa Clara County Fire Department, which also serves unincorporated Santa Clara County and the communities of Campbell, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill and Saratoga. The Santa Clara County Fire Department serves a total area of approximately 100 square miles and a population of over 226,000 persons. The Santa Clara County Fire Department has 17fire stations, an administrative headquarters, a maintenance facility, five other support facilities, and more than 100 vehicles. The Department employs 283 personnel to provide fire suppression, emergency medical and fire marshal services, hazardous materials regulation and response, rescue and extrication, public education and fire investigation services. The Department’s suppression force is also augmented by 19 volunteer firefighters. There are three fire stations located in the City of Cupertino: 1) Cupertino Fire Station No. 1 is located at 20215 Stevens Creek Boulevard, 2) Monta Vista Fire Station No. 7 is located at 22620 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 1.1 miles northeastof the project site and would be the first to respond to any emergencies. 4.14.1.2 Police Service Public safety services are provided by the Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Office. The Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Office serves the communities of Cupertino, Los Altos Hills, Saratoga, and the unincorporated areas of the Santa Clara County. The Sheriff’s Office serves a population of approximately 197,700 persons and has 1,429sworn personnel. There are twenty-eight deputies 20 allocated to the City of Cupertino. The Santa Clara County Sheriff’s West Valley Division, which is located at 1601 South De Anza Boulevard, provides law enforcement services to the residents of Cupertino. 4.14.1.3 Schools The project site is located within the Cupertino Union Elementary School District and the Fremont Union High School District. Students in the project area may attend FariaElementary School, Lawson Middle School, and Monta VistaHigh School. 19 City ofCupertino. “Fire: Santa Clara County Fire Department About County Fire”. Accessed April 5, 2013. Available at: < http://www.cupertino.org/index.aspx?page=365> 20 City of Cupertino. “Sheriff's Office West Valley Division”. Accessed April 5, 2013. Available at: <http://www.cupertino.org/index.aspx?page=364> City of Cupertino80Initial Study 20840 McClellan Road Rezoning and SubdivisionJuly2013 287 Section 4.0 –Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts 4.14.1.4 Parks Residents of Cupertino are served by regional and community park facilities, including regional open 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 21 Preserve managed by the Midpeninsula Open Space District. The City of Cupertino’s neighborhood parks system serves the active and passive recreational needs of its residents. The City of Cupertino’s parkland is comprised of 12 neighborhood parks and four special purpose parks (Memorial Park, McClellan Ranch Park, Blackberry Farm and Creekside 22 Park).The City’s General Plan Park Acreage Policy (Policy 2-74) states that the City should 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 walk of a neighborhood park or community park with neighborhood facilities, and that the route is reasonably free of physical barriers, including streets with heavy traffic. Jollyman Park is located approximately 0.5 mile walking distance south of the site. 4.14.2Public Services Impacts Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Checklist Significant With Significant No Impact Source(s) ImpactMitigation Impact Incorporated 1.Would the project 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 Parks?1 Other Public Facilities?1 21 City of Cupertino. General Plan 2000-2020. Figure 2-H. 22 City of Cupertino General Plan 2000-2020 and City of Cupertino. “City Parks”. Accessed April 5, 2013. Available at: <http://www.cupertino.org/index.aspx?page=591> City of Cupertino81Initial Study 20840 McClellan Road Rezoning and SubdivisionJuly2013 288 Section 4.0 –Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts 4.14.2.1 Fire and Police Services 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 Sheriff’s Office. The proposed residences would be constructed in conformance with the appropriate Fire and Building Codes to reduce fire risk. The City requires smoke alarms in new residential development to further reduce fire risk. Development of the proposed project would intensify the use of the project site in comparison to existing conditions, which mayincrementally increase the number of calls for fire and police services,including medical calls. Additional service demands generated by the proposed project, however, would not require construction of additional fire or police facilities. (Less Than Significant Impact) 4.14.2.2 Schools The project would allow development of three single-family residences that would generate 23 approximately oneelementary student. The project site is located within the Cupertino Union School District and the Fremont Union High School District. Students in the project area may attend Faria Elementary School, Lawson Middle School, and Monta Vista High School. The demand for housing in the Cupertino Union School District and in the Monta VistaHigh attendance area is very high. The number of students generated from the project is relatively smalland would not result in substantial individual effects on school capacity. 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. The School Impact Fee program is considered under state law as an acceptable method of offsetting a project’seffect on the adequacy of school facilities, with the individual school districts responsible for implementing school facilities improvements. The proposed project would generate new studentsin the local school districts. As described above, the schoolimpact fees and property tax paid by the project would cover the cost of facility improvements and operating cost for the project-generated students. The project, therefore, would (Less Than Significant Impact) not result in a significant impact to school facilities. 4.14.2.3 Parks The proposed residential lots are each approximately one-fifth acre which would allow for private open space in rear yards. No new public parkland or recreational facilities are proposed as a part of the project. 23 Schoolhouse Services. Enrollment andFiscal Impact Analysis 20030 Stevens Creek Project. January 2012.Tables 1 & 2. City of Cupertino82Initial Study 20840 McClellan Road Rezoning and SubdivisionJuly2013 289 Section 4.0 –Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts Future residents of the site would use existing recreational facilities in the area. The project site has one park (Jollyman Park) within a 0.5-mile walk for future residents. The redevelopment of the site with three residences would incrementally increase the use of existing recreational facilities in the area. The proposed lot sizes allow for substantial private open spaceon the site which would partially offset the need for additional neighborhood parks to serve the project and would also reduce and avoid physical impacts to existing public gathering places in neighborhoodparks.The proposed project shall be required to comply with the City’s Municipal Code regarding parkland dedication and/or payment of in-lieu fees to reduce impacts to parks facilities in the City. In conformance with standard practices in the City of Cupertino, the proposed project shall implement the following standard measure to reduce park impacts: Condition PF-1.1: The project shall comply with the Municipal Code requirements for parkland dedication and/or payment of in-lieu fees (Section 18.24.060). With implementation of the City’s parkland dedication requirements, it is unlikely that the incremental increase in use from residential development allowed and planned for in the City’s General Plan will cause significant physical deterioration of existing park facilities or require (Less Than Significant Impact) construction of new facilities. 4.14.3Conclusion The proposed project, with the implementation of the above condition of approval, would not result (Less Than Significant Impact) in significant impacts to public services. City of Cupertino83Initial Study 20840 McClellan Road Rezoning and SubdivisionJuly2013 290 Section 4.0 –Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts 4.15RECREATION 4.15.1Setting The City of Cupertino is served by approximately 162acres of parkland, includingneighborhood parks, communityparks, and school playing fields. The Parks and Recreation Department manages leisure services 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 planning and development, and a comprehensive leisure program for the City. The City’s Policy 2-74, states that the City should provide parkland equal to a minimum of three acres for every 1,000 residents. Policy 2-75 states that the each household should be within a 0.5-mile walk of a neighborhood park or community park with neighborhood facilities, and that the route is reasonably free of physical barriers, including streets with heavy traffic. As discussed in Section4.14Public Services,JollymanPark is located approximately a0.5-mile walking distance south ofthe site. 4.15.2Recreation Impacts Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Checklist Significant With Significant No Impact Source(s) ImpactMitigation Impact Incorporated 1.Would the project increase the use of 1,2 existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility will occur or be accelerated? 2.Does the project include recreational 1,2 facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? The proposed residential lots are each approximately one-fifth acre which would allow for private open space in rear yards. No new public parkland or recreational facilities areproposed as a part of the project. Future residents of the site would use existing recreational facilities in the area. The project site has one park (JollymanPark) within a 0.5-mile walk for future residents. The redevelopment of the site with three residences would incrementally increase the use of existing recreational facilities in the area. City of Cupertino84Initial Study 20840 McClellan Road Rezoning and SubdivisionJuly2013 291 Section 4.0 –Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts The proposed lot sizes allow for substantial private open spaceon the site which would partially offset the need for additional neighborhood parks toserve the project and would also reduce and avoid physical impacts to existing public gathering places in neighborhoodparks. The proposed open space and the project’s compliance with the City’s parkland dedication/payment of in-lieu fees (Less Than (refer to Section 4.14Public Services)would offsetsubstantial recreational impacts. Significant Impact) 4.15.3Conclusion (Less Than Significant The proposed project would not result in significant recreation impacts. Impact) City of Cupertino85Initial Study 20840 McClellan Road Rezoning and SubdivisionJuly2013 292 Section 4.0 –Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts 4.16TRANSPORTATION 4.16.1Setting 4.16.1.1 Existing Conditions Roadway Network The roadway networkserving the project site isdescribedbelow. Regional Access Interstate 280 (I-280)is a north/south freeway that extends from US 101 in San José to I-80 in San 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 afull interchangeat North De Anza Boulevard. State Route 85 (SR 85)is oriented in a north/south direction with four mixed-flow lanes and two high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes. SR 85 provides access to the project site via full interchanges at Stevens Creek Boulevard and South De Anza Boulevard. Local Access DeAnza Boulevardis a seven-lane north/south major arterial located east of the project site. It extends in Cupertino from Homestead Road to Prospect Road. De Anza Boulevard provides access to the site via McClellan Road. Stelling Roadis a four-lane north/southminor collectorin the vicinity of the project site. It extends inCupertino from Homestead Road to Prospect Road. Stelling Road provides access to the site via McClellan Road. McClellan Roadis a two-lane east/westminor collectorextending from Foothill Boulevard to DeAnza Boulevard. McClellan Road provides direct access to the project site. Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities In the project vicinity, pedestrian facilities include sidewalks on the north side of McClellan Road and on the south side of McClellan Road with the exception of approximately170feet along the street frontage of the project site and directly adjoining properties to the east and west. Pedestrian signals are present at the intersections of McClellan Road with DeAnza Boulevard and Stelling Road. Bicycle facilities in the sitevicinity include bike lanes on both sides of Stelling Road and De Anza Boulevard. No bike lanes are currently planned for this section of McClellan Road but are located on 24 this roadway west of Stelling Road. 24 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 City of Cupertino86Initial Study 20840 McClellan Road Rezoning and SubdivisionJuly2013 293 Section 4.0 –Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts Transit Service The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) operates bus service in Santa Clara County. The local bus routesserving the project site on McClellan Road aredescribed below. Route 25provides bus service between DeAnza College and the Alum Rock LRT Station in San José. The hours of operation are from 6:00AM to 10:15PM with 30-to 60-minute headways on weekdays. On weekends, this route operates on 30-to 60-minute headways between 7:45 AM and 7:15 PM. Route 53provides bus service between the Sunnyvale Transit Center in Sunnyvaleand West Valley College in Saratoga. The hours of operation are from 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM with 30-to 60-minute headways on weekdays. Route 55provides bus service between DeAnza Collegeand the Old Ironsides LRT Station in Santa Clara.The hours of operation are from 5:45AM to 10:15PM with 25-to 60-minute headways on weekdays. On weekends, this route operates on 60-to 90-minute headways between 8:15AM and 9:15PM. Route 323provides bus service between DeAnza College and Downtown San José. The hours of operation are from 6:40AM to 7:00PM with 15-to 20-minute headways on weekdays. 4.16.2Transportation Impacts Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Checklist Significant With Significant No Impact Source(s) ImpactMitigation Impact Incorporated Would the project: 1.Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance 1,2 or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? special lane markings, pavement legends, and signage. Bike routes (Class 3) are existing right-of-ways that accommodate bicycles but are not separate from the existing travel lanes. Routes are typically designated only with signs. City of Cupertino87Initial Study 20840 McClellan Road Rezoning and SubdivisionJuly2013 294 Section 4.0 –Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Checklist Significant With Significant No Impact Source(s) ImpactMitigation Impact Incorporated Would the project: 2.Conflict with an applicable congestion 1 management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency fordesignated roads or highways? 3.Result in a change in air traffic patterns, 1 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 access?1 6.Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or 1,2 programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? 4.16.2.1 Intersection Level of Service 25 The proposed single-family residences would result in approximately 18 average daily trips.The project would result in fewer than 100 new peak hour trips, and per the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Congestion Management Program Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines, such a project is assumed to result in a less than significant traffic impact and a (Less Than Significant Impact) transportation impact analysis is not required. 4.16.2.3 Other Transportation Issues The project does not include any design features that would substantially increase traffic hazards in the area. The project will provide adequate emergency vehicle access to the residential uses on the site. The project will dedicate a 30-foot right-of-way along the site frontage to provide sidewalks and, therefore, would not conflict with any policies, plans, or programs to encourage alternative (NoImpact) transportation programs. 25th Institute of Transportation Engineers. Trip Generation, 8Edition. 2008. City of Cupertino88Initial Study 20840 McClellan Road Rezoning and SubdivisionJuly2013 295 Section 4.0 –Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts 4.16.3Conclusion The proposed project would not generate substantial amounts of traffic at intersections in the project vicinity nor would it create design hazards or conflict with alternative transportation programsand, (Less Than Significant therefore, would not result in any significant transportation impacts. Impact) City of Cupertino89Initial Study 20840 McClellan Road Rezoning and SubdivisionJuly2013 296 Section 4.0 –Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts 4.17UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS 4.17.1Setting 4.17.1.1 Water Water service to the project site is supplied by the San Jose Water Company,which also maintains the water system.San Jose Water Company(SJWC)serves approximately 139 square miles of the Santa Clara Valley, including most ofSan Jose, most of Cupertino, the entire cities of Campbell, Monte Sereno, Saratoga, the Town of Los Gatos, and parts of unincorporated Santa Clara County. SJWC relies on groundwater, imported treated water,and local surface waterfor its potable water supply. In 2010, SJWC received approximately 39 percent of its water supply from groundwater, 50 26 percent from imported treated water, and 12 percent from local surface water.Water supplies from SCVWD come from local runoff and water imports from both the Federal Central Valley Project and the California State Water Project. In 2010,SJWCdelivered 133,066acre-feet of water per year (AFY) which is expected to increase to 159,479 by 2035. The project site is served by an existingsix-inch water linein McClellan Road. The two residences 27 on the site are estimated to use 500gallons of water per day. 4.17.1.2 Storm Drainage The City’s storm drain system is made up of underground pipelines. These pipes carry surface runoff from streets to prevent flooding. Runoff (stormwater and runoff from landscape irrigation and other urban sources) enters the system at the grated catch basins found along the curb near street intersections. Water from these pipes is discharged, untreated, directly into City creeks. The project site is served by a 12-inch storm drain line located in McClellan Road. 4.17.1.3 Wastewater/Sanitary Sewer System The Cupertino Sanitary District provides sewer service to the project site. The Cupertino Sanitary 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 28 and has purchased 7.85million gallons per day of capacity.Approximately 5 million gallons of 29 wastewater a day is generated within the Cupertino Sanitary District and conveyed to the WPCP. The City is well below their allotted capacity at the WPCP. The project site is served by a10-inch 26 San Jose WaterCompany. 2010 Urban Water Management Plan.April2011. 27 Oberg, John. City of San José. “Re: water lines.” E-mail to David J. Powers and Associates, Inc. 4 February 2004. 28 City of Milpitas. “Agreement for Treatment Plant Capacity Transfer”. 2009. Accessed: April 8. 2013. Available at: <http://www.ci.milpitas.ca.gov/_pdfs/council/2009/010609/item_17.pdf> 29 Cupertino Sanitary District. 2009 Annual Report. City of Cupertino90Initial Study 20840 McClellan Road Rezoning and SubdivisionJuly2013 297 Section 4.0 –Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts sanitary sewer line in McClellan Road.Existing development on the site is estimated to discharge 30 approximately 425gallons of sewage per day. 4.17.1.4 Solid Waste Commercial and residential garbage and recycling services in the project area are provided by 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 2011, Newby Island Sanitary 31,32 Landfill (NISL)had approximately 6.3 million cubic yards of capacity remaining. The City has a contract with Newby Island Landfill until the year 2023, or until the cumulative tonnage deliveredequals 2.05 million tons.Since the City’s contract with Newby Island, the City has delivered a total of approximately 1.4million tons of waste to the landfill. The City generates 33 approximately 31,500 tons of solid waste a year.Thetwo residences on the project site are 34 estimated to generate 8,928pounds of solid wasteannually. 4.17.2Utilities and Service SystemImpacts Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Checklist Significant With Significant No Impact Source(s) ImpactMitigation Impact Incorporated Would the project: 1.Exceed wastewater treatment requirements 1 of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? 2.Require or result in the construction of new 1 water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? 3.Require or result in the construction of new 1 stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? 30 Oberg, John. City of San José. “Re: water lines.” E-mail to David J. Powers and Associates, Inc. 4 February 2004. 31 King, Rick. Personal communications with NISL General Manager. February 2012. 32 Note the City of San José approveda height expansion at Newby Island Sanitary Landfillin August 2012, which would add approximately 15 million cubic yards to the capacity of the landfill. 33 The estimate annual tonnage of solid waste generated by the City is based on an average of 2009-2011. Source: King, Rick. Personal communications with NISL General Manager. February 2012. 34 CalRecycle. “Residential Developments: Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates”.January 16, 2013. Accessed April 9, 2013. Available at:<http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/wastechar/WasteGenRates/Residential.htm> Based on a solid waste generation rate of 12.23 pounds per household per day. City of Cupertino91Initial Study 20840 McClellan Road Rezoning and SubdivisionJuly2013 298 Section 4.0 –Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Checklist Significant With Significant No Impact Source(s) ImpactMitigation Impact Incorporated Would the project: 4.Have sufficient water supplies available to 1 serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? 5.Result in a determination by the wastewater 1 treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? 6.Be served by a landfill with sufficient 1 permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? 7.Comply with federal, state and local statutes 1 and regulations related to solid waste? 4.17.2.1 Water Service and Supply Based on the 2010 Urban Water Management Plan adopted by San Jose Water Company in April 2011, water demand in theirservice area is expected to increaseby approximately20 percent.The project would increase water use on the site to approximately 750 gallons of water per day if no efficiency measures were incorporated into the project. The project will be constructed to meet CalGreen Building Code standards which include the incorporation of efficient plumbing fixtures and irrigation controls to reduce water use on the site.The project, therefore,would not substantially increase water demand to the extent that new entitlements and sources of water would be required. (Less Than Significant Impact) 4.17.2.2 Storm Drainage Theproposed project mayslightly increase the rate of stormwater runoff from the site.As described in Section 4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality, the projectwould be required to incorporateLow Impact Development (LID) stormwater treatment measuresand, therefore, would notsubstantially increase runofffrom the project site or exceed the capacity of the City’s existing storm drainage (Less Than Significant Impact) system. 4.17.2.3 Wastewater/Sanitary Sewer System As described previously, the City is well below its allotment for wastewater treatment at the WPCP. The Cupertino Sanitary District, therefore, has adequate wastewater treatment capacity for the proposed project. City of Cupertino92Initial Study 20840 McClellan Road Rezoning and SubdivisionJuly2013 299 Section 4.0 –Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts 35 The project is estimated to generate sewage of 638gallons per day.Given the existing residential uses on the site,this quantity of sewage represents a slight increaseover existing conditions. The (Less existing sanitary sewer system is anticipated to have adequate capacity to serve the project. Than Significant Impact) 4.17.2.4 Solid Waste 36 The proposed project is estimated to generate approximately 13,392pounds of garbage per year. Based on the project’s estimated annual waste generation, the City’s annual waste generation, and the City’s remaining allocation at Newby Island Sanitary Landfill, there is sufficient capacity within the (Less Than City’s contract with Newby Island and at the landfillto serve the proposed project. Significant Impact) 4.17.3Conclusion The utilities and service systems currently available areadequate to serve thenet increase in (Less Than Significant Impact) residential uses on theproject site. 35 Oberg, John. City of San José. “Re: water lines.” E-mail to David J. Powers and Associates, Inc. 4 February 2004.Based on sewage generation rates 85 percent of water use 36 CalRecycle. “Residential Developments: Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates”.January 16, 2013. Accessed April 9, 2013. Available at:<http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/wastechar/WasteGenRates/Residential.htm> Based on a solid waste generation rate of 12.23 pounds per household per day. City of Cupertino93Initial Study 20840 McClellan Road Rezoning and SubdivisionJuly2013 300 Section 4.0 –Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts 4.18MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Checklist Significant With Significant No Impact Source(s) ImpactMitigation Impact Incorporated 1.Does the project have the potential to p. 13-93 degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? 2.Does the project have impacts that are p. 13-93 individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? 3.Does the project have the potential to p. 13-93 achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals? 4.Does the project have environmental effects p. 13-93 which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? 4.18.1Project and Cumulative Impacts The project includes mitigation measures to avoid or reduce biological resources, culturalresources, hazardous materials, and noise impactsto a less than significant level. As described in the respective sections of this Initial Study, the proposed project 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 13–93of this Initial Study). The project would allow construction of three residences on the site (a net increase of one residence) which would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to any cumulative impact that may occur from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects. City of Cupertino94Initial Study 20840 McClellan Road Rezoning and SubdivisionJuly2013 301 Section 4.0 –Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts 4.18.2Short-Term vs. Long-Term Environmental Goals The proposed project would not achieve any short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals. The project includes measures that would assist the City, region, and (Less Than Significant state in achieving long-term goals related to air quality and water quality. Impact) City of Cupertino95Initial Study 20840 McClellan Road Rezoning and SubdivisionJuly2013 302 Section 4.0 –Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts CHECKLIST INFORMATION SOURCES 1.Professional judgment and expertise of the environmental specialist preparing this assessment, based upon a review of the site and surrounding conditions, as well as a review of the project plans. 2.City of Cupertino. General Plan. November 2005. 3.California Department of Conservation. Santa Clara County Important Farmland 2010. Map. 4.Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan.September 15, 2010. 5.Bay Area Air Quality Management District. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines.May 2011. 6.Michael L. Bench, Consulting Arborist.An Evaluation of the Existing Trees at 20840 McClellan Road Cupertino, CA. December 20, 2011. 7.City of Cupertino. Municipal Code.February 19, 2013. 8.Piers Environmental Services, Inc.Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Reportfor: 20840 McClellan Road.March 2012. 9.Capex Engineering, Inc.Geotechnical ReportInvestigation.November 27, 2011. 10.Piers Environmental Services, Inc. Limited Phase II Soil Investigation Report for: 20840 McClellan Road. July 2012. 11.Piers Environmental Services, Inc.Report of Additional Soil Investigation for: 20840 McClellan Road.August 2012. 12.Piers Environmental Services, Inc. Work Plan for Additional Site Characterization for: 20840 McClellan Road.October 2012. 13.Piers Environmental Services, Inc. Summary Report of Soil Investigations for: 20840 McClellan Road.November 2012. 14.Piers Environmental Services, Inc. Revised Site Mitigation Plan for: 20840 McClellan Road. March2013. 15.Piers Environmental Services, Inc. Investigative Report and Revised Mitigation Plan Haun Property 20840 McClellan Road.July 9, 2013. City of Cupertino96Initial Study 20840 McClellan Road Rezoning and SubdivisionJuly2013 303 Section 4.0 –Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts 16.Association of Bay Area Governments, Earthquake and Hazards Program. Wildland Urban Interface Fire Threatened Communities. July 2009. Accessed April 11, 2013. Available at: <http://gis3.abag.ca.gov/Website/Fire_Threat_WUI/ viewer.htm> 17.Federal Emergency Management Agency. Flood Insurance Rate Map. Panel 06085C0208H. May 18, 2009. City of Cupertino97Initial Study 20840 McClellan Road Rezoning and SubdivisionJuly2013 304 SECTION5.0REFERENCES Association of Bay Area Governments. Bay Area Faults.Map. 2003. . Associationof Bay Area Governments. Dam Failure Inundation Hazard Map for Cupertino.Map. October 20, 2003. Available at: <http://www.abag.ca.gov/cgi-bin/pickdamx.pl> Association of Bay Area Governments, Earthquake and Hazards Program. Wildland Urban Interface Fire Threatened Communities. July 2009. Accessed April 11, 2013. Available at: <http://gis3.abag.ca.gov/Website/Fire_Threat_WUI/ viewer.htm> Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan.September 15, 2010. Bay Area Air Quality Management District. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. May 2011. Bay Conservation and Development Commission. Living with a Rising Bay: Vulnerability and Adaptation in San Francisco Bay and on its Shoreline.2011. Page 28. Available at: <http://www.bcdc.ca.gov/BPA/LivingWithRisingBay.pdf> C. Bruce Hanson. 2010. Paleontological Evaluation Report for the Envision San José 2040 General Plan, Santa Clara County, California. California Department of Conservation. Santa Clara County Important Farmland 2010. Map. California Department of Conservation, California Geologic Survey. Seismic Hazard Zones Cupertino Quadrangle. Map. September 23, 2002. California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology. Special Studies Zones Cupertino Quadrangle.Map. July 1, 1974. Capex Engineering, Inc. Geotechnical Report Investigation.November 27, 2011. CalRecycle. “Residential Developments: Estimated SolidWaste Generation Rates”. January 16, 2013. Accessed April 9, 2013. Available at: <http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/wastechar/ WasteGenRates/Residential.htm> City of Cupertino. General Plan. November 2005. City of Cupertino. Municipal Code.February 19, 2013. City of Cupertino. “City Parks”. Accessed April 5, 2013. Available at: <http://www.cupertino.org/index.aspx?page=591> City of Cupertino. “Fire: Santa Clara County Fire Department About County Fire”. Accessed April 5, 2013. Available at: < http://www.cupertino.org/index.aspx?page=365> City of Cupertino98Initial Study 20840 McClellan Road Residential July 2013 305 Section 5.0–References City of Cupertino. “Sheriff's Office West Valley Division”. Accessed April 5, 2013. Available at: <http://www.cupertino.org/index.aspx?page=364> City of Milpitas. “Agreement for Treatment Plant Capacity Transfer”. 2009. Accessed: April 8. 2013. Available at: <http://www.ci.milpitas.ca.gov/_pdfs/council/2009/010609/item_17.pdf> County of Santa Clara. Geologic Hazard Zones. Map. October 26, 2012. Cupertino Sanitary District. 2009 Annual Report. Federal Emergency Management Agency. Flood Insurance Rate Map. Panel 06085C0208H. May 18, 2009. Institute of Transportation Engineers. Trip Generation, 8th Edition. 2008. One Bay Area. “ Announcing Draft Plan Bay Area Release, Spring 2013 Meetings and Public Outreach”. Accessed April 4, 2013. Available at: <http://onebayarea.org> Piers Environmental Services, Inc. Investigative Report and Revised Mitigation Plan Haun Property 20840 McClellan Road.July 9, 2013. Piers Environmental Services, Inc. Limited Phase II Soil Investigation Report for: 20840 McClellan Road. July 2012. Piers Environmental Services, Inc. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report for: 20840 McClellan Road.March 2012. Piers Environmental Services, Inc. Report of Additional Soil Investigation for: 20840 McClellan Road.August 2012. Piers Environmental Services, Inc. Revised Site Mitigation Plan for: 20840 McClellan Road.March 2013. Piers Environmental Services, Inc. Summary Report of Soil Investigations for: 20840 McClellan Road.November 2012. Piers Environmental Services, Inc. Work Plan for Additional Site Characterization for: 20840 McClellan Road.October 2012. San Jose WaterCompany. 2010 Urban Water Management Plan.April2011. Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program. Hydromodification Management (HM) Applicability Map City of Cupertino.November 2010. Available at: <http://www.scvurppp-w2k.com/HMP_app_maps/Cupertino_HMP_Map.pdf> City of Cupertino99Initial Study 20840 McClellan Road Rezoning and SubdivisionJuly2013 306 Section 5.0–References Santa Clara Valley Water District. “West Valley”. Accessed April 5, 2013. <http://www.valleywater.org/services/WestValley.aspx>. State of California, Department of Finance. E-1 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties and the State with Annual Percent Change —January 1, 2011 and 2012. May 2012. Available at: <http://www.dof.ca.gov/research/demographic/reports/estimates/e-1/view.php> U.S. Census Bureau. “American Fact Finder”. Profile of General Population and Housing Characteristics: 2010, for the City of Cupertino. Accessed April 5, 2013. Available at: <http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=DEC_10 _AIAN_AIANDP1&prodType=table> U.S. Geological Survey. “Preliminary quaternary geologic maps of Santa Clara Valley, Santa Clara, Alameda, and San Mateo counties, California: A digital database”. Accessed March 21, 2013. Available at: < http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/1994/of94-231/sccomap.pdf> City of Cupertino100Initial Study 20840 McClellan Road Rezoning and SubdivisionJuly2013 307 SECTION 6.0LEAD AGENCYAND 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 Zach Dill, Graphic Artist City of Cupertino101Initial Study 20840 McClellan Road Rezoning and SubdivisionJuly2013 308 CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE August 1, 2013 As provided by the Environmental Assessment Procedure, adopted by the City Council of the City of Cupertino on May 27, 1983, as amended, the following described project was reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee of the City of Cupertino on August 1, 2013. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION Application No.: TM-2012-04, Z-2012-01 (EA-2012-04) Applicant: James Chen (Cherryland, LLC) Location: 20840 McClellan Road APN # 359-20-031 DISCRETIONARY ACTION REQUEST /§¸©«²,§¶ºµ¹»¨ª¯¼¯ª«§´«¾¯¹º¯´¹¯´²«¬§³¯²¿²µº¯´ºµv¸«¹¯ª«´º¯§²²µº¹§´ªt©µ³³µ´§¸«§²µº 1«9µ´¯´µ¬§ |y§©¸«¶§¸©«²¬¸µ³2¯´²«%§³¯²¿1«¹¯ª«´º¯§²1ttsºµ2¯´²«%§³¯²¿1«¹¯ª«´º¯§²1t z x FINDINGS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE 3®«$´¼¯¸µ´³«´º§²1«¼¯«½"µ³³¯ºº««¸«©µ³³«´ª¹º®«¸§´º¯´µ¬§,¯º¯§º«ª-«§º¯¼« #«©²§¸§º¯µ´¬¯´ª¯´º®§ºº®«¶¸µ°«©º¯¹©µ´¹¯¹º«´º½¯º®º®«&«´«¸§²/²§´§´ª¯¹ª«º«¸³¯´«ªºµ¨« ¯´¹¯´¯¬¯©§´º /s/Aarti Shrivastava Aarti Shrivastava Community Development Director g/erc/REC EA-2012-04 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER CITY HALL 10 10300 TORRE AVENUE CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3212 www.cupertino.org CITYCOUNCILSTAFFREPORT Meeting:September17,2013 Subject ConsiderapprovaloftheLibrary"µ³³¯¹¹¯µ´¹recommendationfortheappointment ofthenewCupertinoPoetLaureate. RecommendedAction AdoptaresolutionapprovingtheLibraryCommissionrecommendationand appointingthenewCupertinoPoetLaureate. Description ResolutionNo.11163designatedaCupertinoPoetLaureateandrequestedtheLibrary Commissiontoappointaselectioncommitteetooverseeandadministertheprogram includingrecruitment. Discussion InDecember2013,theLibraryCommissionformedasubcommitteetoidentifya candidateforrecommendationtotheCityCouncil.Thetermforthisnonpaid, volunteerpositionistwoyearsfromthedateoftheappointment. Afteranextensivesearcheffort,thesubcommittee(consistingofmembersfromthe Library,FineArtsandCollegecommunities)hasrecommendedJenniferSwanton Brownasthe"»¶«¸º¯´µ¹newPoetLaureate.Herchargeistostimulateculturaland literacyawarenessinCupertino,introduceyouthandadultstothepersonaland communitybenefitsofpoetrybothaspersonalexpressionandasreflectiveofour historyandculture,reveal,recognizeandengageliterarytalentresidinginthe communityandpromoteourLibraryastheculturalcenterofCupertino. Since1989,Ms.Brownhastaughtvariousworkshops,donepoetryreadings,wonand judgedpoetrycontests.Shehasbeenpublishedinmanyliteraryjournalsand newspapers.2®«¹agraduateofUC,SanDiegoandhasaMasterofLiberalArtsfrom StanfordUniversity.Shehasmembershipandaffiliationstomanyprestigiousliterary organizationsincludingherroleaspoetandteacherinCaliforniaPoetsintheSchools since2001andSantaClaraCountyAreaCoordinatorfrom20042007and2013 Jennifer 317 bringsnumerousideasforengagingawiderepresentationofCupertinocommunity members. TheLibraryCommissionrespectfullyrequeststheCityCounciltoactuponits recommendation. _____________________________________ Preparedby:NidhiMathur ApprovedforSubmissionby:DavidBrandt,CityManager Attachments: ADraftResolution BKNewPoetLaureateresume 318 RESOLUTIONNO.13 ARESOLUTIONOFTHECITYCOUNCILOFTHECITYOFCUPERTINO APPROVINGTHELIBRARYCOMMISSIONRECOMMENDATIONAND APPOINTINGJENNIFERSWANTONBROWNAS THECUPERTINOPOETLAUREATE WHEREAS,theResolutionNo.11163designatedaCupertinoPoetLaureate position;and WHEREAS,theCupertinoPoetLaureatewillbechargedtostimulatecultural andliteraryawarenessinCupertino,introduceyouthandadultstothepersonaland communitybenefitsofpoetrybothaspersonalexpression,andasreflectiveofour historyandculture,reveal,recognizeandengageliterarytalentresidinginthe communityandpromoteourLibraryastheculturalcenterofCupertino;and WHEREAS,afteranextensivesearcheffort,thePoetLaureateCommitteeand theLibraryCommissionhaveunanimouslyrecommendedJenniferSwantonBrownfor thetwoyearvoluntaryposition;and NOW,THEREFOREBEITRESOLVED,thattheCityCouncilofCityof CupertinoapprovetherecommendationandappointJenniferSwantonBrownas "»¶«¸º¯´µ¹PoetLaureateforatwoyearterm. PASSEDANDADOPTEDataregularmeetingoftheCityCouncilofthe CityofCupertinothis17thdayofSeptember,2013bythefollowingvote: VoteMembersoftheCityCouncil AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST:APPROVED: GraceSchmidt,CityClerkOrrinMahoney,Mayor,CityofCupertino 319 Jennifer Swanton Brown Curriculum Vitae 11266 Monterey Court 408-835-3660 (mobile) twirlyword@gmail.com (public) Cupertino, CA 95014 408-366-1806 (home) jenswanbrown@gmail.com (private) World Wide Web Blogs: The Yellow Lane: Poetry in the Suburbs cupertino.patch.com/blogs/jennifer-swanton-browns-blog The Twirly Word: Thoughts on poetry teaching with children twirlywordpoems.blogspot.com Facebook: TwirlyWord Poetry www.facebook.com/TwirlywordPoetry Tumblr: TwirlyWord Poetry & twirlyword.tumblr.com Published Poems Journals: Black Zinnias, Caesura, Convergence, Disquieting Muses, Fresh Hot Bread, Tangents, The Sand Hill Review Anthologies: A Family Album, Santa Clara County, 2009, Nils Peterson, Santa Clara Poet Laureate (editor) What The World Hears: 2009 Statewide Anthology, California Poets in The Schools Waverley Writers: Celebrating 25 Years 19812005, 2007 Immediate As Air: New First Drafts, Squaw Valley Community of Writers, 1989 Newspapers: Someone, The Palo Alto Times, 1970 Invited Readings Earth Day Sponsored by Cupertino Poet Laureate, April 2012 Winter Light 3, sponsored by Cupertino Poet Laureate, April 20 First Words Sponsored by Cupertino Poet Laureate, October 2011 Art 21 Gallery, Palo Alto, June 2006 Half Moon Bay Coffee House, June 2005 Butte College, Chico, April 2003 KKUP Radio Out of Our Minds, December 1999, September 2000 Not Dead Yet Poets Society, Redwood City, February 2000 Waverley Writers, May 1989 Workshops Poetry Writing Workshop for Teens, sponsored by Cupertino Poet Laureate, David Denny, November 2012 Discovery Day, Regnart Elementary School, 20052010 Poetry Workshop for Teens, Cupertino Library, February 2008 Youth Poetry Reading/Summer Reading Club, Cupertino Library, July 2006 Grants Cupertino Fine Arts Grant, April 2002, May 2003 Contests Cupertino Poetry Contest, Third Place (Adult) Rural Cemetery, Palo Alto Printers Ink Poetry Contest, Honorable Mention for The Yellow Chevrolet, September 1999 Judging Cupertino Poetry Contest, Teen Category Judge, January 2013 Concerts For World Peace and Peace Poetry Contest, SJSU/San Jose Library, April 2009 Memberships & Squaw Valley Community of Writers (1989, 1999, 2001) Affiliations Visual and Performing Arts Community Task Force, Cupertino Unifi Waverley Writers, Palo Alto (1986 - present) California Poets in the Schools poet/teacher (2001 present); Santa Clara County Area Coordinator (2004-2007, 2013); Board Member (2013) Education A.B., Linguistics and German Literature, University of California San Diego, California, 1981 Master of Liberal Arts, Stanford University, California, 2012. Thesis The Domestic Poetry of Eavan Boland: Image and Form 320 PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT CITY HALL 10 10300 TORRE AVENUE CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3110 www.cupertino.org CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Meeting:September17,2013 Subject ConsideraCitysponsorshiprequestfromthenonprofitorganization,Quota InternationalofCupertino,fortheNovember5,2013,SiliconValleyPositiveAging Forum:Housing,Community&Longevity. RecommendedAction Approveordenytherequesttocosponsorthisevent. Discussion StaffreceivedarequestfromQuotaInternationalofCupertino,fortheCitytoco sponsortheirSiliconValleyPositiveAgingForumonNovember5,2013.Thiseventis theFifthAnnualPositiveAgingForumpresentedbytheInstituteforAgeFriendly Housing,aSiliconValleynonprofitorganization.Thisyear,withthesupportof CupertinoQuota,theInstituteisplanninganotherfulldayconference.Theprogram willfeatureexpertsspeakingaboutnewhousingandservicedeliverymodels. QuotaClubofCupertinoispartofQuotaInternational,Inc.QuotaClubisacommunity serviceorganizationdedicatedtoservingthedeaf,hardofhearingandspeech impairedaswellasdisadvantagedwomenandchildren.Assuch,theircosponsorship wouldmeetthecriteriafortheCitytoconsidersponsorshipbyprovidingfacilityspace fortheday. FiscalImpact Therentalfeesforthiseventwouldbe$285.00,fortheCupertinoRoomatanonprofit rateof$30.00perhour. _____________________________________ Preparedby:CarolAtwood,InterimDirector,ParksandRecreation ApprovedforSubmissionby:DavidBrandt,CityManager Attachments:AKSiliconValleyPositiveAgingForum2013DraftProgram 321 322 CITY 33.1-$82OFFICE CITYHALL 1010300TORREAVENUE'CUPERTINO,CA950143255 TELEPHONE:(408)7773403www.cupertino.org CITYCOUNCILSTAFFREPORT Meeting:September17,2013 Subject AmicusBriefin NoToxicAir,Inc.v.SantaClaraCounty,etal.(Calif.CourtofAppeal CaseNo.H039547,AppealfromSantaClaraCo.SuperiorCourtCaseNo.111CV201900) RecommendedAction ConsiderjoiningtheMidpeninsulaRegionalOpenSpaceDistrict ,1.2#! theTown ofLosAltosHills,theCityofLosAltosandanyothercitiesthatmaychooseto participateinan amicuscuriae briefinthelitigationlistedabove,andauthorizinga monetarycontributionforpreparationoftheamicusbrief. Background AttheCityCouncilstudysessiononSeptember5,2013,MROSDandseveralcitizens urgedtheCounciltoconsidersupportingtheamicusbriefthatMROSDplanstofilein NoToxicAir,Inc.v.SantaClaraCounty,etal. Thelitigationchallengesa2011decisionbytheSantaClaraCountyBoardof SupervisorsthattheLehighQuarryhasvestedrightsonapproximatelythirteenof nineteenparcels.TheresultofthatdeterminationisthatLehighisexemptfromthe Countyrequirementsforadiscretionaryusepermitandotherrelatedapprovalstomine the ¼«¹º«ª!areas.Theplaintiffschallengedthescopeofthisdeterminationandthe trialcourtruledinfavoroftheCounty,findingthatthelargeareatheCountydecided wasvestedwasavaliddetermination.PlaintiffsappealedthatdecisiontotheCalifornia CourtofAppeal,raisingnumerouslegal,procedural,andfactualchallenges. Discussion Plaintiffsseeksupportintheirappealthroughanamicusletterfromgroupsthathave aninterestintheimpactsoftheLehighQuarry.Courtsmaygrantpermissiontofile amicuscuriaebriefstothosethatarenotpartiestothecase,buthavesomeperspective orexperiencethatmayprovidethecourtwithnewinformationorraiseawareness aboutanissuethatmightnototherwisebebroughttothe"µ»¸º¹attention.Asofthe dateofwritingthisstaffreport,staffhasnotbeenadvisedofthespecificarguments 323 plannedfortheamicusbrief,otherthantoobjecttothe"µ»´º¿¹decisiononvested rights. MROSDvotedtofileanamicusbriefandiscoordinatingtheeffort.InAugust,the TownCouncilofLosAltosHillsvotedtojointhebriefaslongasatleastoneothercity joins.OnSeptember10,2013,theLosAltosCityCouncilalsovotedtojoin. MROSDisworkingwiththelawfirmShute,Mihaly&Weinberger,aBayAreafirmthat specializesinenvironmentallaw,topreparetheamicusbrief.ShuteMihalyhas estimatedthatanamicusbriefmaycostbetween$20,000and$32,000,dependingonthe issuesraisedandwhethertheCourtrequestsanyadditionalinformation.Citystaff discussedthecostwithstaffatMROSD,whosaidacontributionoffivethousand dollarswouldbewelcome.Therefore,iftheCouncilwishesfortheCitytoparticipatein theamicus,staffalsorecommendsthattheCouncilapprovefundingintheamountof the"¯º¿¹proportionateshareofthebrief(whichwillvarydependingonhowmany otherentitiesjoin),nottoexceedatotalof$5000. ThebriefwillbedueinmidNovember,2013.IftheCouncilapprovesparticipation,the City ººµ¸´«¿¹OfficewillworkwithMROSDandtheotherparticipatingagenciesto coordinatereviewofthebrief. ____________________________________ Preparedby:MelissaTronquet,AssistantCityAttorney Reviewedby:CarolKorade,CityAttorney ApprovedforSubmissionby:DavidBrandt,CityManager Attachments:None 324 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Meeting: September 17, 2013 Subject: Public Works Construction Project Updates. NO WRITTEN MATERIALS IN PACKET 325