Loading...
05-20-14 Searchable packetTable of Contents Agenda 4 Presentation by Hsinchu Sister City Committee regarding recent trip No Written Materials 10 Proclamation for May 16th through May 23rd as Santa Clara County Affordable Housing Week No Written Materials 11 Proclamation to recognize and acknowledge Public Works Week in Cupertino No Written Materials 12 Approve the May 6 City Council minutes A - Draft Minutes 13 Accept Accounts Payable for period ending April 18, 2014 A - Draft Resolution 19 B - AP Report 20 Accept Accounts Payable for period ending April 25, 2014 A - Draft Resolution 31 B - AP Report 32 Consideration and approval of the Third Quarter Financial Report for Fiscal Year 2013-2014 Staff Report 41 A - Financial Report 45 B - Draft Resolution 83 City Project, Stevens Creek Corridor Park and Restoration Phase 2, Project No. 9134 Staff Report 86 2013 STP Overlay Project, Project No. 2013-04 Staff Report 88 A - Draft Contract 90 Declare brush to be a public nuisance and potential fire hazard and set hearing for June 2 for objections to proposed removal Staff Report 96 A - Draft Resolution 97 Resignation of Housing Commissioner (Financial Representative) Jimmy Chien Staff Report 99 A - Letter of Resignation 100 Tree removal permit to allow the removal and replacement of trees that are unhealthy, in conflict with utilities, and/or not suitable for preservation as part of the Main Street Project Staff Report 101 A - TR-2014-17 City Council Draft Resolution 109 B - City Council Minutes (Feb. 25, 2014)114 C - Arborist Report (David Babby; April 11, 2014)121 1 D - Project Frontage Tree Removal & Replacement Diagram (Sheet L-8.0)151 E - Private Tree Summary & Removal Plans (Sheets L- 8.1 & L-8.2)154 F - Public Tree Summary & Removal Plans (Sheet L-8.3 & L-8.4)158 G - Project Tree Locations (Sheet L-8.5)162 H - Vallco Parkway Elevations (Sheets L-8.6a-c)163 I - Utility Exhibits & Utility Cross Sections (Sheets L-8.7 & L-8.7a-d)166 J - Original Illustrative Landscape Plan (Sheet L-1.0a)171 Foothill Live/Work development project Staff Report 172 A - Mitigated Negative Declaration (EA-2014-01) with Initial Study 181 B - Z-2014-01 Draft City Council Ordinance 294 C - TM-2014-01 Draft City Council Resolution 297 D - DP-2014-02 Draft City Council Resolution 307 E - ASA-2014-02 Draft City Council Resolution 332 F - TR-2014-08 Draft City Council Resolution 338 G - April 22, 2014 Planning Commission staff report and draft meeting minutes 342 H - March 26, 2013 Planning Commission staff report and meeting minutes 366 I - April 16, 2013 City Council staff report and meeting minutes 381 J - Applicant's justification letter 388 K - Applicant's retail consultant analysis 393 L - Home Occupation Ordinance, Chapter 19.120 of the Cupertino Municipal Code 409 M - Transportation evaluation by Fehr & Peers, dated January 13, 2014 414 N - City's Consulting Arborist report dated March 2013 421 O - City and applicant's consulting arborist reports dated November 2013 427 P - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 440 Q - Planning Commission Resolution No. 6734 (DP- 2014-02)461 R - Planning Commission Resolution No. 6735 (ASA- 2014-02)486 S - Planning Commission Resolution No. 6736 (TM- 2014-01)492 T - Planning Commission Resolution No. 6737 (TR- 2014-08)502 U - Planning Commission Resolution No. 6738 (Z-2014- 01)506 V - Plan Set 510 2 Designate voting delegate and alternates for League of California Cities Annual Conference September 3-5 in Los Angeles Staff Report 550 A - Conference Information 551 3 AGENDA CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL ~ REGULAR MEETING 10350 Torre Avenue, Community Hall Council Chamber Tuesday, May 20, 2014 6:45 PM CITY COUNCIL MEETING PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL CEREMONIAL MATTERS AND PRESENTATIONS 1. Subject: Presentation by Hsinchu Sister City Committee regarding recent trip Recommended Action: Receive presentation No Written Materials Page: No written materials in packet 2. Subject: Proclamation for May 16th through May 23rd as Santa Clara County Affordable Housing Week Recommended Action: Present proclamation No Written Materials Page: No written materials in packet 3. Subject: Proclamation to recognize and acknowledge Public Works Week in Cupertino Recommended Action: Present proclamation No Written Materials Page: No written materials in packet POSTPONEMENTS 4 Tuesday, May 20, 2014 Cupertino City Council ORAL COMMUNICATIONS This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the council on any matter not on the agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes. In most cases, State law will prohibit the council from making any decisions with respect to a matter not listed on the agenda. CONSENT CALENDAR Unless there are separate discussions and/or actions requested by council, staff or a member of the public, it is requested that items under the Consent Calendar be acted on simultaneously. 4. Subject: Approve the May 6 City Council minutes Recommended Action: Approve the minutes A - Draft Minutes Page: 13 5. Subject: Accept Accounts Payable for period ending April 18, 2014 Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 14-148 accepting Accounts Payable for period ending April 18, 2014 A - Draft Resolution B - AP Report Page: 19 6. Subject: Accept Accounts Payable for period ending April 25, 2014 Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 14-149 accepting Accounts Payable for period ending April 25, 2014 A - Draft Resolution B - AP Report Page: 31 7. Subject: Consideration and approval of the Third Quarter Financial Report for Fiscal Year 2013-2014 Recommended Action: 1. Accept the City Manager’s Third Quarter Financial Report for Fiscal Year 2013-2014; 2. Adopt Resolution No 14-150 approving Third Quarter Budget adjustments Staff Report A - Financial Report B - Draft Resolution Page: 41 5 Tuesday, May 20, 2014 Cupertino City Council 8. Subject: City Project, Stevens Creek Corridor Park and Restoration Phase 2, Project No. 9134 Recommended Action: 1. Accept construction work completed by Robert A. Bothman, Inc; and 2. Authorize an amendment to the agreement with SSA Landscape Architects for additional services for an amount not to exceed $26,500; and 3. Authorize use of grant monies from the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority “Project Readiness Initiative” program to reimburse eligible expenses, increasing the allocation to this project from $22,000 to a maximum of $34,534 Staff Report Page: 86 9. Subject: 2013 STP Overlay Project, Project No. 2013-04 Recommended Action: Authorize the City Manager to award a contract to O’Grady Paving Company, Inc., in the amount of $1,002,968 for base bid and add alternate number one; and approve a construction contingency of $150,000, for a total of $1,152,968 Staff Report A - Draft Contract Page: 88 10. Subject: Declare brush to be a public nuisance and potential fire hazard and set hearing for June 2 for objections to proposed removal Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 14-151 declaring brush to be a public nuisance and potential fire hazard and setting the hearing date for June 2 Staff Report A - Draft Resolution Page: 96 11. Subject: Resignation of Housing Commissioner (Financial Representative) Jimmy Chien Recommended Action: Accept resignation and direct staff to recruit for the vacancy Staff Report A - Letter of Resignation Page: 99 SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES 6 Tuesday, May 20, 2014 Cupertino City Council PUBLIC HEARINGS 12. Subject: Tree removal permit to allow the removal and replacement of trees that are unhealthy, in conflict with utilities, and/or not suitable for preservation as part of the Main Street Project Recommended Action: 1. Adopt Resolution No. 14-152 approving (TR-2014-17) the removal and replacement of 24 private non-specimen trees (23 Shamel Ash and 1 Chinese Elm) for the Main Street Project; and 2. Provide input to the Public Works Department regarding the proposed removal and replacement of 48 public, non- specimen street trees (45 Shamel Ash and 3 Autumn Purple White Ash) for the Main Street Project Description: Application No(s): TR-2014-17; Applicant(s): Gary Laymon (Kevin Dare/Sandhill Properties); Location: Main Street (Stevens Creek Blvd @ Finch Ave); Tree Removal permit to allow the removal and replacement of trees that are unhealthy in conflict with utilities/infrastructure and/or not suitable for preservation for the Main Street Cupertino project Staff Report A - TR-2014-17 City Council Draft Resolution B - City Council Minutes (Feb. 25, 2014) C - Arborist Report (David Babby; April 11, 2014) D - Project Frontage Tree Removal & Replacement Diagram (Sheet L-8.0) E - Private Tree Summary & Removal Plans (Sheets L-8.1 & L-8.2) F - Public Tree Summary & Removal Plans (Sheet L-8.3 & L-8.4) G - Project Tree Locations (Sheet L-8.5) H - Vallco Parkway Elevations (Sheets L-8.6a-c) I - Utility Exhibits & Utility Cross Sections (Sheets L-8.7 & L-8.7a-d) J - Original Illustrative Landscape Plan (Sheet L-1.0a) Page: 101 13. Subject: Foothill Live/Work development project Recommended Action: A) Approve Mitigated Negative Declaration EA-2014-01; and B) Conduct the first reading of Ordinance No. 14-: "An Ordinance of the Cupertino City Council approving the Rezoning of a .87 gross acre parcel from P(CG) – Planned Development General Commercial to P(CG, Res) – Planned Development General Commercial and Residential, located at 10121 N. Foothill Blvd," Z-2014-01; and C) Adopt Resolution No. 14-153 approving Tentative Map TM-2014-01; and D) Adopt Resolution No. 14-154 approving Development Permit DP-2014-02; and E) Adopt Resolution No. 14-155 approving Architectural and Site Approval ASA-2014-02; and F) Adopt Resolution No. 14-156 approving Tree Removal Permit TR-2014-08 7 Tuesday, May 20, 2014 Cupertino City Council Description: Application No(s): DP-2014-02, ASA-2014-02, TM-2014-01, TR-2014-08, Z-2014-01 (EA-2014-01); Applicant(s): Tate Development (Foothill Auto Service & Detail, Inc); Location: 10121 N Foothill Blvd APN# 342-32-070; Development Permit to allow the demolition of an abandoned automobile service station and construct six residential units, including five live-work units with detached workspaces, along with associated site and off-site improvements; Architectural and Site Approval to allow the demolition of an abandoned automobile service station and construct six residential units, including five live-work units with detached workspaces, along with associated site and off-site improvements; Tentative Map to subdivide a .66 net acre parcel into six residential lots and one common area lot; Tree Removal Permit to allow the removal and replacement of five Monterey Pine trees; Rezoning of a .87 gross acre parcel from Planned Development General Commercial - P(CG) to Planned Development General Commercial and Residential - P(CG, Res); Mitigated Negative Declaration Staff Report A - Mitigated Negative Declaration (EA-2014-01) with Initial Study B - Z-2014-01 Draft City Council Ordinance C - TM-2014-01 Draft City Council Resolution D - DP-2014-02 Draft City Council Resolution E - ASA-2014-02 Draft City Council Resolution F - TR-2014-08 Draft City Council Resolution G - April 22, 2014 Planning Commission staff report and draft meeting minutes H - March 26, 2013 Planning Commission staff report and meeting minutes I - April 16, 2013 City Council staff report and meeting minutes J - Applicant's justification letter K - Applicant's retail consultant analysis L - Home Occupation Ordinance, Chapter 19.120 of the Cupertino Municipal Code M - Transportation evaluation by Fehr & Peers, dated January 13, 2014 N - City's Consulting Arborist report dated March 2013 O - City and applicant's consulting arborist reports dated November 2013 P - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Q - Planning Commission Resolution No. 6734 (DP-2014-02) R - Planning Commission Resolution No. 6735 (ASA-2014-02) S - Planning Commission Resolution No. 6736 (TM-2014-01) T - Planning Commission Resolution No. 6737 (TR-2014-08) U - Planning Commission Resolution No. 6738 (Z-2014-01) V - Plan Set Page: 172 8 Tuesday, May 20, 2014 Cupertino City Council ORDINANCES AND ACTION ITEMS 14. Subject: Designate voting delegate and alternates for League of California Cities Annual Conference September 3-5 in Los Angeles Recommended Action: Designate voting delegate and up to two alternates Staff Report A - Conference Information Page: 550 REPORTS BY COUNCIL AND STAFF ADJOURNMENT Adjourn to Tuesday, May 27 at 3:30 p.m. for Teen Commission interviews, Cupertino City Hall Conference Room A, 10300 Torre Avenue The City of Cupertino has adopted the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure §1094.6; litigation challenging a final decision of the City Council must be brought within 90 days after a decision is announced unless a shorter time is required by State or Federal law. Prior to seeking judicial review of any adjudicatory (quasi-judicial) decision, interested persons must file a petition for reconsideration within ten calendar days of the date the City Clerk mails notice of the City’s decision. Reconsideration petitions must comply with the requirements of Cupertino Municipal Code §2.08.096. Contact the City Clerk’s office for more information or go to http://www.cupertino.org/index.aspx?page=125 for a reconsideration petition form. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the City of Cupertino will make reasonable efforts to accommodate persons with qualified disabilities. If you require special assistance, please contact the city clerk’s office at 408-777-3223 at least 48 hours in advance of the meeting. Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Cupertino City Council after publication of the packet will be made available for public inspection in the City Clerk’s Office located at City Hall, 10300 Torre Avenue, during normal business hours and in Council packet archives linked from the agenda/minutes page on the Cupertino web site. 9 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Meeting: May 20, 2014 Subject: Presentation by Hsinchu Sister City Committee regarding recent trip. NO WRITTEN MATERIALS IN PACKET 10 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Meeting: May 20, 2014 Subject: Proclamation for May 16th through May 23rd as Santa Clara County Affordable Housing Week. NO WRITTEN MATERIALS IN PACKET 11 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Meeting: May 20, 2014 Subject: Proclamation to recognize and acknowledge Public Works Week in Cupertino. NO WRITTEN MATERIALS IN PACKET 12 DRAFT MINUTES CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting Tuesday, May 6, 2014 CITY COUNCIL MEETING PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE At 6:45 p.m. Mayor Gilbert Wong called the regular City Council meeting to order in the Community Hall Council Chamber, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA and led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Gilbert Wong, Vice Mayor Rod Sinks, and Council members Barry Chang, Orrin Mahoney, and Mark Santoro. Absent: None. CEREMONIAL MATTERS AND PRESENTATIONS 1. Subject: Presentation from 3rd and 4th grade students regarding their efforts in educating the community about disaster preparedness Recommended Action: Receive presentation Written communications for this project included a letter to Council from the Unstoppables (students giving presentation) and a PowerPoint presentation. The following students made a presentation about disaster preparedness via a PowerPoint presentation: Prisha Tiwari (4th grade) Rohit Iyer (3rd grade) Shreyas Jena (4th grade) Shruti Sharma (4th grade) Tara Suresh (4th grade) Trisha Venkat (4th grade) 13 Tuesday, May 6, 2014 Cupertino City Council Council received the presentation. 2. Subject: Annual GreenBiz Recognition Event Recommended Action: Receive presentation and present proclamation to 2013/2014 Certified GreenBiz participants Description: Brief staff presentation & proclamation recognizing GreenBiz-certified Cupertino businesses for their participation in the City’s program and their contribution to our shared environment Written communications for this item included a staff PowerPoint presentation. Sustainability Manager Erin Cooke, Sustainability Specialist Michela Gentile, and Climate Corps Bay Area Fellow Jack Dunigan reviewed the item via a PowerPoint presentation. Mayor Wong presented proclamations to the Certified GreenBiz participants: Rancho Rinconada, BlueLight Cinemas, The Cupertino Education Association, Hongyun Art, The Ski Renter’s, The De Anza Automotive Technology Department, and Purglen Homes. 3. Subject: Bicycle Pedestrian Commission annual update Recommended Action: Receive update Written communications for this item included a PowerPoint presentation. Bicycle Pedestrian Commission Chair William Chan gave the commission annual update via a PowerPoint presentation. Council received the update. POSTPONEMENTS - None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Executive Director of the Cupertino Chamber of Commerce Anjali Kausar invited Council and staff to an upcoming event on May 31, Taste of Cupertino, at the Vallco Mall from 4:30-7:30 p.m. 14 Tuesday, May 6, 2014 Cupertino City Council CONSENT CALENDAR Mahoney moved and Chang seconded to approve the items on the Consent Calendar as presented with the exception of item number 10 which was removed for discussion. Ayes: Chang, Mahoney, Santoro, Sinks, and Wong. Noes: None. Abstain: Santoro abstained from item number 9. Absent: None. 4. Subject: Approve the April 15 City Council minutes Recommended Action: Approve the minutes 5. Subject: Accept Accounts Payable for period ending April 11, 2014 Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 14-145 accepting Accounts Payable for period ending April 11, 2014 6. Subject: Annual adoption of City Investment Policy for the Other Post-Employment Benefits Trust Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 14-146 accepting the annual Adoption of City Investment Policy for the Other Post-Employment Benefits Trust Written communications for this item included an addendum staff report. 7. Subject: Consider City sponsorship request from the non-profit organization, Quota International of Cupertino for the September 30, 2014 Silicon Valley Positive Aging Forum: Housing, Community & Longevity Recommended Action: Approve or deny the request to co-sponsor this event 8. Subject: 2014-2015 City Council Work Program Recommended Action: Approve the 2014-2015 City Council Work Program 9. Subject: Cupertino Union School District Parcel Tax Renewal, Measure A (May 6, 2014) Special Mail Ballot Election Recommended Action: Accept Legislative Committee recommendation to support the CUSD Parcel Tax Renewal, Measure A, Special Mail Ballot Election 10. Subject: Measure AA, proposed by the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Recommended Action: Accept Legislative Committee recommendation to support Measure AA, proposed by the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Written communications for this item included a brochure on Measure AA. 15 Tuesday, May 6, 2014 Cupertino City Council Pete Siemens and Yoriko Kishimoto gave a PowerPoint presentation on Measure AA and distributed a brochure. Santoro moved and Chang seconded to accept the Legislative Committee recommendation to support Measure AA, proposed by the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. The motion carried with Santoro abstaining. 11. Subject: Cancel the second meeting in September (16th) Recommended Action: Cancel the meeting 12. Subject: Alcoholic Beverage License for TGI Fridays, 10343 N Wolfe Road Recommended Action: Approve Alcoholic Beverage License for TGI Fridays 13. Subject: Alcoholic Beverage License for Sprouts Farmers Market, 20558 Stevens Creek Boulevard Recommended Action: Approve Alcoholic Beverage License for Sprouts Farmers Market 14. Subject: Annual approval and renewal of the collection of existing storm drain fees at no increase in rates for Fiscal Year 2014-2015 Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 14-147 approving the renewal of the collection of existing storm drain fees at no increase in rates for Fiscal Year 2014-2015 15. Subject: City Project, Mary Avenue Dog Park, Project No. 2010-9137A Recommended Action: Accept City Project No. 2010-9137A 16. Subject: 2013 Pavement Maintenance Project – Phase 2, Project No. 2013-05 Recommended Action: Authorize the City Manager to award a contract to Valley Slurry Seal International, in the amount of $548,341 and approve a construction contingency of $51,659, for a total of $600,000 SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES 17. Subject: Amend Cupertino Municipal Code related to Permit Parking Zone definitions, Issuance of Permits to Residents; and amend Cupertino Municipal Code related to Designation of Preferential Parking Zones near the Civic Center Recommended Action: a) Conduct the second reading of Ordinance No. 14-2118: “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino amending sections 11.27.020, 11.27.050, and 11.27.145 of Chapter 11.27 of Title 11 of the Cupertino Municipal Code relating to designation of preferential parking zones around the 16 Tuesday, May 6, 2014 Cupertino City Council Civic Center Plaza."; and b) Adopt Resolution No. 14-144 allowing participating employees up to 0.5 hours of health leave bank credit per month for parking and walking from areas away from the Civic Center (such as on Pacifica Avenue) Written communications for this item included an amended draft resolution. Mahoney moved and Sinks seconded to read Ordinance No. 14-2118 by title only and that the City Clerk’s reading would constitute the second reading thereof. Ayes: Chang, Mahoney, Santoro, Sinks, and Wong. Noes: None. Abstain: None. Absent: None. Mahoney moved and Sinks seconded to enact Ordinance No. 14-2118. Ayes: Chang, Mahoney, Santoro, Sinks, and Wong. Noes: None. Abstain: None. Absent: None. Mahoney moved and Chang seconded to adopt Resolution No. 14-144 noting an amendment to the title of the resolution to add the words, “such as on Pacifica Avenue” at the end of the title. The motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARINGS - None ORDINANCES AND ACTION ITEMS - None REPORTS BY COUNCIL AND STAFF 18. Subject: Annual Report on the Pavement Management Program Recommended Action: Receive the report. No action is required Written communications for this item included a staff PowerPoint presentation. Assistant Director of Public Works Roger Lee reviewed the report via a PowerPoint presentation. Council received the report. 19. Subject: Public Works Construction Project updates Recommended Action: Receive Construction Project update report Written communications for this item included a staff PowerPoint presentation. 17 Tuesday, May 6, 2014 Cupertino City Council Director of Public Works Timm Borden gave the construction project updates via a PowerPoint presentation. Council received the report. City Manager David Brandt noted the Climate Action Plan workshops scheduled for May 14 and June 4 from 6-8 p.m. at the De Anza College Kirsch Center for Environmental Studies. See www.cupertinogpa.org for more information. He also noted that Cupertino is one of four cities where AT&T plans to roll out a gigabyte fiber project for residential use and that staff would work with AT&T to get this installed. Council members highlighted the activities of their committees and various community events. ADJOURNMENT At 8:15 p.m., Mayor Wong adjourned the meeting to Tuesday, May 13 beginning at 5:00 p.m. for a budget study session, Cupertino Community Hall, 10350 Torre Avenue. _______________________________ Grace Schmidt, City Clerk Staff reports, backup materials, and items distributed at the City Council meeting are available for review at the City Clerk’s Office, 777-3223, and also on the Internet at www.cupertino.org. Click on Agendas & Minutes, then click on the appropriate Packet. Most Council meetings are shown live on Comcast Channel 26 and AT&T U-verse Channel 99 and are available at your convenience at www.cupertino.org. Click on Agendas & Minutes, then click Archived Webcast. Videotapes are available at the Cupertino Library, or may be purchased from the Cupertino City Channel, 777-2364. 18 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS PAYABLE IN THE AMOUNTS AND FROM THE FUNDS AS HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED FOR GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS EXPENDITURES FOR THE PERIOD ENDING April 18, 2014 WHEREAS, the Director of Administrative Services or her designated representative has certified to accuracy of the following claims and demands and to the availability of funds for payment hereof; and WHEREAS, the said claims and demands have been audited as required by law. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council hereby allows the following claims and demands in the amounts and from the funds as hereinafter set forth in Exhibit “A”. CERTIFIED: Sheila Mohan, Interim Finance Director PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this _____day of ____________, 2014, by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: _________________________ ________________________ Grace Schmidt, City Clerk Mayor Gilbert Wong, City of Cupertino 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS PAYABLE IN THE AMOUNTS AND FROM THE FUNDS AS HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED FOR GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS EXPENDITURES FOR THE PERIOD ENDING April 25, 2014 WHEREAS, the Director of Administrative Services or her designated representative has certified to accuracy of the following claims and demands and to the availability of funds for payment hereof; and WHEREAS, the said claims and demands have been audited as required by law. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council hereby allows the following claims and demands in the amounts and from the funds as hereinafter set forth in Exhibit “A”. CERTIFIED: Sheila Mohan, Interim Finance Director PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this _____day of ____________, 2014, by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: _________________________ ________________________ Grace Schmidt, City Clerk Mayor Gilbert Wong, City of Cupertino 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 CITY MANAGER’S OFFICE CITY HALL 10 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3212 www.cupertino.org CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Meeting: May 20, 2014 Subject Consideration and Approval of the Third Quarter Financial Report for Fiscal Year 2013- 2014. Recommended Action 1. Accept the City Manager’s Third Quarter Financial Report for Fiscal Year 2013- 2014. 2. Adopt the draft resolution approving Third Quarter Budget adjustments. Fiscal Impact On June 11, 2013 the City Council adopted the FY 2013-14 Final Budget. The budget was recommended at $89,074,272 and funded through the combination of $83,290,603 in revenue and $7,783,669 in fund balance and one time funding sources. Final Adopted Budget by Fund $89,074,272 General $57,505,270 64.5% Special $9,160,496 10.3% Debt $3,171,838 3.6% Capital $4,302,000 4.8% Enterprise $8,186,721 9.2% Internal Service $6,747,947 7.6% 1 41 The Amended Budget as of the end of the third quarter is $134,907,020 and is funded with $151,193,819 in revenue and in projected to increase fund balance by $18,493,981 across all funds. Amended Operating Budget by Fund $134,907,020 General 78,781,854 59% Special Revenue 13,221,762 10% Debt Service 3,171,838 2% Capital 13,256,271 10% Enterprise 9,933,637 7% Internal Service 16,541,658 12% Changes since the Mid-Year Budget Report As part of the Mid-Year Budget Report City Council approved $19.4 million in additional appropriation in the General Fund primarily to fund the unfunded liability payoff of retiree health ($8 mil) and Pass Thru Inspection contract ($9.4 mil). In addition to the budget adjustments approved as part of mid-year, an additional $30,000 in General Fund appropriations were approved by Council for VTA State Route 85 initial study and $1,575,000 in appropriations were approved in the Special Revenue Funds for the purchase of the Stevens Creek property that was funded from Park Land Fees, lastly an additional $180,000 in appropriations were approved in the Capital Fund for the Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan Environmental Education Center. Discussion The primary focus of the Third Quarter Financial Report is to provide an update on the current status of the City budget; the report also reviews current revenue and expenditure patterns to ensure that budgets are on track to end the year in a positive 2 42 fiscal position and reviews any significant variances in expenditures from the prior fiscal year. General Fund Update Revenue Almost all revenue is on track to meet year end projections. The only change is a $2 million increase in sales tax to account for business to business sales tax that was originally omitted from the Mid-Year year end projections. These dollars are related to a pending sales tax dispute involving the city as described below, Revenue Liability. Expenditures As of the third quarter the General Fund is projected to end the year within budgeted appropriations. No General Fund departments are requesting third quarter adjustments. Fund Balance The FY 2013-14 year end projected fund balance for the General Fund is $53.1 million. This projection is relatively unchanged since the mid-year budget. Current Issues and Challenges Revenue Liability For FY 2013-14 an additional $2 million in gross taxes related to a Board of Equalization (BOE) issue is projected to be collected by the City. As described in the FY 2013-14 Final Budget, the Board of Equalization (BOE) is challenging the way sales tax had previously been calculated for a taxpayer. This additional revenue will be added to the Revenue Liability assignment included in the Final Budget. Staffing Impacts There are no changes to staffing. Conclusion The Third Quarter Financial Report shows the City is well positioned to end the year within the Amended Budget. No General Fund departments are requesting adjustments to their budget and only one enterprise fund, Resource Recovery is requesting an adjustment of an amount not to exceed $560,000. This increase is due to an unanticipated increase in the disposal/landfill charge. This request will be funded out of the Resource and Recovery Account Fund Balance and have no impact on the General Fund. 3 43 Prepared by: Kristina Alfaro, Interim Director of Administrative Services Approved for Submission by: David Brandt, City Manager Attachments: A: Third Quarter Financial Report for Fiscal Year 2013-2014 B: Draft Resolution – Third quarter adjustments 4 44 Third Quarter Financial Report City of Cupertino Fiscal Year 2013-2014 45 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 46 Table of Contents INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................................... 1 SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................................................. 1 BUDGET OVERVIEW .............................................................................................................................................. 2 Changes to the Budget since the Mid-Year ........................................................................................ 2 Third Quarter Financial Summary ...................................................................................................... 3 GENERAL FUND UPDATE .................................................................................................................................... 3 Revenue ................................................................................................................................................... 3 Expenditures ........................................................................................................................................... 4 ALL OTHER FUNDS UPDATE .............................................................................................................................. 5 All Other Funds Revenue Projections ................................................................................................. 5 All Other Funds Expenditures ............................................................................................................. 5 FUND BALANCE REVIEW ..................................................................................................................................... 6 General Fund .......................................................................................................................................... 6 General Fund Classification of Fund Balance .................................................................................... 6 STAFFING .................................................................................................................................................................. 6 CITY COUNCIL AND COMMISSIONS .............................................................................................................. 7 DEPARTMENT UPDATES ..................................................................................................................................... 7 DEPARTMENTAL REVENUE AND EXPENDITURES ..................................................................................... 7 THIRD QUARTER ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................ 8 STAFFING .................................................................................................................................................................. 8 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................................. 8 47 Table of Contents ADMINISTRATION ................................................................................................................................................ 9 DEPARTMENT UPDATES ..................................................................................................................................... 9 DEPARTMENTAL REVENUE AND EXPENDITURES ..................................................................................... 9 THIRD QUARTER ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................... 11 STAFFING ................................................................................................................................................................ 11 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................................................... 11 LAW ENFORCEMENT ........................................................................................................................................... 12 DEPARTMENT UPDATES ................................................................................................................................... 12 DEPARTMENTAL REVENUE AND EXPENDITURES ................................................................................... 12 THIRD QUARTER ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................... 13 STAFFING ................................................................................................................................................................ 13 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................................................... 14 PUBLIC AFFAIRS.................................................................................................................................................... 15 DEPARTMENT UPDATES ................................................................................................................................... 15 DEPARTMENTAL REVENUE AND EXPENDITURES ................................................................................... 15 THIRD QUARTER ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................... 16 STAFFING ................................................................................................................................................................ 16 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................................................... 16 ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES .......................................................................................................................... 17 DEPARTMENT UPDATES ................................................................................................................................... 17 DEPARTMENTAL REVENUE AND EXPENDITURES ................................................................................... 17 THIRD QUARTER ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................... 18 STAFFING ................................................................................................................................................................ 19 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................................................... 19 48 Table of Contents PARKS AND RECREATION ................................................................................................................................ 20 DEPARTMENT UPDATES ................................................................................................................................... 20 DEPARTMENTAL REVENUE AND EXPENDITURES ................................................................................... 20 THIRD QUARTER ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................... 21 STAFFING ................................................................................................................................................................ 21 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................................................... 22 PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT....................................................................................... 23 DEPARTMENT UPDATES ................................................................................................................................... 23 DEPARTMENTAL REVENUE AND EXPENDITURES ................................................................................... 23 THIRD QUARTER ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................... 24 STAFFING ................................................................................................................................................................ 24 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................................................... 25 PUBLIC WORKS ..................................................................................................................................................... 26 DEPARTMENT UPDATES ................................................................................................................................... 26 DEPARTMENTAL REVENUE AND EXPENDITURES ................................................................................... 26 STAFFING ................................................................................................................................................................ 28 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................................................... 29 NON-DEPARTMENTAL ....................................................................................................................................... 30 UPDATES ................................................................................................................................................................. 30 STAFFING ................................................................................................................................................................ 31 THIRD QUARTER ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................... 32 STAFFING ................................................................................................................................................................ 32 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................................................... 32 CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................................................ 33 49 INTRODUCTION This is the City Manager’s Office Third Quarter Financial Report for the period of July 2013 through March 2013 for the 2013-2014 Fiscal Year. It has been prepared to inform the City Council, City leadership, and the public of the City’s financial status at the third quarter point of this fiscal year. The report provides revenue and expenditure summaries for City programs by department and may recommend adjustments to City budgets needed since the adoption of the Mid-Year Budget in February 2014. The Third Quarter Report primarily deals with the status of the City’s budget as of March 31, 2014 and may recommend adjustments to ensure the City ends the fiscal year within budget. SUMMARY On June 11, 2013, the City Council adopted the Fiscal Year 2013-14 Final Budget for the City of Cupertino. This spending plan of $89,074,272 for all funds reflected a 3.4% or $2,918,500 increase from the 2013-2014 Proposed Budget of $86,155,772. The 2013-2014 Final Budget was funded using $90.8 million in revenue and resulted in a projected increase to fund balance across all funds of $281,440. It also included funding for 164.75 benefitted full-time positions, an increase of 2 positions from the FY 2012-13 Final Budget. The following chart reflects the total Final Budget by Fund for Fiscal Year 2013-2014. Final Adopted Budget by Fund - $89,074,272 General $57,505,270 64.5% Special $9,160,496 10.3% Debt $3,171,838 3.6% Capital $4,302,000 4.8% Enterprise $8,186,721 9.2% Internal Service $6,747,947 7.6% 1 50 BUDGET OVERVIEW The Final Budget is adjusted throughout the year. These adjustments include carrying forward appropriations for obligations from the previous fiscal year, adjustments as part of mid-year financial report, as well as adjustments approved as part of any separate City Council item. Combined, these adjustments result in an amended operating budget. Changes to the Budget since the Mid-Year As part of the Mid-Year Budget Report approved by Council on March 4, 2014 several budget adjustments were approved and are summarized below. FUND DEPARTMENT BUDGET REQUEST SUMMARY OF REQUESTS General Fund Various $19,360,573 Primarily funds the unfunded liability payoff of retiree health ($8 mil) and Pass Thru Inspection contract for Apple Campus 2 ($9.4 mil) Special Revenue Funds Public Works and Non Departmental $300,000 Prepare streets for pavement management project funded from Transfer in from the GF $17,350 Transfer out to Dog Park CIP for purchase of Trees and Tree Enhancement Enterprise Funds Parks and Recreation and Non-Departmental $6,465 Position reclass costs $17,350 Dog Park CIP increase funded from a transfers in from the Tree Fund Internal Service Funds Administrative Services and Public Affairs $8,000,000 Payoff Retiree Health Unfunded Liability funded from Transfer in from the General Fund $993,536 Transfer out of depreciation funding from IT to City Channel and Purchase of camera equipment TOTAL ALL BUDGET MID- YEAR BUDGET REQUESTS $28,695,274 In addition to the budget adjustments approved as part of mid-year, an additional $30,000 in General Fund appropriations were approved by Council for the VTA State Route 85 initial study and $1,575,000 in appropriations were approved in the Special Revenue Funds for the purchase of the Stevens Creek property that was funded from Park Land Fees. Lastly an additional $180,000 in appropriations were approved in the Capital Fund for the Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan Environmental Education Center. The following chart reflects the amended budget by fund as of March 31, 2014. 2 51 FY13-14 FY13-14 FY13-14 Final Adopted Amended Budget as of Mid-Year Amended Budget as Third Quarter General $57,505,270 $59,391,281 $19,390,573 $78,781,854 Special Revenue 9,160,496 11,329,413 1,892,349 13,221,762 Debt Service 3,171,838 3,171,838 - 3,171,838 Capital Projects 4,302,000 13,076,271 180,000 13,256,271 Enterprise 8,186,721 9,909,822 23,815 9,933,637 Internal Service 6,747,947 7,548,122 8,993,536 16,541,658 Total All Funds $89,074,272 $104,426,747 $30,480,273 $134,907,020 Fund Budget Adjustments Jan-Mar Third Quarter Financial Summary The FY 2013-14 Mid-Year Financial Report reflects a fiscal review of departmental budgets, a fund balance analysis as of third quarter, and recommended adjustments. After the requested third quarter adjustments, all departments are on target to finish the year within their approved budgets. The City Managers third quarter recommendations include an increase in total appropriations of $560,000 funded by department revenue and fund balance from the Resource Recovery Fund. There is no impact to the General Fund. GENERAL FUND UPDATE Revenue As of March 31, 2014, $49 million was posted to the General Fund revenue accounts. This amount represents 94% of the 2013-14 Final Adopted Budget amounts of $52.2 million and 52% of the estimated actual collections of $95.9 million. Typically, general fund revenue collected at this point of the fiscal year ranges from 64.5% to 67.9% of the total year-end actual collections, when looking at the prior five years. This comparison indicates that general fund revenue is below the typical range when assessing the year- end position. This is primarily due to the timing of large one time revenues from the Apple Campus 2 project and development agreement which will be received in the fourth quarter of this fiscal year. As of the third quarter general fund revenue will end the year within budgeted projections. There are no recommended changes to general fund revenue in the third quarter. The following chart reflects a comparison of General Fund Revenue for a five-year period, including the current fiscal year. 3 52 General Fund—General Fund Revenue Five Year Comparison Expenditures As of March 31, 2014, actual General Fund expenditures were $48.7 million compared to $33.1 million for the same period one year ago. This amount represents 64% of the projected year end expenditures which places this year well below the range used for comparative purposes. This variance is driven primarily by large anticipated expenditures in third quarter for Retiree Health Liability payoff and contract service costs related to Apple Campus 2. For the previous four years, mid-year General Fund expenditures have ranged from 70% to 74% of the total year end actual expenditures. The following chart shows a five-year history of mid-year activity. $24.5 $28.8 $32.0 $36.4 $49.0 $38.6 $40.9 $43.2 $51.1 $95.9 $36.1 $44.6 $47.6 $54.7 $98.6 $- $20.0 $40.0 $60.0 $80.0 $100.0 $120.0 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 9 month Actual Budget Year-End Actual Ye a r -En d Pr o j e c t i o n s 4 53 General Fund Expenditures— Five Year Comparison (In Millions) As of the Third Quarter no General Fund departments requested to adjust their budgets. ALL OTHER FUNDS UPDATE All Other Funds Revenue Projections At the third quarter point of the year most funds were on track to meet the final budget projected revenues. No third quarter adjustments are requested. All Other Funds Expenditures As of third quarter the only program requesting an adjustment is Resource Recovery in the enterprise fund. For this program the Public Works Department is requesting increased appropriations up to $560,000, due to disposal services. This increase will be funded by department revenue and resource recovery fund balance. There is no impact to the general fund. $29.5 $29.4 $30.7 $33.1 $48.7 $42.9 $44.1 $45.2 $49.9 $78.8 $42.3 $40.7 $41.3 $44.7 $75.8 $- $10.0 $20.0 $30.0 $40.0 $50.0 $60.0 $70.0 $80.0 $90.0 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 9 month Actual Budget Year-End Actual Ye a r -En d Pr o j e c t i o n s 5 54 FUND BALANCE REVIEW General Fund There has been no change in the general fund year end projected fund balance. General Fund Classification of Fund Balance STAFFING There are no requested staffing changes as part of the Third Quarter Financial Report. Adopted 1st Quarter Changes at Mid-Year Year End Projection CLASSIFICATION 2013-14 2012-13 2013-14 2013-14 Non Spendable Loans Receivable 937,011 920,593 - 920,593 Prepaid Items 66,428 36,234 - 66,428 Total Non Spendable 1,003,439 956,827 - 987,021 - Restricted - Public Access Television 695,564 725,903 - 695,564 Total Restricted 695,564 725,903 - 695,564 - Committed - None in this classification - - - Total Committed - - - - - Assigned - Economic Uncertainty I 12,500,000 12,500,000 - 12,500,000 Economic Uncertainty II 1,400,000 1,400,000 - 1,400,000 Economic Fluctuation 2,000,000 2,000,000 - 2,000,000 PERS 500,000 500,000 - 500,000 Reserve for Encumbrances 172,659 172,659 - 172,659 Revenue Liability 3,920,000 3,920,000 - 3,920,000 General Building 357,449 357,449 771,100 1,128,549 I-280 Trail Study per Apple DA Agreement - - 250,000 250,000 Wolfe Road Transporation Study per Apple DA Agreement - - 1,000,000 1,000,000 Total Assigned 20,850,108 20,850,108 2,021,100 22,871,208 - Unassigned 4,416,454 7,100,287 21,416,859 28,517,146 - TOTAL FUND BALANCE 26,965,565 30,727,699 23,437,959 53,070,939 6 55 City Council and Commissions DEPARTMENT UPDATES There are no updates to report since the Mid-Year Financial Report. Division FY13-14 Amended Budget Budget Adjustments Jan-Mar. FY13-14 Projected Amended Budget City Council $494,707 $0 $494,707 Community Funding 30,000 0 30,000 Sister Cities 29,000 0 29,000 Commissions 234,598 0 234,598 Department Total $788,305 $33,661 $788,305 DEPARTMENTAL REVENUE AND EXPENDITURES For the program budgets that are part of Councils and Commissions, as of March 31, 2014, actual revenue collected was $84,672 or 75% of budgeted revenue. Fiscal Year 2013-14 is the first year revenue was budgeted at the program level. In the next two to three years as the City gathers more revenue data, additional analysis will be included for revenue similar to expenditures. As of March 31, 2014, expenditures were $527,135. This represents 67% of projected year end expenditures. Expenditures at the mid-year point of the prior three years were between 75% and 79% of the final actual expenditures, placing this year below the range. This is due to new contingency appropriation and the timing of a League of California Cities membership payment. The following chart provides a comparison of expenditures. This comparison shows third quarter and year-end for a three-year period, including the current year, for the budgets within Council and Commissions. 7 56 City Council and Commissions Three Year Expenditure Comparison Significant variations this year, compared to the same period one year ago, include:  City Council – An increase of approximately $148,000 primarily related to new internal service charges resulting from the City Channel becoming an internal service fund. THIRD QUARTER ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS There are no issues or recommendations for this department. STAFFING No staffing changes. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS At the third quarter point of the fiscal year program budgets within Councils and Commissions are projected to end the year within budgeted appropriations. $- $100,000.0 $200,000.0 $300,000.0 $400,000.0 $500,000.0 $600,000.0 $700,000.0 $800,000.0 Mar-11 Jun-11 Mar-12 Jun-12 Mar-13 Jun-13 Mar-14 Jun-14 Fiscal Year 10-11 Fiscal Year 11-12 Fiscal Year 12-13 Fiscal Year 13-14 Expenditure $353,284 $460,330 $347,987 $462,046 $413,229 $523,857 $527,135 $788,305 YE A R -EN D PR O J E C T I O N 8 57 Administration DEPARTMENT UPDATES There are no updates to report since the Mid-Year Financial Report. Division FY13-14 Amended Budget Requested Third Quarter Budget Adjustments FY13-14 Projected Amended Budget City Manager $1,070,589 $0 $1,070,589 City Clerk 680,477 0 680,477 City Mgr. Disc Fund 427,374 0 427,374 City Attorney 1,890,039 0 1,890,039 Department Total $4,068,479 $ 0 $4,068,479 DEPARTMENTAL REVENUE AND EXPENDITURES For the program budgets that were part of Administration, as of March 31, 2014, actual revenue collected was $275,214 or 84% of estimated revenue. Fiscal Year 2013-14 is the first year revenue was budgeted at the program level. In the next two to three years as the City gathers more revenue data, additional analysis will be included for revenue similar to expenditures. As of March 31, 2014, expenditures were $527,135. This represents 60% of the projected year end expenditures. Expenditures at the mid-year point of the prior three years were between 60% and 69% of the final actual expenditures, placing this year within the range. The following chart provides a comparison of expenditures. This comparison shows third quarter and year end for a three-year period, including the current year, for the budgets within Administration: 9 58 Administration Three Year Expenditure Comparison Significant variations this year, compared to the same period one year ago, include:  City Manager – An increase of approximately $177,912 due to staffing. At this time last year the City Manager position had only been filled for approximately 6 months and a Senior Manager Analyst position had been filled for about 3 months;  Environmental Affairs, Economic Development, City Clerk and Community Outreach – Overall these programs account for a $604,053 increase due to the transfer in of Environmental Affairs and Economic Development from Public Affairs and Planning and is offset by the transfer out of Community Outreach to Public Affairs; $- $500,000.0 $1,000,000.0 $1,500,000.0 $2,000,000.0 $2,500,000.0 $3,000,000.0 $3,500,000.0 $4,000,000.0 $4,500,000.0 Mar-11 Jun-11 Mar-12 Jun-12 Mar-13 Jun-13 Mar-14 Jun-14 Fiscal Year 11-12 Fiscal Year 11-12 Fiscal Year 12-13 Fiscal Year 13-14 Expenditure $680,079 $982,769 $646,293 $1,071,021 $941,699 $1,481,317 $2,456,815 $4,108,481 YE A R -EN D PR O J E C T I O N 10 59  City Attorney – An increase of $663,013 is primarily due to staffing and costs related to the Apple 2 Campus. In FY 2012-13 the Assistant City Attorney and Legal Service Manager were both vacant. As of the first quarter in FY 2013-14 both positions had been filled resulting in higher salary costs from prior year. In addition, current year costs associated with the Apple Campus 2 are included in program budgets, resulting in increased expenditures. THIRD QUARTER ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS There are no issues or recommendations for this department. STAFFING No staffing changes. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS At the third quarter point of the fiscal year program budgets within Administration are projected to end the year within budgeted appropriations. 11 60 Law Enforcement DEPARTMENT UPDATES There are no updates to report since the Mid-Year Financial Report. Division FY13-14 Amended Budget Requested Third Quarter Budget Adjustments FY13-14 Projected Amended Budget Law Enforcement $9,426,865 $0 $9,426,865 Interoperability Project 48,000 0 48,000 Code Enforcement 517,369 0 517,369 Department Total $9,992,234 $ 0 $9,992,234 DEPARTMENTAL REVENUE AND EXPENDITURES As of March 31, 2014, expenditures were $7,469,748. This represents 74.5% of projected year end expenditures. Expenditures at the mid-year point of the prior three years were between 78% and 79% of the final actual expenditures, placing this year below the range. The following chart provides a comparison of expenditures. This comparison shows third quarter and year end for a three-year period, including the current year, for the budgets within Law Enforcement: 12 61 Law Enforcement Three Year Expenditure Comparison Significant variations this year, compared to the same period one year ago, include:  Law Enforcement Santa Clara Sheriff – An increase of $359,498 as a result of service enhancements added to the FY 2013-14 contract, including the addition of 1.0 Sheriff position; and  Code Enforcement – An increase of $354,754 given the reallocation of two Code Enforcement Officers from the Administrative Services Department to Law Enforcement in FY 2013-14. THIRD QUARTER ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS There are no issues or recommendations for this department. STAFFING No staffing changes. $- $2,000,000.0 $4,000,000.0 $6,000,000.0 $8,000,000.0 $10,000,000.0 $12,000,000.0 Mar-11 Jun-11 Mar-12 Jun-12 Mar-13 Jun-13 Mar-14 Jun-14 Fiscal Year 11-12 Fiscal Year 11-12 Fiscal Year 12-13 Fiscal Year 13-14 Expenditure $6,637,575 $8,434,886 $6,669,721 $8,445,916 $6,826,665 $8,783,886 $7,469,748 $10,025,892 YE A R -EN D PR O J E C T I O N 13 62 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS At the third quarter point of the fiscal year program budgets within Law Enforcement are projected to end the year within budgeted appropriations. 14 63 Public Affairs DEPARTMENT UPDATES There are no updates to report since the Mid-Year Financial Report. Division FY13-14 Amended Budget Requested Third Quarter Budget Adjustments FY13-14 Projected Amended Budget Public Affairs $478,272 $0 $478,272 Government Channel 1,059,546 0 1,059,546 City Website 236,096 0 236,096 Information Technology 3,347,454 3,347,454 Department Total $5,121,368 $ 0 $5,121,368 DEPARTMENTAL REVENUE AND EXPENDITURES For the program budgets that were part of Public Affairs, as of March 31, 2014, actual revenue collected was $3.9 million or 75% of estimated revenue. Fiscal Year 2013-14 is the first year revenue was budgeted at the program level. In the next two to three years as the City gathers more revenue data, additional analysis will be included for revenue similar to expenditures. As of March 31, 2014, expenditures were $2,097,188. This represents 49.6% of projected year end expenditures. Expenditures at the mid-year point of the prior three years were between 79% and 95% of the final actual expenditures, placing this year below the range. This is due to the transfer in of Information Technology from Administrative Services as part of a restructure, and the transfer in of depreciation funding from Information Technology fund to the Government Channel fund. The following chart provides a comparison of expenditures. This comparison shows third quarter and year-end for a three year period, including the current year, for the budgets within Public Affairs: 15 64 Public Affairs Three Year Expenditure Comparison Significant variations this year, compared to the same period one year ago, include:  Information Technology – An increase of $1,059,290 due to the transfer in of the Information Technology budget from Administrative Services. THIRD QUARTER ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS There are no issues or recommendations for this department. STAFFING No staffing changes. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS At the third quarter point of the fiscal year program budgets within Public Affairs are projected to end the year within budgeted appropriations. $- $500,000.0 $1,000,000.0 $1,500,000.0 $2,000,000.0 $2,500,000.0 $3,000,000.0 $3,500,000.0 $4,000,000.0 $4,500,000.0 Mar-11 Jun-11 Mar-12 Jun-12 Mar-13 Jun-13 Mar-14 Jun-14 Fiscal Year 11-12 Fiscal Year 11-12 Fiscal Year 12-13 Fiscal Year 13-14 Expenditure $1,218,422 $1,540,606 $1,582,015 $1,664,175 $1,182,714 $1,499,108 $2,097,188 $4,224,832 YE A R -EN D PR O J E C T I O N 16 65 Administrative Services DEPARTMENT UPDATES There are no updates to report since the Mid-Year Budget Report. Division FY13-14 Amended Budget Requested Third Quarter Budget Adjustments FY13-14 Projected Amended Budget Administration 503,882 $0 503,882 Finance 1,759,983 0 1,759,983 Human Resources 11,578,915 0 11,578,915 Information Technology 0 0 Department Total $13,842,780 $ 0 $13,842,780 DEPARTMENTAL REVENUE AND EXPENDITURES For the program budgets that were part of Administrative Services, as of March 31, 2014, actual revenue collected is $10,142,730 or 75% of estimated revenue. Fiscal Year 2013-14 is the first year revenue was budgeted at the program level. As the City gathers more revenue data, additional analysis will be included for revenue similar to expenditures. As of March 31, 2014, expenditures were $2,730,229, which represents 20% of projected year end expenditures. Expenditures at the mid-year point of the prior three years were between 67% and 70% of the final actual expenditures, placing this year below the average expenditure range. This is due to a large expenditure expected as part of the purchase and implementation of a new Enterprise Resource Management (ERP) for Finance, Payroll, and Human Resources, and the payoff of retiree medical unfunded liability. The following chart provides a comparison of expenditures. This comparison shows third quarter and year end for a three-year period, including the current year, for the budgets within Administrative Services: 17 66 Administrative Services Three Year Expenditure Comparison Significant variations this year, compared to the same period one year ago, include:  Human Resources Division – A $1.4 million decrease due to a lower level of funding for Retiree Health. Last fiscal year, additional revenue that was assumed as part of the final budget did not materialize. This additional revenue was to fund the unfunded retiree health liability. An expenditure adjustment was made as part of the Mid-Year Budget last year but did not post until January 2014; and  Information Technology Division – A $1,045,989 decrease due to this program being transferred out to Public Affairs in the first quarter of FY 2013-14. THIRD QUARTER ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS There are no issues or recommendations for this department. $- $2,000,000.0 $4,000,000.0 $6,000,000.0 $8,000,000.0 $10,000,000.0 $12,000,000.0 $14,000,000.0 Mar-11 Jun-11 Mar-12 Jun-12 Mar-13 Jun-13 Mar-14 Jun-14 Fiscal Year 10-11 Fiscal Year 11-12 Fiscal Year 12-13 Fiscal Year 13-14 Expenditure $4,792,950 $6,812,994 $5,184,280 $7,711,278 $5,737,501 $8,374,466 $2,730,229 $13,842,779 YE A R -EN D P R O J E C T I O N 18 67 STAFFING No staffing changes. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS At the third quarter point of the fiscal year program budgets within Administrative Services are projected to end the year within budgeted appropriations. 19 68 Parks and Recreation DEPARTMENT UPDATES There are no updates to report since the Mid-Year Budget Report. Division FY13-14 Amended Budget Requested Third Quarter Budget Adjustments FY13-14 Projected Amended Budget Parks and Recreation $407,909 $0 $407,909 Facilities and Community Events 1,891,087 0 1,891,087 Youth and Teen Programs 2,178,679 0 2,178,679 Sports and Fitness 4,070,598 4,070,598 Senior Programs 1,528,473 1,528,473 Community Services 694,780 694,780 Department Total $10,771,526 $ 0 $10,771,526 DEPARTMENTAL REVENUE AND EXPENDITURES For the program budgets that were part of Parks and Recreation, as of March 31, 2014, actual revenue collected is $5.5 million or 82%. Fiscal Year 2013-14 is the first year revenue was budgeted at the program level. In the next two to three years as the City gathers more revenue data, additional analysis will be included for revenue similar to expenditures. As of March 31, 2014, expenditures were $6,784,353 this represents 64% of projected year end expenditures. Expenditures at the mid-year point of the prior three years were between 68% and 79% of the final actual expenditures, placing this year below the range. The following chart provides a comparison of expenditures. This comparison shows third quarter and year end for a three-year period, including the current year, for the budgets within Parks and Recreation: 20 69 Parks and Recreation Three Year Expenditure Comparison Significant variations this year, compared to the same time period one year ago include:  Parks and Recreation – A $26,714 decrease due to savings associated with the cost sharing of the Parks and Recreation Director with the Administrative Services Department;  Community Services – An increase of $552,939 is due to the transfer in of several programs including, Community Outreach, Disaster Preparedness Library Extra Hours and Neighborhood Watch. THIRD QUARTER ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS There are no issues or recommendations for this department. STAFFING No staffing changes. $- $2,000,000.0 $4,000,000.0 $6,000,000.0 $8,000,000.0 $10,000,000.0 $12,000,000.0 Mar-11 Jun-11 Mar-12 Jun-12 Mar-13 Jun-13 Mar-14 Jun-14 Fiscal Year 10-11 Fiscal Year 11-12 Fiscal Year 12-13 Fiscal Year 13-14 Expenditure $5,609,514 $8,250,622 $6,654,207 $8,363,802 $5,963,689 $8,365,531 $6,784,353 $10,629,146 YE A R -EN D P R O J E C T I O N 21 70 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS At the third quarter point of the fiscal year program budgets within Parks and Recreation are projected to end the year within budgeted appropriations. 22 71 Planning and Community Development DEPARTMENT UPDATES There are no updates to report since the Mid-Year Budget Report. Division FY13-14 Amended Budget Requested Third Quarter Budget Adjustments FY13-14 Projected Amended Budget Administration $251,582 $0 $251,582 Planning 4,611,685 0 4,611,685 Housing Services 824,331 0 824,331 Building 11,755,256 0 11,755,256 Department Total $17,442,854 $ 0 $17,442,854 DEPARTMENTAL REVENUE AND EXPENDITURES For the program budgets that were part of Planning and Community Development, as of March 31, 2014, actual revenue collected is $6.2 million or 66% of estimated revenue. Fiscal Year 2013-14 is the first year revenue was budgeted at the program level. In the next two to three years as the City gathers more revenue data, additional analysis will be included for revenue similar to expenditures. As of March 31, 2014, expenditures were $5.7 million, representing 32.6% of the projected year end actuals. Expenditures at the mid-year point of the prior three years were between 66% and 72% of the final actual expenditures, placing this year below the range. This is due to projected large expenditures related to a revenue pass thru contract for inspection services for the Apple Campus 2 project that have yet to materialize. The following chart provides a comparison of expenditures. This comparison shows third quarter and year end for a three-year period, including the current year, for the budgets within Planning and Community Development: 23 72 Planning and Community Development Three Year Expenditure Comparison Significant variations this year, compared to the same time period one year ago include:  Building Divisions – An increase of $1.4 million is due primarily to increased building activity related to the Apple Campus 2 project;  Planning Division – An increase of $767,367 is due to the addition of the Climate Action Plan special project as well as including previous carry-overs for General Plan Amendment and Tree Ordinance projects. THIRD QUARTER ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS There are no issues or recommendations for this department. STAFFING No staffing changes. $- $2,000,000.0 $4,000,000.0 $6,000,000.0 $8,000,000.0 $10,000,000.0 $12,000,000.0 $14,000,000.0 $16,000,000.0 $18,000,000.0 Mar-11 Jun-11 Mar-12 Jun-12 Mar-13 Jun-13 Mar-14 Jun-14 Fiscal Year 10-11 Fiscal Year 11-12 Fiscal Year 12-13 Fiscal Year 13-14 Expenditure $4,072,286 $5,693,542 $3,389,910 $5,124,569 $3,241,926 $4,471,928 $5,683,043 $17,442,854 YE A R -EN D PR O J E C T I O N 24 73 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS At the third quarter point of the fiscal year program budgets within Planning and Community Development are projected to end the year within budgeted appropriations. 25 74 Public Works DEPARTMENT UPDATES Several significant milestones were achieved this quarter, including the completion and opening of the City’s first dog park, the awarding of a contract for the construction of the Environmental Education Center, and several other improvements to McClellan Ranch Preserve. These milestones commence a fast and exciting process for the Civic Center Master Plan and Council adoption of an ordinance to ban expanded polystyrene food ware. Division FY13-14 Projected Amended Budget Requested Third Quarter Budget Adjustments FY13-14 Projected Amended Budget Administration $664,767 $0 $664,767 Environmental Programs 2,752,897 560,000 3,312,897 Engineering Services 2,715,303 0 2,715,303 Service Center 807,263 0 807,263 Grounds and Fleet 3,401,322 0 3,401,322 Streets 7,925,467 0 7,925,467 Trees and Right of Way 2,511,252 0 2,511,252 Facilities 2,858,120 0 2,858,120 Transportation 1,460,860 0 1,460,860 Fixed Asset Acquisition 361,870 0 361,870 Department Total $25,459,121 $0 $26,019,121 DEPARTMENTAL REVENUE AND EXPENDITURES For the program budgets that were part of Public Works, as of March 31, 2014, actual revenue collected is $2.9 million or 37% of estimated revenues. Fiscal Year 2013-14 is the first year revenue was budgeted at the program level. In the next two to three years as the City gathers more revenue data, additional analysis will be included for revenue similar to expenditures. As of March 31, 2014, expenditures were $15,055,622, representing 58% of the budgeted appropriations. Expenditures at the mid-year point of the prior three years were between 70% and 73% of the final actual expenditures, placing this year below the range. This is due to large pavement projects that have yet to be completed. 26 75 The following chart provides a comparison of expenditures. This comparison shows third quarter and year end for a three-year period, including the current year, for the budgets within Public Works: Public Works Three Year Expenditure Comparison Significant variations this year, compared to the same period a year ago, and accomplishments include:  Engineering Services – A variance of $101,000 due to the filling of one vacant full-time Associate Engineer, the temporary two-year addition of an Associate Engineer, the promotion of an Associate Engineer to a Senior Engineer, the promotion of an Engineering Technician to a Senior Engineering Technician, new cost allocations, and staff training. An additional $54,000 variance in General Service Agreement due to Construction Project Management Services, Wilfred Jarvis Institute related charges and new subdivision map signing and land $- $5,000,000.0 $10,000,000.0 $15,000,000.0 $20,000,000.0 $25,000,000.0 $30,000,000.0 Mar-11 Jun-11 Mar-12 Jun-12 Mar-13 Jun-13 Mar-14 Jun-14 Fiscal Year 10-11 Fiscal Year 11-12 Fiscal Year 12-13 Fiscal Year 13-14 Expenditure $10,559,935 $15,160,711 $11,197,537 $15,325,531 $12,138,730 $17,042,048 $15,055,622 $26,069,121 YE A R -EN D PR O J E C T I O N 27 76 surveying services. Finally, a $47,000 variance in Inspection Services is due to contract inspection service related to the Apple Campus 2 project;  Environmental – A variance of $111,500 in salary and benefits cost due to filling a vacant 2-Year Environmental Programs Assistant position charged to Resource Recovery; and added 50% Code Enforcement Officer to Resource Recovery. There is an additional $321,000 variance for charges related to the plastic bag ordinance, trio bins for city facilitates and an increase in invoices for the Solid Waste Program/landfill costs;  Streets – A $2.3 million increase due to the pavement repair and resurfacing program moving from the Non-Departmental capital budget to this Public Works operating program in FY 2013-14. New cost allocations and the annual contribution to the new health reimbursement account this quarter also caused the increase over last year. Lower streetlight electricity costs this year tempered the increase. Retroactive electricity costs for streetlights added through annexations were paid last year; and  Fixed Assets Acquisition – A $153,000 variance due to 4 replacement fleet vehicle purchased in March 2014. THIRD QUARTER ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS Resources Recovery Program is projected to exceed the amended budget due to increased invoices related to disposal services. The average monthly invoice is $120,000 with costs ranging from $110,000 through $138,000. The City does not have control over the disposal fees/landfill costs related to increased debris from additional development and construction. However, this program is reimbursed for a portion of these costs. The Department is requesting to have the authorization to increase the budget as needed for a not to exceed amount of $560,000. This fund has sufficient fund balance to cover any increased cost. There is no impact to the general fund. STAFFING There were no changes to staffing during the reporting period. 28 77 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended that Resource Recovery budget be increased by an amount not to exceed $560,000. Any additional appropriations will be funded by additional department revenue and through the use of fund balance. There is no impact to the General Fund. 29 78 Non-Departmental UPDATES There are no updates to report since the Mid-Year Budget Report. Division FY13-14 Projected Amended Budget Requested Third Quarter Budget Adjustments FY13-14 Projected Amended Budget Debt Service $3,171,838 $0 $3,171,838 Employee Housing Assistance 1,256,00 0 1,256,00 Transfers Out 23,713,154 0 23,713,154 Capital Projects 17,021,084 0 17,021,084 Department Total $43,907,332 $0 $43,907,332 REVENUE AND EXPENDITURES As of March 31, 2014, inter-fund transfers total $21.6 which is on track at 85% of budget. Transfers are done in twelve equal monthly installments. Principal and interest on the City’s debt is paid semi-annually. Debt service expenditures are incurred in the second and fourth quarters of each fiscal year. The employee housing assistance program for City executives has incurred no expenditures to date. The budget is set aside for a new housing loan in the event a new loan is approved. The following chart provides a comparison of expenditures. This comparison shows third quarter and year end for a three-year period, including the current year, for the budgets within Non-Departmental. 30 79 Non-Departmental Three Year Expenditure Comparison Significant variations this year, compared to the same period one year ago, include:  Capital Projects – An increase of $3 million in project expenditures. Expenditures can vary widely year-to-year depending on the phase of active projects and whether a project has ended or commenced. The Stevens Creek Corridor Park Phase 2 project and pavement rehabilitation projects, all carried over from the prior year, comprise $439,000 and $190,000, respectively, of the FY 2013-14 variance; and  Inter-fund transfers – A $12 million increase due primarily to the transfer out of $8 million as part of the mid-year budget adjustment to fund the retiree health unfunded liability. STAFFING There is no staffing associated with this department. $- $10,000,000.0 $20,000,000.0 $30,000,000.0 $40,000,000.0 $50,000,000.0 $60,000,000.0 Mar-11 Jun-11 Mar-12 Jun-12 Mar-13 Jun-13 Mar-14 Jun-14 Fiscal Year 10-11 Fiscal Year 11-12 Fiscal Year 12-13 Fiscal Year 13-14 Expenditure $12,004,749 $19,517,408 $10,108,567 $58,619,894 $14,696,148 $20,787,154 $28,759,243 $48,470,677 YE A R -EN D PR O J E C T I O N 31 80 THIRD QUARTER ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS There are no issues or recommendations for this department. STAFFING No staffing changes. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS At the third quarter point of the fiscal year, program budgets within Non-Departmental are projected to end the year within budgeted appropriations. 32 81 CONCLUSION The Third Quarter Financial Report shows the City is well positioned to end the year within the Amended Budget. No General Fund departments are requesting adjustments to their budget and only one Enterprise Fund, Resource Recovery, is requesting an adjustment of an amount not to exceed. This request will have no impact on the General Fund. 33 82 Attachment B RESOLUTION NO. 14- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AMENDING THE OPERATING BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013-14 BY RATIFYING THE ADEQUACY OF ESTIMATED AMENDED REVENUES TO THE SPECIAL FUNDS TO COVER AMENDED APPROPRIATED MONIES AND APPROPRIATING MONIES THEREFROM FOR SPECIFIED ACTIVITIES AND ACCOUNTS WHEREAS, the orderly administration of municipal government is dependent on the establishment of a sound fiscal policy of maintaining a proper ratio of expenditures within anticipated revenues and available monies; and WHEREAS, the extent of any project or program and the degree of its accomplishment, as well as the efficiency of performing assigned duties and responsibilities, is likewise dependent on the monies made available for that purpose; and WHEREAS, the City Manager has submitted his estimates of amended anticipated revenues, has determined that estimated amended revenues are adequate to cover amended appropriations, and has recommended the allocation of monies for specified program activities NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby ratify that the attached anticipated amended resources are to be received in the Special Funds listed in the attachment during fiscal year 2013-14 and that such resources are sufficient to cover the attached amended appropriations. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that there is appropriated from the Special funds the sum of money set forth as amended expenditures for those funds, to be used for the purposes as expressed and estimated in the report before the City Council. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 20th day of May 2014, by the following vote: 83 Page 2 Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: _________ Grace Schmidt, City Clerk Gilbert Wong, Mayor, City of Cupertino 84 Attachment B1 Fund Revenue Amount SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS Resource Recovery Enterprise Fund 560,000 Fund Expenditure Amount SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS Resource Recovery Enterprise Fund 560,000 85 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CITY HALL 10 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3354 www.cupertino.org CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Meeting: May 20, 2014 Subject City Project, Stevens Creek Corridor Park and Restoration Phase 2, Project No. 9134. Recommended Action Authorize the following actions relating to Stevens Creek Corridor Park and Restoration Phase 2, Project No. 9134: 1. Accept construction work completed by Robert A. Bothman, Inc. 2. Authorize an amendment to the agreement with SSA Landscape Architects for additional services for an amount not to exceed $26,500. 3. Authorize use of grant monies from the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority “Project Readiness Initiative” program to reimburse eligible expenses, increasing the allocation to this project from $22,000 to a maximum of $34,534. Discussion Construction Acceptance On May 21, 2013, the City Council authorized award of a construction contract to Robert A. Bothman, Inc. for construction of Stevens Creek Corridor Park and Restoration Phase 2 in the amount of $3,063,900. The contract award included the base scope, plus a bid alternate item which added a backwater area to improve the creek channel performance and provide additional habitat. Construction has been successfully completed. Agreement Amendment In May 2013, the City Council authorized an expenditure of $195,000 for construction phase services by SSA Landscape Architects and the design team subconsultants, including hydrological engineer, civil and structural engineer, geotechnical engineer, and electrical engineer. In order to deliver the project in compliance with grant and permit requirements and address the construction complexities, more consultant support services were required than in the original scope. Staff recommends these quantifiable additional services be reimbursed. They included more extensive oversight of contractor installation of the creek features; extra effort to accommodate presence of large tree root systems; more effort to best accommodate the interface between the creek restoration and the golf course features; a more extended timeline for final construction 86 completion; and numerous resubmittals and reviews to ensure compliance with project requirements. A total of $26,500 is recommended to be included as an amendment to the consultant services agreement. Of that, approximately $3,100 is being charged back to the contractor for out-of-scope inspections. In addition, a significant amount of savings in construction quantity adjustments have occurred due to the design team’s diligence during construction. The fees are deemed appropriate for the services provided. No change to the project budget is necessary. VTA Grant Monies In December 2012, the City Council approved amending a grant agreement with Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) for Project Readiness Initiative (PRI) funding. The grant as amended provides up to $75,000 of reimbursements for specific types of projects and expenses. The City Council directed that $22,000 be used for this project, $18,000 be used for the Joint Cities Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study, and $35,000 be used for the McClellan Road Sidewalk Feasibility Study. The latter project was completed last year, and incurred eligible expenses of $22,466. Therefore there is a balance of $12,534 in the PRI grant agreement that is available for reallocation by Council. Staff recommends authorizing use of these grant monies for the Stevens Creek Corridor Park and Restoration Phase 2 project, up to the extent that eligible expenses exist, and that grant monies received be used to reduce the City-provided funding for the project. No change to the overall project budget is proposed. Sustainability Impact Implementation of the Stevens Creek Corridor Park and Restoration Phase 2 project supports the City’s sustainability goals. Fiscal Impact: No change is proposed to the existing budget for Stevens Creek Corridor Park and Restoration Phase 2, Project 9134. The proposed actions will reduce the City’s funding contribution to the project by the amount of additional grant funding received. _____________________________________ Prepared by: Gail Seeds, Park Restoration and Improvement Manager Reviewed by: Timm Borden, Director of Public Works Department Approved for Submission by: David Brandt, City Manager Attachments: None 87 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CITY HALL 10 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3354 www.cupertino.org CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Meeting: May 20, 2014 Subject 2013 STP Overlay Project, Project No. 2013-04. Recommended Action Authorize the City Manager to award a contract to O’Grady Paving Company, Inc., in the amount of $1,002,968 for base bid and add alternate number one; and approve a construction contingency of $150,000, for a total of $1,152,968. Discussion On May 12, 2014, the City received bids for the 2013 STP Overlay Project. This project will complete an asphalt overlay on Stevens Creek Boulevard from Highway 85 to De Anza Boulevard. The asphalt overlay material, called rubberized asphalt concrete, is made with recycled tire rubber. Compared to conventional asphalt, this product is environmentally preferred due to its superior structural qualities that allow less of the material to be applied, its durability and ability to resist cracking, and its effectiveness in reducing vehicle noise pollution. Additionally, for each lane mile of asphalt rubber, approximately 2,000 tires are recycled—which equates to 12,000 tires being diverted from a landfill because of this project. A $249,200 grant from Cal Recycle will assist with the cost of the rubberized asphalt concrete, as it is still appreciatively more expensive than conventional pavement treatments. Also included in this project is a distinctive green material to clearly designate bike lanes near Highway 85. This will be the first application of this material in the City. The application area is ideal due to the number of bicyclist and motorist that merge and share the road at this location. A total of six companies submitted bid packages for this project. The following is a summary of bids deemed complete: Bidder Base Bid Amount Add Alternate No. 1 Engineers Estimate $1,000,000 $93,000 O’Grady Paving $882,068 $120,900 MCK Services $889,341 $129,560 G. Bortolotto $907,111 $121,165 Granite Rock $954,488 $87,507 Interstate Grading & Paving $1,058,822 $90,714 C.F. Archibald Paving $1,064,764 $90,365 88 Fiscal Impact Award of the project will result in a fiscal impact of up to $1,152,968. Sufficient funds have been budgeted and are available from account #270-8404-9325 (Pavement Maintenance). _____________________________________ Prepared by: Roger Lee, Assistant Director of Public Works Reviewed by: Timm Borden, Director of Public Works Approved for Submission by: David Brandt, City Manager Attachments: A - Draft Contract 89 Project No. 2013-04 DOCUMENT 00520 CONTRACT THIS CONTRACT, dated this day of , 2014, by and between _________________whose place of business is located at ________________________ (“Contractor”), and the CITY OF CUPERTINO, a Municipal Corporation of the State of California (“City”) acting under and by virtue of the authority vested in the City by the laws of the State of California. WHEREAS, City, on the _____ day of _______________, 2014 awarded to Contractor the following Project: PROJECT NUMBER 2013-04 2013 STP OVERLAY PROJECT NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants hereinafter set forth, Contractor and City agree as follows: Article 1. Work 1.1 Contractor shall complete all Work specified in the Contract Documents, in accordance with the Specifications, Drawings, and all other terms and conditions of the Contract Documents. Article 2. Agency and Notices to City 2.1 City has designated Roger Lee, Assistant Director, Public Works – Maintenance, to act as City’s Authorized Representative(s), who will represent City in performing City’s duties and responsibilities and exercising City’s rights and authorities in Contract Documents. City may change the individual(s) acting as City’s Authorized Representative(s), or delegate one or more specific functions to one or more specific City’s Representatives, including without limitation engineering, architectural, inspection and general administrative functions, at any time with notice and without liability to Contractor. Each City’s Representative is the beneficiary of all Contractor obligations to City, including without limitation, all releases and indemnities. 2.2 All notices or demands to City under the Contract Documents shall be to City’s Authorized Representative at: 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 or to such other person(s) and address(es) as City shall provide to Contractor. Article 3. Contract Time and Liquidated Damages 3.1 Contract Time. The Contract Time will commence to run on the date indicated in the Notice to Proceed. City may give a Notice to Proceed at any time within 30 Days after the Notice of Award. Contractor shall not do any Work at the Site prior to the date on which the Contract Time commences to run. Contractor shall achieve Final Completion of the entire Work and be ready for Final Payment in accordance with Section 00700 (General Provisions) within 45 working days as provided in Document 00700 (General Provisions) 3.2 Liquidated Damages. City and Contractor recognize that time is of the essence of this Contract and that City will suffer financial loss in the form of contract administration expenses (such as project management and consultant expenses), if all or City of Cupertino 00520 - 1 Contract 2013 STP Overlay Project 90 Project No. 2013-04 any part of the Work is not completed within the times specified above, plus any extensions thereof allowed in accordance with the Contract Documents. Consistent with Document 00700 (General Provisions), Contractor and City agree that because of the nature of the Project, it would be impractical or extremely difficult to fix the amount of actual damages incurred by City because of a delay in completion of all or any part of the Work. Accordingly, City and Contractor agree that as liquidated damages for delay Contractor shall pay City: 3.2.1 $1,500 for each Calendar Day that expires after the time specified herein for Contractor to achieve Substantial Completion as specified above. 3.2.2 $1,500 for each Calendar Day that expires after the time specified herein for Contractor to achieve Final Completion of the entire Work as specified above. 3.2.3 $50.00 per facility per day for failure to raise utilities to finished grade within 72 hours of completion of final paving 3.2.4 $5,000 for each occurrence of a violation of Document 00800, Section 1.7 WORK DAYS AND HOURS. 3.2.5 $5,000 per day for each street that has not received installation of temporary tab markers and traffic striping prior to opening asphalt areas to traffic. 3.2.6 $1000 per day for each street with incomplete installation of pavement markers, pavement markings and traffic striping on the 13th calendar day following completion of surface treatment. 3.2.7 $100 per calendar day for each traffic loop that is not replaced within two weeks following damage. Liquidated damages shall apply cumulatively and, except as provided below, shall be presumed to be the damages suffered by City resulting from delay in completion of the Work. 3.3 Liquidated damages for delay shall only cover administrative, overhead, interest on bonds, and general loss of public use damages suffered by City as a result of delay. Liquidated damages shall not cover the cost of completion of the Work, damages resulting from defective Work, lost revenues or costs of substitute facilities, or damages suffered by others who then seek to recover their damages from City (for example, delay claims of other contractors, subcontractors, tenants, or other third-parties), and defense costs thereof. Article 4. Contract Sum 4.1 City shall pay Contractor the Contract Sum for completion of Work in accordance with Contract Documents as set forth in Contractor’s Bid, attached hereto: See Exhibit “A” attached Article 5. Contractor’s Representations In order to induce City to enter into this Contract, Contractor makes the following representations and warranties: 5.1 Contractor has visited the Site and has examined thoroughly and understood the nature and extent of the Contract Documents, Work, Site, locality, actual conditions, as-built conditions, and all local conditions, and federal, state and local laws and regulations that in any manner may affect cost, progress, performance or furnishing of Work or which relate to any aspect of the means, methods, techniques, sequences or procedures of construction to be employed by Contractor and safety precautions and programs incident thereto. 5.2 Contractor has examined thoroughly and understood all reports of exploration and tests of subsurface conditions, as-built drawings, drawings, products specifications or reports, available for Bidding purposes, of physical conditions, including Underground Facilities, or which may appear in the Drawings. Contractor accepts the determination set forth in these Documents and Document 00700 (General Provisions) of the limited extent of the information contained in such materials upon which Contractor may be entitled to rely. Contractor City of Cupertino 00520 - 2 Contract 2013 STP Overlay Project 91 Project No. 2013-04 agrees that except for the information so identified, Contractor does not and shall not rely on any other information contained in such reports and drawings. 5.3 Contractor has conducted or obtained and has understood all such examinations, investigations, explorations, tests, reports and studies (in addition to or to supplement those referred to in Section 5.2 of this Document 00520) that pertain to the subsurface conditions, as-built conditions, underground facilities, and all other physical conditions at or contiguous to the Site or otherwise that may affect the cost, progress, performance or furnishing of Work, as Contractor considers necessary for the performance or furnishing of Work at the Contract Sum, within the Contract Time and in accordance with the other terms and conditions of the Contract Documents, including specifically the provisions of Document 00700 (General Provisions); and no additional examinations, investigations, explorations, tests, reports, studies or similar information or data are or will be required by Contractor for such purposes. 5.4 Contractor has correlated its knowledge and the results of all such observations, examinations, investigations, explorations, tests, reports and studies with the terms and conditions of the Contract Documents. 5.5 Contractor has given City prompt written notice of all conflicts, errors, ambiguities, or discrepancies that it has discovered in or among the Contract Documents and as-built drawings and actual conditions and the written resolution thereof through Addenda issued by City is acceptable to Contractor. 5.6 Contractor is duly organized, existing and in good standing under applicable state law, and is duly qualified to conduct business in the State of California. 5.7 Contractor has duly authorized the execution, delivery and performance of this Contract, the other Contract Documents and the Work to be performed herein. The Contract Documents do not violate or create a default under any instrument, contract, order or decree binding on Contractor. 5.8 Contractor has listed Subcontractors pursuant to the Subcontractor Listing Law, California Public Contracting Code §4100 et seq. in document 00340 (Subcontractors List) Article 6. Contract Documents 6.1 Contract Documents consist of the following documents, including all changes, addenda, and modifications thereto: Document 00002 Signature Page Document 00003 Project Directory Document 00012 Caltrans/City Cross-Reference Table Document 00100 Advertisement For Bids Document 00200 Instructions to Bidders Document 00210 Indemnity and Release Agreement Document 00400 Bid Form Document 00411 Bond Accompanying Bid Document 00430 Subcontractors List Document 00431 Bidder’s List of Subcontractors Document 00450 Statement of Qualifications Document 00481 Non-Collusion Affidavit Document 00482 Bidder Certifications Document 00500 Federal Requirements for Federal-Aid Construction Projects Document 00501 Required Contract Provisions – Federal-Aid Construction Projects Document 00502 Equal Employment Opportunity Certification Document 00504 Debarment and Suspension Certification Document 00505 Nonlobbying Certification for Federal-Aid Contracts Document 00506 Disclosure of Lobbying Activities Document 00507 Proposal Requirements and Conditions Document 00508 Award and Execution of Contract Document 00509 Beginning of Work, Time of Completion and Liquidated Damages City of Cupertino 00520 - 3 Contract 2013 STP Overlay Project 92 Project No. 2013-04 Document 00510 Subcontractor and DBE Records Document 00511 Performance of Subcontractors Document 00512 Subcontracting Document 00513 Buy America Requirements Document 00514 Local Agency Bidder-DBE Information Document 00515 Local Agency Bidder UDBE Commitment Document 00516 UDBE Information – Good Faith Efforts Document 00517 Utilization of DBE, First Tier Subcontractors Document 00518 Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Certification Status Change Document 00519 Federal Wage Rates Document 00520 Contract Document 00530 Insurance Forms Document 00610 Construction Performance Bond Document 00620 Construction Labor and Material Payment Bond Document 00630 Guaranty Document 00650 Agreement and Release of Any and All Claims Document 00660 Substitution Request Form Document 00700 General Conditions Document 00800 Special Conditions Document 00820 Traffic Control Requirements Document 00821 Insurance Document 00822 Apprenticeship Program Technical Specifications Document 01010 Summary of Work Addenda(s) Drawings/Plans 6.2 There are no Contract Documents other than those listed in this Document 00520, Article 6. The Contract Documents may only be amended, modified or supplemented as provided in Document 00700 (General Provisions). Article 7. Miscellaneous 7.1 Terms used in this Contract are defined in Document 00700 (General Provisions) and will have the meaning indicated therein. 7.2 It is understood and agreed that in no instance are the persons signing this Contract for or on behalf of City or acting as an employee, agent, or representative of City, liable on this Contract or any of the Contract Documents, or upon any warranty of authority, or otherwise, and it is further understood and agreed that liability of the City is limited and confined to such liability as authorized or imposed by the Contract Documents or applicable law. 7.3 Contractor shall not assign any portion of the Contract Documents, and may subcontract portions of the Contract Documents only in compliance with the Subcontractor Listing Law, California Public Contracting Code §4100 et seq. 7.4 The Contract Sum includes all allowances (if any). 7.5 In entering into a public works contract or a subcontract to supply goods, services or materials pursuant to a public works contract, Contractor or Subcontractor offers and agrees to assign to the awarding body all rights, title and interest in and to all causes of action it may have under Section 4 of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. §15) or under the Cartwright Act (Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 16700) of Part 2 of Division 7 of the Business and Professions Code), arising from purchases of goods, services or materials pursuant to the public works contract or the subcontract. This assignment shall be made and become effective at the time City tenders final payment to Contractor, without further acknowledgment by the parties. City of Cupertino 00520 - 4 Contract 2013 STP Overlay Project 93 Project No. 2013-04 7.6 Copies of the general prevailing rates of per diem wages for each craft, classification, or type of worker needed to execute the Contract, as determined by Director of the State of California Department of Industrial Relations, are deemed included in the Contract Documents and on file at City’s office, or may be obtained of the State of California web site http://www.dir.ca.gov/DLSR/PWD/Northern.html and shall be made available to any interested party on request. Pursuant to Section 1861 of the Labor Code, Contractor represents that it is aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the Labor Code which require every employer to be insured against liability for workers’ compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that Code, and Contractor shall comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the Work of the Contract Documents. 7.7 Should any part, term or provision of this Contract or any of the Contract Documents, or any document required herein or therein to be executed or delivered, be declared invalid, void or unenforceable, all remaining parts, terms and provisions shall remain in full force and effect and shall in no way be invalidated, impaired or affected thereby. If the provisions of any law causing such invalidity, illegality or unenforceability may be waived, they are hereby waived to the end that this Contract and the Contract Documents may be deemed valid and binding contracts, enforceable in accordance with their terms to the greatest extent permitted by applicable law. In the event any provision not otherwise included in the Contract Documents is required to be included by any applicable law, that provision is deemed included herein by this reference(or, if such provision is required to be included in any particular portion of the Contract Documents, that provision is deemed included in that portion). 7.8 This Contract and the Contract Documents shall be deemed to have been entered into in the County of Santa Clara, State of California, and governed in all respects by California law (excluding choice of law rules). The exclusive venue for all disputes or litigation hereunder shall be in Santa Clara County. Both parties hereby waive their rights under California Code of Civil Procedure Section 394 to file a motion to transfer any action or proceeding arising out of the Contract Documents to another venue. Contractor accepts the Claims Procedure in Document 00700, Article 12, established under the California Government Code, Title 1, Division 3.6, Part 3, Chapter 5. City of Cupertino 00520 - 5 Contract 2013 STP Overlay Project 94 Project No. 2013-04 IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties have executed this Contract in quadruplicate the day and year first above written. 2013 STP OVERLAY PROJECT CITY: CONTRACTOR: CITY OF CUPERTINO, a Municipal Corporation of the State of California By: [Signature] Attest: [Please print name here] City Clerk: Grace Schmidt Approved as to form by City Attorney: Title: ______________________________________________ [If Corporation: Chairman , President, or Vice President] City Attorney: Carol Korade By: I hereby certify, under penalty of perjury, that Timm Borden, Director of Public Works of the City of Cupertino was duly authorized to execute this document. [Signature] [Please print name here] Title: [If Corporation: Secretary, Assistant Secretary, Chief Financial Officer, or Assistant Treasurer] Dated: _____________________________ David Brandt, City Manager Cupertino, a Municipal Corporation of the State of California ________________________________________________ State Contractor’s License No. Classification ________________________________________________ Expiration Date Designated Representative: Taxpayer ID No._________________________________ Name: Roger Lee Name: Title: Assistant Director, Public Works - Maintenance Title: Address: 10555 Mary Ave, Cupertino, CA 95014 Address: Phone: 408-777-3269 Phone: Facsimile: 408-777-3399 Facsimile: AMOUNT: $ ACCOUNT NUMBER: 270-8404-9325 FILE NO.: NOTARY ACKNOLEDGEMENT IS REQUIRED. IF A CORPORATION, CORPORATE SEAL AND CORPORATE NOTARY ACKNOWLEDEMENT AND FEDERAL TAX ID ARE REQUIRED. IF NOT A CORPORATION SOCIAL SECURITY NO. IS REQUIRED END OF DOCUMENT City of Cupertino 00520 - 6 Contract 2013 STP Overlay Project 95 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3223 www.cupertino.org CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Meeting: May 20, 2014 Subject Declare brush to be a public nuisance and potential fire hazard and set hearing for June 2 for objections to proposed removal. Recommended Action Adopt draft resolution declaring brush to be a public nuisance and potential fire hazard and setting the hearing date for June 2. Discussion The Cupertino brush abatement program is a separate program from the County Weed Abatement Program. Cupertino Municipal Code Section 16.40.480 requires property owners in the locally adopted Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Area to maintain effective defensible space by removing brush, flammable vegetation and combustible growth when required by the fire code official due to steepness of terrain or other conditions. It also authorizes the County to remove the brush if the property owner doesn’t and to recover the cost of abatement. _____________________________________ Prepared by: Kirsten Squarcia, Deputy City Clerk Reviewed by: Grace Schmidt, City Clerk Approved for Submission by: David Brandt, City Manager Attachments: A - Draft resolution 96 RESOLUTION NO. 14- A RESOLUTION OF THE CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL DECLARING BRUSH GROWING ON CERTAIN DESCRIBED PROPERTY TO BE A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND POTENTIAL FIRE HAZARD AND SETTING HEARING FOR OBJECTIONS TO PROPOSED REMOVAL WHEREAS, brush is growing in the City of Cupertino upon certain streets, sidewalks, highways, roads and private property; and WHEREAS, said brush may attain such growth as to become a fire menace or which are otherwise noxious or dangerous; and WHEREAS, said brush constitutes a public nuisance; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Cupertino as follows: 1. That said brush does now constitute a public nuisance and potential fire hazard; 2. That said nuisance and potential fire hazard exists upon all of the streets, sidewalks, highways, roads and private property more particularly described by common names or by reference to the tract, block, lot, code area, and parcel number on the report to be provided by the Santa Clara County Fire Department; 3. That the 2nd day of June, 2014, at the hour of 6:45 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter can be heard, in the Council Chamber in the Community Hall, City of Cupertino, are hereby set as the time and place where all property owners having any objections to the proposed removal of such brush may be heard; 4. That the Santa Clara County Fire Marshal is hereby designated and ordered as the person to cause notice of the adoption of this resolution to be given in the manner and form provided in Sections 9.08.040 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. 97 Resolution No. 14- Page 2 PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 20th day of May, 2014 by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: __________________________ ____________________________ Grace Schmidt, City Clerk Gilbert Wong, Mayor, City of Cupertino 98 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3223 www.cupertino.org CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Meeting: May 20, 2014 Subject Resignation of Housing Commissioner (Financial Representative) Jimmy Chien Recommended Action Accept resignation and direct staff to recruit for the vacancy. Discussion Cupertino Resolution No. 10-048 states that unscheduled vacancies shall be handled in the following manner: • The notice of unscheduled vacancy shall be posted no earlier than 20 days before nor later than 20 days after the vacancy occurs, and at least 10 working days before appointment. The notice of unscheduled vacancy must be posted in the Office of the City Clerk, at the City Hall bulletin board, at the Cupertino Library, and in other places designated by the City Clerk The vacancy notice was posted on May 13 and must remain posted for at least 10 business days. This does not leave enough time to post and accept applications to include candidates in the Bicycle Pedestrian and Public Safety Commission interviews already scheduled for June 10. There are no eligible applications on file, up to a year old, from people who had expressed an interest in the Housing Commission as a financial representative. _____________________________________ Prepared by: Kirsten Squarcia, Deputy City Clerk Reviewed by: Grace Schmidt, City Clerk Approved for Submission by: David Brandt, City Manager Attachments: Staff report A - Resignation email 99 Kirsten Squarcia Subject:FW: Housing Commission update From: JIMMY CHIEN [lookjimmy@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2014 11:27 AM To: Christopher Valenzuela Subject: RE: Cupertino Teen Commission seeks Housing Commission Partcipation Dear CJ, Pardon me. I am no longer working in Cupertino. Hence; I have to resign from Housing Commissioner position. Hopefully, I have an opportunity to serve community. Thanks. Best Regards, Jimmy 100 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3308 www.cupertino.org CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Meeting: May 20, 2014 Subject Tree removal permit to allow the removal and replacement of trees that are unhealthy, in conflict with utilities, and/or not suitable for preservation as part of the Main Street Project. Recommended Action Staff recommends that the City Council: 1. Approve the removal and replacement of twenty- four (24) private non-specimen trees (23 Shamel Ash and one (1) Chinese Elm) for the Main Street Project, pursuant to the attached draft resolution (Attachment A). 2. Provide input to the Public Works Department regarding the proposed removal and replacement of 48 public, non-specimen street trees (45 Shamel Ash and three (3) Autumn Purple White Ash) for the Main Street Project. Description Applications: TR-2014-17 Applicant: Kevin Dare Property Owner: Main Street Cupertino Aggregator, LLC Location: North side of Stevens Creek Boulevard on both sides of Finch Avenue, west of N. Tantau Avenue and south of Vallco Parkway (APN 316-20-079, 316-20-078 and 316-20-085) Application Summary The applicant is proposing the removal and replacement of twenty (24) private trees on the project site (ranging in size from 10 to 23 inches in diameter) as part of the Main Street project. In addition, 48 public trees along the project street front and within the center median of Stevens Creek Boulevard are also proposed for removal. Background Existing Conditions and Surroundings The project site is bounded by the Stevens Creek Boulevard to the south, N. Tantau Avenue to the east, Vallco Parkway to the north and the existing Metropolitan and future Rosebowl mixed use developments to the west. The site is surrounded by light industrial office buildings occupied by Apple to the north, and an office complex occupied by Apple to the east across N. Tantau Avenue. Construction activities for the Office 1, Office 2, and Parking Garage buildings are underway. 101 Prior Council Approval At its February 25, 2014 meeting, the City Council authorized the removal (TR-2013-39) of four trees on Stevens Creek Boulevard (6, 7, 9 & 10) located on a berm and up to 17 Ash trees (70-73, 75-78, 81, 84-91) along N. Tantau Avenue that are determined to be dead or unhealthy (pursuant to Condition #3 of Resolution 14-123). The Council also directed the following: • Hold off the removal of any unhealthy trees along Tantau Avenue pending the review of the City's arborist report. • Replace the dead and unhealthy trees with replacements of 48-inch box Americana Ash trees. In addition to the private trees proposed for removal, forty-eight public trees within the public right-of- way (along Vallco Parkway and Tantau Avenue) and the street median (in the middle of Stevens Creek Boulevard) were discussed as candidates for removal due to poor health, and conflicts with utilities and public improvements as part of a separate process administered by the Public Works Department. Applicant's Request Since the February Council meeting, the applicant has obtained a detailed site survey with the location of the existing utilities and construction impact zones associated with the approved project infrastructure improvements along Vallco Parkway, N. Tantau Avenue, and Stevens Creek Boulevard. The City's Consulting Arborist has also prepared an updated report with additional analysis confirming the health, structural condition, and preservation suitability of the additional trees proposed for removal. In light of the new information, the applicant is requesting that the City Council consider a new tree removal permit (TR-2014-17) to allow the following: 1. Removal and replacement of 24 additional private frontage trees in conflict with utilities/project infrastructures and/or declined health (four trees have already been removed and are being considered retroactively). 2. Reduce the required minimum planting size of the replacement frontage trees from 48-inch box to 24- inch box Americana Ash and Pear Tree per the recommendation from the City's Consultant Arborist. Discussion (Private Trees) The following table summarizes the reason and justification to remove and replace the 24 private trees identified by the applicant for the Main Street Project: Tree Tag No. Removal Reason/Justification 1 – 5, 11 Located along Stevens Creek Boulevard, trees #1-5 are in conflict with utilities and approved site improvements, including but not limited to the main water backflow apparatus, the fire department connection, the grading and construction activities associated with the new sidewalk/curb/gutter, and the approved entry driveway serving the major tenant building. Tree #11 is located interior to the project, and located in the middle (in direct conflict) of an approved parking lot drive aisle. Trees #2–4 & 11 were erroneously removed as part of the grading phase of the project and are being considered retroactively). 8 Located in the middle of the berm at the southwest corner of the project site along Stevens Creek Boulevard. Tree #8 is located on the berm between trees 6, 7, 9, & 10 (which were approved for removal). This tree was left out of the request by the applicant at the 102 February 2014 City Council hearing and was intended to be included in the recommendation for removal. 70 – 73, 75 – 78, 81, 84 – 91 Located along the frontage of Tantau Avenue. These trees are mostly dead and/or in very poor health and are recommended for removal by the City’s Consulting Arborist. City Consultant Arborist Findings Pursuant to the Council's request, a final arborist report prepared by the City’s Consultant Arborist, David Babby, provides further assessment on the health, structural integrity, and retention suitability of each tree (private and public) proposed for removal. As part of the assessment, the City’s Consultant Arborist performed site inspections, reviewed the project’s improvement and landscaping plans, and discussed the findings and recommendations with the City’s Public Works Arborist. Tree Tag No. Tree Type* Arborist Finding and Recommendation 1 Shamel Ash Removal. Poor and weak structural condition with high risk of limb failure - beyond recovery. Tree also is in conflict with approved utility and site improvements. 2 - 4 Shamel Ash Tree already removed. Original arborist report in 2008 found the trees in very poor condition or almost dead. These trees are directly in conflict with the approved driveway serving the Major Tenant Building at the southwest corner of the project. 5 Shamel Ash Removal. Structurally weak and declined condition. Tree condition will continue to decline and recovery is unlikely. 8 Shamel Ash Removal. Almost dead – beyond recovery. 11 Chinese Elm Tree already removed. Original arborist report in 2008 found the trees in good condition. This tree was located directly in the middle of the approved parking lot serving the Major Tenant Building and Shops 7 & 8 located at the southwest of the project. 70, 71 Shamel Ash Removal. Poor and declined condition - beyond recovery. 72 Shamel Ash Removal. Almost dead with a large wound at the base. 73 Shamel Ash Removal. Dying and beyond recovery. 75-78, 81, 84 Shamel Ash Removal. Dead or almost dead and unsafe structure. 85 Shamel Ash Removal. Dying and - beyond recovery. 86 Shamel Ash Removal. Poor health and structure. Will continue to decline and recovery is unlikely. 87 – 91 Shamel Ash Removal. Dead, almost dead, and dying – beyond recovery/unsafe structure. *No trees are considered specimen trees (protected species/size) in the City’s Tree Ordinance Public Trees In addition to the private trees proposed for removal, forty-eight (48) city street trees within the public right-of-way (35 along Vallco Parkway, one on Tantau Avenue and 12in the street median along Stevens Creek Boulevard) are also being considered for removal by the Director of Public Works Department 103 primarily due to dead or poor health and/or conflicts with utility and public infrastructure. Pursuant to the CMC 14.12.030, the removal of public trees in the public right-of-way is subject to a separate process administered by the Public Works Department. In the interest of providing the City Council with a comprehensive overview of all of the frontage trees (public and private) to be removed and replaced along the Main Street project, the following information related to the removal of these trees has been provided: Tree Tag No. Removal Reason/Justification 31 - 46, 48-53, 55- 62, 64 - 66, 68, 69 Public trees along Vallco Parkway that are either almost dead or poor in health and/or in conflict with underground utilities/site improvements. These trees are expected to continue to decline and recovery is unlikely. Trees 43 & 53 have been already been removed as part of the grading phase of the project and are being considered retroactively. 79 Located at the middle of the Tantau Avenue frontage, in conflict with the existing underground utility line. 147 - 153, 154 - 157, 159 Within the median of Stevens Creek Boulevard. Must be removed to facilitate the reconstruction of the median in order to address water runoff issues. Trees 151 – 153, which died, have already been removed. City Consultant Arborist Findings A summary of the findings and recommendation from the City Consultant Arborist on the corresponding public trees in question are summarized as follows: Tree Tag No. Tree Type* Arborist Finding and Recommendation** 31 - 46, 48-53, 55- 62, 64 - 66, 68, 69 Shamel Ash Remove. The majority of the trees are in poor health and are anticipated to have significant and unavoidable damage to tree roots with the removal & installation of the new curb, gutter, sidewalk, joint trench and other utilities. 79 Shamel Ash Remove. The tree is dying and beyond recovery. 147 - 150 Shamel Ash Remove. The existing median and landscape mound are proposed for reconstruction by the Public Works Department to address various maintenance, irrigation, and stormwater runoff concerns. One of these trees has a better condition (healthy/stable), the majority have only a fair structure or worse. 151 -153 White Ash Already removed due to being dead. 154 - 157, 159 Shamel Ash Removal. The existing median and landscape mound are proposed for reconstruction by the Public Works Department to address various maintenance, irrigation, and stormwater runoff concerns. While the majority of the trees are in better health (healthy), with fair or worse structures, the reconstruction plans directly conflict with their preservation. *No trees are considered specimen tree (protected species/size) in the City's Ordinance **Based on the Arborist Report prepared by David Babby. Peer reviewed by the City's Public Works Street Tree Arborist. Replacement Trees & Planting Size Trees that are removed will be replaced with new trees of varying species at a ratio of approximately 1 to 4, which exceeds the ordinance replacement standard. Overall, the project is proposing to plant 420 trees 104 throughout the entire project. Along the project perimeter, the overall replacement plantings for both public and private trees exceed a 1 to 1 (replacement/removal) ratio, see breakdown below (Attachment C): Frontage Trees Removed* Replacements Frontage Trees Proposed Stevens Creek Boulevard** 12 (Shamel Ash) 44 (20 Americana Ash / 24 Flowering Pear ) Tantau Avenue 22 (Shamel Ash) 21 (Americana Ash) Vallco Parkway*** 39 (Shamel Ash) 41 (Americana Ash) Total 73 (Shamel Ash) 106 (Americana Ash) *Includes public & private trees that were previously approved for removal **An additional 12 trees in the median (9 Shamel Ash, & 3 White Ash trees) are proposed to be removed and replaced with 15 Olive Trees. ***Five (5) new flowering pear trees will be planted in the reconstructed Vallco Parkway median (which presently has no trees). Stevens Creek Boulevard frontage is not physically able to facilitate as many replacement trees because of conflicts with the proposed bus stops and existing underground utility infrastructure. According to the City's Consulting Arborist, all replacement trees along the project frontage should not exceed a maximum planting size of 24-inch box. Installing trees with larger initial rootballs, such as 36-inch or 48- inch box size, would be not be compatible with the majority of the project planter sizes and proximity to existing underground utilities therefore impact the long term health of the tree. According to the City’s Public Works arborist, larger box trees are typically confined in tree boxes for longer period of time and will take longer to adapt to new soil. Therefore, planting smaller trees will ensure healthier and faster growth of the trees compared with trees of larger box size. Section 6.0 of the arborist report identifies “Guidelines for Tree Replacements” and takes into account the size of planting areas and proximity to existing and proposed utilities and infrastructure. Detailed cross sections have been developed to illustrate the conflicts with utilities, and delineate the available planting area as they occur at multiple points along the project frontages (Attachment I). Other Related Concerns or Questions Expressed At the February City Council Hearing A summary of the key concerns and questions raised at the February 2014 City Council hearing is provided below. The corresponding applicant/staff responses are in Italic. i. Can the underground utilities be moved or relocated? The underground utilities involved along Stevens Creek Boulevard, N. Tantau Avenue, and Vallco Parkway include but are not limited to, water, electric, sewer, storm drain, and communication lines. All of these services are regulated by separate utility companies and/or external agencies with their unique regulations and specifications. According to the applicant's civil engineer, the available space and locations for the underground utility trenches and lines are severely limited given the space available and have been optimized for the project site. It would be physically and economically infeasible to further relocate and/or move any of the current underground utility locations and result in significant delays to the approved project. ii. Are there healthy frontage trees that may be recommended for retention? 105 Shamel Ash trees in general are not suitable street trees due to their invasive surface root system above ground that can damage surrounding plant material and hardscape and excessive limb and branch weight which can present danger to persons and property. Consequently, given the existing public improvements and the tight planting areas along the project's frontages, the majority of the existing Shamel Ash trees present concerns with their branches and have been observed as damaging existing sidewalk, curb, gutter, and infrastructure around the project perimeter are either almost dead or in very poor condition. Based on the latest City Arborist report prepared by David Babby, all of the frontage trees (public & private) in question are recommended for removal due to their declined health and structural concerns. Even if some of these trees were to be retained, there is not enough physical room to facilitate their recovery. iii. What is the largest appropriate replacement tree size? Both the City's Consultant Arborist and the City's Public Works Arborist strongly recommend that all of the replacement trees along the project frontage be kept to no larger than 24-inch box to optimize the potential for establishment, vigor, longevity and stability of replacement plantings. Planting larger trees would result in conflicts with both existing and proposed utilities and are not recommended based on the available planting room. Planting larger box trees along the project frontages where only a 4’± planting strip is available would not provide adequate space to excavate an adequate-sized hole to allow for proper root establishment resultantly diminish the long term health, growth, and quality of the frontage trees. iv. Can 60-inch box or larger trees be planted along the parking garage to help screen it? As shown on Sheet L-8.7 & L-8.7d (3), 24-inch box Americana Ash trees are proposed in the 4’8’’ wide planting strip between the city sidewalk and back of curb in keeping with the city consulting arborists recommendation for a smaller box size. Between the back of sidewalk and the face of the parking garage, in addition to grading and slope considerations, there is a storm water line running between these two features which would not provide adequate room for larger box trees without detrimentally impacting the utility. v. What will the visual height discrepancy of the newly planted tree look like when compared to the existing healthy mature trees? Based on the City Arborist’s recommendation, none of the existing Ash trees will be retained. All of the new replacement trees (Americana Ash & Pear Trees) will be of the same size and the visual quality of the project will be consistent throughout all three project frontages. Environmental Review The supplemental EIR prepared for the project approved in May 2012 studied tree removals and replacements on the project site, including possibility of removing all of the street trees along the Vallco Parkway and Tantau Avenue project frontage. The environmental review listed the mitigation for the removed trees consistent with the City’s Municipal Code Chapter 14.18. Street tree replacements were to be reviewed by the Public Works Department. The mitigations proposed for the removals in this request are consistent with and exceed these requirements. Therefore, the project is consistent with the environmental review and no additional review is needed. Noticing and Community Outreach The following table is a brief summary of the noticing conducted for this project: 106 Notice of Public Hearing, Site Notice & Legal Ad Agenda  Site Signage (14 days prior to the hearing)  Legal ad placed in newspaper (at least 10 days prior to the hearing)  124 notices mailed to property owners adjacent to the project site  All interested parties (emailed/noticed) (at least 10 days prior to the hearing)  Posted on the City's official notice bulletin board (one week prior to the hearing)  Posted on the City of Cupertino’s Website  Advertised on the City Channel Comments Received from the Public The City sent out notices to adjacent property owners. No public comments were received at the time of staff report production. Permit Streamlining Act This matter is adjudicatory and is subject to the Permit Streamlining Act (Government Code Section 65920 – 65964). The City has complied with the deadlines found in the Permit Streamlining Act. The applicant was deemed complete on April 30, 2014. The City has 60 days (until June 29, 2014) to make a decision on the project. The City Council’s decision on this project is final unless appealed within 14 calendar days of the date of the mailing of the decision. Conclusion Staff supports the removal of the proposed remaining frontage private and public trees given their poor health and conflict with the existing and future utilities and public improvement features of the project. According to the City's Arborist, it is appropriate and prudent to replace the declining Shamel Ash trees with a better species (Americana Ash & Flowering Pear) that will promote a healthier and aesthetically pleasant urban tree canopy. Staff recommends that the Council approve the tree removal permit for the 24 private trees proposed for removal pursuant to the draft resolution (Attachment A). The recommended resolution has been prepared reflecting the revised drawings and the revisions to the conditions as discussed in this staff report. _____________________________________ Prepared by: Stephen Rose, Associate Planner Reviewed by: Gary Chao, Assistant Director of Community Development Approved for Submission by: Aarti Shrivastava, Assistant City Manager; David Brandt, City Manager Attachments: A – Draft Resolution B – City Council Minutes (February 25, 2014) C – Arborist Report (David Babby; April 11, 2014) D – Project Frontage Tree Removal & Replacement Diagrams (Sheets L-8.0 & L-8.0 a-b) 107 E – Private Tree Summary & Removal Plans (Sheets L-8.1 & L-8.2) F –Public Tree Summary & Removal Plans (Sheets L-8.3 & L-8.4) G – Project Tree Locations (Sheets L-8.5 & L-8.5a) H – Vallco Parkway Elevations (Sheets L-8.6a-c) I – Utility Exhibits & Utility Cross Sections (Sheets L-8.7 & L-8.7a-d) J – Original Illustrative Landscape Plan (Sheet L-1.0a) 108 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. 14-___ OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO APPROVING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO APPROVING A TREE REMOVAL PERMIT FOR THE REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT OF 24 PRIVATE TREES OFF OF STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD AND N. TANTAU AVENUE FOR THE MAIN STREET CUPERTINO PROJECT, LOCATED NORTH OF STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD ON BOTH SIDES OF FINCH AVENUE, WEST OF N. TANTAU AVENUE AND SOUTH OF VALLCO PARKWAY SECTION I: PROJECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: TR-2014-17 Applicant: Kevin Dare Property Owner: Main Street Cupertino Aggregator, LLC Location: North side of Stevens Creek Boulevard on both sides of Finch Avenue, west of N. Tantau Avenue and south of Vallco Parkway (APN 316-20-078, 316-20-079, and 316-20-085) SECTION II: FINDINGS FOR A TREE REMOVAL PERMIT: WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Cupertino received an application a Tree Removal Permit as described in Section I. of this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the City Council has previously certified an Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the Main Street Cupertino project (SCH#2008082058) that evaluated the environmental effects of the development of the subject site, including the removal and replacement of the project trees; and WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given as required by the Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the City Council has held at least one public hearing in regard to the application; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds as follows with regard to this application: a) That the trees are irreversibly diseased, are in danger of falling, can cause potential damage to existing or proposed essential structures, or interferes with private on-site utility services and cannot be controlled or remedied through reasonable relocation or modification of the structure or utility services; 109 Resolution No. 14-___ TR-2014-17 May 20, 2014 The Applicant's project landscape architect and civil engineer (confirmed by the City Arborist) have determined that the trees proposed for removal are all in poor condition and/or are in conflict with the proposed utilities and public improvement infrastructures that are not suitable for preservation or relocation. b) That the location of the trees restricts the economic enjoyment of the property by severely limiting the use of property in a manner not typically experienced by owners of similarly zoned and situated property, and the applicant has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the approval authority that there are no reasonable alternatives to preserve the tree(s). The Applicant's project landscape architect and civil engineer (confirmed by the City Arborist) have determined that the trees proposed for removal are all in poor condition and/or in conflict with the necessary utilities and site/public improvements, and there are no reasonable alternatives to preserve or relocate. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of the maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution beginning on PAGE 2 thereof,: The Tree Removal Permit, Application no. TR-2014-17 is hereby approved, and that the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this resolution are based and contained in the Public Hearing record concerning Application no. TR-2014-17 as set forth in the Minutes of the City Council Meeting of May 20, 2014, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 1. APPROVED EXHIBITS Approval is based on the Project Plans consisting of fourteen (14) sheets labeled L8-0 – L8.5 & L8.5a, L8.6a – L8.6c, L8.7, L8.7a – L8.7c (stamped received April 30, 2014), and Project arborist letter prepared by Gary D. Laymon, California Registered Landscape Architect #2397, dated April 30, 2014, except as may be amended by conditions in this resolution. 2. CONCURRENT APPROVAL CONDITIONS All previous conditions of approval from Resolution Nos. 12-054, 12-055, 12-055, 12-098(M), and 14-122 shall remain in effect unless superseded by or in conflict with subsequent conditions of approval, including the conditions contained herein in this resolution. 3. TREES APPROVED FOR REMOVAL A total of twenty-four private/onsite trees identified as Tree Tag No(s). 1-5, 11, 70-73, 75-78, 81, and 84-91 pursuant to the Arborist Report dated April 11, 2014 and prepared by David Babby, City Consulting Arborist. 110 Resolution No. 14-___ TR-2014-17 May 20, 2014 4. PRIVATE/ONSITE TREE REPLACEMENTS AND PLANTING PLAN The applicant shall plant 24-inch box replacement Americana Ash & Flowering Pear trees along the project frontages (N. Tantau, Vallco Parkway, & Stevens Creek Boulevard) in accordance with Sheet L-8.0 and Sheets L-8.1/L-8.2 of the project plans. The trees shall be planted and/or any pertinent in-lieu fees shall be paid prior to final occupancy of site permits. The final planting plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development prior to issuance of building permits and shall incorporate the following conditions to trees being replaced along the project frontage: • Remove all use of root barriers as they occur throughout the project plans. Alternative root barrier bio-fabric may be considered. • Implement Silva Cells and/or CU-Structural Soil to promote proper root establishment. Structural Soil, shall be installed as to provide a minimum depth of 24-inches and 200 cubic feet of soil for all frontage trees. • Finalize the design of the street tree planters (Sheet L-8.7b (3)), which could include but not be limited to tree grates, pervious pavers, and/or landscaping planting areas. • Provide additional landscaping (not limited to above ground planters, planter pots, and/or planter beds) in front of Office 2, Shop 4, and Shop 6. • The applicant shall provide an updated hardscape plan showing scoring and/or decorative pavement details as they occur along the project frontage. Furthermore, demonstrate how the decorative banding on the Stevens Creek Blvd. frontage ties into the revised tree replacement and landscape design. • All irrigation is to be supplied through valves and automatic timers separate from that of shrubs, plants and groundcover, and supplied by two bubblers placed and staked on the surface of the root ball edges. Additionally, an eight-inch tall circular berm formed by soil should be formed around the perimeter of the rootball (for water from the bubblers to flood). A two to three inch layer of wood-chip mulch should be spread on top and 12 inches beyond the root ball (but not piled against the trunks). • Trees shall be selected and tagged at the nursery by an ISA certified arborist and/or the landscape architect prior to being shipped to the site. Selected trees should have relatively symmetrical structures mostly free of obvious defects, wounds and girdling roots. Additionally, the arborist and/or landscape architect should be retained to examine and root prune, as needed, once the boxes are removed and before being installed. • To the maximum extent possible, all new trees shall be setback four to five feet from any utility with at least a three to four feet deep clearance from the top of the rootball. In the event less room is available, the applicant shall work with staff to develop alternative planting/mitigation measures. • All new trees should be installed, including necessary irrigation, by an experienced state-licensed landscape contractor or a professional tree service company, and performed to professional industry standards. 111 Resolution No. 14-___ TR-2014-17 May 20, 2014 • Trees are to be double-staked (no cross-brace) with rubber tree ties or equivalent, and the support stakes cut below the first main lateral branch. • Peculation tests should be performed for each planting pit to ensure drainage is achieved. The Director of Community Development may review and approve further refinements to the tree removal, associated hardscape, mitigation measures and planting plan as necessary. The City Arborist shall confirm that the replacement trees were planted properly and according to plan prior to final occupancy. 5. CONSULTATION WITH OTHER DEPARTMENTS The applicant is responsible to consult with other departments and/or agencies with regard to the proposed project for additional conditions and requirements. Any misrepresentation of any submitted data may invalidate an approval by the Community Development Department. 6. INDEMNIFICATION To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the “indemnified parties”) from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside, or void this ordinance or any permit or approval authorized hereby for the project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City its actual attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its choice. 7. NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees, dedication requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(d) (1), these Conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations, and other exactions. You are hereby further notified that the 90-day approval period in which you may protest these fees, dedications, reservations, and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a), has begun. If you fail to file a protest within this 90-day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such exactions. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 20th day of May, 2014, Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote: AYES: CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS: 112 Resolution No. 14-___ TR-2014-17 May 20, 2014 ATTEST: APPROVED: Grace Schmidt Gilbert Wong, Mayor City Clerk City of Cupertino 113 CUPERTINO APPROVED MINUTES CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL Special Meeting Tuesday, February 25, 2014 CITY COUNCIL MEETING PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE At 6:45 p.m. Mayor Gilbert Wong called the special City Council meeting to order in the Community Hall Council Chamber, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA and led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Gilbert Wong, Vice Mayor Rod Sinks, and Council members Barry Chang, Orrin Mahoney, and Mark Santoro. Absent: None. CEREMONIAL MATTERS AND PRESENTATIONS - None POSTPONEMENTS - None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Subject: Final Map for Main Street Cupertino Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 14 -121 approving the Final Map Tract No. 10172) Description: Final Map: Tract No. 10172; Property Owner: Main Street Cupertino Aggregator, LLC; Location: North side of Stevens Creek Boulevard on both sides of Finch Avenue, west of N. Tantau Avenue and south of Vallco Parkway (APN 316- 20 -078, 316 -20 -079, and 316 -20 -085) Council members concurred to pull this item and discuss it after item number 5. 114 Tuesday, February 25, 2014 Cupertino City Council SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES - None PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. Subject: Call for Review of the Planning Commission's approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow a weekly mobile food truck event in the parking lot of a commercial establishment Recommended Action: Uphold the Planning Commission's approval Description: Application No(s): U- 2013 -09; Applicant(s): Benjamin Himlan (Whole Foods Market); Location: 20955 Stevens Creek Boulevard; APN# 326 -31 -022; Call for Review of the Planning Commission's approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow a weekly mobile food truck event in the parking lot of a commercial establishment Written Communications for this item included a staff PowerPoint presentation. Assistant Director of Community Development Gary Chao reviewed the staff report. Mayor Wong opened the public hearing. Matt Cohen owner of Off the Grid Services, LLC gave a PowerPoint presentation highlighting the project. Tim Widman speaking on behalf of the Cupertino Chamber of Commerce said that the Chamber had no objections to the conditional use permit but noted the unique. challenges of parking, traffic, and perceived competition from other businesses. He said that the Chamber would be happy to be included in any discussions with businesses. Cathy Thaler expressed concern about safety issues, especially for children around cars in the parking lot. Hary Singh, Local Forager for Whole Foods said that they support the food trucks because they would help to create a synergy with customers and local suppliers by building community and supporting local businesses. Mayor Wong closed the public hearing. Mahoney moved and Sinks seconded to uphold the Planning Commission approval with a change to move the event to the first parking aisle closest to Stevens Creek 115 Tuesday, February 25, 2014 Cupertino City Council Blvd. unless staff thought there would LIE! a better location to deal with safety and traffic issues. The motion carried with Chang voting no. Council recessed from 8:03 p.m. to 8:10 p.m. 3. Subject: Architectural and Site Approval Application for final refinements to the previously approved Shops 1, 3 -5, 7 -8, Pads 1 -3, Town Square, Flex 1 & 2, Office 1 & 2, Parking Garage, and associated site and landscaping design of the Main Street Cupertino Project Recommended Action: 1. Consider referrals from the Design Review Committee DRC) of an Architectural and Site Approval to: a. Provide clarification of Resolution 12- 098(M) as to the criteria for Architectural Site Approval, including Condition 35; and /or b. Amend Resolution 12- 098(M) as to the role of the DRC for Architectural Site Approval 2. If Resolution 12- 098(M) is amended, consider adopting Resolution No. 14 -122 regarding the Architectural and Site Approval Application (ASA -2012- 15) Description: Application(s): ASA- 2012 -15; Applicant(s): Kevin Dare (500 Forbes, LLC); Location: southeast corner of Vallco Pkwy and Finch Ave Written communication for this item included emails from Darrel Lum and Lisa Warren, and a staff PowerPoint presentation. Assistant Director of Community Development Gary Chao reviewed the staff report via a PowerPoint presentation. Kevin Dare with Sand Hill Property Company summarized the details of the project and requested final approval of the ASA ,application. Ken Rodrigues, architect, reviewed a :PowerPoint presentation highlighting the specific areas (districts) of the project. Mayor Wong opened the public hearing. Tim Widman speaking on behalf of the Cupertino Chamber of Commerce said that the Chamber strongly supports approving the application. Lisa Warren said that the design of the buildings isn't what was originally expected and she would like to see the use of a warmer, richer, and more vibrant color scheme; fewer modern elements like metal; the use of less concrete and more stone; smoothing of the concrete plaster; and fewer reveals. 116 Tuesday, February 25, 2014 Cupertino City Council Cathy Thaler said she was surprised about the new drawings and noted that Ms. Warren speaks for many people in the neighborhood. Jennifer Griffin said that she Piked the project and looks forward to it being built. Mayor Wong closed the public hearing. Mahoney made an initial motion seconded by Wong and discussion followed. Council recessed from 11:02 p.m. to 11:12 p.m. Mahoney moved and Sinks seconded, including friendly amendments by Wong and Santoro, and the motion carried unanimously to approve the following: Amend Condition 35 of Resolution No. 12- 098(M) to note that Council will make the final approval of ASA- 2012 -15; Council will also make the final approval of Shops 2, 6, 9 and loft apartments. Adopt Resolution No. 14 -122 with the following changes: Applicant to work with staff on detailing the garage for aesthetics including adding possible green screening or other architectural features Clarify that the maximum height of the garage is 60 feet measured from the public sidewalk along Vallco Parkway given the retail component attached Applicant to work with staff on Flex 1 & 2 buildings regarding the following: o Go back to the original art deco farmer's market design on. Flex 1 building Introduce warmer colors /tones on Flex 1 & 2 buildings Work with staff on building material which can be either IPE or corrugated metal /aluminum In buildings 1, 3, 4 and the clock tower, use slate tile roofing material that resembles a variegated color combination similar to the Chinese multi -color slate or other comparable color palette Applicant to work with staff and the City's consulting architect to reflect changes to the project acceptable to the project architect including the following: Introduce decorative iron lighting features on the entry tower on Buildings 3 & 4 Office exterior finish - smooth plaster (non- sprayed finish - similar to finish on Netflix building) 117 Tuesday, February 25, 2014 Cupertino City Council 4. Subject: Tree removal permit to allow the removal and replacement of additional trees that are unhealthy or in conflict with the utilities /infrastructure for the Main Street Project Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 14 -123 approving the removal and replacement of an additional 28 trees for the Main Street Project Description: Application(s): TR- 2013 -39; Applicant(s): Kevin Dare; Location: southeast corner of Vallco Pkwy and Finch. Ave Written communication for this item included an email from Jennifer Griffin and a staff PowerPoint presentation. Assistant Director of Community Development Gary Chao reviewed the staff report via a PowerPoint presentation. Kevin Dare with Sand Hill Property Company further reviewed the tree removal and replacement project. Gary Lymon with Guzzardo Partnership answered questions from Council regarding the tree removal and replacement project. Mayor Wong opened the public hearing. Jennifer Griffin noted concerns about the removal of some of the trees, especially the Ash trees that are the same age as the North Vallco trees. Lisa Warren asked a question about the process of when the trees would be removed after approval, especially if the garage issue hasn't been resolved. Cathy Thaler said that when the project was first approved, the applicant said that the Ash trees would be saved. Mayor Wong closed the public hearing. Mahoney moved and Wong seconded, with friendly amendments by Santoro and Wong, and the motion carried with Sinks and Santoro voting no to approve the following: Adopt Resolution No. 14 -123 with the following changes: Allow for the removal of four (4) trees on Stevens Creek Boulevard Southwest corner of the project) on the berm, including the berm 118 Tuesday, February 25, 2014 Cupertino City Council Retain all healthy trees on Vallco Parkway and Tantau Avenue Hold the removal of any unhealthy trees along Tantau Avenue until Council sees the City arborist's report confirming the dead and unhealthy trees Replace all dead trees with 48 inch replacements per staff's recommendation Americana Ash) Council recessed from 1:00 a.m. to 1:05 a.m. ORDINANCES AND ACTION ITEMS 5. Subject: Joint Use Agreement for Main Street Park and Cupertino Main Street Town Square Recommended Action: Authorize the City Manager to execute a Joint Use agreement for Main Street Park and Cupertino Main Street Town Square Written Communications for this item included an amended page 4 of the Joint Use agreement, item g to note that the special events shall be conducted only between the hours of "dawn to dusk ", and a staff PowerPoint presentation. Assistant Director of Community Development Gary Chao reviewed the staff report. Kevin Dare from Sand Hill Property Company asked Council for approval of the agreement. Jennifer Griffin asked if there would be a dog run, what kind of trees would be planted in the park, would Metropolitan and Rosebowl residents be allowed to use the park, would park fees go for actual park land purchase or in lieu fees, how wide the median was leading up to the park and where was it coming from. Chang moved and Mahoney seconded to authorize the execution of a Joint use agreement with a change that the City be entitled up to six (6) dates per calendar year to make use of the Town Square for City activities open to the general public. The motion carried with Santoro voting no. Mayor Wong announced that Council had met in a special closed session meeting at 6:00 p.m. to discuss initiation of litigation. Council obtained a briefing from legal counsel and no action was taken. 119 Tuesday, February 25, 2014 Cupertino City Council 1. Subject: Final Map for Main Street Cupertino Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 14 -121 approving the Final Map Tract No. 10172) Description: Final Map: Tract No. 10172; Property Owner: Main Street Cupertino Aggregator, LLC; Location: North side of Stevens Creek Boulevard on both sides of Finch Avenue, west of N. Tantau Avenue and south of Vallco Parkway (APN 316- 20 -078, 316 -20 -079, and 316 -20 -085) Santoro moved and Mahoney seconded to adopt Resolution No. 14 -121 approving the Final Map (Tract No. 10172). The motion carried unanimously. REPORTS BY COUNCIL AND STAFF Council members highlighted the activities of their committees and various community events. ADJOURNMENT At 1:42 a.m. on Wednesday, February 26, Mayor Wong adjourned the meeting to Tuesday, March 4 at 3:00 p.m. for a study session regarding General Plan Amendment alternatives and Housing Element sites. Regular business will follow at 6:45 p.m., Community Hall Council Chamber, 10350 Torre Ave. Cupertino, CA. Grace Schmidt, City Clerk Staff reports, backup materials, and items distributed at the City Council meeting are available for review at the City Clerk's Office, 777 -3223, and also on the Internet at www.cul2ertino.org. Click on Agendas & Minutes, then click on the appropriate Packet. Most Council meetings are shown live on Comcast Channel 26 and AT &T U -verse Channel 99 and are available at your convenience at www.cul2ertino.org. Click on Agendas & Minutes, then click Archived 'Nebcast. Videotapes are available at the Cupertino Library, or may be purchased from the Cupertino City Channel, 777 -2364. 120 A RBOR R ESOURCES  professional consulting arborists and tree care p.o. box 25295, san mateo, california 94402 email: arborresources@comcast.net phone: 650.654.3351 fax: 650.240.0777 licensed contractor #796763 ARBORIST REPORT   AN EVALUATION OF TREES   PROPOSED FOR REMOVAL FROM    MAIN STREET CUPERTINO  Submitted to: Community Development Department  City of Cupertino  10300 Torre Avenue  Cupertino, CA  95014    Prepared by: David L. Babby  Registered Consulting Arborist #399  Board‐Certified Master Arborist #WE‐4001B        _______    April 11, 2014  121 David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist April 11, 2014 i TABLE OF CONTENTS  SECTION  TITLE               PAGE       1.0   SUMMARY ……...........………………………………….………….…………… 1    2.0   SCOPE OF WORK …....………………………………….………….…………… 2    3.0   TREE COUNT AND COMPOSITION .…...……..………….......………… 3  3.1   Private Trees ..........................................................………..….….... 3  3.2   Public Trees ……................................................................….….... 4    4.0   SUITABILITY FOR PRESERVATION .........….………..……....……….… 5    5.0   CONCLUSIONS REGARDING TREE DISPOSITION ..........………..… 6    6.0   GUIDELINES FOR TREE REPLACEMENTS ........….………..….…….… 7  6.1   Replacement Species .............................................………..….….... 7  6.2   Replacement Planting Size ...............................................….….... 7  6.3   Alternative Base Course Material ..........................………..….….... 8  6.4   Setbacks from Utilities .....................................................….….... 8  6.5   General Guidelines ................................................………..….….... 9    7.0   ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS .……………..….….... 10  EXHIBITS  EXHIBIT  TITLE                   A   TREE INVENTORY TABLE ‐ PRIVATE TREES (four sheets)     B   TREE INVENTORY TABLE ‐ PUBLIC TREES (eight sheets)     C   SITE MAPS (three sheets)    122 David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist April 11, 2014 Main Street Cupertino, Stevens Creek at Finch Page 1 of 10 City of Cupertino Community Development Department 1.0  SUMMARY  This report presents my evaluation and review of 72 trees proposed for removal in connection with the Main Street Cupertino development. This report provides detailed information regarding the size and condition of trees proposed for removal (24 on private property and 48 on public), their suitability for preservations ratings, conclusions regarding tree disposition, and guidelines for tree replacements. The following items summarize my observations and recommendations, and specific details can be referenced within the report:  All trees assessed in this report have been determined to not be suitable for preservation due to their species; condition; current and future damage to public infrastructure; and significant impacts that will result from implementing the approved design, impacts that will endanger public safety.  None of the proposed removals are suitable for transplant.  Nine of the 72 trees have already been removed, and the remaining 63 consist of Shamel ash.  The appropriate planting size is 24-inch box, and in some limited locations, a 15- gallon size tree may be needed due to site and utility constraints.  White ash (Fraxinus americana) is preferred over Shamel ash (Fraxinus uhdei) due to having a less aggressive and invasive root system.  Street trees within the center median along Stevens Creek Boulevard are being proposed for removal at the request of the Public Works Department, for the purpose of addressing stormwater, drainage and landscape issues. Regarding the proposed application, when considering the inherent issues associated with Shamel ash, overall inferior condition, and generally low suitability for preservation, it is my professional opinion that their removal for development purposes conforms to City Code, and replacements can improve the tree landscape for the foreseeable future, provided guidelines for the installation process provided herein can be followed. 123 David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist April 11, 2014 Main Street Cupertino, Stevens Creek at Finch Page 2 of 10 City of Cupertino Community Development Department 2.0  SCOPE OF WORK  The City of Cupertino Community Development Department has retained me to review the proposed removal of 72 trees from the Main Street Cupertino site, 24 of which are regarded as private trees,1 and the other 48 as public trees.2 The site is located along the north side of Stevens Creek Boulevard, framed by North Tantau Avenue to the east, Vallco Parkway to the north, and mixed-used developments to the west. Specific tasks assigned to perform are as follows:  Visit the on 3/7/14 to identify the 72 trees proposed for removal (as shown on Sheet L-8.0, Project Frontage Tree Removal/Replacement Diagram, dated 4/11/14).  Utilize trunk diameters and tree/tag numbers established for prior project reviews.  Ascertain each tree’s health and structural integrity, and assign a percentage rating from 0-percent (dead) to 100-percent (optimal).  Determine each tree’s suitability for preservation (e.g. high or low).  Document pertinent issues related to health, structure, and/or damage to surrounding hardscape.  Distinguish between trees originating from private and public property.  Identify trees that have already been removed prior to my site visit on 3/7/14.  Evaluate the proposed landscape and utility plans.  Review and discuss replacement strategies, installation guidelines, and the appropriate size of replacement trees.  Present guidelines for mitigating removals.  Prepare a written report that presents the aforementioned information, and submit via email as a PDF document. 1 Private trees have trunks originating from within the property boundaries. 2 Public trees have trunks originating from within public right-of-ways and are considered street trees. 124 David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist April 11, 2014 Main Street Cupertino, Stevens Creek at Finch Page 3 of 10 City of Cupertino Community Development Department 3.0  TREE COUNT AND COMPOSITION  The 72 trees presented in this report consist predominantly of Shamel ash (69 or 94% of the total), and the others include three Autumn Purple white ash (6%) and one Chinese elm (4%). The only remaining species is Shamel ash, as the other four have been removed (#11 was removed prior to my 3/7/14 visit, and #151 thru 153 were dead). Of the 72 trees, 24 are classified as private trees and the other 48 as public trees. This section presents the count, composition, and location of each classification. Specific information regarding each tree is presented within the tables in Exhibit A (private trees) and Exhibit B (public trees). Their approximate locations and assigned numbers are shown on the three site maps in Exhibit C (copies of Sheets L-8.1, L-8.3 and L-8.5). 3.1   Private Trees  The 24 trees are comprised of two species, Shamel ash and Chinese elm, and the table below presents their counts, assigned numbers and overall percentages. NAME TREE NUMBER(S) COUNT % OF TOTAL Shamel ash 1-5, 8, 70-73, 75-78, 81, 84-91 23 96% Chinese elm 11 1 4% Total 24 100% A summary of the trees' locations are as follows:  Six (6) align Stevens Creek Boulevard, at the southwest corner of the site; they include #1-5 and 8.  Eighteen (18), align the entire length of Tantau Avenue, and include #70-73, 75-78, 81 and 84-91. 125 David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist April 11, 2014 Main Street Cupertino, Stevens Creek at Finch Page 4 of 10 City of Cupertino Community Development Department As previously mentioned, tree #11 was removed at some point prior to my 3/7/14 site visit. It was a Chinese elm with a trunk diameter of 18 inches, and its retention conflicted with construction of the proposed western parking lot. Three additional trees, all Shamel ash within the proposed, westernmost entry off Stevens Creek Boulevard, were also removed prior to 3/7/14. They include #2 thru 4, and had respective trunks diameters of 11, 10 and 18 inches. Upon my last evaluation in 2008, trees #2 and 3 were found nearly dead, and #4 in very poor, declining condition. 3.2   Public Trees  The 48 trees are comprised of two species of ash, Shamel and Autumn Purple, and the table below presents their counts, assigned numbers and overall percentages. NAME TREE NUMBER(S) COUNT % OF TOTAL Shamel ash 31-46, 48-53, 55-62, 64-66, 68, 69, 79, 147-150, 154-157, 159 45 94% Autumn Purple white ash 151, 152, 153 3 6% Total 48 100% A summary of the trees' locations are as follows:  Thirty-five (35), or the vast majority, align the entire frontage of Vallco Parkway; they include #31-46, 48-53, 55-62, 64-66, 68 and 69.  One (1), #79, is along the frontage of Tantau Avenue.  Twelve (12) are within the center median along Stevens Creek Boulevard; they include #147-157 and 159. As previously mentioned, #151 thru 153 have been removed due to being dead. They were newly installed white ash with trunk diameters of one-inch. Two additional trees, #48 and 53 (both Shamel ash), were also removed prior to 3/7/14, and had respective trunks diameters of 19 and 13 inches. My records indicate #48 was in declining health, and #53 was dead. 126 David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist April 11, 2014 Main Street Cupertino, Stevens Creek at Finch Page 5 of 10 City of Cupertino Community Development Department 4.0  SUITABILITY FOR TREE PRESERVATION  All remaining trees have been assigned either a “high” or “low” suitability for preservation rating as a means to cumulatively measure their health; structural integrity; anticipated life span; size; species; location; current damage to adjacent public infrastructure (i.e. roadways, curb, gutter, sidewalks and utilities); impacts resulting from implementing the approved design; installation of approved, new public infrastructure; and the probability for mitigating existing damage to infrastructure without subjecting a tree to severe root loss, and consequently, compromising its health and anchoring capacity to the extent of endangering public safety. A description of these ratings and assigned trees are presented below, categorized by public and private; and note that the “high” category comprises none, and the "low" category 63 (or 100%) of the total, remaining inventoried trees (both private and public). High: These trees appear in reasonably good health, have seemingly stable structures, and present the potential for contributing long-term to the site without imposing an unreasonable risk to public safety and/or damage of adjacent infrastructure.  Private: None.  Public: None. Low: These trees are either dead; nearly dead; have such significantly weakened health or structural defects that are expected to worsen regardless of tree care measures employed (i.e. beyond recovery); have, or can be expected to, significantly damage and raise the adjacent sidewalk, curb and gutter, etc.; and/or will sustain such severe root loss that they will be subjected to premature decline, instability, potentially falling over, and endangering public safety.  Private: Trees #1-5, 8, 70-73, 75-78, 81 and 84-91.  Public: Trees #31-46, 48-53, 55-62, 64-66, 68, 69, 79, 147-157 and 159. 127 David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist April 11, 2014 Main Street Cupertino, Stevens Creek at Finch Page 6 of 10 City of Cupertino Community Development Department 5.0  CONCLUSIONS REGARDING TREE DISPOSITION  When considering the trees' condition, low suitability for preservation, and underlying issues related to Shamel ash,3 it is my opinion that removing all remaining ash conforms to City Code for the subject development. None of the inventoried trees are considered viable or suitable for relocation due to their species, health and/or structural condition. Appropriate trees that were identified for achieving a reasonable success of relocation have already been boxed, stored, and will be installed at a later date. The project design, as it relates to within the site and along street frontages, was assessed to determine whether any reasonably healthy and structurally sound trees could potentially be retained and adequately protected (versus all other trees that should be removed regardless due to declining, dying, dead and/or have weak structures). My review reveals that no qualifying trees can be preserved due to inadequate space to protect sufficient root mass during future site and public improvements. For ash trees situated within the center median along Stevens Creek Boulevard, all are proposed for removal to accommodate leveling the existing mound within the planter for the purpose of capturing runoff, addressing stormwater quality concerns by Public Works, improving the existing landscape to be consistent with newly or planned Public Works' median landscaping projects throughout the City, and provide a more appropriate and safer species within median strips. 3 Issues include their naturally aggressive, invasive root systems, development of excessive limb and branch weight prone to failure, and multi-leader structures that form weak attachments. 128 David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist April 11, 2014 Main Street Cupertino, Stevens Creek at Finch Page 7 of 10 City of Cupertino Community Development Department 6.0  GUIDELINES FOR TREE REPLACEMENTS   The minimum amount of new trees and sizes to mitigate removals should conform to Table A, Section 14.18.185 of the City Code, and additional trees may also be recommended where appropriate and available planting space allows. By applying Table A, a varying combination of replacement options can be installed to mitigate the loss of trees, and the total amount and sizes ultimately depend on which trees and how many are removed. 6.1   Replacement Species  Shamel ash, in general, have naturally aggressive, invasive root systems that surface above the ground, and can damage surrounding plant material and hardscape throughout their lifespans. The species also develops excessive limb and branch weight, and forms weak, multi-leader structures that frequently shed branches and limbs, an occurrence that presents an increasing threat to the safety of persons and property within striking distance. Due to these issues, white ash (Fraxinus americana) is being selected as the predominate replacement tree to lessen the potential risk of damage to infrastructure. Flowering pear (Pyrus calleryana) is also identified, and is appropriate around hardscape settings. 6.2   Replacement Planting Size  My review of project's site constraints, walkway design, and utility locations (and depth) reveals the largest, compatible box size for a new tree is 24-inch box, and in some instances a 15-gallon size tree may be needed where utility constraints warrant a smaller tree. To optimize the potential for establishment, vigor, longevity and stability of a newly planted tree, the planting pit for the rootball should be dug at least twice the box size, and the void between the root ball and excavated area to be backfilled with uncompacted planting soil (or alternative base material discussed in Section 6.3). By doing so, and with 129 David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist April 11, 2014 Main Street Cupertino, Stevens Creek at Finch Page 8 of 10 City of Cupertino Community Development Department proper root pruning and inspection prior to being installed, the roots can have unimpeded growth beyond the root ball (versus being deflected by compacted soil and base material), and can help extend the life expectancy of surrounding hardscape. Installing rootballs of larger trees, such as 36-inch and 48-inch box size, will be incompatible with the vast majority or all of the proposed new tree locations, and will adversely impact their short- and/or long-term performance and stability at potentially significant levels. 6.3  Alternative Base Course Material   I recommend substituting base course material typically used for sidewalks with an alternative material that can help promote tree establishment and vigor, while extending the life expectancy of sidewalk areas; one material is Silva Cells (www.deeproot.com), and the other CU-Structural Soil (www.amereq.com/pages/2/index.htm). If implemented, a minimum depth of 24 inches is suggested, and the maximum specified of around 200 to 400 cubic-feet per new tree should be considered. 6.4  Setbacks from Utilities  Regarding setbacks from utilities to new trees, I recommend the maximum extent is considered to help avoid conflicts when excavation is needed to repair or replace a utility, as well provide adequate space for properly installing a new tree (and/or should a particular tree and stump need removal, and a new tree planted). The utility plan shown on L-8.7 reveals four feet at many locations, and in some instances, the setbacks appear less. For a 24-inch box size tree, I recommend a minimum setback of four to five feet from any utility, and there should be at least a three- to four- foot deep clearance from the top of rootball to a utility. Please note that additional setbacks may be required for compliance with regulatory codes, as well as recommendations by the project civil engineer and/or general contractor. Also, note that "utility" should include any concrete encasing; backfill for a trench; possibly the entire trench if backfill was compacted; and splice boxes, meters, vaults, cleanouts, etc. 130 David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist April 11, 2014 Main Street Cupertino, Stevens Creek at Finch Page 9 of 10 City of Cupertino Community Development Department 6.5  General Guidelines  I do not recommend the use of root barriers, as they deter favorable, lateral root growth; can adversely impact a tree's vigor and anchoring capacity; may provide only a short-term solution, as opportunistic roots will grow above and/or below the barrier; and could result in a tree's premature removal. The use of Silva Cells or Structural Soil, and utilized at sufficient volume, can help reduce the need for a barrier. Based on the amount of new trees to be installed, they should be selected and tagged at the nursery by an ISA certified arborist and/or the landscape architect prior to being shipped to the site. They should have relatively symmetrical structures mostly free of obvious defects, wounds and girdling roots. Additionally, the arborist and/or landscape architect should be retained to examine and root prune, as needed, once the boxes are removed and before being installed. All new trees should be installed, including necessary irrigation, by an experienced state- licensed landscape contractor or a professional tree service company, and performed to professional industry standards. They should be double-staked (no cross-brace) with rubber tree ties or equivalent, and the support stakes cut below the first main lateral branch; for a low-branching tree, the stakes (if needed) should be established in a manner that avoids damaging the trunk(s) and branches. Percolation tests should also be performed for each planting pit to ensure drainage is achieved. All irrigation should be supplied through valves and automatic timers separate from that of shrubs, plants and groundcover, and supplied by two bubblers placed and staked on the surface of the root ball (versus against the trunk or in a sleeve) at around the one-half or three-quarters of the distance between the trunk and rootball edges. Additionally, an eight- inch tall circular berm formed by soil should be formed around the perimeter of the rootball (for water from the bubblers to flood). A two- to three-inch layer of wood-chip mulch should be spread on top and 12 inches beyond the root ball (but not piled against the trunks). 131 David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist April 11, 2014 Main Street Cupertino, Stevens Creek at Finch Page 10 of 10 City of Cupertino Community Development Department 7.0  ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS   All information presented herein reflects my observations and/or measurements obtained on March 7, 2014. The condition of deciduous trees are subject to change following the regrowth of new leaves.  My observations were performed visually without probing, coring, dissecting or excavating. I cannot, in any way, assume responsibility for any defects that could only have been discovered by performing the mentioned services in the specific area(s) where a defect was located.  The assignment pertains solely to trees listed in Exhibit A. I hold no opinion towards other trees on or surrounding the project area.  I cannot provide a guarantee or warranty, expressed or implied, that deficiencies or problems of any trees or property in question may not arise in the future.  No assurance can be offered that if all my recommendations and precautionary measures (verbal or in writing) are accepted and followed, that the desired results may be achieved.  All information presented on the plans reviewed is assumed to be correct. I cannot guarantee or be responsible for the accuracy of information provided by others.  I assume no responsibility for the means and methods used by any person or company implementing the recommendations provided in this report.  The information provided herein represents my opinion. Accordingly, my fee is in no way contingent upon the reporting of a specified finding, conclusion or value.  The site map in Exhibit B is intended to only represent a tree's approximate location, and should not be construed as representing surveyed locations.  This report is proprietary to me and may not be copied or reproduced in whole or part without prior written consent. It has been prepared for the sole and exclusive use of the parties to who submitted for the purpose of contracting services provided by David L. Babby.  If any part of this report or copy thereof be lost or altered, the entire evaluation shall be invalid. Prepared By: ________________________ Date: April 11, 2014 David L. Babby   Registered Consulting Arborist #399   Board‐Certified Master Arborist #WE‐4001B  132 David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist April 11, 2014 Main Street Cupertino, Stevens Creek at Finch City of Cupertino Community Development Department EXHIBIT A:    TREE INVENTORY TABLE    PRIVATE TREES    (four sheets)  133 PRIVATE TREE INVENTORY TABLE SIZE             CONDITION TREE/      TAG       NO.TREE NAME Tr u n k  Di a m e t e r  (i n . )   He a l t h  Co n d i t i o n                                        (1 0 0 % = B e s t ,  0% = W o r s t ) St r u c t u r a l  In t e g r i t y                              (1 0 0 % = B e s t ,  0% = W o r s t ) Su i t a b i l i t y  fo r  Pr e s e r v a t i o n    (H i g h / L o w ) 1 Shamel ash (Fraxinus uhdei )22 70% (healthy) 30% (weak)Low Comments:Weak structure comprised of codominant leaders that present a major risk for one or both to break from the tree, and measures cannot offer sufficient mitigation. Large soil cut about 13 feet from trunk. Project grading, utilities, parking lot and city sidewalk directly conflict with its retention. 2 Shamel ash (Fraxinus uhdei )11 N/A (removed) N/A (removed)N/A Comments:Tree was removed; found nearly dead in 2008. 3 Shamel ash (Fraxinus uhdei )10 N/A (removed) N/A (removed)N/A Comments:Tree was removed; found nearly dead in 2008. 4 Shamel ash (Fraxinus uhdei )18 N/A (removed) N/A (removed)N/A Comments:Tree was removed; found in very poor, irrecoverable condition in 2008. 5 Shamel ash (Fraxinus uhdei )19 40% (poor) 40% (weak)Low Comments:Declining, poor health and weak structure. Recovery unlikely. Within footprint of future walk. 8 Shamel ash (Fraxinus uhdei )12 20% (very poor) 30% (weak)Low Comments:Mostly dead and is beyond recovery. Has large deadwood over road. Asymmetrical canopy growing out from adjacent ash and over road. 11 Chinese elm (Ulmus parvifolia )18 N/A (removed) N/A (removed)N/A Comments:Tree was removed; found in overall good condition when last observed in 2013. Located within the middle of, and in direct conflict of, the drive aisle for the westernmost, approved parking lot. Site: Main Street Cupertino - Private Trees Prepared for: City of Cupertino Comm. Dev. Dept. Prepared by: David L. Babby 1 of 4 April 11, 2014 134 PRIVATE TREE INVENTORY TABLE SIZE             CONDITION TREE/      TAG       NO.TREE NAME Tr u n k  Di a m e t e r  (i n . )   He a l t h  Co n d i t i o n                                        (1 0 0 % = B e s t ,  0% = W o r s t ) St r u c t u r a l  In t e g r i t y                              (1 0 0 % = B e s t ,  0% = W o r s t ) Su i t a b i l i t y  fo r  Pr e s e r v a t i o n    (H i g h / L o w ) 70 Shamel ash (Fraxinus uhdei )17 30% (poor) 40% (weak)Low Comments:Advanced decline with an extremely sparse, irrecoverable canopy. 71 Shamel ash (Fraxinus uhdei )15 30% (poor) 50% (fair)Low Comments:Advanced decline with an extremely sparse, irrecoverable canopy. Trunk is nearly on top of existing public water and communication lines. 72 Shamel ash (Fraxinus uhdei )23 20% (very poor) 30% (weak)Low Comments:Mostly dead and is beyond recovery. Large wound at base. 73 Shamel ash (Fraxinus uhdei )16 20% (very poor) 30% (weak)Low Comments:Dying and beyond recovery. Has substantial amount of deadwood. Trunk is nearly on top of existing public water and communication lines. 75 Shamel ash (Fraxinus uhdei )13 20% (very poor) 30% (weak)Low Comments:Mostly dead and is beyond recovery. Trunk is nearly on top of existing public water and communication lines. 76 Shamel ash (Fraxinus uhdei )15 0% (dead) 0% (dead)Low Comments:Dead. 77 Shamel ash (Fraxinus uhdei )10 0% (dead) 0% (dead)Low Comments:Dead. Site: Main Street Cupertino - Private Trees Prepared for: City of Cupertino Comm. Dev. Dept. Prepared by: David L. Babby 2 of 4 April 11, 2014 135 PRIVATE TREE INVENTORY TABLE SIZE             CONDITION TREE/      TAG       NO.TREE NAME Tr u n k  Di a m e t e r  (i n . )   He a l t h  Co n d i t i o n                                        (1 0 0 % = B e s t ,  0% = W o r s t ) St r u c t u r a l  In t e g r i t y                              (1 0 0 % = B e s t ,  0% = W o r s t ) Su i t a b i l i t y  fo r  Pr e s e r v a t i o n    (H i g h / L o w ) 78 Shamel ash (Fraxinus uhdei )20 0% (dead) 0% (dead)Low Comments:Dead. 81 Shamel ash (Fraxinus uhdei )10 10% (very poor) 20% (very weak)Low Comments:Mostly dead and is beyond recovery. Structure is very weak and unsafe. Trunk is nearly on top of existing public water and communication lines. 84 Shamel ash (Fraxinus uhdei )20 10% (very poor) 20% (very weak)Low Comments:Nearly dead. Has a very weak, unsafe structure. 85 Shamel ash (Fraxinus uhdei )11 20% (very poor) 40% (weak)Low Comments:Dying and has a substantial amount of deadwood. Beyond recovery. Trunk is nearly on top of existing public water and communication lines. 86 Shamel ash (Fraxinus uhdei )20 40% (poor) 40% (weak)Low Comments:Sparse, declining canopy with a weak structure. Recovery unlikely. 87 Shamel ash (Fraxinus uhdei )11 40% (poor) 40% (weak)Low Comments:Declining, poor health, and recovery unlikely. Trunk is nearly on top of existing public water and communication lines. 88 Shamel ash (Fraxinus uhdei )16 10% (very poor) 20% (very weak)Low Comments:Mostly dead. Has large deadwood, and a sizeable number of suckers grow from the trunk's base. Has a very weak, unsafe structure. Site: Main Street Cupertino - Private Trees Prepared for: City of Cupertino Comm. Dev. Dept. Prepared by: David L. Babby 3 of 4 April 11, 2014 136 PRIVATE TREE INVENTORY TABLE SIZE             CONDITION TREE/      TAG       NO.TREE NAME Tr u n k  Di a m e t e r  (i n . )   He a l t h  Co n d i t i o n                                        (1 0 0 % = B e s t ,  0% = W o r s t ) St r u c t u r a l  In t e g r i t y                              (1 0 0 % = B e s t ,  0% = W o r s t ) Su i t a b i l i t y  fo r  Pr e s e r v a t i o n    (H i g h / L o w ) 89 Shamel ash (Fraxinus uhdei )15 20% (very poor) 30% (weak)Low Comments:Dying and beyond recovery. Canopy is one-sided towards road, and entire section over road is dead and unsafe. Trunk is nearly on top of existing public water and communication lines. 90 Shamel ash (Fraxinus uhdei )15 40% (poor) 50% (fair)Low Comments:Declining, poor health, and recovery unlikely. Substantial deadwood. 91 Shamel ash (Fraxinus uhdei )16 40% (poor) 40% (weak)Low Comments:Declining, poor health, and recovery unlikely. Structure is formed by three codominants that form weak attachments. Trunk is nearly on top existing public water and communication lines. Site: Main Street Cupertino - Private Trees Prepared for: City of Cupertino Comm. Dev. Dept. Prepared by: David L. Babby 4 of 4 April 11, 2014 137 David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist April 11, 2014 Main Street Cupertino, Stevens Creek at Finch City of Cupertino Community Development Department EXHIBIT B:    TREE INVENTORY TABLE    PUBLIC TREES    (eight sheets)                    138 PUBLIC TREE INVENTORY TABLE SIZE             CONDITION TREE/      TAG       NO.TREE NAME Tr u n k  Di a m e t e r  (i n . )   He a l t h  Co n d i t i o n                                        (1 0 0 % = B e s t ,  0% = W o r s t ) St r u c t u r a l  In t e g r i t y                              (1 0 0 % = B e s t ,  0% = W o r s t ) Su i t a b i l i t y  fo r  Pr e s e r v a t i o n      (H i g h / L o w ) 31 Shamel ash (Fraxinus uhdei )17 40% (poor) 60% (fair) Low Comments:Declining, poor health, and recovery unlikely. Trunk has outgrown planter, and roots have raised adjacent walk. 32 Shamel ash (Fraxinus uhdei )18 40% (poor) 60% (fair)Low Comments:Declining, poor health, and recovery unlikely. A large root was cut for adjacent utilities about five feet from trunk. Trunk has outgrown planter, and roots have raised adjacent walk. Deadwood in canopy. In direct conflict with approved project driveway. 33 Shamel ash (Fraxinus uhdei )20 40% (poor) 60% (fair)Low Comments:Declining, poor health, and recovery unlikely. Trunk has outgrown planter and roots have raised adjacent walk. Deadwood. Significant roots are subject to being severely damaged or removed by curb/gutter installation. 34 Shamel ash (Fraxinus uhdei )17 10% (very poor) 20% (very weak)Low Comments:Tree is nearly dead and beyond recovery. Trunk has outgrown planter and roots have slightly raised adjacent walk. Significant roots are subject to being severely damaged or removed by curb and gutter installation. 35 Shamel ash (Fraxinus uhdei )18 30% (poor) 50% (fair)Low Comments:Significant decline and poor health; recovery unlikely. Trunk has outgrown planter, and roots have raised adjacent walk. Significant roots are subject to being severely damaged or removed by curb and gutter installation. 36 Shamel ash (Fraxinus uhdei )13 30% (poor) 50% (fair)Low Comments:Significant decline and poor health; recovery unlikely. Trunk has outgrown planter, and roots have raised adjacent walk. Significant roots are subject to being severely damaged or removed by curb and gutter installation. Site: Main Street Cupertino - Public Trees Prepared for: City of Cupertino Comm. Dev. Dept. Prepared by: David L. Babby 1 of 8 April 11, 2014 139 PUBLIC TREE INVENTORY TABLE SIZE             CONDITION TREE/      TAG       NO.TREE NAME Tr u n k  Di a m e t e r  (i n . )   He a l t h  Co n d i t i o n                                        (1 0 0 % = B e s t ,  0% = W o r s t ) St r u c t u r a l  In t e g r i t y                              (1 0 0 % = B e s t ,  0% = W o r s t ) Su i t a b i l i t y  fo r  Pr e s e r v a t i o n      (H i g h / L o w ) 37 Shamel ash (Fraxinus uhdei )22 40% (poor) 30% (weak)Low Comments:Highly asymmetrical canopy with deadwood. History of branch failure. Trunk has outgrown planter, and trunk expansion and roots have raised adjacent walk (and roots grow over walk). Declining, poor health, and recovery unlikely. Significant roots are subject to being severely damaged or removed by curb and gutter installation. 38 Shamel ash (Fraxinus uhdei )19 50% (marginal) 60% (fair)Low Comments:Sparse canopy and marginal health. Trunk has outgrown planter, and trunk expansion and roots have severely raised adjacent walk to the extent that repair is not feasible without severing massive roots that anchor the tree, and thus subjecting the tree to a high risk of uprooting and declining (and endangering persons and property below). Significant roots are subject to being severely damaged or removed by curb and gutter installation. 39 Shamel ash (Fraxinus uhdei )27 80% (healthy) 30% (weak)Low Comments:Structure comprised of three co-dominant leaders, two of which form an extremely weak attachment. Trunk has outgrown planter, and trunk expansion and roots have severely raised adjacent walk on three sides, to the extent that repair is not feasible without endangering persons and property below (same description as identified for tree #38). Implementing site grading and utilities result in tree removal. Significant roots are subject to being severely damaged or removed during curb/gutter installation. 40 Shamel ash (Fraxinus uhdei )14 60% (fair) 40% (weak)Low Comments:Canopy is asymmetrical as the majority of branches and limbs grow into the site. Canopy is also sparse. Grading and drainage conflict with retention. Significant roots are subject to being severely damaged or removed during curb/gutter installation. Situated over SCVWD creek culvert. Preservation would require major changes to the sidewalk/street connection, parking, and overall grading and drainage design. Also, bioswale will impact roots. Site: Main Street Cupertino - Public Trees Prepared for: City of Cupertino Comm. Dev. Dept. Prepared by: David L. Babby 2 of 8 April 11, 2014 140 PUBLIC TREE INVENTORY TABLE SIZE             CONDITION TREE/      TAG       NO.TREE NAME Tr u n k  Di a m e t e r  (i n . )   He a l t h  Co n d i t i o n                                        (1 0 0 % = B e s t ,  0% = W o r s t ) St r u c t u r a l  In t e g r i t y                              (1 0 0 % = B e s t ,  0% = W o r s t ) Su i t a b i l i t y  fo r  Pr e s e r v a t i o n      (H i g h / L o w ) 41 Shamel ash (Fraxinus uhdei )19 40% (poor) 60% (fair)Low Comments:Declining, poor health, and recovery unlikely. Large deadwood over road. Significant roots are subject to being severely damaged or removed during curb and gutter installation. 42 Shamel ash (Fraxinus uhdei )23 60% (fair) 30% (weak)Low Comments:Low canopy with a history of limb failure. Excessive limb weight and has a sparse canopy. Structure is formed by four codominant leaders. Implementing site grading and utilities result in tree removal. Significant roots are subject to being severely damaged or removed during curb and gutter installation. 43 Shamel ash (Fraxinus uhdei )18 20% (poor) 40% (weak)Low Comments:Nearly dead and beyond recovery. Significant roots are subject to being severely damaged or removed during curb and gutter installation. 44 Shamel ash (Fraxinus uhdei )17 30% (poor) 40% (weak)Low Comments:Dying and has a substantial amount of deadwood. Beyond recovery. Significant roots are subject to being severely damaged or removed during curb and gutter installation. 45 Shamel ash (Fraxinus uhdei )19 40% (poor) 50% (fair)Low Comments:Declining, poor health, and recovery unlikely. Significant roots are subject to being severely damaged or removed during curb and gutter installation. 46 Shamel ash (Fraxinus uhdei )18 40% (poor) 50% (fair)Low Comments:Declining, poor health, and recovery is unlikely. Site: Main Street Cupertino - Public Trees Prepared for: City of Cupertino Comm. Dev. Dept. Prepared by: David L. Babby 3 of 8 April 11, 2014 141 PUBLIC TREE INVENTORY TABLE SIZE             CONDITION TREE/      TAG       NO.TREE NAME Tr u n k  Di a m e t e r  (i n . )   He a l t h  Co n d i t i o n                                        (1 0 0 % = B e s t ,  0% = W o r s t ) St r u c t u r a l  In t e g r i t y                              (1 0 0 % = B e s t ,  0% = W o r s t ) Su i t a b i l i t y  fo r  Pr e s e r v a t i o n      (H i g h / L o w ) 48 Shamel ash (Fraxinus uhdei )19 N/A (removed) N/A (removed)N/A Comments:Tree was removed; found in declining health in 2008. 49 Shamel ash (Fraxinus uhdei )18 50% (marginal) 50% (fair)Low Comments:Sparse canopy and marginal health. Significant roots are subject to being severely damaged or removed during curb and gutter installation. 50 Shamel ash (Fraxinus uhdei )13 40% (poor) 50% (fair)Low Comments:Declining, poor health, and recovery is unlikely. 51 Shamel ash (Fraxinus uhdei )18 20% (very poor) 20% (very weak)Low Comments:Nearly dead and beyond recovery. Large deadwood throughout canopy. 52 Shamel ash (Fraxinus uhdei )19 20% (very poor) 30% (weak)Low Comments:Dying and beyond recovery. 53 Shamel ash (Fraxinus uhdei )13 N/A (removed) N/A (removed)N/A Comments:Tree was removed; found dead in 2013. 55 Shamel ash (Fraxinus uhdei )18 40% (poor) 60% (fair)Low Comments:Declining, poor health, and recovery is unlikely. 56 Shamel ash (Fraxinus uhdei )20 50% (marginal) 60% (fair)Low Comments:Sparse canopy with deadwood. Marginal health. In significant conflict with new joint trench, curb, gutter, roadway & grading. Site: Main Street Cupertino - Public Trees Prepared for: City of Cupertino Comm. Dev. Dept. Prepared by: David L. Babby 4 of 8 April 11, 2014 142 PUBLIC TREE INVENTORY TABLE SIZE             CONDITION TREE/      TAG       NO.TREE NAME Tr u n k  Di a m e t e r  (i n . )   He a l t h  Co n d i t i o n                                        (1 0 0 % = B e s t ,  0% = W o r s t ) St r u c t u r a l  In t e g r i t y                              (1 0 0 % = B e s t ,  0% = W o r s t ) Su i t a b i l i t y  fo r  Pr e s e r v a t i o n      (H i g h / L o w ) 57 Shamel ash (Fraxinus uhdei )19 50% (marginal) 50% (fair)Low Comments:Codominant leaders and sparse canopy. Marginal health. In significant conflict with new joint trench, curb, gutter, roadway & grading. 58 Shamel ash (Fraxinus uhdei )13 50% (marginal) 50% (fair)Low Comments:Codominant leaders and sparse canopy. Marginal health. In significant conflict with new joint trench, curb, gutter, roadway & grading. 59 Shamel ash (Fraxinus uhdei )13 20% (very poor) 20% (very weak)Low Comments:Nearly dead and beyond recovery. Significant roots are subject to being severely damaged or removed during installation of new curb and gutter. 60 Shamel ash (Fraxinus uhdei )17 60% (fair) 60% (fair)Low Comments:Multiple leaders and limbs. History of branch failure. Implementing site grading and utilities result in tree removal. Preservation would require major changes to the sidewalk/street connection, parking, and overall grading design. 61 Shamel ash (Fraxinus uhdei )17 10% (very poor) 30% (weak)Low Comments:Mostly dead. Sprouts comprise much of canopy. Significant roots are subject to being severely damaged or removed during curb/gutter install. 62 Shamel ash (Fraxinus uhdei )14 30% (poor) 40% (weak)Low Comments:Advanced decline and poor health. Unlikely recovery. Has substantial deadwood. Preservation would require major changes to the sidewalk and street connection, parking, and overall grading design. Site: Main Street Cupertino - Public Trees Prepared for: City of Cupertino Comm. Dev. Dept. Prepared by: David L. Babby 5 of 8 April 11, 2014 143 PUBLIC TREE INVENTORY TABLE SIZE             CONDITION TREE/      TAG       NO.TREE NAME Tr u n k  Di a m e t e r  (i n . )   He a l t h  Co n d i t i o n                                        (1 0 0 % = B e s t ,  0% = W o r s t ) St r u c t u r a l  In t e g r i t y                              (1 0 0 % = B e s t ,  0% = W o r s t ) Su i t a b i l i t y  fo r  Pr e s e r v a t i o n      (H i g h / L o w ) 64 Shamel ash (Fraxinus uhdei )12 10% (very poor) 30% (weak)Low Comments:Nearly dead and beyond recover. 65 Shamel ash (Fraxinus uhdei )15 30% (poor) 40% (weak)Low Comments:Advanced decline and poor health. Unlikely recovery. History of limb failure. Deadwood. 66 Shamel ash (Fraxinus uhdei )12 20% (very poor) 30% (weak)Low Comments:Nearly dead and beyond recovery. 68 Shamel ash (Fraxinus uhdei )18 30% (poor) 50% (fair)Low Comments:Advanced decline and poor health. Unlikely recovery. 69 Shamel ash (Fraxinus uhdei )14 20% (very poor) 40% (weak)Low Comments:Nearly dead and beyond recovery. Significant roots are subject to being severely damaged or removed during installation of new curb and gutter. 79 Shamel ash (Fraxinus uhdei )16 30% (poor) 30% (weak)Low Comments:Dying and beyond recovery. Structure formed by four to five codominants. Trunk is nearly on top of existing public water and communication lines. 147 Shamel ash (Fraxinus uhdei )8 70% (healthy) 50% (fair)Low Comments:Girdling roots. Within SCB median. Area planned for regrading to create a level planter and reduce excessive water runoff. Site: Main Street Cupertino - Public Trees Prepared for: City of Cupertino Comm. Dev. Dept. Prepared by: David L. Babby 6 of 8 April 11, 2014 144 PUBLIC TREE INVENTORY TABLE SIZE             CONDITION TREE/      TAG       NO.TREE NAME Tr u n k  Di a m e t e r  (i n . )   He a l t h  Co n d i t i o n                                        (1 0 0 % = B e s t ,  0% = W o r s t ) St r u c t u r a l  In t e g r i t y                              (1 0 0 % = B e s t ,  0% = W o r s t ) Su i t a b i l i t y  fo r  Pr e s e r v a t i o n      (H i g h / L o w ) 148 Shamel ash (Fraxinus uhdei )15 50% (marginal) 50% (fair)Low Comments:Within SCB median, in front of City of Cupertino sign. Has a girdling root. Marginal health. Area planned for regrading to create a level planter and reduce excessive water runoff. 149 Shamel ash (Fraxinus uhdei )11 60% (fair) 40% (weak)Low Comments:Behind sign within SCB median. Large trunk wounds. Sparse canopy. Area planned for regrading to create a level planter and reduce excess water runoff. 150 Shamel ash (Fraxinus uhdei )13 90% (very healthy) 70% (stable)Low Comments:Within SCB median. Area proposed for regrading to create a level planter and reduce excess water runoff. 151 Autumn Purple white ash (Fraxinus a . 'Autumn Purple')1 N/A (removed) N/A (removed)N/A Comments:Tree was removed due to being dead. A recent install w/in SCB median. 152 Autumn Purple white ash (Fraxinus a . 'Autumn Purple')1 N/A (removed) N/A (removed)N/A Comments:Tree was removed due to being dead. A recent install w/in SCB median. 153 Autumn Purple white ash (Fraxinus a . 'Autumn Purple')1 N/A (removed) N/A (removed)N/A Comments:Tree was removed due to being dead. A recent install w/in SCB median. 154 Shamel ash (Fraxinus uhdei )7 70% (healthy) 50% (fair)Low Comments:Within SCB median. Girdling roots. Area planned for regrading to create a level planter. Site: Main Street Cupertino - Public Trees Prepared for: City of Cupertino Comm. Dev. Dept. Prepared by: David L. Babby 7 of 8 April 11, 2014 145 PUBLIC TREE INVENTORY TABLE SIZE             CONDITION TREE/      TAG       NO.TREE NAME Tr u n k  Di a m e t e r  (i n . )   He a l t h  Co n d i t i o n                                        (1 0 0 % = B e s t ,  0% = W o r s t ) St r u c t u r a l  In t e g r i t y                              (1 0 0 % = B e s t ,  0% = W o r s t ) Su i t a b i l i t y  fo r  Pr e s e r v a t i o n      (H i g h / L o w ) 155 Shamel ash (Fraxinus uhdei )7 60% (fair) 30% (weak)Low Comments:Within SCB median. Large wound where a previous limb failed. Area planned for regrading to create a level planter and reduce runoff. 156 Shamel ash (Fraxinus uhdei )13 80% (healthy) 40% (weak)Low Comments:Within SCB median. Low, asymmetrical canopy over road (south side). Has a large wound where a previous limb failed. Heavy limb weight. Area planned for regrading to create a level planter and reduce runoff. 157 Shamel ash (Fraxinus uhdei )13 80% (healthy) 60% (fair)Low Comments:Within SCB median. Base covered by groundcover and plants. Lower trunk has a slight lean. Area planned for regarding to create a level planter and reduce runoff. 159 Shamel ash (Fraxinus uhdei )12 80% (healthy) 50% (fair)Low Comments:Within SCB median. Multiple leader structure. Within a narrow planter for its species, and planter improvements are proposed. Site: Main Street Cupertino - Public Trees Prepared for: City of Cupertino Comm. Dev. Dept. Prepared by: David L. Babby 8 of 8 April 11, 2014 146 David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist April 11, 2014 Main Street Cupertino, Stevens Creek at Finch City of Cupertino Community Development Department EXHIBIT C:    SITE MAP    (one sheet)                     147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 2014 KENNETH RODRIGUES & PARTNERS, INC.C PROJECT NO. DRAWN BY SCALE DATE K E N N E T H R O D R I G U E S & P A R T N E R S I N C . 4 4 5 N o r t h W h i s m a n R o a d , S u i t e 2 0 0 M o u n t a i n V i e w . C A 6 5 0 . 9 6 5 . 0 7 0 0 KEYMAP 22.559 REVISION CHECKED BY MAIN STREET CUPERTINO STEVENS CREEK @ FINCH CUPERTINO, CA MAIN STREET CUPERTINO AGGREGATOR, LLC 203 REDWOOD SHORES PKWY, STE 200 REDWOOD CITY, CA 94065 11.15.2012 N AS SHOWN 11.15.12 PLAN CHECK SUBMITTAL SET 109.04.13 PLAN CHECK 1 RESPONSE 210.15.13 PLANNING ASA REVISIONS 301.24.14 PLAN CHECK 2 RESPONSE & ASA REVISIONS 403.10.14 PLAN CHECK 3 RESPONSE "BULLETIN 3 - FOR CONSTRUCTION" THE GUZZARDO PARTNERSHIP INC. Landscape Architects Land Planners San Francisco, CA 94111 F 415 433 5003 181 Greenwich Street T 415 433 4672 AIB GL 504.28.14 RFI # 166, # 222, # 216 RESPONSE L-8.2 TREE REMOVAL PLAN PRIVATE General Tree Protection Measures Tree protection measures shall be applied before and during development in accordance with the City's Arborist Report dated April 30, 2008 and Addendum 1 dated July 23, 2013, and in accordance with requirements on the Public Works Department for the preservation of existing trees. In addition the following measures shall be added to the protection plan: A. For trees to be retained, chain link fencing and other root protection shall be installed around the dripline of the tree prior to any project site work. B. No parking or vehicle parking shall be allowed under root zones, unless using buffers approved by the project arborist. C. No trenching within critical root zone area is allowed. If trenching is needed in the vicinity of trees to be retained, the City Arborist shall be consulted before any trenching or root cutting beneath the dripline of the tree. D. Tree protection conditions shall be posted on the tree protection barriers. E.Retained trees shall be watered to maintain them in good health. F.Tree protection fencing shall be provided for all transplanted trees in both their current location and in the retention / final planting area (see plan where conditions occur). Addendum to Arborist Tree Protection Measures (09.12.2013) 1.Tree protection fencing will be installed in various phases. The initial fencing phase will be preliminary for rough grading and couple as perimeter fencing for the project (as such, it will only be along one side of the trees). It will be established only along the site's interior, versus along street side, at the approximate canopy edges (roughly 15 to 20 feet from the trunks) for all currently existing tree, including trees to be removed in the future. The fencing materials will consist of five- to six-foot tall chain link mounted on two-inch diameter steel posts that are driven into the ground. 2.For trees to be relocated, current fencing will be established around their approximate canopy edges, on all four sides, utilizing four-foot tall orange-plastic fencing mounted on wood stakes. It is understood that, prior to grading commencing, the trees will be boxed and stored and at potentially three various locations throughout the site, and that maintenance (watering, pruning and monitoring) shall be conducted throughout that period and possibly beyond by the company performing the work. The storage areas shall be fenced off utilizing chain link panels around the canopy edges, particularly for the purpose of avoiding heavy equipment from scorching the canopies by their exhaust. 3.Dust accumulating on trunks and canopies during dry weather periods should be periodically washed away (e.g. every few months). It may also be necessary to perform dust control for all other retained trees. 4.Prior to grading, roadway improvements, grading for the future drive aisle entries, or underground utility installation beneath canopies, the fencing layout shall be reconfigured in accordance with the location to be identified during a site meeting with the project arborist; the limits of grading should be staked prior to this meeting. The fencing may also require additional reconfiguration to accommodate building construction, and shall be reviewed with the project arborist beforehand; the building footprints should be staked prior to this meeting. 5.All trees to remain shall be pruned as soon as possible to remove deadwood, reduce heavy limb weight, raise canopies as needed, remove suckers and watersprouts, and possibly to lightly thin; this applies to the entire trees (both overhanging the site and roads). It is understood that the work is to be executed by the property owner. Tree Removal / Replacement Trees already approved for removal (PRIVATE) Trees already removed from site Tree Removal / Replacement Trees proposed for removal (PRIVATE) * Trees proposed for removal (PRIVATE) {# 158 159 160 2014 KENNETH RODRIGUES & PARTNERS, INC.C PROJECT NO. DRAWN BY SCALE DATE K E N N E T H R O D R I G U E S & P A R T N E R S I N C . 4 4 5 N o r t h W h i s m a n R o a d , S u i t e 2 0 0 M o u n t a i n V i e w . C A 6 5 0 . 9 6 5 . 0 7 0 0 KEYMAP 22.559 REVISION CHECKED BY MAIN STREET CUPERTINO STEVENS CREEK @ FINCH CUPERTINO, CA MAIN STREET CUPERTINO AGGREGATOR, LLC 203 REDWOOD SHORES PKWY, STE 200 REDWOOD CITY, CA 94065 11.15.2012 N AS SHOWN 11.15.12 PLAN CHECK SUBMITTAL SET 109.04.13 PLAN CHECK 1 RESPONSE 210.15.13 PLANNING ASA REVISIONS 301.24.14 PLAN CHECK 2 RESPONSE & ASA REVISIONS 403.10.14 PLAN CHECK 3 RESPONSE "BULLETIN 3 - FOR CONSTRUCTION" THE GUZZARDO PARTNERSHIP INC. Landscape Architects Land Planners San Francisco, CA 94111 F 415 433 5003 181 Greenwich Street T 415 433 4672 AIB GL 504.28.14 RFI # 166, # 222, # 216 RESPONSE L-8.4 TREE REMOVAL PLAN - PUBLIC General Tree Protection Measures Tree protection measures shall be applied before and during development in accordance with the City's Arborist Report dated April 30, 2008 and Addendum 1 dated July 23, 2013, and in accordance with requirements on the Public Works Department for the preservation of existing trees. In addition the following measures shall be added to the protection plan: A. For trees to be retained, chain link fencing and other root protection shall be installed around the dripline of the tree prior to any project site work. B. No parking or vehicle parking shall be allowed under root zones, unless using buffers approved by the project arborist. C. No trenching within critical root zone area is allowed. If trenching is needed in the vicinity of trees to be retained, the City Arborist shall be consulted before any trenching or root cutting beneath the dripline of the tree. D. Tree protection conditions shall be posted on the tree protection barriers. E.Retained trees shall be watered to maintain them in good health. F.Tree protection fencing shall be provided for all transplanted trees in both their current location and in the retention / final planting area (see plan where conditions occur). Addendum to Arborist Tree Protection Measures (09.12.2013) 1.Tree protection fencing will be installed in various phases. The initial fencing phase will be preliminary for rough grading and couple as perimeter fencing for the project (as such, it will only be along one side of the trees). It will be established only along the site's interior, versus along street side, at the approximate canopy edges (roughly 15 to 20 feet from the trunks) for all currently existing tree, including trees to be removed in the future. The fencing materials will consist of five- to six-foot tall chain link mounted on two-inch diameter steel posts that are driven into the ground. 2.For trees to be relocated, current fencing will be established around their approximate canopy edges, on all four sides, utilizing four-foot tall orange-plastic fencing mounted on wood stakes. It is understood that, prior to grading commencing, the trees will be boxed and stored and at potentially three various locations throughout the site, and that maintenance (watering, pruning and monitoring) shall be conducted throughout that period and possibly beyond by the company performing the work. The storage areas shall be fenced off utilizing chain link panels around the canopy edges, particularly for the purpose of avoiding heavy equipment from scorching the canopies by their exhaust. 3.Dust accumulating on trunks and canopies during dry weather periods should be periodically washed away (e.g. every few months). It may also be necessary to perform dust control for all other retained trees. 4.Prior to grading, roadway improvements, grading for the future drive aisle entries, or underground utility installation beneath canopies, the fencing layout shall be reconfigured in accordance with the location to be identified during a site meeting with the project arborist; the limits of grading should be staked prior to this meeting. The fencing may also require additional reconfiguration to accommodate building construction, and shall be reviewed with the project arborist beforehand; the building footprints should be staked prior to this meeting. 5.All trees to remain shall be pruned as soon as possible to remove deadwood, reduce heavy limb weight, raise canopies as needed, remove suckers and watersprouts, and possibly to lightly thin; this applies to the entire trees (both overhanging the site and roads). It is understood that the work is to be executed by the property owner. Tree Removal / Replacement Trees proposed for removal (PUBLIC) Tree Removal / Replacement Trees already approved for removal (PUBLIC) Trees already removed from site * Trees proposed for removal (PUBLIC) Proposed Trees 1.6 : 1Ratio of new trees to be planted to existing trees to be removed: 76Number of Proposed trees to be Planted: 76 - 24" BOX TREES TOTAL TREES 77Number of Final Trees on Site : ( existing trees to remain (1) plus trees to be planted on PUBLIC property (76); ( Trees planted in Public ROW and Median) 04/30/14 161 162 163 164 165 166 6" S D SD FW DW X-50 X-52 X-58 X-59 X-57 X-64WV SD FW FW FW VENT VENT 4" S D X-51 X-68 X-61 ~ FW 4" PL4" PL STEVENS CREEK BLVD. PROPERTY LINEEX . 10 ' P U E SHOP 3 2014 KENNETH RODRIGUES & PARTNERS, INC.C PROJECT NO. DRAWN BY SCALE DATE K E N N E T H R O D R I G U E S & P A R T N E R S I N C . 4 4 5 N o r t h W h i s m a n R o a d , S u i t e 2 0 0 M o u n t a i n V i e w . C A 6 5 0 . 9 6 5 . 0 7 0 0 KEYMAP 22.559 REVISION CHECKED BY MAIN STREET CUPERTINO STEVENS CREEK @ FINCH CUPERTINO, CA MAIN STREET CUPERTINO AGGREGATOR, LLC 203 REDWOOD SHORES PKWY, STE 200 REDWOOD CITY, CA 94065 11.15.2012 N AS SHOWN 11.15.12 PLAN CHECK SUBMITTAL SET 109.04.13 PLAN CHECK 1 RESPONSE 210.15.13 PLANNING ASA REVISIONS 301.24.14 PLAN CHECK 2 RESPONSE & ASA REVISIONS 403.10.14 PLAN CHECK 3 RESPONSE "BULLETIN 3 - FOR CONSTRUCTION" THE GUZZARDO PARTNERSHIP INC. Landscape Architects Land Planners San Francisco, CA 94111 F 415 433 5003 181 Greenwich Street T 415 433 4672 Signature Date Renewal Date 6-30-14 L ICENSE D L A N D S C APEAR C H I T E C T Gary D.L a y m on No. 2 3 9 7 S T ATE OF C A L I F O R NIA03.26.14 AIB GL 504.28.14 RFI # 166, # 222, # 216 RESPONSE L-8.7a CITY SIDEWALK STEVENS CREEK BLVD. 04/30/2014 North 0 Scale: 1/8" = 1' 4 8 16 3 L8.7b SHOP 2 167 Stevens Creek Boulevard (SHOP 4) Section scale: 1/4" = 1'-0" CITY SIDEWALK PRIVATE TREE WRT LINE CMN LINE \A 1 ; 5 '\A1;6'-4" \A 1 ; 4 ' - 2 " \A 1 ; 3 ' - 4 " T LINECMN LINE \A 1 ; 3 ' \A 1 ; 5 ' Stevens Creek Boulevard Section scale: 1/4" = 1'-0" CITY SIDEWALKTREE IN TREE GRATE PUBLIC TREE PRIVATE TREE WATER LINE CMN LINE ROOT BARRIER \A 1 ; 5 '\A1;6'-4" \A 1 ; 4 ' - 2 " \A 1 ; 3 ' - 4 " Stevens Creek Boulevard (Bus Stop) Section scale: 1/4" = 1'-0" CITY SIDEWALK PRIVATE TREE WRT LINE CMN LINE \A1;2'-1"\A1;6'-4" \A 1 ; 4 ' - 1 " \A 1 ; 3 ' - 4 " T LINE Enlarged Street Tree Planter scale: 1/4" = 1'-0" varies 16'-10"max. 14'-7" min. \A1;varies varies 19'-4"max. 17'-4'min. \A1;varies \A1;17'-9" PLAN SECTION \A1;2' TREE IN TREE GRATE PERMEABLE PAVER PAVING CONCRETE SIDEWALK STRUCTURAL SOIL \A 1 ; 6 " TREE IN TREE GRATE PERMEABLE PAVER PAVING DECORATIVE SCORING IN PAVING CITY SIDEWALK CONCRETE PAVING SECTION ABOVE ROOT BARRIER 2014 KENNETH RODRIGUES & PARTNERS, INC.C PROJECT NO. DRAWN BY SCALE DATE K E N N E T H R O D R I G U E S & P A R T N E R S I N C . 4 4 5 N o r t h W h i s m a n R o a d , S u i t e 2 0 0 M o u n t a i n V i e w . C A 6 5 0 . 9 6 5 . 0 7 0 0 KEYMAP 22.559 REVISION CHECKED BY MAIN STREET CUPERTINO STEVENS CREEK @ FINCH CUPERTINO, CA MAIN STREET CUPERTINO AGGREGATOR, LLC 203 REDWOOD SHORES PKWY, STE 200 REDWOOD CITY, CA 94065 11.15.2012 N AS SHOWN 11.15.12 PLAN CHECK SUBMITTAL SET 109.04.13 PLAN CHECK 1 RESPONSE 210.15.13 PLANNING ASA REVISIONS 301.24.14 PLAN CHECK 2 RESPONSE & ASA REVISIONS 403.10.14 PLAN CHECK 3 RESPONSE "BULLETIN 3 - FOR CONSTRUCTION" THE GUZZARDO PARTNERSHIP INC. Landscape Architects Land Planners San Francisco, CA 94111 F 415 433 5003 181 Greenwich Street T 415 433 4672 Signature Date Renewal Date 6-30-14 L ICENSE D L A N D S C APEAR C H I T E C T Gary D.L a y m on No. 2 3 9 7 S T ATE OF C A L I F O R NIA03.26.14 AIB GL 504.28.14 RFI # 166, # 222, # 216 RESPONSE UTILITY EXHIBIT - SECTIONS STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD L-8.7b 1 2 3 4 04/30/14 168 Tantau Section scale: 1/4" = 1'-0" Loft Section - Option 1 scale: 1/4" = 1'-0" CITY SIDEWALK PLANTING STRIP W/NO-MOW FESCUE PARKING @ VALLCO PUBLIC TREEPRIVATE TREE DOG RUN / PLAY AREA W/ DOG WASH STATION AND DECORATIVE FENCE CITY SIDEWALK PLANTING STRIP PRIVATE TREE PRIVATE TREE Loft Section - Option 2 scale: 1/4" = 1'-0" CITY SIDEWALK PARKING @ VALLCO PUBLIC TREEPRIVATE TREE DOG RUN / PLAY AREA W/ DOG WASH STATION AND DECORATIVE FENCE \A 1 ; 5 ' \A1;5'typ.\A 1 ; 2 ' \A1;5'typ.\A 1 ; 2 ' CITY SIDEWALK PLAN TYPE OF SCORING A TYPE OF SCORING A \A1;3'-5"\A1;5'-8"\A1;3'-10"\A1;3'-10" WRT LINE CMN LINE \A 1 ; 3 ' - 1 " \A 1 ; 4 ' - 6 " WATER LINE WATER LINEJT LINE JT LINE \A1;3'-5"\A1;14'-4"\A1;3'-5"max.\A1;14'-4" \A1;8'-6"\A1;8'-6"\A1;5'-10"\A1;5'-10" Hotel @ Vallco Section scale: 1/4" = 1'-0" CITY SIDEWALK PLANTING STRIP PARKING @ VALLCO PUBLIC TREE varies 15'-9"max. 10'-10" min.\A1;5' typ.5'max. 4'-4"min. varies 16'-1"max. 15'-9"min.\A1;5'typ. varies 45'-10"max. 13'-4"min. PUBLIC TREE 2014 KENNETH RODRIGUES & PARTNERS, INC.C PROJECT NO. DRAWN BY SCALE DATE K E N N E T H R O D R I G U E S & P A R T N E R S I N C . 4 4 5 N o r t h W h i s m a n R o a d , S u i t e 2 0 0 M o u n t a i n V i e w . C A 6 5 0 . 9 6 5 . 0 7 0 0 KEYMAP 22.559 REVISION CHECKED BY MAIN STREET CUPERTINO STEVENS CREEK @ FINCH CUPERTINO, CA MAIN STREET CUPERTINO AGGREGATOR, LLC 203 REDWOOD SHORES PKWY, STE 200 REDWOOD CITY, CA 94065 11.15.2012 N AS SHOWN 11.15.12 PLAN CHECK SUBMITTAL SET 109.04.13 PLAN CHECK 1 RESPONSE 210.15.13 PLANNING ASA REVISIONS 301.24.14 PLAN CHECK 2 RESPONSE & ASA REVISIONS 403.10.14 PLAN CHECK 3 RESPONSE "BULLETIN 3 - FOR CONSTRUCTION" THE GUZZARDO PARTNERSHIP INC. Landscape Architects Land Planners San Francisco, CA 94111 F 415 433 5003 181 Greenwich Street T 415 433 4672 Signature Date Renewal Date 6-30-14 L ICENSE D L A N D S C APEAR C H I T E C T Gary D.L a y m on No. 2 3 9 7 S T ATE OF C A L I F O R NIA03.26.14 AIB GL 504.28.14 RFI # 166, # 222, # 216 RESPONSE UTILITY EXHIBIT - SECTIONS TANTAU, LOFTS & HOTEL L-8.7c 1 2 4 3 04/30/14 169 Garage @ Vallco Section scale: 1/4" = 1'-0" CITY SIDEWALK PLANTING STRIP W/ NO-MOW FESCUE PARKING @ VALLCO PUBLIC TREE Office 1/Trash @ Vallco Section scale: 1/4" = 1'-0" CITY SIDEWALK PLANTING STRIP W/ NO-MOW FESCUE PARKING @ VALLCO PLANTING AREA TRASH PUBLIC TREEPUBLIC TREE SD LINE \A1;7'-10" Office 1 @ Vallco Section scale: 1/4" = 1'-0" CITY SIDEWALK PLANTING STRIP W/ NO-MOW FESCUE PARKING @ VALLCO PUBLIC TREE SD LINE \A1;10'-6" various 8'-11"max. 4'-7" min8'-11" \A1;5'typ.\A1;4'-6" varies 15'-5" max. 14'min. \A1;5'typ.\A1;4'-8" \A1;5'typ.\A1;4'-6" \A1;4'-8"\A1;5'-4" 2014 KENNETH RODRIGUES & PARTNERS, INC.C PROJECT NO. DRAWN BY SCALE DATE K E N N E T H R O D R I G U E S & P A R T N E R S I N C . 4 4 5 N o r t h W h i s m a n R o a d , S u i t e 2 0 0 M o u n t a i n V i e w . C A 6 5 0 . 9 6 5 . 0 7 0 0 KEYMAP 22.559 REVISION CHECKED BY MAIN STREET CUPERTINO STEVENS CREEK @ FINCH CUPERTINO, CA MAIN STREET CUPERTINO AGGREGATOR, LLC 203 REDWOOD SHORES PKWY, STE 200 REDWOOD CITY, CA 94065 11.15.2012 N AS SHOWN 11.15.12 PLAN CHECK SUBMITTAL SET 109.04.13 PLAN CHECK 1 RESPONSE 210.15.13 PLANNING ASA REVISIONS 301.24.14 PLAN CHECK 2 RESPONSE & ASA REVISIONS 403.10.14 PLAN CHECK 3 RESPONSE "BULLETIN 3 - FOR CONSTRUCTION" THE GUZZARDO PARTNERSHIP INC. Landscape Architects Land Planners San Francisco, CA 94111 F 415 433 5003 181 Greenwich Street T 415 433 4672 Signature Date Renewal Date 6-30-14 L ICENSE D L A N D S C APEAR C H I T E C T Gary D.L a y m on No. 2 3 9 7 S T ATE OF C A L I F O R NIA03.26.14 AIB GL 504.28.14 RFI # 166, # 222, # 216 RESPONSE UTILITY EXHIBIT - SECTIONS GARAGE & OFFICE 1 L-8.7d 1 3 2 04/30/14 170 171 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY HALL 10 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3308 www.cupertino.org CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Meeting: May 20, 2014 Subject Foothill Live-Work development project. Recommended Action Staff recommends that the City Council approve the following: 1. Mitigated Negative Declaration (EA-2014-01) (Attachment A) 2. Rezoning (Z-2014-01), in accordance with the draft ordinance (Attachment B) 3. Tentative Map (TM-2014-01), in accordance with the draft resolution (Attachment C) 4. Development Permit (DP-2014-02), in accordance with the draft resolution (Attachment D) 5. Architectural and Site Approval (ASA-2014-02), in accordance with the draft resolution (Attachment E) 6. Tree Removal Permit (TR-2014-08), in accordance with the draft resolution (Attachment F) Description Application Summary Applications: DP-2014-02, ASA-2014-02, TM-2014-01, TR-2014-08, Z-2014-01, EA-2014-01 Applicant: Tate Development Property Owner: Foothill Auto Service and Detail, Inc. Location: 10121 North Foothill Boulevard (APN 342-32-070) Project Description 1. Rezoning (Z-2014-01) of a .87 gross acre parcel from Planned Development General Commercial - P(CG) to Planned Development General Commercial and Residential - P(CG, Res); 2. Tentative Map (TM-2014-01) to subdivide a .62 net acre parcel into six residential lots and one common area lot; 3. Development Permit (DP-2014-02) to allow the demolition of an abandoned automobile service station and construct six residential units, including five live-work units with detached workspaces, along with associated site and off-site improvements; 172 4. Architectural and Site Approval (ASA-2014-02) to allow the demolition of an abandoned automobile service station and construct six residential units, including five live-work units with detached workspaces, along with associated site and off-site improvements; 5. Tree Removal Permit (TR-2014-08) to allow the removal and replacement of five Monterey Pine trees; and 6. Mitigated Negative Declaration (EA-2014-01) for the project per the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Project Data Gross lot area (includes up to 30’ of street area) 38,019 s.f. (0.87 acres) Net lot area 27,120 s.f. (0.62 acres) Proposed lot sizes Lot 1 (Home 1 and workspace): 4,750 s.f. (.10 acres) Lot 2 (Home 2 and workspace): 3,603 s.f. (.08 acres) Lot 3 (Home 3 and workspace): 3,603 s.f. (.08 acres) Lot 4 (Home 4 and workspace): 3,103 s.f. (.07 acres) Lot 5 (Home 5 and workspace): 3,177 s.f. (.07 acres) Lot 6 (Home 6): 4,119 s.f. (.09 acres) Lot 7 (Common area): 4,290 s.f. (.09 acres) Existing Allowed or Required Proposed General Plan designation Commercial/Residential N/A No change Existing zoning designation P (CG) - Planned Development with General Commercial intent N/A P (CG, Res) - Planned Development with General Commercial and Residential intent Density (dwelling units per gross acres) N/A 15 or 13 based on gross acreage of site 6.89 Land Use Automobile service station General commercial (per zoning) Single-family residential townhomes with five detached workspaces Building area 1,608 sq. ft. No maximum floor area ratio or lot coverage - As determined by the City Homes 1-5: 2,668 s.f. (1,320 s.f. first floor, 1,348 second floor) Home 6: 2,690 s.f. (1,271 s.f. first floor, 1,419 s.f. second floor) Home 1-3 workspaces: 452 s.f. Home 4-5 workspaces: 411 s.f. Total gross building area: 18,208 sq. ft. 173 Existing Allowed or Required Proposed Open Space (includes yard area and balconies) 5,745 sq. ft. No minimum required – as determined by the City Home 1: 1,342 s.f. Home 2: 1,009 s.f. Home 3: 1,016 s.f. Home 4: 768 s.f. Home 5: 873 s.f. Home 6: 1,427 s.f. Common: 1,209 s.f. Total open space: 7,644 sq. ft. Height (from existing grade) 18 feet (one story) 30 feet (two story) Homes 1-5: 26 feet (two stories) Home 6: 21 feet, 3 in. Workspaces: 14 feet (one story) Parking 16 onsite stalls 22 onsite stalls, based on 2.8 spaces per unit plus 1 space per workspace (based on parking analysis) 22 onsite stalls (12 garage, 10 open) *Plus 5 new on-street parallel stalls available to the public (not counted toward required parking for the project) Setbacks to existing property lines: North 67 feet No minimum required – as determined by the City 10 feet (closest residence) 17 feet (closest workspace) South 30 feet 12 feet (closest residence) 6 feet (closest workspace) East 68 feet (10 feet for canopy) 36 feet (closest residence) 12 feet (closest workspace) West 69 feet 15 feet (closest residence) 132 feet (closest workspace) Background This report provides an executive summary of the project and discussion at the April 22, 2014 Planning Commission hearing and is intended to be a companion document to the Planning Commission staff report. Please review the Planning Commission staff report and draft meeting minutes (Attachment G) for detailed analysis on the proposed project. Also attached to this report are the previous Planning Commission and City Council study session staff reports and meeting minutes (Attachments H and I, respectively); the applicant’s justification letter (Attachment J); the applicant’s retail consultant analysis (Attachment K); the Home Occupation Ordinance (Attachment L); the City transportation consultant’s analysis (Attachment M); the City’s consulting arborist report and applicant’s consulting arborist reports (Attachments N and O, respectively); and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Attachment P). 174 Existing Site and Surroundings The project site is located at the southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Silver Oak Way. To the west of the site are residential duplexes; to the east and across Foothill Boulevard is the Sunnyview Retirement Community; to the north and across Silver Oak Way are residential duplexes; and to the south are residential duplexes. The site currently contains an abandoned 1,608 square foot automobile service station with a fueling canopy, which was previously occupied by Foothill Auto Service and Detail. The site was originally developed in 1971, and has been historically used for automobile service, fueling, and convenience purposes. Proposed Project The proposed project consists of a rezoning and subdivision of the site into seven lots to facilitate six (6) residential two-story townhomes with five (5) detached live-work units. The five (5) residential live-work units will be fronting onto Foothill Boulevard with one (1) residential (non- live-work) unit fronting onto Silver Oak Way. The existing automobile service station would be completely demolished and the site would be remediated for residential use. City Council Study Session - April 16, 2013 The applicant, Ron Tate, of Tate Development, representing the property owner, Foothill Auto Service and Detail, Inc., requested study sessions with the Planning Commission on March 26, 2013 and City Council on April 16, 2013 to receive input on the feasibility of a residential townhome/live-work proposal. Please refer to Attachments H and I for the detailed Planning Commission and City Council study session staff report and meeting minutes. The following is a summary of Planning Commission and Council comments from the study sessions (staff comments are provided in italics). • The site is currently dilapidated and in need of improvement. • The proposed architectural concept is appealing. • The proposed live-work concept interfaces well with Foothill Boulevard. • Live-work may be a good use for the site, given the lack of retail success on Foothill Boulevard. • The proposed rezoning to commercial and residential is appropriate. • Consider commercial uses to serve the community and provide sales tax revenue. • Consider a residential-only project given the neighborhood context. • Enforcement and parameters for the appropriate uses for the workspaces will need to be addressed. • The project may serve as a good transition to the existing neighborhood. • Consider viable non-retail commercial uses, such as specialized schools (martial arts, tutoring) or child care centers. 175 • The density of the project should be consistent with the surrounding neighborhood. The proposed density of 6.89 dwelling units per gross acre is within the maximum 15 units per gross acre allowed by General Plan Policy 2-32. The proposed density is also comparable and in most cases, less dense than the neighborhood context on the west side of Foothill Boulevard and north of Stevens Creek. • Enforcement and limitations on the workspaces will need to be discussed to prevent the conversion of workspaces to residential uses. Condition nos. 9 and 10 of Attachment D prohibits the conversion of workspaces to living area and requires it to be recorded as part of the project’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). Planning Commission Recommendation On April 22, 2014, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing and formally reviewed the project. The Commission recommended approval of the project on a 4-1 vote, including the recommendation to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration per the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Refer to Attachments Q-U for the Planning Commission resolutions. One Commissioner did not support the project because they preferred a project consisting of non- retail commercial uses such as day cares or dance studios. The Planning Commission recommended the following additional conditions for the project: • Reserve the guest parking area for workspace patrons only during regular business hours. • Allow workspace visitation to one vehicle (which could potentially include more than one client) at a time - instead of the Home Occupation Ordinance standard of one person at a time - to provide more flexibility for a more reasonable customer interface. • Lower the height of Home No. 6 (non-live work unit that fronts onto Silver Oak Way) by five (5) feet in order to be more compatible with the adjacent homes. The Planning Commission mainly discussion issues related to the land use and site constraints, the use of the workspaces, and the height of Home No. 6. These topics are discussed below. Discussion Appropriateness of Use According to the General Plan, both general commercial and/or residential uses have been deemed to be appropriate uses for the project site. The current zoning designation allows any permitted general commercial or retail use as part of the General Commercial Ordinance (Section 19.60) to operate on the site. In order to introduce residential uses to the site, the property would need to be rezoned to P(CG, Res) – Planned Development General Commercial and Residential. Overall, the Planning Commission supported the rezoning request to facilitate a live-work development. However, a Planning Commissioner noted that the site would be ideal for non- retail commercial uses such as specialized schools and day cares since they are generally discouraged in Cupertino’s primary commercial centers. The project site presents the following challenges which limit the marketability and suitability of standalone commercial or residential uses. 176 • The property is disconnected from the primary commercial areas in Cupertino, which are typically located near or along prominent major streets with the necessary adequate visibility, foot traffic, and vehicle trips. • The property is not located at a prominent intersection with controlled traffic lights that would allow potential shoppers to easily and safely access the site. • The property is not large enough to facilitate a standalone commercial center. • The residential neighborhood surrounding the site is relatively low in density and does not generate enough population to support commercial uses on this site. The previous commercial uses (automobile service station and convenience market) on the site were not economically viable due to the above reasons and the site has been vacant since 2010. The applicant and property owner considered a variety of uses, but decided that commercial uses would not be economically feasible due to the site remediation and construction costs that would be involved. The applicant has provided letters from retail consultants (Attachment K) citing challenges with commercial development. A purely single-family residential project at this site would pose safety and aesthetic concerns, and would also conflict with the General Plan. New driveway curb cuts along Foothill Boulevard would create potential safety hazards given its high traffic volumes and speeds. General Plan Policy 4-9 encourages that corner lot driveway access be from the secondary street (Silver Oak Way). However, if the primary access were obtained from Silver Oak Way, then large sound walls would likely be needed to buffer noise and visual impacts from the street. The General Plan encourages development to be street-oriented and not be isolated by walls or gates. Use of Workspaces The proposed live-work project provides an appropriate interface with Foothill Boulevard as well as an appropriate transition and buffer for the residential component of the project. In addition, the units address an increasing need for workspaces by persons who own and operate home- based businesses. The conditions of approval of the development permit (Attachment C) define the permitted and/or prohibited workspace uses, performance standards, and other parameters that were modeled after the City’s Home Occupation Ordinance (Attachment L) and live-work regulations in other local jurisdictions. The conditions of approval will be reflected in the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) for the property, which will be upheld by the Homeowner’s Association (HOA). The CC&Rs will be reviewed by the City and recorded on the property prior to final occupancy of the project. The CC&Rs would contain disclosures to homeowners about the workspace parameters, which include preventing the conversion of workspaces to residential living area and conversion of residences to workspace area. The HOA would be responsible for enforcing the CC&Rs, and the City also has the ability to conduct code enforcement cases if the conditions on the workspace uses are violated. In order to promote the viability of the workspace businesses, the Planning Commission added conditions of approval to reserve the guest parking area for workspace patrons only during regular business hours. In addition, the Planning Commission added a condition to allow 177 workspace visitation to one vehicle or client unit at a time instead of the Home Occupation Ordinance standard of one person at a time. Height of Home No. 6 Two adjoining property owners were concerned with the proximity of Home No. 6 to their rear property lines, and noted that its height would block sunlight, views, and create privacy impacts with its second floor windows and balconies. Since this is a planned development zoned-property, the setbacks are flexible. However, the 15-foot second story side yard setback is consistent with setbacks for two-story homes in the Single-Family Residential zoning district. In addition, the City’s Municipal Code does not prescribe any specific development standards pertaining to view preservation or sunlight. The applicant proposes to plant mature evergreen (15-20 feet tall at time of planting) privacy trees/shrubs along the entire west and south property lines in order to mitigate privacy impacts. Based on concerns cited by the adjoining property owners during the hearing, the Planning Commission added a condition to reduce the total overall height of Home No. 6 by five feet, which could be achieved by lowering the grade as well as wall height and roofline changes. With the reduction in height, the total height from finish grade would be 21 feet, three inches. The total height from existing grade would be 16 feet, seven inches. Given that the site is lower in elevation than the adjoining properties, the exposed height of Home No. 6 above the existing sound wall would be approximately six and a half feet. Public Comments The following is a summary of public comments at the Planning Commission hearing. Where applicable, staff comments are provided in italics.  Supportive of redevelopment of the site as residential.  The residential floor area ratios (FAR) are too high – The project is located in a planned development zoning district, which does not limit FAR as in the Single Family Residential (R1) zoning district. The mass and bulk of the homes are addressed through architectural review as well as consideration of an appropriate transition to existing development.  The project should be reduced in density by at least one unit - The proposed density of 6.89 dwelling units per gross acre is within the maximum 15 units per gross acre allowed by the General Plan. The proposed density is also comparable and in most cases, less dense than the neighborhood context on the west side of Foothill Boulevard and north of Stevens Creek. The surrounding residential developments range in density from 6.3 to 10.2 dwelling units per gross acre.  The parking supply is not adequate – there should be at least four spaces per unit – The City’s transportation consultant conducted a parking study using methodologies based on the City’s Parking Ordinance and from the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ (ITE) Parking Generation manual and the Urban Land Institute’s (ULI) Shared Parking manual. The study found that the proposed project provides sufficient parking supply based on these two methodologies. In addition, the proposed project exceeds the parking requirements for live-work units as required by other surrounding cities.  There is not adequate turnaround space in the drive aisle – The primary vehicular access is through a 24-foot wide, two-way drive aisle with maneuvering space at the terminus for turnaround. 178 The site circulation and dimensions were deemed to be sufficient by the City’s Traffic Engineer and Transportation Consultant. In addition, the Santa Clara County Fire Department does not require a turnaround area since the drive aisle is less than 150 feet long.  Consider smaller trees in the open space area – Smaller trees will be considered by the applicant.  Privacy plantings would interfere with existing trees and block views. The City’s and the applicant’s consulting arborist reviewed whether the project would impact existing trees on neighboring properties (Attachment O). The applicant’s engineering team trenched an area at the limits of construction to determine whether any roots were present. Both arborists confirmed that no significant roots were present and that the impacts to the existing trees would not be significant. In addition, the developer will be required to obtain the services of the City’s Consulting Arborist to review detailed construction plans and provide tree protection measures prior to construction activities. The project will be required to implement the recommended tree protection measures, which will be field-verified by the arborist. The affected property owners have the option of waiving or modifying the location/size/quantity of the required privacy plantings within the parameters of the City’s approved privacy planting list. Environmental Considerations On April 3, 2014, the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) recommended a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the project based on the initial study. The initial study’s mitigation measures are included as conditions of approval for the project, and include contaminated soil remediation in close coordination with the Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health (SCCDEH); noise mitigations; tree replacement; and storm water management. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Attachment P) lists the specific mitigation measures, the timeframe and method of compliance, and responsible departments/agencies for oversight of implementation. The Planning Commission did not have any comments on the initial study and recommended adoption of the MND on a 4-1 vote. Noticing The following table summarizes the noticing for the May 20, 2014 Council meeting: Notice Agenda  57 public hearing notices mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the project site (10 days prior to the hearing)  Notice of intent to adopt an MND mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the project site and posted on the City’s website (at least 30 days prior to final decision on the project)  Site Signage (14 days prior to the hearing)  Legal ad placed in newspaper  Posted on the City's official notice bulletin board (one week prior to the hearing)  Posted on the City of Cupertino’s Web site (one week prior to the hearing) 179 (at least 10 days prior to the hearing) Next Steps The City Council’s decision is final. If the Council approves the project, the second reading of the rezoning ordinance is tentatively scheduled for June 2, 2014. ____________________________________ Prepared by: George Schroeder, Associate Planner Reviewed by: Gary Chao, Assistant Director of Community Development; Aarti Shrivastava, Assistant City Manager Approved for Submission by: David Brandt, City Manager Attachments: A – Mitigated Negative Declaration (EA-2014-01) with Initial Study B – Z-2014-01 Draft City Council Ordinance C – TM-2014-01 Draft City Council Resolution D – DP-2014-02 Draft City Council Resolution E – ASA-2014-02 Draft City Council Resolution F – TR-2014-08 Draft City Council Resolution G – April 22, 2014 Planning Commission staff report and draft meeting minutes H – March 26, 2013 Planning Commission staff report and meeting minutes I – April 16, 2013 City Council staff report and meeting minutes J – Applicant’s justification letter K – Applicant’s retail consultant analysis L – Home Occupation Ordinance, Chapter 19.120 of the Cupertino Municipal Code M – Transportation evaluation by Fehr & Peers, dated January 13, 2014 N – City’s Consulting Arborist report dated March 2013 O – City and applicant’s consulting arborist reports dated November 2013 P – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Q – Planning Commission Resolution No. 6734 (DP-2014-02) R – Planning Commission Resolution No. 6735 (ASA-2014-02) S – Planning Commission Resolution No. 6736 (TM-2014-01) T – Planning Commission Resolution No. 6737 (TR-2014-08) U – Planning Commission Resolution No. 6738 (Z-2014-01) V – Plan set 180 181 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project Initial Study File No. DP-2014-02, Z-2014-01, ASA-2014-02, TM-2014-01, and TR-2014-08 Prepared by: In Consultation with: March 2014 182 183 DRAFT CITY OF CUPERTINO MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION As provided by the Environmental Assessment Procedure adopted by the City Council of the City of Cupertino on May 27, 1973, and amended on March 4, 1974, January 17 1977, May 1, 1978, and July 7, 1980, the City of Cupertino Planning Commission and City Council have reviewed the proposed project described below to determine whether it could have a significant effect on the environment as a result of project implementation. “Significant effect on the environment” means a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affect by the project including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic significance (CEQA Guidelines Section 15382). PROJECT INFORMATION AND LOCATION Project Name: 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project Application No.: EA-2014-01, DP-2014-02, ASA-2014-02, TM-2014-01, TR-2014-08, Z-2014-01 Applicant: Tate Development (Foothill Auto Service & Detail, Inc.) Location: 10121 North Foothill Boulevard, Cupertino PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project proposes to rezone the 0.87-gross acre project site from Planned Development General Commercial – P(CG) to Planned Development General Commercial/Residential – P(CG, Res) to allow the demolition of an abandoned automobile service station and construction of six single-family dwelling units, five of which would include a detached workspace intended for live/work, along with associated site and off-site improvements. DISCRETIONARY ACTION REQUEST • Rezoning of a .87 gross acre parcel from Planned Development General Commercial - P(CG) to Planned Development General Commercial and Residential - P(CG, Res). • Tentative Map to subdivide a .66 net acre parcel into six residential lots and one common area lot; • Development Permit to allow the demolition of an abandoned automobile service station and construct six residential units, including five live-work units with detached workspaces, along with associated site and off-site improvements; and • Architectural and Site Approval to allow the demolition of an abandoned automobile service station and construct six residential units, including five live-work units with detached workspaces, along with associated site and off-site improvements; • Tree Removal Permit to allow the removal and replacement of five Monterey Pine trees. 1 184 FINDINGS OF DECISIONMAKING BODY The Planning Commission and City Council finds the project described is consistent with the General Plan and will not have a significant effect on the environment based on the analysis completed in the attached Initial Study. The applicant, before the public release of this draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND), has agreed to make project revisions that mitigate the project’s effects to a less than significant level. The applicant agrees to implement the mitigation measures identified in the attached Initial Study and summarized below: Biological Resources: Impact BIO-1: The development of the proposed project could result in direct impacts to nesting birds, if present on the site at the time of construction. Mitigation Measure 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. Mitigation Measure 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 zone around the nest until the end of the nesting activity. Buffers for other birds shall be determined by the ornithologist. Mitigation Measure 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 grading or tree removal. Cultural Resources: Impact CUL-1: Development of the proposed project could result in significant impacts to buried cultural resources, if encountered. Mitigation Measure CUL-1.1: In the event of the discovery of prehistoric or historic archaeological deposits or paleontological deposits, work shall be halted within 50 feet of 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. 2 185 Mitigation Measure CUL-1.2: In the event that human remains are found, all project-related construction shall cease within 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 event of 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 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 location not subject to further subsurface disturbance. Mitigation Measure CUL-1.3: A final report summarizing the discovery of cultural materials shall be submitted to the Director of Community Development prior 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. Hazards and Hazardous Materials: Impact HAZ-1: Construction workers and future residences could be exposed to contaminated soils and health risks associated with soil vapor on-site. Mitigation Measure HAZ-1.1: The project shall conduct soil sampling and analysis of the extent of TPH and VOC contamination in soil, soil vapor, and/or groundwater in accordance with the Work Plan approved by the Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health (SCCDEH) on November 5, 2013. The approved Work Plan describes sample methodology, sample locations, the quality assurance/quality control plan, reporting, and schedule. The Work Plan shall be implemented by the project and the results of the sampling shall be submitted to the SCCDEH. If additional investigation is required to sufficiently delineate the contaminants of concern, additional sampling or mitigation measures shall be proposed and be reviewed and approved by the SCCDEH. The Work Plan shall be completed to the satisfaction of the SCCDEH prior to issuance of grading permits for project construction. Mitigation Measure HAZ-1.2: A Site Remediation Plan shall be prepared based on the documented soil conditions and approved by the SCCDEH. The Site Remediation Plan shall include the design of a remedy that has the goal of mitigating ongoing threats to water quality and to conditions of unacceptable risk for residential land use. The Site Remediation Plan shall include implementation and monitoring schedules. Upon approval of the Site Remediation Plan, the approved remediation design shall be implemented at the project site, prior to issuance of grading permits for project construction. 3 186 Based on the current understanding of site conditions, soil vapor extraction (SVE) is considered an appropriate remedy to mitigate the soil vapor levels to an acceptable level for residential use. An SVE system would consist of a series of soil vapor extraction wells connected to a vacuum pump. The depth and number of wells would be determined based on results of the additional sampling. Vapors collected via the extraction system would be treated either through absorption onto activated carbon or destroyed using an on-site combustion system. The operation of the mitigation system would be tuned for optimal performance during the early operations period. Mitigation of soil vapors to levels acceptable for residential land use is expected to take approximately three months. System operation shall comply with City noise ordinances and necessary permits (e.g., Bay Area Air Quality Management District) shall be obtained prior to operation of the system. In addition, required permits for well installation shall be obtained from the Santa Clara Valley Water District. If vapor mitigation through SVE is the only remedy implemented, confirmation of its effectiveness shall be documented by four quarters of soil vapor monitoring (multi-depth vapor wells installed to five and 10 feet at each proposed residence) performed after the termination of the remediation system. If a different remedy is approved, the Site Remediation Plan shall include an applicable implementation plan, schedule, monitoring, and confirmation program. Other feasible remedies could include soil excavation with or without above-ground treatment, passive sub-slab vapor barriers, active sub-slab vapor management systems, or a combination of these components. Mitigation Measure HAZ-1.3: In addition to the sampling described above, soils at the site shall be assessed for impact from other potential contaminant sources. These sources shall be sampled and analyzed as follows: • Soil samples shall be collected near the location of the former hydraulic hoists and analyzed for PCBs. Samples shall be collected at locations dictated by visual evidence of discoloration and analyzed using EPA SW 846 methodology (e.g., 8081 or 8082). If no discoloration is evident, one soil sample shall be collected at each hoist. • Three soil samples shall be collected from the site at a maximum depth of 0.5 feet below the native soil surface and analyzed for organochlorine pesticides and arsenic. Additional samples may be required based on the results of this analysis. • The soil sampling results shall be compared to appropriate risk-based screening levels and submitted to SCCDEH and the Director of Community Development prior to construction grading on the site. If additional investigation is required to sufficiently delineate the contaminants of concern, additional sampling or mitigation measures shall be proposed and reviewed and approved by the SCCDEH prior to construction grading. Mitigation Measure HAZ-1.4: Soil containing pesticides, PCB, and/or petroleum hydrocarbons shall be removed by properly trained and licensed personnel and contractors, prior to construction workers entering the site to begin earthwork. Contaminated soil shall be handled by trained personnel using appropriate protective equipment and engineering controls, in accordance with local, state, and federal laws. Contaminated soil shall be transported separate from other soil excavated at the site, and disposed at an appropriate offsite facility in accordance with its characteristics or, if mitigated by an alternative method, with approval from SCCDEH, or other appropriate regulatory agency. 4 187 Mitigation Measure HAZ-1.5: Upon completion of remediation activities and confirmation that the resulting conditions are adequately protective of residential development, a Closure Report shall be prepared and submitted to the City and SCCDEH for review and approval. The report shall summarize: • Past investigations, analytical reports, and current site conditions; • Implemented mitigation measures and soil management activities; • Off-site transport and disposal of excavated soil, and • Excavation backfill materials and procedures. Once the mitigation measures described have achieved thresholds established for residential use, the report shall include a request regulatory closure for the property. Final approval that the site is suitable for residential land uses shall be issued by SCCDEH and copied to the City of Cupertino prior to issuance of grading or demolition permits for project construction. Mitigation Measure HAZ-1.6: A site-specific Health and Safety Plan (HASP) shall be prepared prior to issuance of grading permits for project construction to address potential health and safety hazards associated with implementation of the Work Plan and proposed redevelopment activities (e.g., site preparation, demolition, grading and construction). The HASP shall govern activities of all personnel present during field activities. A job hazard analysis (JHA) shall be prepared for each task prior to performing said task. The JHAs shall include, at a minimum, identification of likely hazards associated with the task, requirements and procedures for employee protection, and required mitigation measures. Any contractor performing a task not covered in the HASP shall be required to develop a JHA specific to that task prior to performing the task. Mitigation Measure HAZ-1.7: A Site Management Plan (SMP) shall be developed to establish management practices for handling contaminated soil or other materials encountered during construction activities. The SMP shall identify potential health, safety, and environmental exposure considerations associated with redevelopment activities and shall identify appropriate mitigation measures. The SMP shall be submitted to the City and SCCDEH for approval prior to commencing construction activities. The SMP will include the following: • Proper mitigation as needed and demolition of the existing structure; • Proper handling and disposal of waste oil below the building; • Management of stockpiles, including sampling, disposal, and dust and runoff control including implementation of a stormwater pollution prevention program; • Management of underground structures encountered, including utilities and/or underground storage tanks; • Procedures to follow if evidence of an unknown historic release of hazardous materials (e.g., underground storage tanks, buried debris, contamination) is discovered during excavation or demolition activities; • Traffic control during site improvements; • Noise, work hours, and other relevant City regulations; • Mitigation of soil vapors; and • Monitoring, reporting, and regulatory oversight arrangements. 5 188 Noise: Impact NOI-1: Proposed Homes 1-5 could have interior noise levels exceeding the City’s standard of 45 dBA CNEL. Mitigation Measure NOI-1.1: Provide a suitable form of forced-air mechanical ventilation, as determined by the City of Cupertino Building Official, for all the units so that windows could be kept closed at the occupant’s discretion to control noise and achieve the 45 dBA CNEL interior noise standard. Mitigation Measure NOI-1.2: Provide sound rated windows and doors for Homes 1-5 to maintain interior noise levels at acceptable levels. Preliminary calculations made based on the data contained in the conceptual design plans indicate that sound-rated windows and doors with a sound transmission class rating of STC 30 to 35 would be sufficient to control noise and achieve the 45 dBA CNEL interior noise standard. Mitigation Measure NOI-1.3: Confirm the final specifications for noise insulation treatments during final design of the project. Results of the analysis, including the description of the necessary noise control treatments, shall be submitted to the City along with the building plans and approved prior to issuance of building permits. Impact NOI-2: Construction of the proposed project would result in a significant temporary noise impact. Mitigation Measure NOI-2.1: Avoid the unnecessary idling of equipment and stage construction equipment as far as reasonable from residences adjacent to the site. Mitigation Measure NOI-2.2: Prepare a detailed construction plan identifying the schedule for major noise-generating construction activities. Mitigation Measure NOI-2.3: Notify adjacent residents to the project site of the construction schedule. Mitigation Measure NOI-2.3: Locate stationary noise generating equipment such as air compressors or portable power generators as far as possible from sensitive receptors. Mitigation Measure NOI-2.4: Construct temporary noise barriers to screen stationary noise generating equipment when located near adjoining sensitive land uses. Mitigation Measure NOI-2.5: Utilize “quiet” air compressors and other stationary noise sources where technology exists. Mitigation Measure NOI-2.6: Control noise from construction workers’ radios to a point that they are not audible at existing residences bordering the project site. Mitigation Measure NOI-2.8: Designate a “noise disturbance coordinator” who would be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. The disturbance coordinator would 6 189 determine the cause of the noise complaints (e.g., starting too early, bad muffler, etc.) and would require that reasonable measures warranted to correct the problem be implemented. Conspicuously post a telephone number for the disturbance coordinator at the construction site and include it in the notice sent to neighbors regarding the construction schedule. PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD The 30-day public circulation period for the Initial Study and draft MND is from March 27, 2014 to April 28, 2014. Before 5:00 pm on April 28, 2014, any person may: • Review the Initial Study/draft MND; and/or • Submit written comments regarding the information, analysis, and mitigation measures in the Initial Study/draft MND. Before the MND is adopted, Planning Staff will prepare written responses to any comments, and revise the draft MND, if necessary, to reflect any concerns raised during the public review period. /s/Aarti Shrivastava Aarti Shrivastava Director of Community Development g/erc/negEA201401 7 190 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 1 1.1 PURPOSE OF THE INITIAL STUDY ................................................................................. 1 1.2 PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD ................................................................................................. 1 1.3 CONSIDERATION OF THE INITIAL STUDY AND PROJECT....................................... 1 1.4 NOTICE OF DETERMINATION ........................................................................................ 1 SECTION 2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION ....................................................................................... 2 2.1 PROJECT TITLE .................................................................................................................. 2 2.2 PROJECT LOCATION ......................................................................................................... 2 2.3 LEAD AGENCY CONTACT ............................................................................................... 2 2.4 PROPERTY OWNER/PROJECT PROPONENT ................................................................. 2 2.5 ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NUMBER...................................................................................... 2 2.6 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION AND ZONING DISTRICT ........................................ 2 SECTION 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ......................................................................................... 6 3.1 BACKGROUND INFORMATION ...................................................................................... 6 3.2 PROPOSED PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONING ........................................................ 6 3.3 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................ 6 SECTION 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, CHECKLIST, AND DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS 9 4.1 AESTHETICS ....................................................................................................................... 9 4.2 AGRICULTURAL AND FOREST RESOURCES ............................................................. 16 4.3 AIR QUALITY .................................................................................................................... 18 4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ............................................................................................. 25 4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES ................................................................................................ 31 4.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS .................................................................................................... 35 4.7 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS .................................................................................... 39 4.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ............................................................... 46 4.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ........................................................................ 55 4.10 LAND USE .......................................................................................................................... 63 4.11 MINERAL RESOURCES ................................................................................................... 67 4.12 NOISE ................................................................................................................................. 68 4.13 POPULATION AND HOUSING........................................................................................ 77 4.14 PUBLIC SERVICES ........................................................................................................... 79 4.15 RECREATION .................................................................................................................... 83 4.16 TRANSPORTATION.......................................................................................................... 85 4.17 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ............................................................................ 89 191 TABLE OF CONTENTS 4.18 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE ............................................................. 93 SECTION 5.0 REFERENCES .......................................................................................................... 97 SECTION 6.0 LEAD AGENCY AND CONSULTANTS ............................................................. 100 6.1 LEAD AGENCY ............................................................................................................... 100 6.2 CONSULTANTS .............................................................................................................. 100 Figures Figure 2.2-1: Regional Map .................................................................................................................. 3 Figure 2.2-2: Vicinity Map ................................................................................................................... 4 Figure 2.2-3: Aerial Photograph and Surrounding Land Uses .............................................................. 5 Figure 3.0-1: Conceptual Site Plan ....................................................................................................... 8 Figure 4.1-1: Conceptual Building Elevations from Public View Points ........................................... 15 Figure 4.10-1: Conceptual Building Elevations (South and West Views) ......................................... 66 Tables Table 4.3-1: Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan Applicable Control Measures ....................................... 21 Table 4.7-1: Climate Change Scoping Plan – Applicable Recommended Actions Compared to Project Features .................................................................................................................................... 44 Table 4.12-1: Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment ................................................. 74 Photos Photos 1 and 2 ...................................................................................................................................... 10 Photos 3 and 4 ...................................................................................................................................... 11 Photos 5 and 6 ...................................................................................................................................... 12 Appendices Appendix A Air Quality Toxic Air Contaminants Screening Tables Appendix B Arborist Report Appendix C Geotechnical Investigation Appendix D Hazardous Materials Reports Appendix E Environmental Noise Assessment Appendix F Transportation Memorandum 192 SECTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 PURPOSE OF THE INITIAL STUDY 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 implementing the proposed 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work project. The project proposes to rezone a 0.87-acre site located at 10121 North Foothill Boulevard to allow for the construction of six single-family dwelling units, five of which would have detached workspaces. 1.2 PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD Publication of this Initial Study marks the beginning of a 30-day public review and comment period. During this period, the Initial Study will be available to local, state, and federal agencies and to interested organizations and individuals for review. Written comments concerning the environmental review contained in this Initial Study during the 30-day public review period should be sent to: George Schroeder, Associate Planner City of Cupertino Community Development Department 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 GeorgeS@cupertino.org 1.3 CONSIDERATION OF THE INITIAL STUDY AND PROJECT Following the conclusion of the public review period, the City will consider the adoption of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the project at a regularly scheduled meeting. The City shall consider the Initial Study/MND together with any comments received during the public review process. Upon adoption of the MND, the City may proceed with project approval actions. 1.4 NOTICE OF DETERMINATION If the project is approved, the City will file a Notice of Determination (NOD), which will be available for public inspection and posted within 24 hours of receipt at the County Clerk’s Office for 30 days. The filing of the NOD starts a 30-day statute of limitations on court challenges to the approval under CEQA (CEQA Guidelines Section 15075(g)). City of Cupertino 1 Initial Study 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project March 2014 193 SECTION 2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION 2.1 PROJECT TITLE 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project 2.2 PROJECT LOCATION The 0.87-acre project site is located at 10121 North Foothill Boulevard in the City of Cupertino. Regional and vicinity maps of the project site are shown in Figures 2.2-1 and 2.2-2, respectively. The project site is bounded by Silver Oak Way to the north, North Foothill Boulevard to the east, and residences to the south and west. An aerial photograph showing the project site and surrounding land uses is shown on Figure 2.2-3. 2.3 LEAD AGENCY CONTACT George Schroeder, Associate Planner City of Cupertino Community Development Department 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-7601 2.4 PROPERTY OWNER/PROJECT PROPONENT Ron Tate, President Tate Diversified Development, Inc. 22 South Santa Cruz Avenue, Second Floor Los Gatos, CA 95030 (408) 399-4950 2.5 ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NUMBER 342-32-070 2.6 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION AND ZONING DISTRICT General Plan Land Use Designation: Commercial/Residential Zoning District: Planned Development General Commercial – P(CG) City of Cupertino 2 Initial Study 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project March 2014 194 REGIONAL MAP FIGURE 2.2-1 3 MountainViewMountainView Santa ClaraSanta Clara San JoseSan Jose CampbellCampbell CupertinoCupertino SaratogaSaratoga Los GatosLos Gatos Palo AltoPalo Alto East Palo AltoEast Palo Alto Los AltosLos Altos Redwood CityRedwood City MilpitasMilpitas NewarkNewark FremontFremont Morgan HillMorgan Hill Santa CruzSanta Cruz 101 101 280 880 880 680 680 85 17 9 35 84 84 237 236 87 Project Site San Francisco Bay Pacific Ocean 195 VI C I N I T Y M A P FIGURE 2.2-2 4 Stevens Creek B o u l e v a r d N o r t h F o o t h i l l B o u l e v a r d Alpine Driv e S a l e m A v e . Ainsworth Dr. Si l v e r O a k W a y English Oak Way Camino Vista Drive Prado Vista Avenue Lockwood Drive Lebanon Drive Wo o d r i d g e C o u r t Me d i n a L a n e Palo Vista Road Mira Vista Raod Rancho Ventura St. Ja n i c e A v e n u e Carmen Road Hillcrest Road Vista K n o l l B o u l e v a r d B a h l S t r e e t Va r i a n W a y Creston DriveStonydale Dr. Canyo n O a k W a y Cu p e r t i n o R o a d Project Site 0250500750 Feet 19 6 AE R I A L P H O T O G R A P H A N D S U R R O U N D I N G L A N D U S E S FIGURE 2.2-3 5 Stevens Creek Boulevard Ste vens Cr eek Boulevard Stevens Creek Boulevard St e ve ns Cr eek Boulevard N o r t h F o o t h i l l B o u l e v a r d North Foothill Boulevard N o r t h F o o t h i l l B o u l e v a r d North Foothill Boulevard Cu p e rt in o Road Cu p er t in o R oad Silver O a k Way Silver O a k Way Re s i d e n t i a l Re s i d e n t i a l Re s i d e n t i a l Of f i c e Co m m e r c i a l Fi r e S t a t i o n Re s i d e n t i a l Qu a s i - P u b l i c / I n s t i t u t i o n a l Re s i d e n t i a l Pr o j e c t B o u n d a r y Sc a l e : 1 " = ± 1 8 5 ' Ph o t o D a t e : O c t . 2 0 1 1 19 7 SECTION 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3.1 BACKGROUND INFORMATION The project proposes live/work units. The City of Cupertino acknowledges that changes in technology and composition of the work force, among other factors, have contributed to a growing interest on the part of Cupertino citizens to live and work in their homes. The City also finds that home business enterprises can help reduce commuter-traffic impacts, reduce or eliminate child care expenses for people with young families, and provide the opportunity to test creative business ventures with greatly reduced startup costs. The home occupation section of the City’s Municipal Code (Chapter 19.120) regulates home-based businesses. To operate a conforming home occupation, a business license must be issued. As part of the license application, the Planning Division reviews the application and nature of the business, considering the impact it would have on the neighborhood. Certain conditions such as noise, traffic (pedestrian and vehicular), signs, and exterior storage are all considered when the application is being reviewed. Certain occupations are specifically prohibited and include beauty parlors, medical offices, private schools, and auto repair. The proposed workspaces will be regulated in accordance with Chapter 19.120 of the City’s Municipal Code to ensure neighborhood compatibility. 3.2 PROPOSED PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONING The project proposes to rezone the 0.87-gross acre project site from Planned Development General Commercial – P(CG) to Planned Development General Commercial/Residential – P(CG, Res) to allow the demolition of an abandoned automobile service station and construction of six single- family dwelling units, five of which would include a detached workspace intended for live/work, along with associated site and off-site improvements. In addition to a rezoning, the project requires a tentative map approval, development permit, architectural and site approval, and tree removal permits. 3.3 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT The project proposes to demolish the existing automobile service station and construct six single- family dwelling units. Five of the six dwelling units are proposed to have detached workspaces intended for live/work. A conceptual site plan is shown on Figure 3.0-1. The detached workspaces would front North Foothill Boulevard with the associated residences located behind the workspaces. The detached workspaces would be one-story (up to 14 feet) tall and either approximately 452 or 411 square feet each (see Figure 3.0-1). The residences would be two- stories (up to 30 feet) tall and approximately 2,668 square feet each (including attached two-car garages). City of Cupertino 6 Initial Study 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project March 2014 198 Section 3.0 – Project Description The sixth residence would not have a detached workspace. This dwelling unit would be located at the rear of the property. The sixth residence would be two-stories (up to 30 feet) tall and approximately 2,690 square feet (including an attached two-car garage). All six residences would have an attached two-car garage. A total of 10 guest parking spaces would be provided on-site (refer to Figure 3.0-1). There are five parking spaces on Silver Oak Way along the project site frontage that can also be utilized by residents, guests, or customers. Parking in one of these spaces would be restricted on trash pick-up days. New landscaping, including trees and shrubs, would be planted as part of the project. Public sidewalk, curb, and parkway improvements would be provided by the project. Vehicular access to the project site would be provided via a driveway on Silver Oak Way (refer to Figure 3.0-1). It is anticipated that construction of the project would take approximately nine months to complete and require excavation and removal of on-site soil due to geotechnical unsuitability, contamination, or other reasons. Excavated soil would be hauled off-site and disposed of appropriately. City of Cupertino 7 Initial Study 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project March 2014 199 CO N C E P T U A L S I T E P L A N FIGURE 3.0-1 8 2A1 9 1A1 9 UP UP UP UP UP UP DN DN DN DN DN DN DN DN DN 21'-1" 8'-0" 3A1 9 (E ) T R E E S T O BE R E M O V E D (E ) T R E E S T O BE R E M O V E D AR E A D E S I G N A T E D F O R TR A S H C O L L E C T I O N . NO P A R K I N G O N P I C K - U P DA Y S AR E A D E S I G N A T E D F O R TR A S H C O L L E C T I O N . NO P A R K I N G O N P I C K - U P DA Y S 1. 1 . 5 3. 2 . 3 3. 2 . 3 3. 2 . 3 3. 2 . 3 1. 1 . 7 1. 1 . 7 2. 4 . 5 2. 2 0 . 1 2. 2 5 . 1 2. 4 . 1 2. 4 . 1 2. 4 . 1 2. 4 . 1 2. 4 . 1 2. 4 . 1 2. 2 0 . 1 2. 2 5 . 1 2. 2 0 . 1 2. 2 5 . 1 2. 2 0 . 1 2. 2 5 . 1 2. 3 4 . 4 2. 3 4 . 4 1. 1 . 2 1. 1 . 2 1. 1 . 2 1. 1 . 2 1. 1 . 2 1. 1 . 2 1. 1 . 2 1. 1 . 2 1. 1 . 2 1. 1 . 2 1. 1 . 2 1. 1 . 2 1. 1 . 2 1. 1 . 2 1. 1 . 2 SI L V E R O A K W A Y SETBACK FOOTHILL BLVD DN DN WA T E R FE A T U R E BA C K - U P SP A C E BA C K - U P SP A C E BA C K - U P SP A C E BA C K - U P SP A C E BA C K - U P SP A C E SIDE WALK PARK- WAY SE T B A C K SETBACK STANDARD 8'-6" X 18'STANDARD 8'-6" X 18'STANDARD 8'-6" X 18' 2. 4 . 3 GU E S T PA R K I N G DN DN DN STANDARD 8'-6" X 18' STANDARD 8'-6" X 18' STANDARD 8'-6" X 18' ADA PARKING 9' X 18' DN STANDARD 10'-0" X 20' STANDARD 10'-0" X 20'STANDARD 8'-6" X 18' DN DN DN DN UP 15 ' - 0 " 12 ' - 0 " 3'-0"8'-0" 10'-0" 10'-0" 11'-9 1/8" TYP. 9'-7 1/8" TYP. 10 ' - 2 3 / 4 " T Y P . 24 ' - 0 " M I N . 8'-6 1/8" TYP. 2'-0" 4'-0" 5' - 0 " 4'-0" 4'-0" 4'-0" 4'-0" 2'-2 3/4" 4'-0" 24 ' - 0 " M I N . 24 ' - 0 " M I N . 24 ' - 0 " M I N . 26 ' - 6 1 / 4 " 4'-0" 3'-4" 5'-9"5'-0" AP P R O X . 1 5 ' - 0 " APPROX. 5'-0" 4'-5" 4'-1" 7'-8" 5'-6" 7'-4" 5'-2" 6'-0"5'-0"4'-0"2'-0" +3 8 9 . 9 9 +3 8 1 . 3 3 +378.85 +380.00 +3 9 0 . 0 1 3. 2 . 3 3. 2 . 3 2.4.2 2. 4 . 2 2. 4 . 2 3. 2 . 8 2. 4 . 2 3. 2 . 8 3. 2 . 8 3. 2 . 8 3. 2 . 8 3. 2 . 8 1. 1 . 2 1. 1 . 2 2.4.4 2.4.42.4.2 3. 2 . 3 (E ) T R E E S T O BE R E M O V E D (E ) T R E E S T O BE R E M O V E D (E ) T R E E S T O B E RE M O V E D (E ) T R E E S T O B E RE M O V E D 1. 1 . 2 1. 1 . 6 1. 1 . 6 2.34.12.34.12.34.1 2. 3 4 . 1 2. 3 4 . 1 2. 3 4 . 1 2. 3 4 . 1 2. 3 4 . 1 2. 3 4 . 1 2. 3 4 . 1 2. 3 4 . 1 2. 3 4 . 1 2. 3 4 . 1 2. 3 4 . 1 2. 3 4 . 1 2. 3 4 . 1 3.2.3 3.2.33.2.3 3.2.33.2.3 3. 2 . 3 3' T A L L F E N C E 3' T A L L F E N C E 3' T A L L F E N C E 3' T A L L F E N C E 3.2.3 3' T A L L F E N C E 3. 2 . 3 3' T A L L F E N C E 2. 3 4 . 2 2. 3 4 . 2 2. 3 4 . 2 2. 3 4 . 2 3' T A L L P L A N T E R W A L L 2. 3 4 . 1 2. 3 4 . 1 (E ) P R O P E R T Y W A L L - R E S U R F A C E W/ S T U C C O O N L Y O N T H E PR O P E R T Y S I D E (E ) P R O P E R T Y W A L L - R E S U R F A C E W/ S T U C C O O N L Y O N T H E PR O P E R T Y S I D E (E ) P R O P E R T Y W A L L - RE S U R F A C E W / S T U C C O ON L Y O N T H E P R O P E R T Y SI D E (E ) P R O P E R T Y W A L L - R E S U R F A C E W/ S T U C C O O N L Y O N T H E PR O P E R T Y S I D E 2. 3 4 . 1 2. 3 4 . 1 2.34.1 2.34.1 2.34.1 2.34.1 2.34.14' TALL FENCE (N ) R E T A I N I N G WA L L (N ) R E T A I N I N G WA L L (N ) R E T A I N I N G WA L L (N ) R E T A I N I N G 3' T A L L F E N C E 5' T A L L F E N C E 1. 1 . 2 2. 2 0 . 1 2. 2 5 . 1 2. 2 0 . 1 2. 2 5 . 1 3' TALL FENCE 2. 3 4 . 3 2. 3 4 . 3 AD A R A M P W I L L A L S O B E IN S T A L L E D O N T H E N O R T H W E S T CO R N E R O F S I L V E R O A K W A Y / FO O T H I L L B L V D WO R K S P A C E 5 HO M E 5 HO M E 6 WO R K S P A C E 4 HO M E 4 WO R K S P A C E 3 HO M E 3 HO M E 2 WO R K S P A C E 1 HO M E 1 SETBACK SE T B A C K SE T B A C K WO R K S P A C E 2 DN N 04°53'00" W 140.01' 1- S T O R Y R E S I D E N C E 1- S T O R Y D U P L E X SI N G L E F A M I L Y R E S I D E N C E BU I L D I N G A R E A : 2 , 6 6 8 S F (I N C L . G A R A G E ) 2- S T O R I E S BU I L D I N G H E I G H T 2 5 ' - 5 " F. F . + 3 8 4 . 8 5 ' PA D + 3 8 3 . 8 0 ' SI N G L E F A M I L Y R E S I D E N C E BU I L D I N G A R E A : 2 , 6 6 8 S F (I N C L . G A R A G E ) 2- S T O R I E S BU I L D I N G H E I G H T 2 4 ' - 8 " F. F . + 3 8 3 . 0 0 ' PA D + 3 8 2 . 0 0 ' SI N G L E F A M I L Y R E S I D E N C E BU I L D I N G A R E A : 2 , 6 6 8 S F (I N C L . G A R A G E ) 2- S T O R I E S BU I L D I N G H E I G H T 2 4 ' - 8 " F. F . + 3 8 3 . 0 0 ' PA D + 3 8 2 . 0 0 ' SI N G L E F A M I L Y R E S I D E N C E BU I L D I N G A R E A : 2 , 6 6 8 S F (I N C L . G A R A G E ) 2- S T O R I E S BU I L D I N G H E I G H T 2 4 ' - 8 " F. F . + 3 8 3 . 0 0 ' PA D + 3 8 2 . 0 0 ' SI N G L E F A M I L Y R E S I D E N C E BU I L D I N G A R E A : 2 , 6 6 8 S F (I N C L . G A R A G E ) 2- S T O R I E S BU I L D I N G H E I G H T 2 4 ' - 8 " F. F . + 3 8 3 . 0 0 ' PA D + 3 8 2 . 0 0 ' SI N G L E F A M I L Y R E S I D E N C E BU I L D I N G A R E A : 2 , 6 9 0 S F (I N C L . G A R A G E ) 2- S T O R I E S BU I L D I N G H E I G H T 2 4 ' - 8 " F. F . + 3 8 4 . 8 5 ' PA D + 3 8 3 . 8 0 ' CO U R T Y A R D F. F . + 3 8 2 . 0 0 ' CO U R T Y A R D F. F . + 3 8 3 . 8 5 ' CO U R T Y A R D F. F . + 3 8 4 . 8 4 ' AT T A C H E D G A R A G E F. F . + 3 8 7 . 0 0 ' PA D + 3 8 6 . 1 0 ' AT T A C H E D G A R A G E F. F . + 3 8 4 . 5 0 ' PA D + 3 8 3 . 6 0 ' AT T A C H E D G A R A G E F. F . + 3 8 4 . 8 4 ' PA D + 3 8 4 . 0 0 ' CO U R T Y A R D F. F . + 3 8 2 . 0 0 ' CO U R T Y A R D F. F . + 3 8 2 . 0 0 ' CO U R T Y A R D F. F . + 3 8 2 . 0 0 ' AT T A C H E D G A R A G E F. F . + 3 8 3 . 0 0 ' PA D + 3 8 2 . 6 0 ' DE T A C H E D W O R K S P A C E BU I L D I N G A R E A : 4 5 2 S F 1- S T O R Y F. F . + 3 8 0 . 8 5 ' DE T A C H E D W O R K S P A C E BU I L D I N G A R E A : 4 5 2 S F 1- S T O R Y F. F . + 3 8 0 . 5 0 ' DE T A C H E D W O R K S P A C E BU I L D I N G A R E A : 4 5 2 S F 1- S T O R Y F. F . + 3 8 0 . 5 0 ' DE T A C H E D W O R K S P A C E BU I L D I N G A R E A : 4 1 1 S F 1- S T O R Y F. F . + 3 8 0 . 5 0 ' DE T A C H E D W O R K S P A C E BU I L D I N G A R E A : 4 1 1 S F 1- S T O R Y F. F . + 3 8 0 . 5 0 ' STANDARD 8'-6" X 18' STANDARD 8'-6" X 18' TO R BIKE LANE BIKE LANE AT T A C H E D G A R A G E F. F . + 3 8 3 . 0 0 ' PA D + 3 8 2 . 4 0 ' AT T A C H E D G A R A G E F. F . + 3 8 3 . 0 0 ' PA D + 3 8 2 . 3 0 ' N 04°53'00" W 158.26' N 8 9 ° 4 0 ' 0 0 " W 1 7 2 . 5 2 ' N 8 9 ° 4 0 ' 0 0 " E 1 5 4 . 2 7 ' R T O R T O R T O R T O R T O T O R T O R T O R T O R 8' - 6 " X 2 2 ' - 0 " ST R E E T P A R K I N G 8' - 6 " X 2 2 ' - 0 " ST R E E T P A R K I N G 8' - 6 " X 2 2 ' - 0 " ST R E E T P A R K I N G 8' - 6 " X 2 2 ' - 0 " ST R E E T P A R K I N G 8' - 6 " X 2 2 ' - 0 " ST R E E T P A R K I N G SIDE WALKPARK-WAY CO R N E R S I G H T T R I A N G L E O R T DE D I C A T I O N EXISTING SIDEWALK R R T O R R R EXISTING PROPERTY LINEDEDICATION PROPERTY LINE R R R R R R STANDARD 10'-0" X 20' STANDARD 10'-0" X 20' STANDARD 10'-0" X 20' STANDARD 10'-0" X 20' STANDARD 10'-0" X 20' STANDARD 10'-0" X 20' STANDARD 10'-0" X 20' STANDARD 10'-0" X 20' STANDARD 10'-0" X 20' STANDARD 10'-0" X 20' STANDARD 10'-0" X 20' STANDARD 10'-0" X 20' STANDARD 10'-0" X 20' STANDARD 10'-0" X 20' STANDARD 10'-0" X 20' STANDARD 10'-0" X 20' So u r c e : M o d a t i v e , 3 / 1 2 / 1 4 0102030 Feet 20 0 SECTION 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, CHECKLIST, AND DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS This section describes the existing environmental conditions on and near the project site, as well as environmental impacts associated with the proposed 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). 4.1 AESTHETICS 4.1.1 Setting 4.1.1.1 Project Site The project site contains a vacant automobile service station facility that is approximately 1,445 square feet in size and fronts North Foothill Boulevard. Views of the project site from southbound North Foothill Boulevard are limited and blocked by landscaping and topography until the intersection of Silver Oak Way (see Photo 1). Views from northbound North Foothill Boulevard are also obscured by landscaping in the roadway median. A view from northbound North Foothill Boulevard at the break in the median at Cupertino Road is shown in Photo 2. The automobile service station building was formerly also used as a gas station and there is a canopy over dispenser islands in front of service bays and an office (see Photo 3). The property is accessed from driveways on North Foothill Boulevard and Silver Oak Way. Plantings of pine trees are present along retaining walls on the southern and western sides of the property and raised planters are present along the roadway frontages (see Photos 1 and 4). The site is sloping and public views of the site are limited to views from the adjacent roadways. 4.1.1.2 Surrounding Visual Character The project site is surrounded by existing suburban residential development and two roadways. One- and two-story wood and stucco clad single family residential buildings are located on adjacent properties (see Photos 5 and 6). The Sunny View Retirement Community, a landscaped complex of residential buildings with senior apartments and assisted living for seniors, is present east of North Foothill Boulevard. In addition, office and commercial uses in one- and two-story buildings are located south and southeast of the site closer to Stevens Creek Boulevard. North Foothill Boulevard is a four-lane north/south collector roadway used by automobiles and buses with a speed limit of 40 miles per hour in the project vicinity. Mature landscape trees and shrubs provide a visual buffer between residences and the heavily travelled roadway. The site also fronts Silver Oak Way, a residential street where traffic speeds and volumes are much lower compared to North Foothill Boulevard. City of Cupertino 9 Initial Study 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project March 2014 201 PHOTOS 1 AND 2 10 PHOTO 1: View of site at North Foothill Boulevard and Silver Oak Way, looking southwest from the median. Retaining walls and a grade change are visible at the southern and western boundaries of this sloping site. PHOTO 2: View of site from North Foothill Boulevard at Cupertino Road, looking northwest. 202 PHOTOS 3 AND 4 11 PHOTO 3: View of existing building on the site from North Foothill Boulevard, looking west. PHOTO 4: View of site from sidewalk along Silver Oak Way, looking southeast. 203 PHOTOS 5 AND 6 12 PHOTO 5: View of one-story residences on Silver Oak Way, opposite (north of) the site. Trees in background border North Foothill Boulevard. PHOTO 6: View of two story, wood clad townhouse buildings and mature land- scaping in project vicinity, viewed from Silver Oak Way. 204 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 sloping project site does not provide prominent viewpoints of scenic resources from public vantage points. Views of the foothills from the project site and adjacent roadways are obscured by existing walls, landscape vegetation, and/or adjacent buildings. 4.1.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Checklist Source(s) Would the project: 1. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 1,2 2. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? 1,2 3. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? 1 4. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which will adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? 1 Aesthetic values are, by 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 immediate project vicinity are limited. The foothills west and south of the site are obscured by existing development, boundary walls, and landscape trees. Implementation of the proposed project would not substantially block scenic views and is not anticipated to have a substantial effect on a scenic vista. (No Impact) City of Cupertino 13 Initial Study 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project March 2014 205 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts 4.1.2.2 Change in Visual Character The visual character of buildings is a function of design features, including roof design (e.g., flat versus pitched or sloping roofs), fenestration (window design), and 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 towards the back. This 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 awnings or porches can also reduce the mass and perception of overall building scale at street and pedestrian interfaces. The building style and function of structures on the site would change from a light colored commercial, automobile oriented building with commercial signage to a cluster of two-story residential and work structures that would cover a greater portion of the property (see Photos 1-4). The height and mass of buildings on the project site, as viewed from the public rights-of-way of North Foothill Boulevard and Silver Oak Way, would increase under the proposed project. Representative conceptual elevations for the residences and work spaces, as viewed from North Foothill Boulevard and Silver Oak Way, are shown in Figure 4.1-1. The building pads for the two- story residences would be at an elevation of 383 feet, and stepped about six feet below the grade of the adjacent residential properties to the west. The work space buildings fronting North Foothill Boulevard also would be stepped down about three feet from the residential structures on the site. To soften views of the new development, new trees would be planted on the site and along the street frontage and rooflines of the proposed structures would vary. Final building and landscaping design would be determined during the planning entitlement process. The building size and conceptual elevations for future residences on the site are similar to the townhouse development located west and north 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 Glare Impacts The project would have windows and lighting typical of two-story residential construction (refer to Figure 4.1-1). Additional residential lighting on the project site would not be substantially greater than that created by the existing commercial building or 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 surrounding the project site. (Less Than Significant Impact) 4.1.3 Conclusion The proposed project would not result in significant visual or aesthetic impacts. (Less Than Significant Impact) City of Cupertino 14 Initial Study 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project March 2014 206 CONCEPTUAL BUILDING ELEVATIONS FROM PUBLIC VIEW POINTS FIGURE 4.1-1 15 FOOTHILL BLVD PUD 10121 N Foothill Blvd. Cupertino, CA 95014 Owner: Foothill Auto Service & Detail, Inc., a California Corporation KEY PLAN SILVER OAK WAY 1 2 3 4 5 6 5w 4w 3w 2w 1w FO O T H I L L B L V D 03.15.13 PLANNING STUDY SESSION SUBMITTAL 05.24.13 REVISED STUDY 08.23.13 REVISED STUDY 12.06.13 REVISED STUDY 01.24.14 FORMAL SUBMITTAL 03.12.14 REVISED SUBMITTAL All ideas, designs, arrangements and plans indicated or represented by this drawing are owned by and the property of Modative, Inc. and are solely for use on the specified project and shall not be used on other projects, or for additions to this project, or for the completion of this project by others without the prior written consent of and appropriate compensation to Modative, Inc. No part thereof shall be reproduced, copied, adapted, published, sold, distributed to others or otherwise used without the prior written consent of and appropriate compensation to Modative, Inc. Copyright © PROJECT NO 12-014 DATESCALE A16 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 3/12/14AS SHOWN 30 ' - 0 " 25 ' - 7 3 / 4 " 2' - 1 3 / 8 " 11 ' - 0 " 12 ' - 6 " 3' FENCE 3' FENCE 3' FENCE3' FENCE 4' GATE 4' GATE 4' GATE 4' GATE HOME "F" ROOF PEAK LINE +417.00' BU I L D I N G H E I G H T 3' FENCE 6" 14 ' - 0 " 4' GATE SILVER OAK WAYBUS STOP HOME "A" ROOF PEAK LINE +405.00' FOOTHILL BLVD MA X B U I L D I N G H E I G H T BU I L D I N G H E I G H T EXISTING GRADE LINEEXISTING GRADE LINEEXISTING GRADE LINE KEY PLAN AB C D E F G 1 2 3 4 5 6 5W 4W 3W 2W 1w SILVER OAK WAY F O O T H I L L B L V D 2 3 / 4 " 14 ' - 0 " 30 ' - 0 " 25 ' - 7 3 / 4 " 2' - 1 3 / 8 " 11 ' - 0 " 12 ' - 6 " 6' - 5 5 / 8 " 13 ' - 1 1 " 20 ' - 4 5 / 8 " 30 ' - 0 " 3' FENCE 3' FENCE5' FENCE5' FENCE 3' FENCE HOME "F" ROOF PEAK LINE +417.00' HOME "C" ROOF PEAK LINE +409.00' BU I L D I N G H E I G H T DRIVEWAY FOOTHILL BLVD SILVER OAK WAY MA X B U I L D I N G H E I G H T BU I L D I N G H E I G H T BU I L D I N G H E I G H T MA X B U I L D I N G H E I G H T EXISTING GRADE LINE EXISTING GRADE LINE EXISTING GRADE LINE EAST ELEVATION (FOOTHILL BLVD)1 1/8" = 1'-0" NORTH ELEVATION (SILVER OAK WAY)2 1/8" = 1'-0" G F 6 D 5 4 3 2 16 F 1 W G 6 C FOOTHILL BLVD PUD 10121 N Foothill Blvd. Cupertino, CA 95014 Owner: Foothill Auto Service & Detail, Inc., a California Corporation KEY PLAN SILVER OAK WAY 1 2 3 4 5 6 5w 4w 3w 2w 1w FO O T H I L L B L V D 03.15.13 PLANNING STUDY SESSION SUBMITTAL 05.24.13 REVISED STUDY 08.23.13 REVISED STUDY 12.06.13 REVISED STUDY 01.24.14 FORMAL SUBMITTAL 03.12.14 REVISED SUBMITTAL All ideas, designs, arrangements and plans indicated or represented by this drawing are owned by and the property of Modative, Inc. and are solely for use on the specified project and shall not be used on other projects, or for additions to this project, or for the completion of this project by others without the prior written consent of and appropriate compensation to Modative, Inc. No part thereof shall be reproduced, copied, adapted, published, sold, distributed to others or otherwise used without the prior written consent of and appropriate compensation to Modative, Inc. Copyright © PROJECT NO 12-014 DATESCALE A16 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 3/12/14AS SHOWN 30 ' - 0 " 25 ' - 7 3 / 4 " 2' - 1 3 / 8 " 11 ' - 0 " 12 ' - 6 " 3' FENCE 3' FENCE 3' FENCE3' FENCE 4' GATE 4' GATE 4' GATE 4' GATE HOME "F" ROOF PEAK LINE +417.00' BU I L D I N G H E I G H T 3' FENCE 6" 14 ' - 0 " 4' GATE SILVER OAK WAYBUS STOP HOME "A" ROOF PEAK LINE +405.00' FOOTHILL BLVD MA X B U I L D I N G H E I G H T BU I L D I N G H E I G H T EXISTING GRADE LINEEXISTING GRADE LINEEXISTING GRADE LINE KEY PLAN AB C D E F G 1 2 3 4 5 6 5W 4W 3W 2W 1w SILVER OAK WAY F O O T H I L L B L V D 2 3 / 4 " 14 ' - 0 " 30 ' - 0 " 25 ' - 7 3 / 4 " 2' - 1 3 / 8 " 11 ' - 0 " 12 ' - 6 " 6' - 5 5 / 8 " 13 ' - 1 1 " 20 ' - 4 5 / 8 " 30 ' - 0 " 3' FENCE 3' FENCE5' FENCE5' FENCE 3' FENCE HOME "F" ROOF PEAK LINE +417.00' HOME "C" ROOF PEAK LINE +409.00' BU I L D I N G H E I G H T DRIVEWAY FOOTHILL BLVD SILVER OAK WAY MA X B U I L D I N G H E I G H T BU I L D I N G H E I G H T BU I L D I N G H E I G H T MA X B U I L D I N G H E I G H T EXISTING GRADE LINE EXISTING GRADE LINE EXISTING GRADE LINE EAST ELEVATION (FOOTHILL BLVD)1 1/8" = 1'-0" NORTH ELEVATION (SILVER OAK WAY)2 1/8" = 1'-0" G F 6 D 5 4 3 2 16 F 1 W G 6 C FOOTHILL BLVD PUD 10121 N Foothill Blvd. Cupertino, CA 95014 Owner: Foothill Auto Service & Detail, Inc., a California Corporation KEY PLAN SILVER OAK WAY 1 2 3 4 5 6 5w 4w 3w 2w 1w F O O T H I L L B L V D 03.15.13 PLANNING STUDY SESSION SUBMITTAL 05.24.13 REVISED STUDY 08.23.13 REVISED STUDY 12.06.13 REVISED STUDY 01.24.14 FORMAL SUBMITTAL 03.12.14 REVISED SUBMITTAL All ideas, designs, arrangements and plans indicated or represented by this drawing are owned by and the property of Modative, Inc. and are solely for use on the specified project and shall not be used on other projects, or for additions to this project, or for the completion of this project by others without the prior written consent of and appropriate compensation to Modative, Inc. No part thereof shall be reproduced, copied, adapted, published, sold, distributed to others or otherwise used without the prior written consent of and appropriate compensation to Modative, Inc. Copyright © PROJECT NO 12-014 DATESCALE A16 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 3/12/14AS SHOWN 30 ' - 0 " 25 ' - 7 3 / 4 " 2' - 1 3 / 8 " 11 ' - 0 " 12 ' - 6 " 3' FENCE 3' FENCE 3' FENCE3' FENCE 4' GATE 4' GATE 4' GATE 4' GATE HOME "F" ROOF PEAK LINE +417.00' BU I L D I N G H E I G H T 3' FENCE 6" 14 ' - 0 " 4' GATE SILVER OAK WAYBUS STOP HOME "A" ROOF PEAK LINE +405.00' FOOTHILL BLVD MA X B U I L D I N G H E I G H T BU I L D I N G H E I G H T EXISTING GRADE LINEEXISTING GRADE LINEEXISTING GRADE LINE KEY PLAN AB C D E F G 1 2 3 4 5 6 5W 4W 3W 2W 1w SILVER OAK WAY F O O T H I L L B L V D 2 3 / 4 " 14 ' - 0 " 30 ' - 0 " 25 ' - 7 3 / 4 " 2' - 1 3 / 8 " 11 ' - 0 " 12 ' - 6 " 6' - 5 5 / 8 " 13 ' - 1 1 " 20 ' - 4 5 / 8 " 30 ' - 0 " 3' FENCE 3' FENCE5' FENCE5' FENCE 3' FENCE HOME "F" ROOF PEAK LINE +417.00' HOME "C" ROOF PEAK LINE +409.00' BU I L D I N G H E I G H T DRIVEWAY FOOTHILL BLVD SILVER OAK WAY MA X B U I L D I N G H E I G H T BU I L D I N G H E I G H T BU I L D I N G H E I G H T MA X B U I L D I N G H E I G H T EXISTING GRADE LINE EXISTING GRADE LINE EXISTING GRADE LINE EAST ELEVATION (FOOTHILL BLVD)1 1/8" = 1'-0" NORTH ELEVATION (SILVER OAK WAY)2 1/8" = 1'-0" G F 6 D 5 4 3 2 16 F 1 W G 6 C HOME “F” ROOF PEAK LINE +417.00’ HOME “F” ROOF PEAK LINE +417.00’ HOME “C” ROOF PEAK LINE +409.00’ HOME “A” ROOF PEAK LINE +405.00’ FOOTHILL BOULEVARD EXISTING GRADE LINE EXISTING GRADE LINE EXISTING GRADE LINE EXISTING GRADE LINE EXISTING GRADE LINE SILVER OAK WAY 2 3 / 4 ” 14 ’ - 0 ” BU I L D I N G H E I G H T 2’ - 1 3 / 8 ” 11 ’ - 0 ” 12 ’ - 6 ” 25 ’ - 7 3 / 4 ” 30 ’ - 0 ” 6’ - 5 5 / 8 ” 13 ’ - 1 1 ” 20 ’ - 4 5 / 8 ” 30 ’ - 0 ” FOOTHILL BOULEVARD 14 ’ - 0 ” 2’ - 1 3 / 8 ” 11 ’ - 0 ” 12 ’ - 6 ” 25 ’ - 7 3 / 4 ” 30 ’ - 0 ” NORTH ELEVATION (SILVER OAK WAY) EAST ELEVATION (FOOTHILL BLVD) A-G EXISTING OFF-SITE RESIDENTS PROJECT SITE BU I L D I N G H E I G H T 207 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts 4.2 AGRICULTURAL AND FOREST RESOURCES 4.2.1 Setting 4.2.1.1 Agricultural Resources According to the Santa Clara County Important Farmland 2010 map, the project site is designated as Urban and Built-Up Land. Urban and Built-Up Land is defined as residential land with a density of at least six units per 10-acre parcel, as well as land used for industrial and commercial purposes, golf courses, landfills, airports, sewage treatment, and water control structures. Currently, the project site is not zoned or used for agricultural purposes, nor is it the subject of a Williamson Act contract.1 The site is located within an urban area of Cupertino and there is no property used for agricultural purposes adjacent to the project site. 4.2.1.2 Forest Resources The project site does not contain any forest land and no forest or timberland is located in the vicinity of the project site. 4.2.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Checklist Source(s) Would the project: 1. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? 1,3 2. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? 4,5 3. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause 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 4. Result in a loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? 1,2 1 California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection. Santa Clara County Williamson Act FY 2012/2013. 2012. City of Cupertino 16 Initial Study 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project March 2014 208 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Checklist Source(s) Would the project: 5. Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? 1 4.2.2.1 Agricultural Resources Impact As discussed above, the project site is not designated, zoned or used as farmland or for agricultural purposes. The development of the project site would not result in conversion of farmland to non- agricultural use. For these reasons, the proposed project would not result in impacts to agricultural resources. (No Impact) 4.2.2.2 Forest Resources Impact None of the properties adjacent to the project site or in the vicinity are used for forestry and, therefore, the proposed project would not impact forest resources. (No Impact) 4.2.3 Conclusion The proposed project would not result in significant impacts to agriculture or forestry resources. (No Impact) City of Cupertino 17 Initial Study 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project March 2014 209 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts 4.3 AIR QUALITY 4.3.1 Setting 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 ozone and PM2.5 and state standards for PM10. The area is considered 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 air referred 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 (PM2.5) is a complex mixture of substances that includes elements such as 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 PM2.5 can cause a wide range of health effects. Common stationary source types of TACs and PM2.5 include gasoline stations, dry cleaners, and 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 Cupertino 18 Initial Study 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project March 2014 210 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts 4.3.1.4 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. 4.3.1.5 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 adjacent to the west and south of the project site (refer to Figure 2.2-3). 4.3.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Checklist Source(s) Would the project: 1. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? 1,6 2. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? 1,7 3. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is classified as non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors? 1,7 4. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? 1 City of Cupertino 19 Initial Study 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project March 2014 211 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Checklist Source(s) Would the project: 5. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? 1 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 (NOX), and/or PM2.5; or 82 pounds or more a day of PM10. These thresholds are based on thresholds identified by BAAQMD in 2011.2 The BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines recommend that 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 greater than 1.0 on the hazard index (chronic or acute), or a PM2.5 increase of 0.3 µg/m3. 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: 2 As discussed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(b), the determination of whether a project may have a significant effect on the environment calls for careful judgment on the part of the Lead Agency and must be based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data. The City of Cupertino and other Lead Agencies in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin often utilize the thresholds and methodology for assessing air emissions and/or health effects adopted by BAAQMD based upon the scientific and other factual data prepared by BAAQMD in developing those thresholds. In December 2010, the California Building Industry Association (BIA) filed a lawsuit in Alameda County Superior Court challenging toxic air contaminant (TAC) and PM2.5 thresholds adopted 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). One of the identified concerns is inhibiting infill and smart growth in the urbanized Bay Area. On March 5, 2012, the Alameda County Superior Court issued a judgment that BAAQMD had failed to comply with CEQA when it adopted its thresholds. The Court issued a writ of mandate ordering the District to set aside the thresholds and cease disseminating them until the District fully complies with CEQA. The BAAQMD appealed this ruling, and the Appellate Court overturned that decision finding that adopting the thresholds did not amount to a project under CEQA (California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District, First Appellate District, A135335 & A136212, August 13, 2013). In April 2012, BAAQMD revised their website in conformance with the court order, no longer recommending use of the 2010 thresholds in determining a project’s significant air quality impacts. Based on the Appellate ruling, however, the BAAQMD may reinstate these thresholds or adopt new ones, once the ruling becomes final. The City has carefully considered the thresholds prepared by BAAQMD and the recent court ruling, and regards the thresholds to be based on the best information available for the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin and conservative in terms of the assessment of health effects associated with TACs and PM2.5. Therefore, the analysis in this Initial Study is based upon the methodologies and thresholds in the BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. City of Cupertino 20 Initial Study 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project March 2014 212 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts 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. Table 4.3-1: Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan Applicable Control Measures Control Measures Description Project Consistency Transportation Control Measures Improve Bicycle Access and Facilities Expand bicycle facilities serving transit hubs, employment sites, educational and cultural facilities, residential areas, shopping districts, and other activity centers. The project is located adjacent to North Foothill Boulevard, a collector street with designated bike lanes. The project would not modify bicycle facilities in the vicinity. Improve Pedestrian Access and Facilities Improve pedestrian access to transit, employment, and major activity centers. There are existing sidewalks and crosswalks that provide pedestrian access to bus stops for the Route 51 service. The project would enhance pedestrian facilities in the vicinity by increasing the distance from the curb and providing landscaping between the curb and sidewalk. Energy and Climate Measures Energy Efficiency Increase efficiency and conservation to decrease fossil fuel use in the Bay Area. The project is required to comply with the Residential Mandatory Measures of the California Green Building Code. The mandatory measures include water conserving plumbing fixtures and fittings, recycle and/or salvage a minimum of 50 percent of the nonhazardous construction and demolition waste for reuse, and use of low VOC paints. The project proposes a place for people to live and work, thereby, reducing the need for future residents to commute to work. Tree-Planting Promote planting of low-VOC-emitting shade trees to reduce urban heat island effects, save energy, and absorb CO2 and other air pollutants. The project will remove five trees and plant new trees around the site perimeter and around new residences. 4.3.2.3 Short-Term Construction-Related Impacts Criteria Air Pollutants and 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 City of Cupertino 21 Initial Study 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project March 2014 213 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts 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 PM10 downwind. The 2011 BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines contains a screening table that lists a minimum number of residential units that could result in significant construction-related air quality impacts. The development of 114 single-family dwelling units is identified by BAAMQD as potentially resulting in significant construction-related air quality impacts. The screening criteria provide lead agencies with a conservative indication of whether a project could result in significant air quality impacts. The project (six single-family residences with five detached workspaces) is below the screening threshold of 114 single-family residences and therefore, would not generate a significant amount of construction-related 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. Standard Project Conditions: Consistent with the BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, the project shall implement the following dust and construction equipment exhaust control measures to reduce construction-related air pollutant emissions: • 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 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 either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to five 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; and • 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. City of Cupertino 22 Initial Study 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project March 2014 214 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts The construction emissions from the project are less than significant based on the BAAQMD screening level and BAAQMD’s Basic Construction Mitigation Measures will be included on project plan documents prior to issuance of any building permits for the construction of the residences and workspaces on the site. The proposed project, therefore, would not result in a significant construction-related air quality impact. (Less Than Significant Impact) Local Community Risks and Hazards During 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 includes grading on the site, however, given the relatively small size of the site the potential for large construction equipment to emit significant quantities of TACs over prolonged periods of time is limited. The project construction period is estimated to be nine months and involve the use of a limited amount of diesel-fueled construction equipment for 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 project, therefore, would not significantly increase health risks on adjacent sensitive receptors. (Less Than Significant Impact) 4.3.2.4 Operational-Related Impacts The 2011 BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines contains a screening table that lists a minimum number of residential units that would result in operational-related emissions over the criteria pollutant thresholds of 54 pounds per day of NOX or ROG and 82 pounds per day of particulate matter. For residential uses, development of 325 single-family dwelling units is the screening level size for operational-related impacts due to criteria pollutant emissions and their precursors (e.g., NOX, ROG, particulate matter). The screening criteria provide lead agencies with a conservative indication of whether a project could result in significant air quality impacts. The proposed six single-family residences (and five ancillary workspaces) are well below the screening level and, therefore, the project would not result in a significant air quality impact due to emissions of criteria air pollutants and their precursors. (Less Than Significant Impact) 4.3.2.5 Local Community Risks and Hazards Impacts to the Project The BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines call 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. Local community risks and hazards in the project vicinity were estimated using BAAQMD screening tools and the results are summarized in Appendix A. There are two permitted stationary sources of TACs within 1,000 feet of the project site, an emergency backup generator at the County of Santa Clara, Monta Vista Fire Station at 22620 Stevens Creek Boulevard and the Cupertino Beacon Service Station at 22510 Stevens Creek Boulevard. The two stationary sources, individually and combined, would not exceed the threshold for increased cancer risk of 10.0 in one million (refer to tables in Appendix A). North Foothill Boulevard and Stevens Creek Boulevard east of Foothill Boulevard are the only roadways within 1,000 feet of the project site that exceed 10,000 average daily trips. City of Cupertino 23 Initial Study 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project March 2014 215 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts 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 acute), or a PM2.5 increase of 0.3 µg/m3. The emission of TACs from stationary sources and vehicles along high volume roadways in the vicinity of the site would not exceed TAC and PM2.5 thresholds (individually or cumulatively) and future residents of the project site would not, therefore, be significantly impacted from TACs. (Less Than Significant Impact) 4.3.2.6 Odor The project does not propose a use that would generate objectionable odors. (Less Than Significant Impact) 4.3.3 Conclusion The proposed project would not exceed the BAAQMD criteria pollutant emissions thresholds or place sensitive receptors in an area subject to significant risks from TACs. In addition, the project includes measures to further reduce air pollutant emissions from construction activities. The project would not result in significant air quality impacts. (Less Than Significant Impact) City of Cupertino 24 Initial Study 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project March 2014 216 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts 4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES The following discussion is based in part on a tree survey completed by Michael L. Bench, Consulting Arborist in March 2013. A copy of the tree survey is included in Appendix B of this Initial Study. 4.4.1 Setting 4.4.1.1 Existing Conditions The 0.87-acre project site is located within an urban area of Cupertino. The project site is currently developed with a commercial building formerly used as a gasoline station and automobile repair shop. In addition to the existing building, landscaping is present in raised planters and perimeter tree plantings. 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 for the project site in March 2013. There are five Monterey pines on the site and 13 trees on immediately adjacent properties next to the concrete perimeter wall. A summary of the trees is included in Table 4.4-1. None of the surveyed trees are native species (e.g., coast live oak or valley oak). Table 4.4-1: Summary of Tree Species and Size Species Diameter in inches Total Up to 12 13-18 19-36 Over 36 On-Site Monterey pine 0 1 4 0 5 Off-Site, Adjacent to Concrete Perimeter Walls (diameter estimated) Blue atlas cedar 0 0 1 0 1 Canary Island pine 0 1 0 0 1 Deodar cedar 0 0 1 0 1 Italian cypress 9 0 0 0 9 Lemon 1 0 0 0 1 City of Cupertino 25 Initial Study 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project March 2014 217 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 CDFW and 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). 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. 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 all trees 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 City of Cupertino 26 Initial Study 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project March 2014 218 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts 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 City to have a special significance to the community. The removal of specimen trees, heritage 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 removed without first obtaining a tree removal permit (Municipal Code Chapter 14.18.140). In addition, protected trees and other trees/plantings required to be retained are to be protected during demolition, grading and construction operations through the application of standards in the Municipal Code (Chapter 14.18.210). Street trees are regulated separately from trees on private property and removal or trimming of street trees except by the City’s Right of Way Supervisor or their designee is prohibited (Municipal Code Chapter 14.12.080). There are no protected species on the project site and no street trees along the project frontage, but the five existing Monterey pine trees on-site are protected since they were required to be planted or retained as part of an approved development application. Two protected species (cedars) and several other trees are located adjacent to the project site. 4.4.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Checklist Source(s) Would the project: 1. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife Service? 1 2. Have a substantial adverse effect on any 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? 1 3. Have a substantial adverse effect on 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? 1 City of Cupertino 27 Initial Study 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project March 2014 219 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Checklist Source(s) Would the project: 4. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? 1 5. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? 4,8 6. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? 1 The project site is not located within an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. For this reason, the last threshold listed above is not discussed further. 4.4.2.1 Impacts to Special-Status Species Special-Status Plant Species The project site is a developed, urban property containing limited landscape plant species at the site perimeter. Redevelopment of the project site would not result in significant impacts to special-status plant species. (No Impact) Special-Status Animal Species and Species Protected Under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act Given the existing development on the site and lack of suitable 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 raptors or other nesting birds. The Monterey pine trees on the site support potential habitat for urban-adapted tree nesting raptors and other birds. Tree nesting raptors, along with all migratory birds, are protected 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. Impact BIO-1: The development of the proposed project could result in direct impacts to nesting birds, if present on the site at the time of construction. (Significant Impact) City of Cupertino 28 Initial Study 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project March 2014 220 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts Mitigation Measures: As a condition of approval, the proposed project shall implement the following measures to avoid impacts to 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 zone around 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 grading or tree removal. 4.4.2.2 Trees The tree survey and inspections of neighboring trees completed for the project (refer to Appendix A) evaluated impacts to trees based on tree health and anticipated redevelopment, including grading and replacement of perimeter walls. Five Monterey pine trees at the project perimeter would be removed as a part of site redevelopment. While grading would occur within 15 feet of the property line, roots and root zones of the trees on adjacent properties to the west would not be affected because, based upon observations by the project arborist and confirmed by the City Arborist, they do not extend to the area of disturbance. Construction activities will have no substantial effect on the 13 trees located on adjacent properties. The project proposes to plant new street trees along Silver Oak Way and North Foothill Boulevard. New landscape tree plantings are also proposed around the perimeter of the site (see Figure 3.0-1). Replacement tree plantings would off-set the removal of mature trees from the site and implementation of the project would not conflict with City of Cupertino tree protection regulations. (Less Than Significant Impact) City of Cupertino 29 Initial Study 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project March 2014 221 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts 4.4.3 Conclusion Impact BIO-1: The construction of the proposed project, with the implementation of mitigation measures MM BIO-1.1 through MM BIO-1.3, would not result in significant impacts to nesting birds. (Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated) City of Cupertino 30 Initial Study 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project March 2014 222 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts 4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES This section is based in part on the results of an archaeological literature review at the Northwest Information Center by Holman & Associates in May 2013. A copy of the report is on file with the City of Cupertino. 4.5.1 Setting 4.5.1.1 Prehistoric Context and Resources 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. The South Bay Area’s favorable environment during the prehistoric period included alluvial plains, foothills, many water courses, and bay margins that 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 northern tip of the San Francisco Peninsula to Big Sur in the south and as far east as the Diablo Range. The Coastanoan/Ohlone people engaged in a hunting, fishing and collecting economy focusing on the collection of seasonal plant and animal resources. However, their traditional lifestyle disappeared by about 1810 when it was disrupted diseases, a declining birth rate, and the introduction 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 stream courses and in oak groves. The project site is located approximately 650 feet northwest of Regnart Creek on the valley floor. Extant or known former oak groves are not present in the immediate vicinity of the project site. There are no recorded prehistoric archaeological sites on the project site or within one-quarter mile. In the opinion of Holman & Associates, based upon the results of eight cultural resources studies done in the general area, the site has a low to moderate potential for containing buried or obscured prehistoric archaeological resources. 4.5.1.2 Historic Resources Based upon a review of aerial photographs, the project site was used for agricultural purposes prior to construction of a service station on the site in 1971. The building on the site is less than 50 years old. The Cupertino General Plan identifies Historic Sites, Commemorative Sites and Community Landmarks currently present in the City (Figure 2-G in the General Plan). The buildings on and adjacent to the site are not identified as historic structures and are not on a Historic Site, Commemorative Site or designated as a Community Landmarks in the General Plan. City of Cupertino 31 Initial Study 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project March 2014 223 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts Historical resources eligible for listing in the California Register must meet criteria of significance and retain enough of their historic character or appearance to be recognizable as historical character to convey the reasons for their significance. Given that neither the building nor the project site is identified in the City’s General Plan as a cultural resource and the architectural style of the commercial building does not embody distinctive characteristics or method of construction, the structure does not appear to exhibit historic significance. 4.5.1.3 Paleontological Resources Paleontological resources are the fossilized remains of organisms from prehistoric environments found in geologic strata. The project site is underlain by Pleistocene alluvial fan material deposits which have high potential to yield fossils.3,4 4.5.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Checklist Source(s) Would the project: 1. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource as defined in §15064.5? 1,2 2. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource as defined in §15064.5? 1,9 3. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site, or unique geologic feature? 1 4. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? 1,9 The proposed project includes the demolition and removal of the existing building and pavement on the site to allow for the construction of six residences and five detached workspaces. Removal of the existing building and construction of the proposed project would require grading, excavation, and trenching on the site to install utilities and remove contaminated soils (refer to Section 4.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials). 3 C. Bruce Hanson. 2010. Paleontological Evaluation Report for the Envision San José 2040 General Plan, Santa Clara County, California. 4 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 Cupertino 32 Initial Study 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project March 2014 224 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts 4.5.2.1 Prehistoric, Historic, and Paleontological Resources 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 creeks would be encountered during site grading and/or excavation. There are no historic structures located on the site and demolition of the existing building 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 or Community 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 City could be encountered during construction activities. Impact CUL-1: Development of the proposed project could result in significant impacts to buried cultural resources, if encountered. (Significant Impact) Mitigation Measures: As a condition of approval, the proposed project shall implement the following mitigation measures to reduce impacts to cultural resources to a less than significant level: MM CUL-1.1: In the event of the discovery of prehistoric or historic archaeological deposits or paleontological deposits, work shall be halted within 50 feet of 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 are found, all project-related construction shall cease within 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 event of 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 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 location not subject to further subsurface disturbance. City of Cupertino 33 Initial Study 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project March 2014 225 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts MM CUL-1.3: A final report summarizing the discovery of cultural materials shall be submitted to the Director of Community Development prior 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. 4.5.3 Conclusion Impact CUL-1: The proposed project, with the implementation of the mitigation measures MM CUL-1.1, MM CUL-1.2, and MM CUL-1.3 would not result in significant impacts to cultural resources. (Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated) City of Cupertino 34 Initial Study 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project March 2014 226 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts 4.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS The following discussion is based on a geotechnical investigation completed for the project by Murray Engineers Inc. in October 2013. A copy of this report is included in Appendix C of this Initial Study. 4.6.1 Setting 4.6.1.1 Geologic Overview The project site is located in the Santa Clara Valley, a broad, sediment-filled basin bounded on the southwest by the Santa Cruz Mountains and the on the northeast by the Diablo Mountain range. 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. Most of Cupertino is on level ground that rises gently to the west. The project site is located at an elevation of approximately 385 feet above mean sea level. 4.6.1.2 On-Site Conditions The project site is developed with a one-story gas station building and two covered fuel islands. The remaining portions of the site are paved with the exception of planter areas along the northern and eastern site boundaries. A large underground fuel storage tank (UST) pit is located near the northeast corner of the site and a smaller pit is located near the center-west area of the site. The tanks have been removed and the excavations backfilled with a gravelly soil mixture. The ground surface across the site generally slopes down to the east and south at very gentle gradients. The grades along the southern and western edges of the site slope down at slightly steeper gradients into the main portion of the site. Soils and Groundwater Borings were taken to characterize on-site soils. Based on the investigation, the area of the larger backfilled UST pit in the northeastern corner of the site is underlain by up to 12 feet of loose fill material and the area of the smaller backfilled UST pit is underlain by up to seven feet of loose fill material. The remainder of the site is underlain by surficial alluvial soils, underlain by conglomerate bedrock. The results of soil analysis indicate that on-site soils have a low potential for expansion. Groundwater is reported to be present at a depth of approximately 53 feet below ground surface.5 Fluctuations in the level of the groundwater may occur due to variations in rainfall, temperature, landscaping, underground drainage patterns, and other factors. 5 PIERS Environmental Services, Inc. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report. February 2013. City of Cupertino 35 Initial Study 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project March 2014 227 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts Seismicity and 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. The site is not located within a designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone 6 or a Santa Clara County Fault Hazard Zone.7 In addition, no known surface expression of active faults are believed to cross the site and fault rupture hazard is not a significant geologic hazard at the site. Nearby active or potentially active faults include Monta Vista-Shannon fault approximately 2,700 feet southwest of the site, San Andreas fault approximately 3.9 miles southwest of the site, Hayward fault approximately 13 miles northeast of the site, and Calaveras fault approximately 17 miles northwest 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 the transformation 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. The project site is not located within a designated State of California Liquefaction Hazard Zone 8 or a Santa Clara County Liquefaction Hazard Zone.9 Based on an analysis of soils and the depth to groundwater, the liquefaction potential for the site is considered low. 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 the project site. Landsliding Landslides occur when the stability of a slope changes from a stable to unstable condition. In general, steep slopes are less stable than more gently inclined ones. Landslides can also be triggered 6 California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology. Special Studies Zones Cupertino Quadrangle. Map. July 1, 1974. Available at: <http://www.quake.ca.gov/gmaps/WH/regulatorymaps.htm>. 7 County of Santa Clara. Geologic Hazard Zones. Map. October 26, 2012. 8 California Department of Conservation, California Geologic Survey. Seismic Hazard Zones Cupertino Quadrangle. Map. September 23, 2002. Available at: <http://www.quake.ca.gov/gmaps/WH/regulatorymaps.htm>. 9 County of Santa Clara. Geologic Hazard Zones. Map. October 26, 2012. City of Cupertino 36 Initial Study 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project March 2014 228 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts by seismic shaking. The project site is not located within a State of California Landslide zone.10 The City’s General Plan also maps geologic and seismic hazards and the site is within a valley area, an area with relatively low levels of geologic hazards. 4.6.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Checklist Source(s) 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 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.) 10 b. Strong seismic ground shaking? 10 c. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? 10 d. Landslides? 10 2. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 1 3. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is 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? 1,10 4. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Section 1802.3.2 of the California Building Code (2007), creating substantial risks to life or property? 10 5. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? 1 The project does not propose to use septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems, therefore, the last bulleted threshold above is not discussed further. 10 County of Santa Clara. Geologic Hazard Zones. Map. October 26, 2012. City of Cupertino 37 Initial Study 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project March 2014 229 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts 4.6.2.1 Soils and Groundwater Impacts Based on the geotechnical investigation prepared for the project, soils on the site are capable of supporting the proposed structures if constructed in accordance with the recommendations in the geotechnical investigation (Appendix C). Groundwater beneath the site is at approximately 53 feet below ground surface but may fluctuate seasonally. It is estimated that subsurface construction (utility trenching, grading, and hazardous materials remediation – refer to Section 4.8) would not extend beyond 20 feet below ground surface. For this reason, groundwater does not pose constraints to the proposed project. The proposed project would not be exposed to substantial slope instability, erosion, or landslide- related hazards due to the gently sloping topography of the site. Based on the above discussion, the proposed project would not be subject to substantial hazards related to soils on the site. (Less Than Significant Impact) Seismicity and Seismic Hazards The project 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 and lateral spreading 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 California Building Code guidelines for Seismic Zone 4 and geotechnical investigation recommendations (refer to Appendix C) to avoid or minimize potential damage from seismic shaking on the site. Implementation of building code requirements and geotechnical investigation recommendations would reduce seismic and seismic-related hazards to a less than significant level. (Less Than Significant Impact) 4.6.3 Conclusion The proposed project, with the implementation of standard practices for building construction, would not result in significant seismicity or seismic hazard impacts. (Less Than Significant Impact) City of Cupertino 38 Initial Study 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project March 2014 230 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts 4.7 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS 4.7.1 Setting 4.7.1.1 Background Information Unlike emissions of criteria and toxic air pollutants, which are discussed in Section 4.3 and have local or regional impacts, emissions of greenhouse gases have a broader, global impact. Global warming associated with the “greenhouse effect” is a process whereby greenhouse gases accumulating in the atmosphere contribute to an increase in the temperature of the earth’s atmosphere over time. The principal greenhouse gases contributing to global warming and associated climate change are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and fluorinated compounds. Greenhouse gas emissions contributing to global climate change are attributable in large part to human activities associated with the transportation, industrial/ manufacturing, utility, residential, commercial, and agricultural sectors. 4.7.1.2 Regulatory Framework State of California AB 32 and Related Executive Orders and Regulations The Global Warming Solutions Act (also known as “Assembly Bill (AB) 32”) sets the State of California’s 2020 greenhouse gas emissions reduction goal into law. The Act requires that the greenhouse gas 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 greenhouse gas 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 Standard for Energy Standard (Senate Bill 2X) and fleet-wide passenger car standards (Pavley Regulations). In December 2008, the CARB approved the Climate Change Scoping Plan, which proposes a comprehensive set of actions designed to reduce California’s dependence on oil, diversify energy sources, save energy, and enhance public health, among other goals. Per AB 32, the Scoping Plan must be updated every five years to evaluate the mix of AB 32 policies to ensure that California is on track to achieve the 2020 greenhouse gas reduction goal. On October 1, 2013, CARB released a Discussion Draft of the 2014 update to the AB 32 Scoping Plan report for public review and comment. In spring 2014, CARB expects to bring an updated Scoping Plan document to the Board for consideration. The 2014 Update will define CARB’s climate change priorities for the next five years and lay the groundwork to start the transition to the post-2020 goals set forth in Executive Orders S-3-05 and B-16-2012 (see below). The 2014 Update will highlight California’s progress toward meeting the “near-term” 2020 greenhouse gas emission reduction goals defined in the 2008 Scoping Plan and evaluate how to align the State’s longer-term greenhouse gas reduction strategies City of Cupertino 39 Initial Study 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project March 2014 231 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts with other State policy priorities, such as for water, waste, natural resources, agriculture, clean energy, and transportation and land use. CEQA As required under state law (Public Resources Code Section 21083.05), the California Natural Resources Agency has amended the state CEQA Guidelines to address the analysis and mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions. Under these sections of the CEQA 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 required components of a “Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy.” Projects consistent with such a Strategy or Plan would reduce their contribution to cumulative greenhouse gas impacts to a less than significant level. Senate Bill 375 – Sustainable Communities Strategy Senate Bill 375 (SB 375), known as the Sustainable Communities Strategy and Climate Protection Act, was signed into law in September 2008. It builds on AB 32 by requiring CARB to develop regional greenhouse gas reduction targets to be achieved from the automobile and light truck sectors for 2020 and 2035 when compared to emissions in 2005. The per capita reduction targets for passenger vehicles in the San Francisco Bay Area include a seven percent reduction by 2020 and a 15 percent reduction by 2035.11 The four major requirements of SB 375 are: 1. Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) must meet greenhouse gas emission reduction targets for automobiles and light trucks through land use and transportation strategies. 2. MPOs must create a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS), to provide an integrated land use/transportation plan for meeting regional targets, consistent with the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). 3. Regional housing elements and transportation plans must be synchronized on eight-year schedules, with Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocation numbers conforming to the SCS. 4. MPOs must use transportation and air emissions modeling techniques consistent with guidelines prepared by the California Transportation Commission (CTC). MTC and ABAG adopted Plan Bay Area in July 2013. The strategies in the plan are intended to promote compact, mixed-use development close to public transit, jobs, schools, shopping, parks, recreation, and other amenities, particularly within Priority Development Areas (PDAs) identified by 11 The emission reduction targets are for those associated with land use and transportation strategies, only. Emission reductions due to the California Low Carbon Fuel Standards or Pavley emission control standards are not included in the targets. City of Cupertino 40 Initial Study 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project March 2014 232 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts local jurisdictions. While the project site is close to bus transit (i.e., Route 51), it is not located in a PDA. Regional and Local Plans Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan The Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan (CAP) is a multi-pollutant plan that addresses greenhouse gas emissions along with other air emissions in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. One of the key objectives in the 2010 CAP is climate protection. The 2010 CAP includes emission control measures in five categories: Stationary Source Measures, Mobile Source Measures, Transportation Control Measures, Land Use and Local Impact Measures, 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 to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases to 1990 levels by 2020 and 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2035. City of Cupertino General Plan 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 greenhouse gas 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 indirectly reduce greenhouse gas emissions by reducing the need to manufacture or mine new products or materials. 4.7.1.3 Existing Conditions The project site is developed with a gas and service station, which is currently unoccupied. As a result, the greenhouse gas emissions from the site (i.e., from vehicle trips to and from the site, electricity use, etc.) are minimal. 4.7.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Checklist Source(s) Would the project: 1. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? 1 City of Cupertino 41 Initial Study 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project March 2014 233 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Checklist Source(s) Would the project: 2. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? 1,7 4.7.2.1 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Threshold As discussed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(b), the determination of whether a project may have a significant effect on the environment calls for careful judgment on the part of the Lead Agency and must be based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data. The first checklist question is assessed using quantitative thresholds for GHG emissions identified by BAAQMD in 2009. Using a methodology that models how new land use development in the San Francisco Bay area can meet Statewide AB 32 GHG reduction goals, BAAQMD identified a significance threshold of 1,100 metric tons of CO2e per year.12 The City has carefully considered the thresholds prepared by BAAQMD and regards the quantitative thresholds to be based on the best information available for residential and commercial development in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. Evidence supporting these thresholds has been presented in the following documents: • Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2009. CEQA Thresholds Options and Justification Report. • BAAQMD. 2011. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. (Appendix D). • California Air Resources Board. 2008. Climate Change Scoping Plan. (Statewide GHG Emission Targets) BAAQMD has not identified a threshold of significance for construction-related GHG emissions. 4.7.2.1 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impacts from the Project The BAAQMD 2011 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines contains a screening threshold of 56 single- family dwelling units for operational-related impacts due to greenhouse gas emissions. The screening criteria provides lead agencies with a conservative indication of whether a project could result in significant greenhouse gas emissions impact (e.g. annual operational emissions over 1,100 metric tons per year). 12 In addition to this bright-line threshold, an “efficiency” threshold was identified for urban high density, transit- oriented development projects that are intended to reduce vehicle trips but that may still result in overall emissions greater than 1,100 metric tons per year. This efficiency threshold is 4.6 metric tons of CO2e per service population (e.g., residents and employees) per year. City of Cupertino 42 Initial Study 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project March 2014 234 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts The project would allow construction of six single-family residences, five of which would have detached workspaces. Greenhouse gas emissions from the proposed project would consist of emissions from construction and operation of the proposed buildings: • Mobile emissions (e.g., emissions from combustion of fossil fuels for vehicle trips to and from the site); • Emissions from the generation of electricity to operate lighting, appliances, and HVAC on the site, and to convey water to the site; • Construction emissions; and • Emissions from the manufacture and transport of building materials. The proposed development is below the screening threshold and therefore, the project would not result in a significant new emissions of greenhouse gases. In addition, the project would be built according to the Residential Mandatory Measures of the California Green Building Code which requires water conserving plumbing fixtures and fittings, recycle and/or salvage a minimum of 50 percent of the nonhazardous construction and demolition waste for reuse, and use of low VOC paints. The project, therefore, would not generate significant greenhouse gas emissions. (Less Than Significant Impact) 4.7.2.2 Consistency with Adopted Plans and Policies for Greenhouse Gas Reduction As discussed in Section 4.7.2 Regulatory Background, the State of California has adopted a Climate Change Scoping Plan. Greenhouse gas emissions are also addressed in the adopted 2010 CAP and Plan Bay Area. There are no other regional plans that apply to projects in the City of Cupertino that have completed environmental review and been adopted. 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 greenhouse gas 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 Actions for reducing greenhouse gas 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/measures that pertain to the project are noted in Table 4.7-1. Under the Scoping Plan, local governments are expected to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by five million metric tons (statewide) through transportation and land use changes. In addition, local governments 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 discussed in Section 4.7.2.1 and listed in Table 4.7-1, the project includes energy efficiency, land use and transportation, and water conservation features 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 greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2020. City of Cupertino 43 Initial Study 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project March 2014 235 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts Table 4.7-1: Climate Change Scoping Plan – Applicable Recommended Actions Compared to Project Features Measure Description Applicable Feature Transportation T-3 Regional Transportation-Related Greenhouse Gas Targets Land use and transportation measures included in the project that help reduce vehicle travel include proximity to transit, jobs, and services Energy Efficiency/Electricity and Natural Gas E-1 Energy Efficiency, including more stringent building standards CalGreen Building Codes will apply. E-4 Million Solar Roofs/Solar Initiative Not currently proposed. CR-1 Energy Efficiency – Utility, Building and Appliance Standards CalGreen Building Codes will apply. CR-2 Solar Water Heating Not currently proposed. Green Buildings GB-1 Green Buildings CalGreen Building Codes will apply. Water W-1 Water Use Efficiency Project will use low flow plumbing fixtures. The City’s Landscape Ordinance will apply, which requires low water use landscaping and reduction of turf (lawn) area. W-4 Reuse Urban Runoff On-site reuse is not proposed. Recycling and Waste Management RW-3 High Recycling/Zero Waste (including Commercial Recycling) Future residents would participate in City recycling and waste reduction programs, as applicable. Sustainable Communities Strategy Plan Bay Area, which includes a Sustainable Communities Strategy that links transportation and land use planning, grew out of California’s 2008 Senate Bill 375 (Steinberg), which requires each of the state’s 18 metropolitan areas to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from cars and light trucks. Plan Bay Area promotes compact, mixed-use commercial and residential development focused in Priority Development Areas that is walkable and bikable and close to mass transit, jobs, schools, shopping, parks, recreation and other amenities. The project is not in a designated Priority Development Area and given its size would not conflict with the sustainable Communities Strategy in Plan Bay Area. It consists of redevelopment of an urban site with six single family residents and five live/work spaces. The project, located near bus transit and providing work space near residences, would not be inconsistent with efforts to reduce GHG emissions from cars and light trucks with Plan Bay Area, however. City of Cupertino 44 Initial Study 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project March 2014 236 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan The 2010 CAP 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 2010 CAP identifies a range of Transportation Control Measures, Land Use and Local Impacts Measures, and Energy and Climate Measures that make up the CAP’s control strategy for emissions, including greenhouse gas emissions. As discussed in Section 4.3 Air Quality, the project is generally consistent with applicable control measures and the development of the project would not interfere with implementation of the 2010 CAP. The location (i.e., urban infill), mix of uses, 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 by the California legislature, CARB, BAAQMD, or City of Cupertino. (Less Than Significant Impact) 4.7.3 Conclusion The project would not generate net new greenhouse gas emissions above the threshold of 1,100 MT CO2e per year or conflict with plans, policies or regulations for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Therefore, the project would result in a less than significant impact to global climate change. (Less Than Significant Impact) City of Cupertino 45 Initial Study 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project March 2014 237 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts 4.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS The following discussion is based on a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment report prepared by PIERS Environmental Services, Inc. in February 2013; peer review of existing environmental documents by Cornerstone Earth Group in March 2013; a memorandum by ERM in response to the peer review in July 2013; soil vapor survey report by ERM completed in July 2013; and a mitigation plan prepared by ERM in November 2013. Copies of these reports are included in Appendix D of this Initial Study. 4.8.1 Setting 4.8.1.1 Site Observations The existing service station building on-site is a one-story concrete masonry structure with a low pitched roof. A canopy over the former pump island area extends towards North Foothill Boulevard. The project site is mostly paved with asphalt or concrete, except at a former underground fuel tank pit area, which is backfilled but not paved. The gasoline dispensers have been removed and stored on the south side of the building, where cuttings from a tree removal and various service station items are also stored. The building is mostly vacant with a small office, restrooms, and storage rooms at the northern end. The southern end of the building formerly contained an auto repair area. An area of concrete was removed during the removal of hydraulic vehicle hoists and has not been replaced. There is a recessed area of concrete where a smog checking apparatus formally operated. Another former fuel tank pit area at the northwest portion of the site is visible as a patched area in the asphalt. Hazardous materials and other chemicals at the site include one drum marked “hazardous waste” dated November 16, 2012, which apparently contains oily soil from the hoist removals. No evidence of water supply, irrigation, oil, injection, dry wells, or chemical storage tanks were observed on the site. No drains or sumps were observed on the site, except for a plugged drain or sewer cleanout behind the building. No unusual staining or odors were observed at this location. No stained soil was observed on-site. No significant staining was observed on the exterior paved surfaces. Minor oil and grease is present on the concrete floor of the former repair area.13 4.8.1.2 Historic Use The project site was occupied by an orchard from at least 1939 through the mid-1950s. During the 1960s, the project site appears either as an agricultural field or undeveloped land. A gasoline service station was constructed on the site in 1971. The site operated as a gasoline service station until January 2010 when the service station ceased operation. The auto repair services continued on-site until mid-2011. During the operation of the gasoline service station, underground gasoline and waste oil storage tanks (USTs) were removed and replaced, groundwater monitoring wells installed, an oil/water separator removed, and gasoline piping and dispensers removed and 13 PIERS Environmental Services, Inc. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment. February 2013. City of Cupertino 46 Initial Study 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project March 2014 238 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts replaced. Closure letters were issued by the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) and permits issued by the Santa Clara County Fire Department (SCCFD) for removal of the USTs. The project site is listed as a closed leaking UST case in a regulatory database (as discussed in Section 4.8.1.2 below). In December 2012, the fuel tanks, piping, dispensers, and underground hydraulic hoists were removed. 4.8.1.2 Possible On-Site Sources of Contamination Database Records Search A database search was completed to determine whether the project site was listed on any federal, state, local, historical, and/or brownfield databases as a known or suspected source of contamination, or a site that handles or stores hazardous materials. The project site is listed as a closed leaking UST case. The project site is not listed on any other regulatory agency databases searched. Refer to Appendix D for a list of databases searched. Historic Uses Given the site’s historic agricultural use, it is possible that on-site soils could be contaminated with organochlorine pesticides or metals including DDT and arsenic. Soils on-site could also be impacted with residual contaminants (e.g., petroleum hydrocarbons and volatile organic compounds) from the former USTs and polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) from in the former hydraulic hoists associated with the operation of the former gasoline service station. Soil, Soil Vapor, and Groundwater Sampling The soil and soil vapor samples collected on-site and analyzed found elevated levels of petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) including benzene, ethylbenzene, and tetrachloroethene (PCE), from the former USTs. Groundwater samples collected did not indicate elevated levels of contaminants. The soil samples were not analyzed for residual pesticides. Refer to Appendix D for details regarding soil and groundwater sampling locations and detected levels of contaminants. Lead and Asbestos-Containing Materials A pre-demolition survey of the existing structure completed in July 2013 identified lead-based paint and asbestos-containing materials (ACMs). Lead-based paint is of concern, both as a source of direct exposure through ingestion of paint chips, and as a contributor to lead interior dust and exterior soil. Asbestos containing materials (ACMs) are of concern because exposure to ACMs has been linked to cancer. City of Cupertino 47 Initial Study 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project March 2014 239 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts 4.8.1.3 Possible Off-Site Sources of Contamination Database Records Search A database search was completed for the site to evaluate the likelihood of contamination incidents near the project site. A list of database sources reviewed, a description of sources, and a radius map showing the location of reported facilities relative to the project site are included in Appendix D (Phase I report). Based on the groundwater flow direction, case status, and/or distance of the facility in relation to the project site, nearby incidents are not likely to significantly impact the project site. 4.8.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Checklist Source(s) Would the project: 1. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? 11-15 2. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? 11-15 3. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? 1 4. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, will it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? 11-15 5. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, will the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? 1 6. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, will the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? 1 City of Cupertino 48 Initial Study 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project March 2014 240 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Checklist Source(s) Would the project: 7. Impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? 1 8. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? 1 The project site is not located within an airport land use plan, two miles of a public airport or public use airport, or vicinity of a private airstrip. The project site is not located within one-quarter mile of a school. The project would not interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Given the project’s infill, urbanized location, the project site is not subject to wildland fires. Therefore, the project would have no impact regarding these resources. 4.8.2.1 Soil, Soil Vapor, and Groundwater Contamination The project site was previously used for agricultural purposes and a gasoline/auto repair service station. Analysis of soil and soil vapor samples collected on-site found elevated levels of TPH and VOCs from the former USTs. Residual agricultural chemicals from historic agricultural use and PCBs associated with the operation of the hydraulic hoists (which has since been removed) on-site may also be present in native soils. The Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health (SCCDEH) has taken oversight for the cleanup of the site (case number 07S2W15F04f). Given the previous uses on-site and results of soil, soil vapor, groundwater samples completed to- date, construction workers and future residences could be exposed to contaminated soils and subject to soil vapor. Impact HAZ-1: Construction workers and future residences could be exposed to contaminated soils and health risks associated with soil vapor on-site. (Significant Impact) Mitigation Measures: The project proposes to implement the following mitigation measures to reduce impacts to construction workers and future residences from soil contamination and soil vapors on-site. Site Characterization and Remediation For Former Underground Fuel Tank(s) MM HAZ-1.1: The project shall conduct soil sampling and analysis of the extent of TPH and VOC contamination in soil, soil vapor, and/or groundwater in accordance with the Work Plan approved by the Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health City of Cupertino 49 Initial Study 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project March 2014 241 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts (SCCDEH) on November 5, 2013. The approved Work Plan describes sample methodology, sample locations, the quality assurance/quality control plan, reporting, and schedule. The Work Plan shall be implemented by the project and the results of the sampling shall be submitted to the SCCDEH. If additional investigation is required to sufficiently delineate the contaminants of concern, additional sampling or mitigation measures shall be proposed and be reviewed and approved by the SCCDEH. The Work Plan shall be completed to the satisfaction of the SCCDEH prior to issuance of grading permits for project construction. MM HAZ-1.2: A Site Remediation Plan shall be prepared based on the documented soil conditions and approved by the SCCDEH. The Site Remediation Plan shall include the design of a remedy that has the goal of mitigating ongoing threats to water quality and to conditions of unacceptable risk for residential land use. The Site Remediation Plan shall include implementation and monitoring schedules. Upon approval of the Site Remediation Plan, the approved remediation design shall be implemented at the project site, prior to issuance of grading permits for project construction. Based on the current understanding of site conditions, soil vapor extraction (SVE) is considered an appropriate remedy to mitigate the soil vapor levels to an acceptable level for residential use. An SVE system would consist of a series of soil vapor extraction wells connected to a vacuum pump. The depth and number of wells would be determined based on results of the additional sampling. Vapors collected via the extraction system would be treated either through absorption onto activated carbon or destroyed using an on-site combustion system. The operation of the mitigation system would be tuned for optimal performance during the early operations period. Mitigation of soil vapors to levels acceptable for residential land use is expected to take approximately three months. System operation shall comply with City noise ordinances and necessary permits (e.g., Bay Area Air Quality Management District) shall be obtained prior to operation of the system. In addition, required permits for well installation shall be obtained from the Santa Clara Valley Water District. If vapor mitigation through SVE is the only remedy implemented, confirmation of its effectiveness shall be documented by four quarters of soil vapor monitoring (multi- depth vapor wells installed to five and 10 feet at each proposed residence) performed after the termination of the remediation system. If a different remedy is approved, the Site Remediation Plan shall include an applicable implementation plan, schedule, monitoring, and confirmation program. Other feasible remedies could include soil excavation with or without above-ground treatment, passive sub-slab vapor barriers, active sub-slab vapor management systems, or a combination of these components. City of Cupertino 50 Initial Study 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project March 2014 242 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts Other Soil Contaminant Sources MM HAZ-1.3: In addition to the sampling described above, soils at the site shall be assessed for impact from other potential contaminant sources. These sources shall be sampled and analyzed as follows: • Soil samples shall be collected near the location of the former hydraulic hoists and analyzed for PCBs. Samples shall be collected at locations dictated by visual evidence of discoloration and analyzed using EPA SW 846 methodology (e.g., 8081 or 8082). If no discoloration is evident, one soil sample shall be collected at each hoist. • Three soil samples shall be collected from the site at a maximum depth of 0.5 feet below the native soil surface and analyzed for organochlorine pesticides and arsenic. Additional samples may be required based on the results of this analysis. • The soil sampling results shall be compared to appropriate risk-based screening levels and submitted to SCCDEH and the Director of Community Development prior to construction grading on the site. If additional investigation is required to sufficiently delineate the contaminants of concern, additional sampling or mitigation measures shall be proposed and reviewed and approved by the SCCDEH prior to construction grading. Removal and Disposal of Contaminated Soils MM HAZ-1.4: Soil containing pesticides, PCB, and/or petroleum hydrocarbons shall be removed by properly trained and licensed personnel and contractors, prior to construction workers entering the site to begin earthwork. Contaminated soil shall be handled by trained personnel using appropriate protective equipment and engineering controls, in accordance with local, state, and federal laws. Contaminated soil shall be transported separate from other soil excavated at the site, and disposed at an appropriate offsite facility in accordance with its characteristics or, if mitigated by an alternative method, with approval from SCCDEH, or other appropriate regulatory agency. Reporting MM HAZ-1.5: Upon completion of remediation activities and confirmation that the resulting conditions are adequately protective of residential development, a Closure Report shall be prepared and submitted to the City and SCCDEH for review and approval. The report shall summarize: • Past investigations, analytical reports, and current site conditions; • Implemented mitigation measures and soil management activities; • Off-site transport and disposal of excavated soil, and • Excavation backfill materials and procedures. City of Cupertino 51 Initial Study 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project March 2014 243 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts Once the mitigation measures described have achieved thresholds established for residential use, the report shall include a request regulatory closure for the property. Final approval that the site is suitable for residential land uses shall be issued by SCCDEH and copied to the City of Cupertino prior to issuance of grading or demolition permits for project construction. Health and Safety and Site Management During Remediation and Construction Activities MM HAZ-1.6: A site-specific Health and Safety Plan (HASP) shall be prepared prior to issuance of grading permits for project construction to address potential health and safety hazards associated with implementation of the Work Plan and proposed redevelopment activities (e.g., site preparation, demolition, grading and construction). The HASP shall govern activities of all personnel present during field activities. A job hazard analysis (JHA) shall be prepared for each task prior to performing said task. The JHAs shall include, at a minimum, identification of likely hazards associated with the task, requirements and procedures for employee protection, and required mitigation measures. Any contractor performing a task not covered in the HASP shall be required to develop a JHA specific to that task prior to performing the task. MM HAZ-1.7: A Site Management Plan (SMP) shall be developed to establish management practices for handling contaminated soil or other materials encountered during construction activities. The SMP shall identify potential health, safety, and environmental exposure considerations associated with redevelopment activities and shall identify appropriate mitigation measures. The SMP shall be submitted to the City and SCCDEH for approval prior to commencing construction activities. The SMP will include the following: • Proper mitigation as needed and demolition of the existing structure; • Proper handling and disposal of waste oil below the building; • Management of stockpiles, including sampling, disposal, and dust and runoff control including implementation of a stormwater pollution prevention program; • Management of underground structures encountered, including utilities and/or underground storage tanks; • Procedures to follow if evidence of an unknown historic release of hazardous materials (e.g., underground storage tanks, buried debris, contamination) is discovered during excavation or demolition activities; • Traffic control during site improvements; • Noise, work hours, and other relevant City regulations; • Mitigation of soil vapors; and • Monitoring, reporting, and regulatory oversight arrangements. City of Cupertino 52 Initial Study 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project March 2014 244 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts 4.8.2.2 Lead-Based Paint and Asbestos Containing Materials Demolition of the existing building could create lead-based dust at concentrations which would expose workers and nearby receptors to potential health risks. State regulations require that air monitoring be performed during the demolition activities at sites containing lead-based paint. If lead-based paint is determined to be present and is peeling, flaking, or blistering, it would need to be removed prior to demolition. It is assumed that such paint would become separated from the building components during demolition activities and must be managed and disposed of as a separate waste stream. If the lead-based paint is still bonded to the building materials, its removal is not required prior to demolition. The National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) guidelines require that all potentially friable ACMs be removed prior to building demolition that may disturb the ACMs. ACMs are defined by the USEPA as materials containing more than one percent (1%) asbestos. Title 8, Section 1529, of the California Code of Regulations (CCR), however, defines asbestos-containing construction material (ACCM) as any manufactured construction material which contains more than one-tenth of one percent (0.1%) asbestos by weight. Standard Project Conditions: The project, in conformance with regulatory programs and with the implementation of the following standard mitigation measures, would not result in significant impacts from lead-based paint and/or ACMs: • In conformance with state and local laws, a visual inspection/pre-demolition survey, and possible sampling, shall be conducted prior to the demolition of on-site buildings to determine the presence of lead-based paint and/or asbestos-containing materials. • 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 Regulations 1532.1, including employee training, employee air monitoring, and dust control. Any debris or soil containing lead-based paint or coatings would be disposed of at landfills that meet acceptance criteria for the waste being disposed. • All potentially friable ACMs shall be removed in accordance with 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 CCR, Section 1529, to protect workers from exposure to asbestos. • A registered asbestos abatement contractor shall be retained to remove and dispose of ACMs identified in the asbestos survey performed for the site in accordance with the standards stated above. • Materials containing more than one percent (1%) asbestos are also subject to BAAQMD regulations. Removal of materials containing more than one percent (1%) asbestos shall be completed in accordance with BAAQMD requirements. City of Cupertino 53 Initial Study 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project March 2014 245 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts The project, with the implementation of the above standard project conditions, would not result in significant impacts from lead-based paint and ACMs. (Less Than Significant Impact) 4.8.3 Conclusion Impact HAZ-1: The project, with the implementation of the identified mitigation measures (MM HAZ-1.1 to -1.8), would not result in significant impacts from contaminated soils and soil vapor on-site. (Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation) City of Cupertino 54 Initial Study 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project March 2014 246 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts 4.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 4.9.1 Setting 4.9.1.1 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 and the 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 Management Agency (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) 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 0.2 percent annual chance of flooding (also known as the 100-year and 500-year flood zones) as determined by the FEMA NFIP. The project site is not located in a 100-year floodplain.14 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 (USEPA) and the State Water Resources Control Board have been developed to fulfill the requirements of this legislation. USEPA’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 Cupertino area is the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Statewide Construction General Permit The State Water Resources Control Board has implemented a NPDES General 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 14 Federal Emergency Management Agency. Flood Insurance Rate Map. May 18, 2009. City of Cupertino 55 Initial Study 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project March 2014 247 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts stormwater permits with a regional permit for 77 Bay Area municipalities, including the City of Cupertino. Under provisions of the NPDES Municipal Permit, redevelopment projects that add and/or replace more than 10,000 square feet of impervious surface, or 5,000 square feet of uncovered parking area, are required to design and construct stormwater 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 located an area that is less than 65 percent impervious. Projects that add or replace one acre of impervious surfaces are subject to the hydromodification standard and associated requirements in the MRP.15 The project site is 0.87 acre in size. City of Cupertino Municipal Code Chapter 16.52 Prevention of Flood Damage of the City of Cupertino Municipal Code governs construction in Special Flood Hazard Areas (zone A, AO or A1-30 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 Protection of 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 provisions of the Federal Clean Water Act and NPDES Permit. 4.9.1.2 Existing Conditions Hydrology and Drainage Surface Water The project site is located within the Lower Peninsula Watersheds, which consists of a 98-square- mile area of multiple small-creek watersheds including the Stevens Creek watershed.16 Surface runoff from the project site is conveyed to Heney Creek which flows to Stevens Creek and ultimately the San Francisco Bay. Approximately 71 percent (or 0.44 acres) of the project site consists of impervious surfaces (i.e., pavement and building). Runoff from the site is currently conveyed to a 12-inch storm drain line located in North Foothill Boulevard that drains to Heney Creek in the Stevens Creek watershed. 15 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> 16 Santa Clara Valley Water District. “West Valley”. Accessed August 20, 2013. <http://www.valleywater.org/services/LowerPeninsula.aspx>. City of Cupertino 56 Initial Study 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project March 2014 248 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts Groundwater The project site is located in the Santa Clara Valley Groundwater Basin between the Diablo Mountains to the east and the Santa Cruz Mountains to the west. The Santa Clara Valley Groundwater Basin is filled by valley floor alluvium and the Santa Clara Formation. Groundwater is reported at approximately 53 feet below the ground surface.17 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. Flooding According to the FEMA FIRM, 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 one foot or with drainage areas less than one square mile; and areas protected by levees from the one percent chance flood.18 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. The project site is not located within a dam failure inundation hazard area.19 Sea Level Rise The project site is located at an elevation of approximately 385 feet 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 inches.20 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. 17 PIERS Environmental Services, Inc. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report. February 2013. 18 Federal Emergency Management Agency. Flood Insurance Rate Map. Panel 06085C0204H. May 18, 2009. 19 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> 20 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 Cupertino 57 Initial Study 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project March 2014 249 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts 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 roads is collected by storm drains and discharged into Heney 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 is developed with a former gas and service station, 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. 4.9.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Checklist Source(s) Would the project: 1. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? 1 2. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies 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)? 1 3. Substantially alter the existing drainage 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? 1 4. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which will result in flooding on-or off-site? 1 City of Cupertino 58 Initial Study 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project March 2014 250 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Checklist Source(s) Would the project: 5. Create or contribute runoff water which will exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? 1 6. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? 1 7. Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? 1,16 8. Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which will impede or redirect flood flows? 1,16 9. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? 16,17 10. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? 1 4.9.2.1 Hydrology and Drainage Impacts Redevelopment of the site would result in the same overall amount of impervious surfaces on-site (0.44 acres). Therefore, it is assumed that the existing storm drainage system would continue to have sufficient capacity to accommodate runoff from the project. (Less Than Significant Impact) 4.9.2.2 Flooding Impacts As discussed previously, the project site is not within the 100-year, or one percent flood zone. The project, therefore, would not place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area or impede or redirect flood flows within a 100-year flood hazard area. (No Impact) 4.9.2.3 Other Inundation Hazards The project is not located in an area subject to inundation hazards from dam failure, projected sea level rise or earthquake induced waves or mudflows. (No Impact) City of Cupertino 59 Initial Study 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project March 2014 251 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts 4.9.2.4 Groundwater Supply Impacts The project would use water supplied by San José Water Company. Water supply impacts of the project are addressed in Section 4.17 Utilities and Service Systems. The project 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. It is not anticipated that construction activities, including grading and excavation for hazardous materials remediation (refer to Section 4.8), would be at depths greater than 20 feet. Groundwater is approximately 53 feet below ground surface, therefore, it is unlikely that groundwater would be encountered during construction. The project would not result in substantial direct or indirect impacts to groundwater resources in the area. (Less Than Significant Impact) 4.9.2.5 Water Quality Impacts Construction-Related Impacts Construction of the proposed project, including 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 project would 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. Standard Project Conditions: In conformance with the City of Cupertino’s Municipal Code Chapter 9.18, the project shall implement the following standard measure to reduce construction- related water quality impacts to a less than significant level: • 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 construction period. − 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 Impacts Runoff from the project site would contain pollution from the new residences and detached workspaces and pavement. The project also would increase traffic and human activity on and around the site, generating pollutants and increasing dust, litter, and other contaminants that could be washed into the storm drain system. Runoff from the proposed project may contain increased oil and grease City of Cupertino 60 Initial Study 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project March 2014 252 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts from parked vehicles, as well as sediment and chemicals (i.e., fertilizers and pesticides) from the landscaped areas. Standard Project Conditions: In conformance with the City of Cupertino’s Municipal Code Chapter 9.18, the project shall implement the following standard measures to reduce post- construction water quality impacts to a less than significant level: • 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 in compliance 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 vegetated swales, rain gardens, and flow-through planters 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. • 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 BMPs shall 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 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 − Infiltration devices shall be located a minimum of 100 feet horizontally from any water supply wells. City of Cupertino 61 Initial Study 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project March 2014 253 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts • 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. • To maintain effectiveness, all storm water treatment facilities shall include long-term maintenance programs. • 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 significant water quality impacts. (Less Than Significant Impact) 4.9.3 Conclusion The proposed project, with the implementation of the City’s standard stormwater quality conditions, would not result in significant hydrology or water quality impacts. (Less Than Significant Impact) City of Cupertino 62 Initial Study 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project March 2014 254 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts 4.10 LAND USE 4.10.1 Setting 4.10.1.1 General Plan and Zoning Designations The project site is located in a mixed use area of Cupertino along a major collector roadway and is designated in the City’s General Plan for Commercial/Residential land uses. This land use designation is applied to mixed use areas that are predominantly commercial and offices and supporting residential uses may be allowed to offset job growth, better balance the citywide jobs to housing and when they are compatible with the primarily non-residential character of the area. The project site is zoned P(CG) which allows for General Commercial development. 4.10.1.2 Existing and Surrounding Uses The 0.87-acre project site is developed with a commercial structure, paving and landscaping at the site perimeter (see Photos 1-4). The commercial structure (currently vacant) was formerly used as a gasoline station and automobile repair facility. Fuel dispensers have been removed, although some remain stored on the site. The project site is located at the northern edge of a mixed use area fronting on North Foothill Expressway. Surrounding land uses include single-family residences to the north, west and south (both individual residences and townhouse cluster housing), a retirement community of senior apartments and continuing care facilities to the east, office uses to the southeast, and commercial uses to the south at the intersection of North Foothill Boulevard and Stevens Creek Boulevard (refer to Figure 2.2-3). 4.10.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Checklist Source(s) Would the project: 1. Physically divide an established community? 1 2. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? 1,2,4 3. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? 1 City of Cupertino 63 Initial Study 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project March 2014 255 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts The proposed project would demolish the existing automobile service station and construct six, two- story single-family dwelling units. Five of the six dwelling units would have detached one-story workspaces intended for live/work uses. The project proposes rezoning the site to Planned Development General Commercial/Residential – P(CG, Res) to reflect the proposed residential uses on the site. The relationship of the proposed buildings to adjacent uses to the west and south are shown on Figure 4.10-1. Building elevations as viewed from adjacent roadways (North Foothill Boulevard and Silver Oak Way) are included in Section 4.1 Aesthetics and shown on Figure 4.1-1. 4.10.2.1 Consistency with General Plan and Zoning Ordinance The proposed residential use with work spaces is consistent with the existing General Plan land use designation (Commercial/Residential) which allows a mix of commercial or office uses and residential uses. The proposed project would rezone the site from P(CG), which only allows for commercial development, to P(CG, Res) to allow construction of single-family residences and detached workspaces. Development surrounding the project site contains several residential housing types and quasi-public uses (a retirement community). Office and commercial uses are also present to the south and southeast of the site. Residences on the site would be constructed consistent with the proposed zoning standards (including building setbacks and heights) and would require approval of building permits and any applicable Planning permits, such as an Architectural and Site Approval. Compatibility with Adjacent Land Uses The detached work units would be located along the North Foothill Boulevard frontage (Figure 3.0- 1). These units would be separated from single-family residential uses to the north by Silver Oak Way and do not include outdoor areas, such as trash enclosures or loading docks, that could be sources of noise, dust, or spillover lighting. Five of the six residential buildings would be at a lower grade than adjacent residences to the south and west. Fill would be placed along the western boundary of the site to accommodate construction of a sixth residence with no workspace. The two-story residence would be setback from the property line approximately 15 feet and landscape trees planted between the residence (Home 6 on Figure 3.0- 1) and the residential property to the west. Rezoning of the site and construction of the proposed project, in conformance with design guidelines in the City’s zoning ordinance, would not result in result in land use compatibility or other related environmental 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 environmental impacts. (Less Than Significant Impact) City of Cupertino 64 Initial Study 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project March 2014 256 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of 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 community conservation plan. (No Impact) 4.10.3 Conclusion The proposed project is compatible with residential and other development in the project area and would not physically divide any established community. Implementation of the project, therefore, would not result in significant land use impacts. (Less Than Significant Impact) City of Cupertino 65 Initial Study 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project March 2014 257 CO N C E P T U A L B U I L D I N G E L E V A T I O N S ( S O U T H A N D W E S T V I E W S ) FIGURE 4.10-1 66 30'-0" 4'-0" TYP. 58 ' - 4 1 3 / 6 4 " HO M E " B " R O O F P E A K L I N E + 4 0 6 . 0 0 ' HO M E " C " R O O F P E A K L I N E + 4 0 9 . 0 0 ' MAX BUILDING HEIGHT BUILDING HEIGHT BUILDING HEIGHT MAX BUILDING HEIGHT TR A S H TR A S H 6"14'-0" 25'-11 7/8" 11'-0"13'-6" 1'-0"11'-0"13'-9" 25'-9" 30'-0" BUILDING HEIGHT EX I S T I N G G R A D E L I N E EX I S T I N G G R A D E L I N E 5 W C 6 A 4 3 2 1 B 3'-6" TYP. 4'-10" 3' F E N C E 30'-0" 21'-7 7/8" 7'-10 25/64"13'-9" HOME "F" ROOF PEAK LINE +417.00'HOME "B" ROOF PEAK LINE +406.00' MAX BUILDING HEIGHT BUILDING HEIGHT TRASH ENCLOSURE ELEVAT 1/8" 6 G 3 4 5 F SI L V E R O A K W A Y A B C D E F G 1 2 3 4 5 6 5W 4W 3W 2W 1w SI L V E R O A K W A Y FOOTHILL BLVD A- G E X I S T I N G O F F - S I T E R E S I D E N T S PR O J E C T S I T E HO M E “ C ” R O O F P E A K L I N E + 4 0 9 . 0 0 ’ HO M E “ F ” R O O F P E A K L I N E + 4 1 7 . 0 0 ’ HO M E “ B ” R O O F P E A K L I N E + 4 0 6 . 0 0 ’ HO M E “ B ” R O O F P E A K L I N E + 4 0 6 . 0 0 ’ 32 ’ - 8 ” 58 ’ - 4 1 3 / 6 4 ” EX I S I T N G G R A D E L I N E EX I S I T N G G R A D E L I N E EX I S I T N G G R A D E L I N E EX I S I T N G G R A D E L I N E EX I S I T N G G R A D E L I N E TR A S H 11’-0”13’-9” 30’-0” 13’-9”7-10 25/64” 25’-9” 30’-0” 13’-6” 25’-11 7/8” 30’-0” 11’-0” TR A S H 14’-0”SOUTH ELEVATION WEST ELEVATIONFOOTHILL BLVD 25 8 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts 4.11 MINERAL RESOURCES 4.11.1 Setting Mineral resources found and extracted in Santa Clara County include construction aggregate deposits such as sand, gravel, and crushed stone. There are several areas in the City of Cupertino that are designated by the State Mining and Geology Board under the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 (SMARA) as containing mineral deposits which are of regional significance; however, the City’s General Plan indicates that these areas are either depleted or unavailable due to existing development. The project site at North Foothill Boulevard is not within one of the areas of Cupertino designated as containing mineral deposits of importance. 4.11.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Checklist Source(s) Would the project: 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? 1,2 2. Result in the loss of availability of a locally- important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? 1,2 4.11.2.1 Impacts to Mineral Resources The project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource. 4.11.3 Conclusion Implementation of the proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource. (No Impact) City of Cupertino 67 Initial Study 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project March 2014 259 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts 4.12 NOISE The following discussion is based on an environmental noise assessment prepared by Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. for the project in July 2013. A copy of this report is included in Appendix E of this Initial Study. 4.12.1 Setting 4.12.1.1 Background Information Noise 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 the 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 units is known as the “A-weighted” decibel, or dBA. Further, sound is averaged over time and penalties are added to the average for noise that is generated during times that may be more disturbing to sensitive uses such as early morning, or late evening. Since excessive noise levels can adversely affect human activities and human health, federal, state, and local governmental agencies have set forth criteria or planning goals to minimize or avoid these effects. The noise guidelines are almost always expressed using one of several noise averaging methods, such as Leq, DNL, or CNEL.21 Using one of these descriptors is a way for a location’s overall noise exposure to be measured, realizing of course that there are specific moments when noise levels are higher (e.g., when a jet is taking off from the Airport or when a leaf blower is operating) and specific moments when noise levels are lower (e.g., during lulls in traffic flows on SR 85 or in the middle of the night). Vibration Ground vibration consists of rapidly fluctuating motions or waves with an average motion of zero. Several different methods are typically used to quantify vibration amplitude. One is the Peak Particle Velocity (PPV) and another is the Root Mean Square (RMS) velocity. The PPV is defined as the maximum instantaneous positive or negative peak of the vibration wave. The RMS velocity is defined as the average of the squared amplitude of the signal. The PPV and RMS vibration velocity amplitudes are used to evaluate human response to vibration. In this report, a PPV descriptor with units of millimeters per second (mm/sec) or inches per second (in/sec) is used to evaluate construction generated vibration for building damage and human complaints. 21 Leq stands for the Noise Equivalent Level and is a measurement of the average energy level intensity of noise over a given period of time such as the noisiest hour. DNL stands for Day-Night Level and is a 24-hour average of noise levels, with a 10 dB penalty applied to noise occurring between 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM. CNEL stands for Community Noise Equivalent Level; it is similar to the DNL except that there is an additional five dB penalty applied to noise which occurs between 7:00 PM and 10:00 PM. Typically, where traffic noise predominates, the CNEL and DNL are typically within two dBA of the peak-hour Leq. City of Cupertino 68 Initial Study 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project March 2014 260 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts Low-level vibrations frequently cause irritating secondary vibration, such as a slight rattling of windows, doors or stacked dishes. The rattling sound can give rise to exaggerated vibration complaints, even though there is very little risk of actual structural damage. Construction activities can cause vibration that varies in intensity depending on several factors. The use of pile driving and vibratory compaction equipment typically generates the highest construction related ground-borne vibration levels. The PPV descriptor is routinely used to measure and assess ground-borne vibration and almost exclusively used to assess the potential of vibration to induce structural damage and the degree of annoyance for humans. The two primary concerns with construction-induced vibration, the potential to damage a structure and the potential to interfere with the enjoyment of life, are evaluated against different vibration limits. Studies have shown that the threshold of perception for average persons is in the range of 0.008 to 0.012 in/sec PPV. Human perception to vibration varies with the individual and is a function of physical setting and the type of vibration. Persons exposed to elevated ambient vibration levels, such as people in an urban environment, may tolerate a higher vibration level. Additional information on the fundamentals of noise and vibration are included in Appendix E. 4.12.1.2 Regulatory Framework City of Cupertino General Plan The Health and Safety Element of the City’s General Plan identifies noise and land use compatibility standards for various land uses. Goal L identifies the need to provide a compatible noise environment for existing and future land uses. Residential land uses are considered “normally acceptable” in noise environments of 60 dBA CNEL or less, and conditionally acceptable in noise environments between 60 and 70 dBA CNEL. Goal O of the noise section is design buildings to diminish noise. Interior noise levels at residences are to be maintained at or below 45 dBA CNEL. City of Cupertino Municipal Code The City regulates noise within the community in Chapter 10.48 (Community Noise Control) of the Municipal Code. Construction noise is limited as follows: A. Grading, construction and demolition activities shall be allowed to exceed the noise limits of Section 10.48.040 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 87 dBA at a distance of 25 feet; or 2. The noise level on any nearby property does not exceed 80 dBA. B. Notwithstanding Section 10.48.053A, it is a violation of this chapter to engage in any grading, street construction, demolition or underground utility work within 750 feet of a residential area on Saturdays, Sundays and holidays, and during the nighttime period, except as provided in Section 10.48.030. City of Cupertino 69 Initial Study 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project March 2014 261 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts C. Construction, other than street construction, is prohibited on holidays, except as provided in Sections 10.48.029 and 10.48.030. D. Construction, other than street construction, is prohibited during nighttime periods unless it meets the nighttime standards of Section 10.48.040. E. The use of helicopters as a part of a construction and/or demolition activity shall be restricted to between the hours of 9AM and 6:30PM Monday through Friday only, and prohibited on the weekends and holidays. The notice shall be given at least 24 hours in advance of said usage. In cases of emergency, the 24 hour period may be waived. 4.12.1.3 Existing Conditions The project site is located southwest of the North Foothill Boulevard/Silver Oak Way intersection and is currently developed with a gasoline station and automobile repair facility, which is no longer in operation. Noise monitoring was completed at the site in June 2013 in order to quantify existing ambient noise levels. The noise monitoring survey included one long-term noise measurement and five short-term measurements. The existing noise environment at the site and in the vicinity results primarily from traffic on North Foothill Boulevard. The existing ambient CNEL at the site was measured at up to 73 dBA. Refer to Appendix E for more details regarding the noise measurements, including a map of noise measurement locations. The project site is not located within two miles of an airport or private airstrip, or within an airport land use plan referral area. 4.12.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Checklist Source(s) Would the project result in: 1. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? 18 2. Exposure of persons to, or generation of, excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? 18 3. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 18 4. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 18 City of Cupertino 70 Initial Study 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project March 2014 262 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Checklist Source(s) Would the project result in: 5. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, will the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? 1 6. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, will the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? 1 CEQA does not define what noise level increase would be considered substantial. Typically, project- generated noise level increases of three 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 dBA CNEL or greater would be considered significant. A substantial temporary noise level increase would occur where noise from construction activities exceeds 60 dBA Leq and the ambient noise environment by at least five dBA Leq at noise-sensitive uses in the project vicinity for a period of one year or more. 4.12.2.1 Noise Impacts to the Project Future Exterior Noise Environment Traffic along North Foothill Boulevard would continue to be the predominant source of noise affecting the noise environment at the project site. The CNEL at a distance of 75 feet from the center of North Foothill Boulevard is calculated to range from 73 to 74 dBA assuming a one dBA CNEL noise increase in the future. This noise level would be expected at the westernmost facades of proposed workspaces. Proposed Homes 1-5 would be exposed to exterior noise levels of 71 to 72 dBA CNEL (refer to Figure 3.0-1 for home locations). The future exterior noise environment at the project site would exceed the “normally acceptable” noise level category of up to 60 dBA CNEL and the “conditionally acceptable” category of up to 70 dBA CNEL. The site’s noise exposure would be considered “normally unacceptable” for the proposed residential land uses. Homes 1-5 each include two private outdoor use areas (refer to Figure 3.0-1). The first private outdoor use area of each residence would be located in a shielded area between the residence and the workspace, approximately 100 feet from the centerline of North Foothill Boulevard. Exterior noise levels within these courtyard areas are calculated to be 65 dBA CNEL or less, and would be considered “conditionally acceptable” with the future noise environment. The second private outdoor use area for Homes 1-5 would each be located in a shielded area behind the residences, approximately 130 feet from the centerline of North Foothill Boulevard. Exterior noise levels at these outdoor use areas would be considered “normally acceptable” with the future noise City of Cupertino 71 Initial Study 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project March 2014 263 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts environment as future noise levels are calculated to range from 59 to 60 dBA CNEL. Exterior noise levels at private outdoor use areas of Home 6 would not exceed the City’s noise level goal for exterior noise (60 dBA CNEL). Each residence has an outdoor use area where the noise level is “normally acceptable,” therefore, the project would not result in a significant exterior noise impact. (Less Than Significant Impact) Future Interior Noise Environment Future exterior noise levels are calculated to range from 73 to 74 dBA CNEL at the workspace buildings and from 71 to 72 dBA CNEL at Homes 1-5. The City requires that 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 about 20 to 25 decibels of noise reduction. For example, a unit exposed to exterior noise levels of 74 dBA CNEL would be 59 dBA CNEL inside with the windows partially open and would range from 49 to 54 dBA CNEL with the windows shut. Interior noise levels would exceed the maximum allowable interior sound level of 45 dBA CNEL inside proposed Homes 1-5. Attaining the necessary noise reduction from exterior to interior spaces for Homes 1-5 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. The future noise environment at the easternmost facade of Home 6 would just exceed 60 dBA CNEL. Standard residential construction with forced-air mechanical ventilation would be sufficient to reduce interior noise levels to 45 dBA CNEL or less. Impact NOI-1: Proposed Homes 1-5 could have interior noise levels exceeding the City’s standard of 45 dBA CNEL. (Significant Impact) Mitigation Measures: The project proposes to implement the following mitigation measures to incorporate ventilation systems and noise attenuation to reduce interior noise levels at Homes 1-5 to 45 dBA CNEL or less: MM NOI-1.1: Provide a suitable form of forced-air mechanical ventilation, as determined by the City of Cupertino Building Official, for all the units so that windows could be kept closed at the occupant’s discretion to control noise and achieve the 45 dBA CNEL interior noise standard. MM NOI-1.2: Provide sound rated windows and doors for Homes 1-5 to maintain interior noise levels at acceptable levels. Preliminary calculations made based on the data contained in the conceptual design plans indicate that sound-rated windows and doors with a sound transmission class rating of STC 30 to 35 would be sufficient to control noise and achieve the 45 dBA CNEL interior noise standard. City of Cupertino 72 Initial Study 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project March 2014 264 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts MM NOI-1.3: Confirm the final specifications for noise insulation treatments during final design of the project. Results of the analysis, including the description of the necessary noise control treatments, shall be submitted to the City along with the building plans and approved prior to issuance of building permits. 4.12.2.2 Noise and Vibration Impacts From the Project Construction-Related Impacts Construction Vibration The construction of the project may generate perceptible vibration when heavy equipment or impact tools (e.g., jackhammers, hoe rams, etc.) are used. Construction activities would include demolition of existing structures, excavation, site preparation work, foundation work, and new building framing and finishing. For structural damage, the California Department of Transportation uses a vibration limit of 0.5 inches/second, peak particle velocity (in/sec, PPV) for buildings structurally sound and designed to modern engineering standards, 0.3 in/sec, PPV for buildings that are found to be structurally sound but where structural damage is a major concern, and a conservative limit of 0.08 in/sec, PPV for historic buildings or buildings that are documented to be structurally weakened. No historic buildings or buildings that are documented to be structurally weakened adjoin the project site. Therefore, groundborne vibration levels exceeding 0.3 in/sec PPV would have the potential to result in a significant vibration impact. Table 4.12-1 presents typical vibration levels that could be expected from construction equipment at a distance of 25 feet. Project construction activities such as drilling, the use of jackhammers, rock drills and other high-power or vibratory tools, and rolling stock equipment (tracked vehicles, compactors, etc.) may generate substantial vibration in the immediate vicinity. Jackhammers typically generate vibration levels of 0.035 in/sec PPV and drilling typically generates vibration levels of 0.09 in/sec PPV at a distance of 25 feet. Vibration levels would vary depending on soil conditions, construction methods, and equipment used. Vibration levels from typical construction activities would be expected to be 0.2 in/sec PPV or less at a distance of 25 feet, below the 0.3 in/sec PPV significance threshold. Vibration generated by construction activities near the common property line would at times be perceptible, however, would not be expected to result in architectural damage to these buildings. The project, therefore, would not result in significant construction-related vibration impacts. (Less Than Significant Impact) City of Cupertino 73 Initial Study 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project March 2014 265 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts Table 4.12-1: Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment Equipment PPV at 25 feet (in/sec) Approximate Vibration Velocity at 25 feet (VdB) Vibratory Roller 0.210 94 Hoe Ram 0.089 87 Large bulldozer 0.089 87 Caisson drilling 0.089 87 Loaded trucks 0.076 86 Jackhammer 0.035 79 Small bulldozer 0.003 58 Note: VdB is the term used for vibration decibels. Source: United States Department of Transportation, Office of Planning and Environment, Federal Transit Administration. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. May 2006. Construction Noise Construction activities can generate high noise levels, especially during the construction of project infrastructure when heavy equipment is used. The highest maximum instantaneous noise levels generated by project construction would typically range from about 90 to 95 dBA Lmax at a distance of 50 feet from the noise source. Typical hourly average construction generated noise levels are about 81 dBA to 88 dBA Leq 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 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. 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 receptors. Construction noise impacts primarily occur when construction activities take place during noise-sensitive times of the day (early morning, evening, or nighttime hours), the construction occurs in areas immediately adjoining noise sensitive land uses, or when construction durations last over extended periods of time. Typically, significant noise impacts do not result when standard construction noise control measures are enforced at the project site and when the duration of the noise generating construction period is limited to one construction season (typically one year) or less. Given the size of the project, all exterior construction activities are anticipated to be completed in less than nine months, and once construction moves indoors, minimal noise would be generated at off-site locations. Even though construction activities would be conducted in accordance with the provisions of the City of Cupertino Municipal Code (refer to Section 4.12.1.2), noise levels from some activities could exceed the quantitative noise limits contained in the Municipal Code resulting in a significant impact. Impact NOI-2: Construction of the proposed project would result in a significant temporary noise impact. (Significant Impact) City of Cupertino 74 Initial Study 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project March 2014 266 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts Mitigation Measures: The project proposes to implement the following mitigation measures of minimizing disruption and annoyance of construction to adjacent uses to reduce construction noise impacts to a less than significant level: MM NOI-2.1: Avoid the unnecessary idling of equipment and stage construction equipment as far as reasonable from residences adjacent to the site. MM NOI-2.2: Prepare a detailed construction plan identifying the schedule for major noise- generating construction activities. MM NOI-2.3: Notify adjacent residents to the project site of the construction schedule. MM NOI-2.3: Locate stationary noise generating equipment such as air compressors or portable power generators as far as possible from sensitive receptors. MM NOI-2.4: Construct temporary noise barriers to screen stationary noise generating equipment when located near adjoining sensitive land uses. MM NOI-2.5: Utilize “quiet” air compressors and other stationary noise sources where technology exists. MM NOI-2.6: Control noise from construction workers’ radios to a point that they are not audible at existing residences bordering the project site. MM NOI-2.8: Designate a “noise disturbance coordinator” who would be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. The disturbance coordinator would determine the cause of the noise complaints (e.g., starting too early, bad muffler, etc.) and would require that reasonable measures warranted to correct the problem be implemented. Conspicuously post a telephone number for the disturbance coordinator at the construction site and include it in the notice sent to neighbors regarding the construction schedule. Project-Generated Traffic A significant noise impact would be identified if project-generated traffic would result in a noise level increase of three dBA CNEL or more at noise-sensitive land uses (e.g., existing residences). Existing traffic volumes along North Foothill Boulevard would have to double in order for the project to result in a three dBA CNEL noise increase above existing conditions. Given the size of the project, it is estimated that 10 peak hour automobile trips would be added to existing traffic volumes. The project is estimated to generate 128 average daily trips, while North Foothill Boulevard near the project site has over 16,000 average daily trips. Project-generated traffic noise level increases would be negligible compared to the traffic noise generated by North Foothill Boulevard. Traffic noise levels are calculated to not measurably increase (0 dBA CNEL) as a result of the project, and the impact is less than significant. (Less Than Significant Impact) City of Cupertino 75 Initial Study 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project March 2014 267 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts 4.12.3 Conclusion Impact NOI-1: The proposed project, with the implementation of the identified mitigation measures requiring the incorporation of mechanical ventilation systems and noise attenuation, would reduce interior noise levels to 45 dBA CNEL or less. (Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated) Impact NOI-2: The construction of the proposed project, with the implementation of the identified mitigation measures to minimize the disruption and annoyance of construction to adjacent uses, would not result in significant construction-related noise impacts. (Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated) City of Cupertino 76 Initial Study 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project March 2014 268 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts 4.13 POPULATION AND HOUSING 4.13.1 Setting Based on information from the California Department of Finance, the City of Cupertino population was estimated to be approximately 59,620 in January 2013.22 The average number of persons per household in Cupertino in 2010 was 2.87.23 Approximately 31,060 jobs were provided within the City of Cupertino’s Sphere of Influence in 2005, and the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) Projections 2009 shows a projected increase to 33,340 jobs by the year 2020. The General Plan does not specifically allocate additional 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 adequate infrastructure is available and no significant environmental impacts are identified. 4.13.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Checklist Source(s) Would the project: 1. Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? 1 2. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 1 3. Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 1 22 State of California, Department of Finance. E-1 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties and the State with Annual Percent Change — January 1, 2012 and 2013. May 2013. Available at: <http://www.dof.ca.gov/research/demographic/reports/estimates/e-1/view.php> 23 U.S. Census Bureau. “American Fact Finder”. Profile of General Population and Housing Characteristics: 2010, for the City of Cupertino. Accessed July 18, 2013. Available at: <http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=DEC_10_AIAN_AIANDP1&pr odType=table> City of Cupertino 77 Initial Study 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project March 2014 269 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts 4.13.2.1 Growth Inducement Impacts 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 does not contain any residences. The project proposes to allow redevelopment of the site with six new single-family residences and five work space structures. Conservatively using U.S. Census estimates of 2.87 residents per household in Cupertino, the project would result in a population increase of approximately 17 residents on the site. The population growth associated with redevelopment of the site would not induce significant unplanned growth in housing within the City. (Less Than Significant Impact) 4.13.2.2 Housing Displacement Impacts The project would not displace people or housing. (No Impact) 4.13.3 Conclusion The project would not result in substantial growth inducement or impacts to existing housing supply. (Less Than Significant Impact) City of Cupertino 78 Initial Study 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project March 2014 270 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts 4.14 PUBLIC SERVICES 4.14.1 Setting 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 17 fire 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 volunteer firefighters.24 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 Monta Vista Fire Station is located approximately 0.3 miles southwest of 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 1,429 sworn personnel. There are twenty-eight deputies allocated to the City of Cupertino.25 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 Stevens Creek Elementary School, Kennedy Middle School, and Monta Vista High School. 24 City of Cupertino. “Fire: Santa Clara County Fire Department About County Fire”. Accessed July 18, 2013. Available at: < http://www.cupertino.org/index.aspx?page=365> 25 City of Cupertino. “Sheriff's Office West Valley Division”. Accessed July 18, 2013. Available at: <http://www.cupertino.org/index.aspx?page=364> City of Cupertino 79 Initial Study 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project March 2014 271 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 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 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. Monta Vista Park is located approximately 0.5 mile walking distance south of the site and Varian Park is located approximately 0.5 mile walking distance northeast of the site via Cupertino Road, both of which require crossing a busy street (Stevens Creek Boulevard for Monta Vista Park and North Foothill Boulevard for Varian Park). 4.14.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Checklist Source(s) 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? Police Protection? Schools? Parks? Other Public Facilities? 1 1 1 1 1 City of Cupertino 80 Initial Study 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project March 2014 272 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 may incrementally 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 six single-family residences that would generate approximately three to four elementary students and one to two high school students.26 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 Stevens Creek Elementary School, Kennedy Middle School, and Monta Vista High School. The demand for housing in the Cupertino Union School District and in the Monta Vista High attendance area is very high. The number of students generated from the project is relatively small and 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’s effect on the adequacy of school facilities, with the individual school districts responsible for implementing school facilities improvements. The proposed project would generate new students in the local school districts. As described above, the school impact 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 not result in a significant impact to school facilities. (Less Than Significant Impact) 26 Schoolhouse Services. Enrollment and Fiscal Impact Analysis 20030 Stevens Creek Project. January 2012. Tables 1 & 2 (0.64 elementary and middle school students and 0.21 high school students per single family and some condominium units). City of Cupertino 81 Initial Study 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project March 2014 273 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts 4.14.2.3 Parks The proposed residential lots allow for limited private open space in side yards. No new public parkland or recreational facilities are proposed as a part of the project. Future residents of the site would incrementally increase the use of existing recreational facilities in the area. The two closest parks to the project site are both an approximately 0.5-mile walk from the project site. There is a crosswalk and signalized intersection at Stevens Creek Boulevard along the route to Monta Vista Park and a crosswalk on North Foothill Boulevard at Cupertino Road along a possible walking route to Varian Park. 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. Standard Project Condition: In conformance with standard practices in the City of Cupertino, the proposed project shall implement the following standard measure to reduce park impacts: • 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 the proposed residential development would cause significant physical deterioration of existing park facilities or require construction of new facilities. (Less Than Significant Impact) 4.14.3 Conclusion The proposed project, with the implementation of the above standard project condition, would not result in significant impacts to public services. (Less Than Significant Impact) City of Cupertino 82 Initial Study 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project March 2014 274 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts 4.15 RECREATION 4.15.1 Setting The City of Cupertino is served by approximately 162 acres of parkland, including neighborhood parks, community parks, 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 General Plan Policy 2 -74, states that the City should provide parkland equal to a minimum of three acres for every 1,000 residents. General Plan 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 Section 4.14 Public Services, Monta Vista Park is located approximately 0.5 mile walking distance south of the site and Varian Park is located approximately 0.5 mile walking distance northeast of the site via Cupertino Road, both of which require crossing a busy street (Stevens Creek Boulevard for Monta Vista Park and North Foothill Boulevard for Varian Park). 4.15.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Checklist Source(s) 1. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility will occur or be accelerated? 1 2. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? 1 Future residents of the site would incrementally increase the use of existing recreational facilities in the area. The two closest parks to the project site are both an approximately 0.5-mile walk from the project site. Future residents walking to these parks would be required to cross heavily traveled roadways. There is a crosswalk and signalized intersection at Stevens Creek Boulevard along the route to Monta Vista Park and a crosswalk on North Foothill Boulevard at Cupertino Road along a possible walking route to Varian Park. City of Cupertino 83 Initial Study 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project March 2014 275 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts The project’s compliance with the City’s parkland dedication/payment of in-lieu fees (refer to Section 4.14 Public Services) would offset recreational impacts. (Less Than Significant Impact) 4.15.3 Conclusion The proposed project would not result in significant recreation impacts. (Less Than Significant Impact) City of Cupertino 84 Initial Study 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project March 2014 276 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts 4.16 TRANSPORTATION The following discussion is based in part on a transportation evaluation prepared by Fehr & Peers in August 2013. A copy of this report is provided in Appendix F of this Initial Study. 4.16.1 Setting 4.16.1.1 Existing Transportation Network Roadway Network The roadway network serving the project site is described below. 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 an interchange with Foothill Expressway/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 an interchange at Stevens Creek Boulevard. Local Access Foothill Boulevard is a four-lane major collector in the vicinity of the project site. Bike lanes are provided on both sides of the street. Foothill Boulevard becomes Foothill Expressway north of I-280 and Stevens Canyon Road south of McClellan Road. Stevens Creek Boulevard is a six-lane, east-west divided arterial. It extends from the western boundary of the City of Cupertino into the cities of San José and Santa Clara. Stevens Creek Boulevard provides access to the project site via North Foothill Boulevard. Silver Oak Way is a local roadway that borders the project site to the north. On-street parking is allowed on both sides of the street. Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities In the project vicinity, pedestrian facilities include sidewalks, crosswalks, and pedestrian signals at signalized intersections. Sidewalks are provided on Foothill Boulevard and Silver Oak Way. Foothill Boulevard also has a pedestrian crosswalks at Cupertino Road. Sidewalks are also provided on Stevens Creek Boulevard with the exception of a few segments between Foothill Boulevard and Lebanon Drive. Pedestrian signals are present at the intersection of Foothill Boulevard and Stevens Creek Boulevard. City of Cupertino 85 Initial Study 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project March 2014 277 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts Bike lanes identified with special lane markings, pavement legends, and signage in the vicinity are located on Foothill Boulevard and Stevens Creek Boulevard. Transit Service The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) operates bus service in Santa Clara County. Bus Route 51 provides service between De Anza College and the Moffett Field/Ames Center. The hours of operation are from 6:30 AM to 7:00 PM with 20 to 60 minute headways on weekdays. Route 51 stops at the Mountain View Transit Center where riders can transfer onto Caltrain or light rail. 4.16.1.2 Existing Conditions The project site is developed with an unoccupied gas and service station. It is estimated that the gas and service station would generate approximately 650 average daily trips, if occupied. 4.16.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Checklist Source(s) Would the project: 1. Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance 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? 1,2 2. Conflict with an applicable congestion 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 for designated roads or highways? 1,19 3. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? 1 City of Cupertino 86 Initial Study 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project March 2014 278 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Checklist Source(s) Would the project: 4. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible land uses (e.g., farm equipment)? 1 5. Result in inadequate emergency access? 1 6. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? 2 The project proposes to construct six single-family residences, five of which would have detached workspaces. Vehicular access to the project site would be provided via a driveway on Silver Oak Way (refer to Figure 3.0-1). Parking for the residences and visitors would be provided at the rear of and between Homes 1-5 and along the western site boundary, south of Home 6. On-street parking would be available on Silver Oak Way as well. It is estimated that the proposed project would generate 129 average daily trips, with 15 during the AM peak hour and 10 during the PM peak hour.27 The project would generate fewer trips than the existing gas and service station, if occupied. Please refer to Appendix F for more detail regarding the project’s trip generation. 4.16.2.1 Intersection Level of Service The project is estimated to generate 15 AM and 10 PM peak hour trips. The Santa Clara VTA Congestion Management Program Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines requires a transportation impact analysis when a project generates 100 or more peak hour trips. A project that generates less than 100 peak hour trips is assumed to result in a less than significant traffic impact, therefore, a transportation impact analysis is not required. (Less Than Significant Impact) 4.16.2.2 Other Transportation Issues The proposed project includes new detached sidewalks and an extension of the curb at Silver Oak Way and Foothill Boulevard to create a bulb-out for safer pedestrian crossings. These improvements would not create a hazard. The project would provide adequate emergency vehicle access to the residential units and workspaces on the site. The on-site circulation for pedestrians and vehicles has been reviewed by Fehr & Peers and the design would incorporate their recommendations for internal walkways. The project would not conflict with any policies, plans, or programs that encourage alternative transportation programs. (No Impact) 27 The AM peak hour of traffic is generally between 7:00 and 9:00 AM, and the PM peak hour is typically between 4:00 and 6:00 PM. It is during these periods on an average day that the most congested traffic conditions occur. City of Cupertino 87 Initial Study 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project March 2014 279 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts 4.16.3 Conclusion 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 programs and, therefore, would not result in any significant transportation impacts. (Less Than Significant Impact) City of Cupertino 88 Initial Study 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project March 2014 280 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts 4.17 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS 4.17.1 Setting 4.17.1.1 Water Water service to the project site is supplied by the San José Water Company, which also maintains the water system. San José Water Company (SJWC) serves approximately 139 square miles of the Santa Clara Valley, including most of San 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 water for its potable water supply. In 2010, SJWC received approximately 39 percent of its water supply from groundwater, 50 percent from imported treated water, and 12 percent from local surface water.28 In 2010, SJWC delivered 133,066 acre-feet of water per year (AFY) which is expected to increase to 159,479 by 2035. The project site is served by an existing 10-inch water line in Silver Oak Way. Because the existing building on the site is vacant, it does not currently use substantial quantities of water. 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 North Foothill Boulevard that drains to Heney Creek in the Stevens Creek watershed. 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 Regional Wastewater Facility (RWF) located in north San José. The District purchases 7.85 million gallons per day of water treatment capacity from the RWF.29 Approximately five million gallons of wastewater a day is generated within the Cupertino Sanitary District and conveyed to the RWF.30 The City is well below their allotted capacity at the RWF. The project site is served by an eight-inch sanitary sewer line in Silver Oak Way. Currently, little (if any) sewage is generated on-site. 28 San José Water Company. 2010 Urban Water Management Plan. April 2011. 29 City of Milpitas. “Agreement for Treatment Plant Capacity Transfer”. 2009. Accessed: July 18. 2013. Available at: <http://www.ci.milpitas.ca.gov/_pdfs/council/2009/010609/item_17.pdf> 30 Cupertino Sanitary District. 2009 Annual Report. City of Cupertino 89 Initial Study 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project March 2014 281 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts 4.17.1.4 Solid Waste Commercial and residential garbage and recycling services in the project area are provided by Recology. Solid waste collected from the City is delivered to Newby Island Sanitary Landfill (NISL). Many types of recyclable materials are also delivered to the Sunnyvale Materials Recovery Station (SMART Station) for recycling. As of December 2012, NISL had approximately 5.8 million cubic yards of capacity remaining.31,32 The City has a contract with NISL until the year 2023, or until the cumulative tonnage delivered equals 2.05 million tons. Since the City’s contract with NISL, the City has delivered a total of approximately 1.4 million tons of waste to the landfill. The City generates approximately 31,500 tons of solid waste a year.33 4.17.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Checklist Source(s) Would the project: 1. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? 1 2. Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? 1,22 3. Require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? 1 4. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? 1,20 5. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? 1 31 King, Rick. Personal communications with NISL General Manager. May 14, 2013. 32 Note the City of San José approved a height expansion at Newby Island Sanitary Landfill in 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. City of Cupertino 90 Initial Study 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project March 2014 282 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Checklist Source(s) Would the project: 6. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? 21 7. Comply with federal, state and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? 1 4.17.2.1 Water Service and Supply Based on the 2010 Urban Water Management Plan adopted by San José Water Company in April 2011, water demand in their service area is expected to increase by approximately 20 percent. The project could increase water use on the site to approximately 2,400 gallons of water per day if no efficiency measures were incorporated into the project.34 The project will be constructed to meet California Green 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 The proposed project would increase the amount of pervious surfaces on the site and is not anticipated to increase the rate of stormwater runoff from the site. As described in Section 4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality, the project would be required to incorporate Low Impact Development (LID) stormwater treatment measures and, therefore, would not substantially increase runoff from the project site or exceed the capacity of the City’s existing storm drainage system. (Less Than Significant Impact) 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. The existing gas station, if occupied, is estimated to generate approximately 725 gallons of sewage a day.35 The project is estimated to generate 2,000 gallons of sewage per day.36 Based on the projected sewage generation from the site and a recent flow monitoring analysis completed by the 34 Based upon an estimated per capita rate of 135 gallons per capita per day for the five-year period of 2004-2008 in the 2010 San José Water Company Urban Water Management Plan and about three residents per single family unit. 35 Sewage generation for the gas station is based on a generation rate of 0.5 gallons of sewage per day (Source: City of San José. Sewage Treatment Plan Connection Fees, Coefficients, and Rates. March 2001.) 36 SMP Engineers. Sanitary Sewer Flow Calculations. December 12, 2013. City of Cupertino 91 Initial Study 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project March 2014 283 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts Cupertino Sanitary District, there is sufficient capacity in the existing sanitary sewer system to serve the project.37 (Less Than Significant Impact) 4.17.2.4 Solid Waste The proposed project is estimated to generate approximately 26,800 pounds (or 13.4 tons) of solid waste per year.38 Based on the project’s estimated annual waste generation, the City’s annual waste generation, and the City’s remaining allocation at NISL, there is sufficient capacity within the City’s contract with NISL and at NISL to serve the proposed project. (Less Than Significant Impact) 4.17.3 Conclusion The utilities and service systems currently available are adequate to serve the proposed project. (Less Than Significant Impact) 37 Bowersox, Nichol. Personal communications with Cupertino Sanitary District Project Manager. December 12, 2013. 38 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 Cupertino 92 Initial Study 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project March 2014 284 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts 4.18 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Checklist Source(s) 1. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? p.9-94 2. Does the project have impacts that are 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)? p.9-94 3. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals? p.9-94 4. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? p.9-94 4.18.1 Project Impacts The proposed project, with the implementation of the mitigation measures identified in Section 4.0 of this Initial Study, would not result in significantly degrade or impact the quality of the environment. As discussed specifically in Section 4.4 Biological Resources, the project would not impact sensitive habitat or wildlife. (Less Than Significant Impact) 4.18.2 Cumulative Impacts Cumulative impacts refer to two or more individual effects which, when considered together are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts. The project would not result in impacts to agricultural and forest resources or mineral resources and therefore, would not contribute to cumulative impacts to those resources. The project would result in the removal of existing trees, but the project would plant replacement trees. Therefore, the project would not have a considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact on trees. City of Cupertino 93 Initial Study 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project March 2014 285 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts There are no planned or proposed development in the project area that could contribute to cumulative aesthetic, air quality (including construction-related impacts), hydrology and water quality, noise, population and housing, recreation, or utilities and service system impacts. The project’s archaeological resources and geology and soils impacts are specific to the project site and would not contribute to cumulative impacts elsewhere. The project’s cumulative impacts to greenhouse gas emissions is discussed in Section 4.7 and it was concluded that the project would have a less than significant (cumulative) greenhouse gas emissions impact. Based on the above discussion, the project would not have cumulatively considerable impacts. (Less Than Significant Impact) 4.18.3 Short-term Environmental Goals vs. Long-term Environmental Goals The project proposes to construct six residences, five of which would include a separate work space, in an urban area. The project would not result in the conversion of a greenfield site to urban uses or otherwise commit resources in a wasteful or inefficient manner. The construction phase would require the use of nonrenewable construction material, such as concrete, metals, and plastics. Nonrenewable resources and energy would also be consumed during the manufacturing and transportation of buildings materials, preparation of the site, and construction of the buildings. The operational phase would consume energy for multiple purposes including, building heating and cooling, lighting, and electronics. Energy, in the form of fossil fuels, would be used to fuel vehicles traveling to and from the project site. The project would result in an increase in demand upon nonrenewable resources; however, the project is required to comply with Residential Mandatory Measures of the California Green Building Code. The mandatory measures include water conserving plumbing fixtures and fittings, recycle and/or salvage a minimum of 50 percent of the nonhazardous construction and demolition waste for reuse, and use of low VOC paints. The project would not induce substantial job or population growth (refer to Section 4.13) or result in a large or irretrievable commitment of resources. For these reasons, the project does not have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals. (Less Than Significant Impact) 4.18.4 Direct or Indirect Adverse Effects on Human Beings Based on the analysis completed in Section 4.0 of this Initial Study, the project would not result in direct or indirect adverse effects on human beings. The project, with the implementation of the measures identified in Section 4.0, would not expose people to substantial air pollutants, geological hazards, hazardous materials, flooding, or noise. (Less Than Significant Impact) City of Cupertino 94 Initial Study 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project March 2014 286 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts Checklist 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. City of Cupertino. Municipal Code. February 19, 2013. 5. California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection. Santa Clara County Williamson Act FY 2012/2013. 2012. 6. Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan. September 15, 2010. 7. Bay Area Air Quality Management District. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. May 2011. 8. Michael L. Bench, Consulting Arborist. An Evaluation of the Existing Trees at 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Cupertino, CA. March 22, 2013. 9. Holman & Associates, Archaeological Consultants. Archaeological Literature Review of 10121 North Foothill Residences Project, Cupertino, Santa Clara County, California. May 29, 2013. 10. Murray Engineers Inc. Geotechnical Investigation Foothill Residences. October 2013. 11. PIERS Environmental Services, Inc. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment. February 2013. 12. Cornerstone Earth Group. 10121 N. Foothill Boulevard Peer Review. March 25, 2013. 13. ERM. Plan to Address Redevelopment Concerns Memorandum. July 22, 2013. 14. ERM. Soil Vapor Survey Results. July 26, 2013. 15. ERM. Mitigation Plan for 10121 Foothills Blvd, Cupertino. November 15, 2013. 16. Federal Emergency Management Agency. Flood Insurance Rate Map. Panel 06085C0204H. May 18, 2009. 17. 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> City of Cupertino 95 Initial Study 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project March 2014 287 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts 18. Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. Foothill Boulevard PUD Environmental Noise Assessment. July 10, 2013. 19. Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority. Congestion Management Program, Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines. Updated March 29, 2004. 20. San José Water Company. 2010 Urban Water Management Plan. April 2011. 21. King, Rick. Personal communications with NISL General Manager. May 14, 2013. 22. Bowersox, Nichol. Personal communications with Cupertino Sanitary District Project Manager. December 12, 2013. City of Cupertino 96 Initial Study 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project March 2014 288 SECTION 5.0 REFERENCES 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> Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan. September 15, 2010. ---. 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> Bowersox, Nichol. Personal communications with Cupertino Sanitary District Project Manager. December 12, 2013. C. Bruce Hanson. 2010. Paleontological Evaluation Report for the Envision San José 2040 General Plan, Santa Clara County, California. California Department of Conservation, California Geologic Survey. Seismic Hazard Zones Cupertino Quadrangle. Map. September 23, 2002. Available at: <http://www.quake.ca.gov/gmaps/WH/regulatorymaps.htm>. California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection. Santa Clara County Williamson Act FY 2012/2013. 2012. California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology. Special Studies Zones Cupertino Quadrangle. Map. July 1, 1974. Available at: <http://www.quake.ca.gov/gmaps/WH/regulatorymaps.htm>. California Department of Conservation. Santa Clara County Important Farmland 2010. Map. 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> City of Cupertino. “Fire: Santa Clara County Fire Department About County Fire”. Accessed July 18, 2013. Available at: < http://www.cupertino.org/index.aspx?page=365> ---. “Sheriff's Office West Valley Division”. Accessed July 18, 2013. Available at: <http://www.cupertino.org/index.aspx?page=364> ---. General Plan. November 2005. ---. Municipal Code. February 19, 2013. City of Cupertino 97 Initial Study 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project March 2014 289 Section 5.0 – References City of Milpitas. “Agreement for Treatment Plant Capacity Transfer”. 2009. Accessed: July 18. 2013. Available at: <http://www.ci.milpitas.ca.gov/_pdfs/council/2009/010609/item_17.pdf> Cornerstone Earth Group. 10121 N. Foothill Boulevard Peer Review. March 25, 2013. County of Santa Clara. Geologic Hazard Zones. Map. October 26, 2012. Cupertino Sanitary District. 2009 Annual Report. City of San José. Sewage Treatment Plan Connection Fees, Coefficients, and Rates. March 2001. ERM. Mitigation Plan for 10121 Foothills Blvd, Cupertino. November 15, 2013. ---. Plan to Address Redevelopment Concerns Memorandum. July 22, 2013. ---. Soil Vapor Survey Results. July 26, 2013. Federal Emergency Management Agency. Flood Insurance Rate Map. Panel 06085C0204H. May 18, 2009. Holman & Associates, Archaeological Consultants. Archaeological Literature Review of 10121 North Foothill Residences Project, Cupertino, Santa Clara County, California. May 29, 2013. Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. Foothill Boulevard PUD Environmental Noise Assessment. July 10, 2013. King, Rick. Personal communications with NISL General Manager. May 14, 2013. Michael L. Bench, Consulting Arborist. An Evaluation of the Existing Trees at 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Cupertino, CA. March 22, 2013. Murray Engineers Inc. Geotechnical Investigation Foothill Residences. October 2013. PIERS Environmental Services, Inc. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report. February 2013. San José Water Company. 2010 Urban Water Management Plan. April 2011. Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority. Congestion Management Program, Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines. Updated March 29, 2009. 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> Santa Clara Valley Water District. “West Valley”. Accessed August 20, 2013. <http://www.valleywater.org/services/LowerPeninsula.aspx>. City of Cupertino 98 Initial Study 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project March 2014 290 Section 5.0 – References Schoolhouse Services. Enrollment and Fiscal Impact Analysis 20030 Stevens Creek Project. January 2012. Tables 1 & 2 (0.64 elementary and middle school students and 0.21 high school students per single family and some condominium units). State of California, Department of Finance. E-1 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties and the State with Annual Percent Change — January 1, 2012 and 2013. May 2013. 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 July 18, 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 Cupertino 99 Initial Study 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project March 2014 291 SECTION 6.0 LEAD AGENCY AND CONSULTANTS 6.1 LEAD AGENCY City of Cupertino Community Development Department Aarti Shrivastava, Director George Schroeder, Associate Planner 6.2 CONSULTANTS David J. Powers & Associates, Inc. Environmental Consultants and Planners Nora Monette, Principal Kristy Weis, Project Manager Ryan Shum, Researcher Zach Dill, Graphic Artist Cornerstone Earth Group Hazardous Materials Consultants Ron Helm, Principal ERM Hazardous Materials Consultants Ben Leslie-Bole, Principal Fehr & Peers Transportation Consultants Ian Barnes, Transportation Engineer Katy Cole, Associate Holman & Associates Archaeological Consultants Miley Holman, Principal Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. Acoustical Consultants Michael Thill, Vice-President Michael L. Bench Consulting Arborist PIERS Environmental Services, Inc. Hazardous Materials Consultants Joel Greger, Senior Project Manager Dawn Murray, President City of Cupertino 100 Initial Study 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project March 2014 292 FOR TECHNICAL APPENDICES, PLEASE ACCESS THE FOLLOWING LINK: http://cupertino.org/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?doc umentid=7962 293 ORDINANCE NO. 14-___ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL APPROVING THE REZONING OF A .87 GROSS ACRE PARCEL FROM P(CG) – PLANNED DEVELOPMENT GENERAL COMMERCIAL TO P(CG, RES) – PLANNED DEVELOPMENT GENERAL COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL, LOCATED AT 10121 N. FOOTHILL BLVD WHEREAS, an application was received by the City (Application no. Z-2014-01) for the rezoning of a .87 gross acre parcel from P(CG) – Planned Development General Commercial to P(CG, Res) – Planned Development General Commercial and Residential; and WHEREAS, the rezoning will be consistent with the City's General Plan land use map, proposed uses and surrounding uses; and WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given and the Planning Commission held one public hearing, recommending to the City Council that the rezoning be granted per resolution No. 6738 (Z-2014-01); WHEREAS, upon due notice, the City Council has held at least one public hearing that the amendment to the Zoning map be granted; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds the following: 1. That the proposed zoning is in accord with this title of the Municipal Code and the City's Comprehensive General Plan. The rezoning is in conformance with the General Plan Land Use Map of the City of Cupertino, since the zoning designation would be consistent with the existing land use designation (Commercial/Residential). The rezoning has been processed in accord with Chapter 19.152 of the City’s Municipal Code. 2. The proposed zoning is in compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). A mitigated negative declaration (MND) was prepared which analyzed biological resources, cultural resources, hazardous material, noise, air quality, geology and soils, water 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 with implementation of the required mitigation measures identified in the MND. 3. The site is physically suitable (including, but not limited to, access, provision of utilities, compatibility with adjoining land uses, and absence of physical constraints) for the requested zoning designation(s) and anticipated land use development(s). The property involved is adequate in size and shape to conform to the new zoning designation and is appropriately configured to accommodate residential uses. The rezoning is compatible with the adjoining land uses and no physical constraints are present that would conflict with anticipated land use development. Provision of utilities and related infrastructure to service the property are required as part of the future development. 294 4. The proposed zoning will promote orderly development of the City. The rezoning promotes the orderly development of the city in that the rezoning facilitates the development of additional housing units where municipal services are currently available. The proposed rezoning is consistent with General Plan Policy 2-32 which discourages exclusive general commercial uses and encourages developments that are not in an identified commercial area (such as the project site) to include a neighborhood commercial presence along the street with storefronts and residential uses. 5. That the proposed zoning is not detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of subject 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 parcels, 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 Meeting of May 20, 2014, and subject to the conditions specified below: Section 1. That the property described in attached Exhibits A is hereby rezoned to: P(CG, Res) – Planned Development General Commercial and Residential; and that Exhibit A attached hereto is made part of the Master Zoning Map of the City of Cupertino; Section 2. That the Rezoning is contingent upon the final recordation of the tentative parcel map indicated as a concurrent approval (TM-2014-01); and Section 3. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days after its passage. INTRODUCED at a regular adjourned meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino, State of California, the 20th day of May 2014, and ENACTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino the ____ day of ___________, 2014 by the following roll call vote: AYES: CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS: ATTEST: APPROVED: Grace Schmidt Gilbert Wong, Mayor City Clerk City of Cupertino 295 EXHIBIT A: ZONING PLAT MAP AND LEGAL DESCRIPTION G:\Planning\PDREPORT\ORD\2014\Z-2014-01 ord.doc 296 TM-2014-01 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. 14-___ OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO APPROVING A TENTATIVE MAP TO SUBDIVIDE A .62 NET ACRE PARCEL INTO SIX RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND ONE COMMON AREA LOT LOCATED AT 10121 N. FOOTHILL BLVD SECTION I: PROJECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: TM-2014-01 Applicant: Tate Development Property Owner: Foothill Auto Service & Detail, Inc. Location: 10121 N. Foothill Boulevard (APN 342-32-070) SECTION II: FINDINGS FOR A TENTATIVE MAP: WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Cupertino received an application for a Tentative Map as described in Section I. of this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Committee and Planning Commission have recommended adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration; and WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given as required by the Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the City Council has held at least one public hearing in regard to the application; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds as follows with regard to this application: a. That the proposed subdivision map is consistent with the City of Cupertino General Plan. The proposed tentative map is in conformance with the General Plan Land Use Map of the City of Cupertino, since it is consistent with the existing land use designation (Commercial/Residential). In addition, the subdivision design is consistent with General Policies that encourage development to activate streetscapes, be oriented to public streets, and avoid walls and gates that isolate developments from the community. b. That the design and improvements of the proposed subdivision are consistent with the General Plan. The subdivision design and improvements are in conformance with the General Plan. The improvements will enhance pedestrian and vehicular safety and maximize site landscaping and permeability. c. That the site is physically suitable for the type and intensity of development contemplated under the approved subdivision. 297 Resolution No. 14-___ TM-2014-01 May 20, 2014 The property involved is physically suitable in size and shape to conform to development standards and is appropriately configured to accommodate reasonable single-family dwelling units and workspaces. The proposed subdivision is compatible with the adjoining land uses and no physical constraints are present that would conflict with anticipated land use development. d. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development. The property involved is physically suitable in size and shape to conform to development standards and is appropriately configured to accommodate reasonable single-family dwelling units and workspaces. The proposed density is 6.89 dwelling units per acre, where 15 dwelling units per acre are allowed. e. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage nor substantially and unavoidable injure fish and wildlife or their habitat. The proposed subdivision design is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage nor substantially and unavoidably injure fish and wildlife or their habitat; mitigation measures related to biological resources will be incorporated as part of the CEQA review process to mitigate potential impacts to a less than significant level. f. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements associated there with is not likely to cause serious public health problems. The proposed subdivision design or type of improvements associated there with is not likely to cause serious public health problems, as relevant mitigation measures will be incorporated as part of the CEQA review process to mitigate potential impacts to a less than significant level. g. That the design of the subdivision and its associated improvements will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. The proposed subdivision design or type of improvements will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision; a portion of the property will be dedicated to the City for street frontage improvements, and a private road is proposed for access to the lots created by the proposed subdivision. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of the initial study, maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution beginning on PAGE 2 thereof,: A Mitigated Negative Declaration (Application no. EA-2014-01) is hereby adopted; and the application for a Tentative Map, Application no. TM-2014-01 is hereby approved and that the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this resolution are based and contained in the Public Hearing record concerning Application no. TM-2014-01 as set forth in the Minutes of City Council Meeting of May 20, 2014, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. Planning Division: 298 Resolution No. 14-___ TM-2014-01 May 20, 2014 1. APPROVED EXHIBITS Approval recommendation is based on the plan set received May 8, 2014 consisting of 40 sheets labeled A0-A20, AL1.1-AL1-4, C1-C5, TM, L0, L0.1, L0.2, L1, L2, L2.1, and L2.2, entitled, “Foothill Blvd PUD, 10121 N Foothill Blvd., Cupertino, CA 95014,” drawn by Modative, SMP Engineers, and Miriam Rainville; except as may be amended by conditions in this resolution. 2. ACCURACY OF PROJECT PLANS The applicant/property owner is responsible to verify all pertinent property data including but not limited to property boundary locations, building setbacks, property size, building square footage, any relevant easements and/or construction records. Any misrepresentation of any property data may invalidate this approval and may require additional review. 3. CONCURRENT APPROVAL CONDITIONS The conditions of approval contained in file nos. Z-2014-01, DP-2014-02, ASA-2014-02, and TR-2014- 08 shall be applicable to this approval. 4. TENTATIVE MAP APPROVAL Tentative Map approval is granted to subdivide a .62 net acre parcel into seven lots as described below: Lot 1 (Home 1 and workspace): 4,750 s.f. (.10 acres) Lot 2 (Home 2 and workspace): 3,603 s.f. (.08 acres) Lot 3 (Home 3 and workspace): 3,603 s.f. (.08 acres) Lot 4 (Home 4 and workspace): 3,103 s.f. (.07 acres) Lot 5 (Home 5 and workspace): 3,177 s.f. (.07 acres) Lot 6 (Home 6): 4,119 s.f. (.09 acres) Lot 7 (Common area): 4,290 s.f. (.09 acres) 5. FORMATION OF A HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION (HOA) AND COVENANTS, CONDITIONS, AND RESTRICTIONS (CC&Rs): A Homeowner’s Association shall be formed to maintain the common areas of the property. The Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (CC&Rs) shall be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney and the Director of Community Development prior to recordation of final map. A deposit determined by staff shall be provided for the City Attorney’s review. The CC&Rs shall include, but not be limited to the following terms: a. The members/board shall meet at a minimum of once/year b. The Association dues shall cover: i. Maintenance of common area on the property including driveways, walkways, hardscaping, parking, landscaping and accessory items, such as trash bins/areas, on and off-site landscaping and trees, outside trash bins, fences, etc, ii. Building and site repair on a regular schedule, or as otherwise necessary, and building renovation and replacement as necessary. c. Private roadway and driveway maintenance d. Protection and maintenance of perimeter privacy trees/shrubs e. Any changes to the CC&R’s must be reviewed and approved by the City f. Disbanding of the Association shall require an amendment to the development permit. 299 Resolution No. 14-___ TM-2014-01 May 20, 2014 g. Usage of workspaces h. Permitted and prohibited workspace uses i. Workspace performance standards j. Signage for the workspaces k. Procedures for maintenance in the City’s right-of-way l. Procedures for architectural and site modifications i. Environmental mitigation monitoring j. Compliance with other project conditions of approval k. Trash Management: The HOA shall fund the City’s time in monitoring the site and the street on collection days to see what impact the work spaces have on the neighborhood, the traffic, and the containment of the trash/recycling and organics using toters in a relatively dense configuration. Additional measures, including, but not limited to, construction of a trash enclosure, may be required if problems persist. 6. ROAD MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT: A reciprocal maintenance agreement shall be required for all parcels which share a common private drive or private roadway with one or more parcels. Said agreement shall be recorded in conjunction with recordation of the final map, and shall be subject to prior approval as to form and content of the City Attorney. 7. DEMOLITION OF STRUCTURES Prior to recordation of the final map, the applicant shall demolish and remove all structures on the property. All demolished buildings and site materials shall be recycled to the maximum extent feasible. 8. EXPIRATION The approval or conditional approval of a tentative subdivision map shall expire thirty-six (36) months from the date of City Council approval. An extension or extensions may be approved as provided in Section 18.20.080, or when required by the Subdivision Map Act. 9. CONSULTATION WITH OTHER DEPARTMENTS The applicant is responsible to consult with other departments and/or agencies with regard to the proposed project for additional conditions and requirements. Any misrepresentation of any submitted data may invalidate an approval by the Community Development Department. 10. INDEMNIFICATION To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the “indemnified parties”) from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside, or void this ordinance or any permit or approval authorized hereby for the project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City its actual attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its choice. 11. NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees, dedication requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant to Government Code Section 300 Resolution No. 14-___ TM-2014-01 May 20, 2014 66020(d) (1), these Conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations, and other exactions. You are hereby further notified that the 90-day approval period in which you may protest these fees, dedications, reservations, and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a), has begun. If you fail to file a protest within this 90-day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such exactions. SECTION IV: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 1. STREET WIDENING Public street widening and dedications shall be provided in accordance with City Standards and specifications and as required by the City Engineer. The proposed detached sidewalk on Foothill Blvd will require 3’ of dedication along the project frontage. It is not acceptable to reduce the pavement width to achieve the 11’ wide landscape and sidewalk area. No narrowing of Foothill Blvd will be permitted. 2. STREET IMPROVEMENTS Curbs and gutters, driveways, sidewalks, pavement and related structures shall be installed in accordance with grades and standards as specified by the City Engineer. Project shall construct two new ADA ramps at the northwest and southwest corners of the Foothill Blvd/Silver Oak Way intersection and improve up to half of street along the project frontage on Silver Oak Way and Foothill Blvd. Project shall extend a new storm drain main west from Foothill Blvd along Silver Oak Way to serve the project. No connection to the back of the existing catch basin will be permitted. In addition, the project shall construct a storm drain on Silver Oak Way. 3. PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE IMPROVEMENTS Developer shall provide pedestrian and bicycle related improvements consistent with the Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan and the Pedestrian Transportation Guidelines, and as approved by the City Engineer. The City Engineer shall have the final authority to approve the proposed pedestrian improvement at Foothill Blvd & Silver Oak Way. If the proposed bulb-out is approved, additional improvements may be required such as storm inlet and lateral to address drainage. 4. STREET LIGHTING INSTALLATION Street lighting shall be installed and shall be as approved by the City Engineer. Lighting fixtures shall be positioned so as to preclude glare and other forms of visual interference to adjoining properties, and shall be no higher than the maximum height permitted by the zone in which the site is located. 5. GRADING Grading shall be as approved and required by the City Engineer in accordance with Chapter 16.08 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. 401 Certifications and 404 permits maybe required. Please contact Army Corp of Engineers and/or Regional Water Quality Control Board as appropriate. 301 Resolution No. 14-___ TM-2014-01 May 20, 2014 6. DRAINAGE Drainage shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Hydrology and pre- and post- development hydraulic calculations must be provided to indicate whether additional storm water control measures are to be constructed or renovated. The storm drain system may include, but is not limited to, subsurface storage of peak stormwater flows (as needed), bioretention basins, vegetated swales, and hydrodynamic separators to reduce the amount of runoff from the site and improve water quality. The storm drain system shall be designed to detain water on-site (e.g., via buried pipes, retention systems or other approved systems and improvements) as necessary to avoid an increase of the ten percent flood water surface elevation to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Any storm water overflows or surface sheeting should be directed away from neighboring private properties and to the public right of way as much as reasonably possible. 7. UNDERGROUND UTILITIES Developer shall comply with the requirements of the Underground Utilities Ordinance No. 331 and other related Ordinances and regulations of the City of Cupertino, and shall coordinate with affected utility providers for installation of underground utility devices. Developer shall submit detailed plans showing utility underground provisions. Said plans shall be subject to prior approval of the affected Utility provider and the City Engineer. 8. IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT The project developer shall enter into a development agreement with the City of Cupertino providing for payment of fees, including but not limited to checking and inspection fees, storm drain fees, park dedication fees and fees for under grounding of utilities. Said agreement shall be executed prior to issuance of construction permits. Fees: a. Checking & Inspection Fees: $ Per current fee schedule ($2,707 or 5%) b. Grading Permit: $ Per current fee schedule ($2,542.00 or 6%) c. Development Maintenance Deposit: $ 1,000.00 d. Storm Drainage Fee: $ TBD e. Power Cost: ** f. Map Checking Fees: $ Per current fee schedule ($8,213.00) g. Park Fees: $ Per current fee schedule ($9,000 per unit) h. Street Tree $338 per tree to be installed by City ** Based on the latest effective PG&E rate schedule approved by the PUC Bonds: Faithful Performance Bond: 100% of Off-site and On-site Improvements Labor & Material Bond: 100% of Off-site and On-site Improvement On-site Grading Bond: 100% of site improvements. -The fees described above are imposed based upon the current fee schedule adopted by the City Council. However, the fees imposed herein may be modified at the time of recordation of a final map or issuance of a building permit in the event of said change or changes, the fees changed at that time will reflect the then current fee schedule. 302 Resolution No. 14-___ TM-2014-01 May 20, 2014 9. TRANSFORMERS Electrical transformers, telephone cabinets and similar equipment shall be placed in underground vaults. The developer must receive written approval from both the Public Works Department and the Community Development Department prior to installation of any above ground equipment. Should above ground equipment be permitted by the City, equipment and enclosures shall be screened with fencing and landscaping such that said equipment is not visible from public street areas, as determined by the Community Development Department. Transformers shall not be located in the front or side building setback area. 10. WATER BACKFLOW PREVENTERS Domestic and Fire Water Backflow preventers and similar above ground equipment shall be placed away from the public right of way and site driveways to a location approved by the Cupertino Planning Department, Santa Clara County Fire Department and the water company. 11. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES Utilize Best Management Practices (BMPs), as required by the State Water Resources Control Board, for construction activity, which disturbs soil. BMP plans shall be included in grading and street improvement plans. 12. NPDES CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PERMIT When and where it is required by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), the developer must obtain a Notice of Intent (NOI) from the SWRCB, which encompasses preparation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), use of construction Best Management Practices (BMPs) to control storm water runoff quality, and BMP inspection and maintenance. 13. C.3 REQUIREMENTS C.3 regulated improvements are required for all projects creating and/or replacing 10,000 S.F. or more of impervious surface (collectively over the entire project site). The developer shall reserve a minimum of 4% of developable surface area for the placement of low impact development measures, for storm water treatment, on the tentative map, unless an alternative storm water treatment plan, that satisfies C.3 requirements, is approved by the City Engineer. The developer must include the use and maintenance of site design, source control and storm water treatment Best Management Practices (BMPs), which must be designed per approved numeric sizing criteria. A Storm Water Management Plan, Storm Water Facilities Easement Agreement, Storm Water Facilities Operation and Maintenance Agreement, and certification of ongoing operation and maintenance of treatment BMPs are each required. All storm water management plans are required to obtain certification from a City approved third party reviewer. 14. EROSION CONTROL PLAN Developer must provide an approved erosion control plan by a Registered Civil Engineer. This plan should include all erosion control measures used to retain materials on site. Erosion control notes shall be stated on the plans. 303 Resolution No. 14-___ TM-2014-01 May 20, 2014 15. WORK SCHEDULE Every 6 months, the developer shall submit a work schedule to the City to show the timetable for all grading/erosion control work in conjunction with this project. 16. OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT Developer shall enter into an Operations & Maintenance Agreement with the City prior to final occupancy. The Agreement shall include the operation and maintenance for non-standard appurtenances in the public road right-of-way that may include, but is not limited to, sidewalk, pavers, and street lights. 17. TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN The developer must submit a traffic control plan by a Registered Traffic Engineer to be approved by the City. The plan shall include a temporary traffic control plan for work in the right of way as well as a routing plan for all vehicles used during construction. All traffic control signs must be reviewed and approved by the City prior to commencement of work. The City has adopted Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) standards for all signage and striping work throughout the City. 18. TRAFFIC SIGNS Traffic control signs shall be placed at locations specified by the City. 19. FULL TRASH CAPTURE SYSTEM The developer will be responsible for installing a full trash capture system/device to capture trash from the onsite storm drain before the storm water reaches the City owned storm drain system and storm inlets in the street adjacent to the project, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. A full capture system or device is a single device or series of devices that traps all particles retained by a 5 mm mesh screen and has a design treatment capacity of not less than the peak flow rate Q resulting from a one-year, one-hour storm in the sub-drainage area (see the Municipal Regional Permit section C.10 for further information/requirements). 20. TRASH MANAGEMENT The proposed pilot trash management plan must be designed to the satisfaction of the Environmental Programs Manager. Additional off-street parking maybe reduced to accommodate the requirements. Clearance by the Public Works Department is needed prior to obtaining a building permit. The following is required: a. Since this group of homes may have five home businesses, at a minimum Homes 1-5 shall be able to provide an extra 64-gallon recycling bin for each “work area” (in addition to the bins for each home). b. There shall be spaces drawn on the plan showing the spaces for 23 toters (18 regular + 5 additional for workspaces) to be stored once weekly on the street. c. Since this project would normally be required to have a trash enclosure, the HOA shall fund the City’s time in monitoring the site and the street on collection day to see what impact the work spaces have on the neighborhood, the traffic, and the containment of the trash/recycling and organics using toters in a relatively dense configuration. Additional measures, including, but not limited to, construction of a trash enclosure, may be required if problems persist. 304 Resolution No. 14-___ TM-2014-01 May 20, 2014 21. REFUSE TRUCK ACCESS Developer must obtain clearance from the Environmental Programs Manager in regards to refuse truck access for the proposed development. 22. STREET TREES Street trees shall be planted within the Public Right of Way to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and shall be of a type approved by the City in accordance with Ordinance No. 125. 23. FIRE PROTECTION Fire sprinklers shall be installed in any new construction to the approval of the City. 24. SANTA CLARA COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT A letter of clearance for the project shall be obtained from the Santa Clara County Fire Department prior to issuance of building permits. Clearance should include written approval of the location of any proposed Fire Backflow Preventers, Fire Department Connections and Fire Hydrants (typically Backflow Preventers should be located on private property adjacent to the public right of way, and fire department connections must be located within 100’ of a Fire Hydrant). 25. FIRE HYDRANT Fire hydrants shall be located as required by the City and Santa Clara County Fire Department as needed. 26. SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY CLEARANCE Provide San Jose Water Company approval for water connection, service capability and location and layout of water lines and backflow preventers before issuance of a building permit approval. 27. DEDICATION OF WATERLINES Developer shall dedicate to the City all water mains and appurtenances installed to City Standards. The developer shall reach an agreement with San Jose Water Company for water service to the subject development. 28. DEDICATION OF UNDERGROUND WATER RIGHTS Developer shall “quit claim” to the City all rights to pump, take or otherwise extract water from the underground basin or any underground strata in the Santa Clara Valley. 29. SANITARY DISTRICT A letter of clearance for the project shall be obtained from the Cupertino Sanitary District prior to issuance of building permits. 30. UTILITY EASEMENTS Clearance approvals from the agencies with easements on the property (including PG&E, AT&T, and Water Company, and/or equivalent agencies) will be required prior to issuance of building permits. CITY ENGINEER’S CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE OF ENGINEERING/SURVEYING CONDITIONS 305 Resolution No. 14-___ TM-2014-01 May 20, 2014 (Section 66474.10 of the California Government Code) I hereby certify that the engineering and surveying conditions specified in Section IV. Of this resolution conform to generally accepted engineering practices /s/Timm Borden Timm Borden, Director of Public Works City Engineer CA License 45512 PASSED AND ADOPTED this 20th day of May, 2014, Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote: AYES: CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS: ATTEST: APPROVED: Grace Schmidt Gilbert Wong, Mayor City Clerk City of Cupertino G:\Planning\PDREPORT\CC Res\2014\TM-2014-01 CC res.doc 306 DP-2014-02 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. 14-___ OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO ALLOW THE DEMOLITION OF AN ABANDONED AUTOMOBILE SERVICE STATION AND CONSTRUCT SIX RESIDENTIAL UNITS, INCLUDING FIVE LIVE-WORK UNITS WITH DETACHED WORKSPACES, ALONG WITH ASSOCIATED SITE AND OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS, LOCATED AT 10121 N. FOOTHILL BLVD SECTION I: PROJECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: DP-2014-02 Applicant: Tate Development Property Owner: Foothill Auto Service & Detail, Inc. Location: 10121 N. Foothill Boulevard (APN 342-32-070) SECTION II: FINDINGS FOR DEVELOPMENT PERMIT: WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Cupertino received an application for a Development Permit as described in Section I. of this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Committee and Planning Commission have recommended adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration; and WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given as required by the Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the City Council has held at least one public hearing in regard to the application; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds as follows with regard to this application: a) The proposed development, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience; Given that the project is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance; has been designed to be compatible with and respectful of adjoining land uses; and that relevant mitigation measures will be incorporated as part of the CEQA review process to mitigate potential impacts to a less than significant level, the project will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience. b) The proposed development will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Cupertino General Plan and the purpose of the City’s zoning ordinances. 307 Resolution No. 14-___ DP-2014-02 May 20, 2014 The proposed development is in conformance with the General Plan Land Use Map of the City of Cupertino, since it is consistent with the existing land use designation (Commercial/Residential). In addition, the design is consistent with General Policies that encourage development to activate streetscapes, be oriented to public streets, and avoid walls and gates that isolate developments from the community. The location, height, and massing of the buildings are compatible with the adjacent and surrounding developments. The proposed project format is consistent with the City’s General Plan Policy 2-32, which specifies for this area to provide neighborhood commercial uses along the street and to discourage standalone commercial developments. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of the initial study, maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution beginning on PAGE 2 thereof,: A Mitigated Negative Declaration (Application no. EA-2014-01) is hereby adopted; and the application for a Development Permit, Application no. DP-2014-02 is hereby approved and that the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this resolution are based and contained in the Public Hearing record concerning Application no. DP-2014-02 as set forth in the Minutes of City Council Meeting of May 20, 2014, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. Planning Division: 1. APPROVED EXHIBITS Approval recommendation is based on the plan set received May 8, 2014 consisting of 40 sheets labeled A0-A20, AL1.1-AL1-4, C1-C5, TM, L0, L0.1, L0.2, L1, L2, L2.1, and L2.2, entitled, “Foothill Blvd PUD, 10121 N Foothill Blvd., Cupertino, CA 95014,” drawn by Modative, SMP Engineers, and Miriam Rainville; except as may be amended by conditions in this resolution. 2. ACCURACY OF PROJECT PLANS The applicant/property owner is responsible to verify all pertinent property data including but not limited to property boundary locations, building setbacks, property size, building square footage, any relevant easements and/or construction records. Any misrepresentation of any property data may invalidate this approval and may require additional review. 3. CONCURRENT APPROVAL CONDITIONS The conditions of approval contained in file nos. Z-2014-01, TM-2014-01, ASA-2014-02, and TR-2014- 08 shall be applicable to this approval. 4. ANNOTATION OF THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL The conditions of approval set forth shall be incorporated into and annotated on the first page of the building plans. 5. SUPERCEDANCE OF U-1987-53 308 Resolution No. 14-___ DP-2014-02 May 20, 2014 The conditions contained in this Development Permit shall supersede the previously approved Use Permit (U-1987-53) on the property, since this Development Permit involves the complete demolition of the use associated with Use Permit application no. U-1987-53. 6. DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL AND PROJECT AMENDMENTS Development Permit approval is granted to allow the demolition of 1,608 square feet of existing commercial space (abandoned automobile service station) and the construction of six residential units, including five live-work units with detached workspaces. The following square footages are approved for the residential units and workspaces: Homes 1-5: 2,668 s.f. (1,320 s.f. first floor, 1,348 second floor) Home 6: 2,690 s.f. (1,271 s.f. first floor, 1,419 s.f. second floor) Home 1-3 workspaces: 452 s.f. Home 4-5 workspaces: 411 s.f. The Planning Commission shall review amendments to the project considered major by the Director of Community Development. 7. TOTAL OVERALL HEIGHT OF HOME 6 The total overall height of Home 6 as identified on the plans shall be reduced by five (5) feet. Height reduction measures may be achieved by grading, wall, and roofline changes. 8. DEVELOPMENT ALLOCATION The applicant shall receive an allocation of six residential units from the Other Commercial Centers General Plan residential allocation area. 1,608 commercial square feet shall be backfilled into the Other Commercial Centers General Plan commercial allocation area. 9. WORKSPACE PERMITTED/PROHIBITED USES AND PERFORMANCE STANDARDS Permitted uses in the workspaces shall be consistent with the City’s Home Occupation Ordinance, currently Chapter 19.120 of the Municipal Code and shall be subject to the following performance standards (including prohibited uses): a. Usage: i. The residential and the commercial space must be occupied by the same tenant, and no portion of the live/work unit may be rented or sold separately. ii. The commercial component as designated on the floor plan approved shall remain commercial and cannot be converted to residential use. iii. The residential component as designated on the floor plan approved shall remain residential and cannot be converted to commercial use. iv. The commercial component shall be restricted to the unit and shall not be conducted in the yard, garage, or any accessory structures. v. The commercial component shall not detract from, or otherwise be a nuisance to, the residential character or appearance of the dwelling units. vi. No explosive, toxic, combustible or flammable materials in excess of what would be allowed incidental to normal residential use shall be stored or used on the premises. vii. Client/customer visits are limited to one vehicle or client unit at a time. viii. Client/customer visits may only occur during the hours of 7 AM to 6 PM. 309 Resolution No. 14-___ DP-2014-02 May 20, 2014 b. Location: Prevent intrusion of light, noise and unsightly conditions from disturbing neighbors. i. Confine home occupation to workspaces. ii. Front yards, driveways may not be used for home occupation purposes. c. Display: Maintain visual character of principal residence as a residence. i. Workspace activities shall involve no exterior display of merchandise or stock in trade for sale. d. Sales Activity: Restrict scope of workspace activity to ensure that residential use remains primary. i. Direct sale of products off display shelves or racks to the general public is prohibited; however an order may be filled on the premises if placed earlier by a customer using telephone, e-mail, or mail order communications, or through attendance at a sales party. ii. Parties for the purpose of selling or taking orders for merchandise shall not be held more than two times in any month. iii. Workspace activities which involve the sale or rental of vehicles or vessels shall not be permitted to keep any vehicles on the premises at any time, or to deliver such vehicles to renters or purchasers on the premises. e. Intrusive Effects: Ensure that processes, tools, and hours of operation do not disturb neighbors through noise, odor, vibration, TV/radio interference. i. All workspace activities shall comply with City noise ordinance daytime/nighttime limitations. ii. All workspace activities shall be conducted so as to maintain emissions at nonintrusive levels. iii. Appropriate equipment shall be installed to reduce emissions to nonintrusive levels. f. Traffic: Ensure that pedestrian, automobile, or truck traffic, or parking demand is not significantly above normal levels for that zone. i. Deliveries to and from the premises restricted per the Municipal Code. g. Employment: Ensure that traffic is not significantly above normal levels for that zone. i. Workspace activities shall be carried on by members of the household occupying the dwelling, with not more than one additional person employed on the premises who is not a resident thereof. This shall not exclude the employment of domestic servants, gardeners, janitors, or other persons concerned in the operation or maintenance of the dwelling, whether living on the premises or not. h. Utility Service: Maintain residential scale of utility services to limit workspace activity to an incidental use. i. Workspace activity requiring a water meter above the size customary to a residence in that zone is prohibited. ii. Electrical panel restricted to size customary to a residence in that zone. i. Business Vehicle: Restrict number, size, and keeping of vehicles to reduce parking demand and maintain residential streetscape. 310 Resolution No. 14-___ DP-2014-02 May 20, 2014 i. No more than one vehicle primarily used for business purposes may be parked per site. ii. Size limited to passenger auto, pickup truck, or similar van. j. Guest Parking Area: i. Guest parking shall be reserved for workspace patrons and allowable incidental employees only during the hours of 7 AM to 6 PM, Monday through Friday. ii. Guest parking shall be open to all parties during the hours of 6 PM to 7AM, Monday through Friday and 24 hours a day on weekends and holidays. iii. Signage restricting the usage of the spaces shall be reviewed by the City and installed prior to final occupancy. k. Storage: Ensure that stored materials do not take up required parking space or accumulate in yards. i. Storage outside of an enclosed structure is prohibited. ii. Garage storage of materials is not allowed. l. Signs: i. Signage shall be developed in accordance with a master sign program for the overall development. ii. Signage intended to promote workspace businesses shall be restricted to two square foot signs permanently affixed to the door or wall of the workspace. iii. All advertising for workspace businesses shall clearly state “by appointment only.” iv. Signs shall not be placed on the roof or within the required setback areas. m. Excluded Occupations: The occupations listed below, shall not be considered incidental and secondary to the primary residence and are therefore prohibited: i. Automobile repair shops, including paint and body work; ii. Barbershops and beauty parlors, except for hair stylists by appointment only; iii. Boarding and/or rooming homes for more than two guests; iv. Clinics and hospitals, also veterinary (animal) clinics and hospitals; v. Kennels and other boarding for pets, in excess of the number of animals allowed in the base zoning district where specified; vi. Medical offices for physicians, dentists, osteopaths, and other practitioners; vii. Massage, acupuncture, and other alternative medical practices. viii. Private schools with organized classes; ix. Upholstery, small engine repair, welding shops; x. Food uses (including, but not limited to cottage foods, restaurants, other uses involving food preparation) xi. Client/customer visits in excess of one vehicle or client unit at a time. xii. Other uses which are found by the Community Development Director to be of similar intensity and characteristics of use to those enumerated in this section, and are thus inconsistent with the stated purposes of the Home Occupation Ordinance. All workspace businesses shall obtain a City of Cupertino business license. 311 Resolution No. 14-___ DP-2014-02 May 20, 2014 10. FORMATION OF A HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION (HOA) AND COVENANTS, CONDITIONS, AND RESTRICTIONS (CC&Rs): A Homeowner’s Association shall be formed to maintain the common areas of the property. The Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (CC&Rs) shall be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney and the Director of Community Development prior to recordation of final map. A deposit determined by staff shall be provided for the City Attorney’s review. The CC&Rs shall include, but not be limited to the following terms: a. The members/board shall meet at a minimum of once/year b. The Association dues shall cover: i. Maintenance of common area on the property including driveways, walkways, hardscaping, parking, landscaping and accessory items, such as trash bins/areas, on and off-site landscaping and trees, outside trash bins, fences, etc, ii. Building and site repair on a regular schedule, or as otherwise necessary, and building renovation and replacement as necessary. c. Private driveway and walkway maintenance d. Protection and maintenance of perimeter privacy trees/shrubs e. Any changes to the CC&R’s must be reviewed and approved by the City f. Disbanding of the Association shall require an amendment to the development permit. g. Performance standards for the workspaces h. Permitted and prohibited workspace uses i. Workspace performance standards j. Signage for the workspaces k. Procedures for maintenance in the City’s right-of-way l. Procedures for architectural and site modifications m. Environmental mitigation monitoring n. Compliance with other project conditions of approval o. Trash Management: The HOA shall provide a deposit for the City’s time in monitoring the site and the street on collection days to see what impact the work spaces have on the neighborhood, the traffic, and the containment of the trash/recycling and organics using toters in a relatively dense configuration. Additional measures, including, but not limited to, construction of a trash enclosure, may be required if problems persist. p. The project may be subject to levels of noise, activities, and impacts associated with commercial uses at higher levels than would be expected in typical residential projects. Noise and other standards shall be those applicable to commercial properties in the applicable zoning district. q. Master sign program (if signage is requested). 11. PARKING RATIO The project auto parking ratio shall be 3.8 spaces per unit with a workspace (2 enclosed, .8 open) and 2.8 space per unit without a workspace (2 enclosed, .8 open). 12. INTERIOR GARAGE DIMENSION The interior garage clearance shall be 20 feet by 20 feet (measured from inside walls). 13. COMPLIANCE WITH MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP) 312 Resolution No. 14-___ DP-2014-02 May 20, 2014 The project shall be required to adhere to the mitigation measures identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration (EA-2014-01) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the project. 14. HOUSING MITIGATION FEES The applicant shall participate in the City’s Below Market Rate (BMR) Housing Program by paying the housing mitigation fees as per the Housing Mitigation Manual. The estimated mitigation fee for this project is $53,531.52 based on the 2013-2014 fiscal year rate of $2.94 per square foot of residential area. 15. SCHOOL IMPACT FEES The applicant shall pay the applicable school impact fees assessed by the school districts prior to issuance of building permits. 16. BICYCLE PARKING The applicant shall provide Class II bicycle parking based on a minimum of five percent of the required auto parking in accordance with the City’s Parking Regulations under Chapter 19.124 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. 17. WORKSPACE STOREFRONTS The workspace storefront entrances shall remain oriented towards Foothill Boulevard. The entrance doors and storefront are to be kept open and free of any obstructions. No more than 25% of each storefront window bay may be obstructed. Boarding, closure, shelves, permanent walls, opaque painting/material of windows, and other storefront obstructions are not permitted. 18. MASTER SIGN PROGRAM Signage is not approved with this application. A separate master sign program application for the entire development if signage for the workspaces is requested. 19. TRASH AND DELIVERY ACTIVITIES A detailed refuse and truck delivery plan shall be prepared by the applicant. The plan shall include, but not be limited to the following: a. Location and design of trash facilities (i.e. trash enclosures and receptacles). Trash enclosures shall provide ample space to include trash, recycling, food waste, and waste receptacles along with a tallow bin. b. Quantity of trash receptacles. c. Primary and alternative truck routes. d. Signage for parking stalls displaced during pick-up and delivery hours. e. Trash pick-up schedule. All trash facilities must be screened and enclosed to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department. The final plan shall be submitted to the City and the City’s refuse service for review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. 20. TRANSFORMERS Electrical transformers, telephone cabinets and similar equipment shall be placed in underground vaults. The developer must receive written approval from both the Public Works Department and 313 Resolution No. 14-___ DP-2014-02 May 20, 2014 the Community Development Department prior to installation of any above ground equipment. Should above ground equipment be permitted by the City, equipment and enclosures shall be screened with fencing and landscaping such that said equipment is not visible from public street areas, as determined by the Community Development Department. Transformers shall not be located in the front or side building setback area. 21. UTILITY STRUCTURE PLAN Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall work with staff to provide a detailed utility plan to demonstrate screening or undergrounding of all new utility structures [including, but not limited to backflow preventers (BFP), fire department connections (FDC), post-indicator valves (PIV), and gas meters] to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development, Public Works, Fire Department, and applicable utility agencies. 22. ROOFTOP EQUIPMENT AND OTHER ABOVE-GROUND EQUIPMENT SCREENING All mechanical and other equipment on the building or on the site shall be screened so they are not visible from public street areas or adjoining developments. The height of the screening shall be taller than the height of the mechanical equipment that it is designed to screen. A line of sight plan may be required to demonstrate that the equipment will not be visible from any public right-of-way. The location of the equipment and necessary screening shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development prior to issuance of building permits. 23. SITE LIGHTING All new lighting must conform to the standards in the City’s Parking Ordinance, and the final lighting plan (including a detailed photometric plan) shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director prior to building permit issuance. Prior to final occupancy, a licensed lighting consultant shall confirm that the lighting is in compliance with the City’s standards. 24. CITY ARBORIST REVIEW OF EXISTING NEIGHBORING AND NEW SITE TREES Prior to grading or building permit issuance, the City’s consulting arborist shall be retained by the developer to review all construction permit drawings and details concerning the area near existing neighboring property trees in order to more accurately assess the impacts to the neighboring trees. The developer shall implement any additional recommendations and tree protection measures by the City’s consulting arborist. The City’s consulting arborist shall also be retained by the developer to inspect the existing neighboring trees to confirm their good health following construction. Corrective measures shall be taken, if necessary. Additionally, prior to final occupancy, the City’s consulting arborist shall be retained to inspect the new tree plantings to ensure that they were planted properly and according to the approved plan. 25. LANDSCAPE PROJECT SUBMITTAL Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit a full landscape project submittal per section 14.15.040 of the Landscaping Ordinance. The Water-Efficient Design Checklist (Appendix A of Chapter 14.15), Landscape and Irrigation Design Plans, and Water Budget Calculations shall be reviewed and approved to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development prior to issuance of building permits. 314 Resolution No. 14-___ DP-2014-02 May 20, 2014 26. LANDSCAPE INSTALLATION REPORT A landscape installation audit shall be conducted by a certified landscape professional after the landscaping and irrigation system have been installed and prior to final occupancy. The findings of the assessment shall be consolidated into a landscape installation report. The landscape installation report shall include, but is not limited to: inspection to confirm that the landscaping and irrigation system are installed as specified in the landscape and irrigation design plan, system tune-up, system test with distribution uniformity, reporting overspray or run-off that causes overland flow, and preparation of an irrigation schedule. The landscape installation report shall include the following statement: “The landscape and irrigation system have been installed as specified in the landscape and irrigation design plan and complies with the criteria of the ordinance and the permit.” 27. LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION MAINTENANCE A maintenance schedule shall be established and submitted to the Director of Community Development or his/her designee, either with the landscape application package, with the landscape installation report prior to issuance of final occupancy, or any time before the landscape installation report is submitted prior to issuance of building permits. a) Schedules should take into account water requirements for the plant establishment period and water requirements for established landscapes. b) Maintenance shall include, but not be limited to the following: routine inspection; pressure testing, adjustment and repair of the irrigation system; aerating and de-thatching turf areas; replenishing mulch; fertilizing; pruning; replanting of failed plants; weeding; pest control; and removing obstructions to emission devices. c) Failed plants shall be replaced with the same or functionally equivalent plants that may be size- adjusted as appropriate for the stage of growth of the overall installation. Failing plants shall either be replaced or be revived through appropriate adjustments in water, nutrients, pest control or other factors as recommended by a landscaping professional. 28. SOIL ANALYSIS REPORT A soils analysis report shall document the various characteristics of the soil (e.g. texture, infiltration rate, pH, soluble salt content, percent organic matter, etc) and provide recommendations for amendments as appropriate to optimize the productivity and water efficiency of the soil. The soil analysis report shall be made available to the professionals preparing the landscape and irrigation design plans in a timely manner either before or during the design process. A copy of the soils analysis report shall be submitted to the Director of Community Development as part of the landscape documentation package. 29. SOIL SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS MM HAZ-1.1: The project shall conduct soil sampling and analysis of the extent of petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) and volatile organic compounds (VOC) contamination in soil, soil vapor, and/or groundwater in accordance with the Work Plan approved by the Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health (SCCDEH) on November 5, 2013. The approved Work Plan describes sample methodology, sample locations, the quality assurance/quality control plan, reporting, and schedule. The Work Plan shall be implemented by the project and the results of the 315 Resolution No. 14-___ DP-2014-02 May 20, 2014 sampling shall be submitted to the SCCDEH. If additional investigation is required to sufficiently delineate the contaminants of concern, additional sampling or mitigation measures shall be proposed and be reviewed and approved by the SCCDEH. The Work Plan shall be completed to the satisfaction of the SCCDEH prior to issuance of grading permits for project construction. 30. SITE REMEDIATION PLAN MM HAZ-1.2: A Site Remediation Plan shall be prepared based on the documented soil conditions and approved by the SCCDEH. The Site Remediation Plan shall include the design of a remedy that has the goal of mitigating ongoing threats to water quality and to conditions of unacceptable risk for residential land use. The Site Remediation Plan shall include implementation and monitoring schedules. Upon approval of the Site Remediation Plan, the approved remediation design shall be implemented at the project site, prior to issuance of grading permits for project construction. Based on the current understanding of site conditions, soil vapor extraction (SVE) is considered an appropriate remedy to mitigate the soil vapor levels to an acceptable level for residential use. An SVE system would consist of a series of soil vapor extraction wells connected to a vacuum pump. The depth and number of wells would be determined based on results of the additional sampling. Vapors collected via the extraction system would be treated either through absorption onto activated carbon or destroyed using an on-site combustion system. The operation of the mitigation system would be tuned for optimal performance during the early operations period. Mitigation of soil vapors to levels acceptable for residential land use is expected to take approximately three months. System operation shall comply with City noise ordinances and necessary permits (e.g., Bay Area Air Quality Management District) shall be obtained prior to operation of the system. In addition, required permits for well installation shall be obtained from the Santa Clara Valley Water District. If vapor mitigation through SVE is the only remedy implemented, confirmation of its effectiveness shall be documented by four quarters of soil vapor monitoring (multi-depth vapor wells installed to five and 10 feet at each proposed residence) performed after the termination of the remediation system. If a different remedy is approved, the Site Remediation Plan shall include an applicable implementation plan, schedule, monitoring, and confirmation program. Other feasible remedies could include soil excavation with or without above-ground treatment, passive sub-slab vapor barriers, active sub-slab vapor management systems, or a combination of these components. 31. OTHER SOIL CONTAMINANT SOURCES SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS MM HAZ-1.3: In addition to the sampling described above, soils at the site shall be assessed for impact from other potential contaminant sources. These sources shall be sampled and analyzed as follows: • Soil samples shall be collected near the location of the former hydraulic hoists and analyzed for PCBs. Samples shall be collected at locations dictated by visual evidence of discoloration and analyzed using EPA SW 846 methodology (e.g., 8081 or 8082). If no discoloration is evident, one soil sample shall be collected at each hoist. 316 Resolution No. 14-___ DP-2014-02 May 20, 2014 • Three soil samples shall be collected from the site at a maximum depth of 0.5 feet below the native soil surface and analyzed for organochlorine pesticides and arsenic. Additional samples may be required based on the results of this analysis. • The soil sampling results shall be compared to appropriate risk-based screening levels and submitted to SCCDEH and the Director of Community Development prior to construction grading on the site. If additional investigation is required to sufficiently delineate the contaminants of concern, additional sampling or mitigation measures shall be proposed and reviewed and approved by the SCCDEH prior to construction grading. 32. REMOVAL AND DISPOSAL OF CONTAMINATED SOILS MM HAZ-1.4: Soil containing pesticides, PCB, and/or petroleum hydrocarbons shall be removed by properly trained and licensed personnel and contractors, prior to construction workers entering the site to begin earthwork. Contaminated soil shall be handled by trained personnel using appropriate protective equipment and engineering controls, in accordance with local, state, and federal laws. Contaminated soil shall be transported separate from other soil excavated at the site, and disposed at an appropriate offsite facility in accordance with its characteristics or, if mitigated by an alternative method, with approval from SCCDEH, or other appropriate regulatory agency. 33. CLOSURE REPORT MM HAZ-1.5: Upon completion of remediation activities and confirmation that the resulting conditions are adequately protective of residential development, a Closure Report shall be prepared and submitted to the City and SCCDEH for review and approval. The report shall summarize: • Past investigations, analytical reports, and current site conditions; • Implemented mitigation measures and soil management activities; • Off-site transport and disposal of excavated soil, and • Excavation backfill materials and procedures. Once the mitigation measures described have achieved thresholds established for residential use, the report shall include a request regulatory closure for the property. Final approval that the site is suitable for residential land uses shall be issued by SCCDEH and copied to the City of Cupertino prior to issuance of grading or demolition permits for project construction. 34. HEALTH AND SAFETY PLAN (HASP) MM HAZ-1.6: A site-specific Health and Safety Plan (HASP) shall be prepared prior to issuance of grading permits for project construction to address potential health and safety hazards associated with implementation of the Work Plan and proposed redevelopment activities (e.g., site preparation, demolition, grading and construction). The HASP shall govern activities of all personnel present during field activities. A job hazard analysis (JHA) shall be prepared for each task prior to performing said task. The JHAs shall include, at a minimum, identification of likely hazards associated with the task, requirements and procedures for employee protection, and required mitigation measures. Any contractor performing a task not covered in the HASP shall be required to develop a JHA specific to that task prior to performing the task. 35. SITE MANAGEMENT PLAN (SMP) 317 Resolution No. 14-___ DP-2014-02 May 20, 2014 MM HAZ-1.7: A Site Management Plan (SMP) shall be developed to establish management practices for handling contaminated soil or other materials encountered during construction activities. The SMP shall identify potential health, safety, and environmental exposure considerations associated with redevelopment activities and shall identify appropriate mitigation measures. The SMP shall be submitted to the City and SCCDEH for approval prior to commencing construction activities. The SMP will include the following: • Proper mitigation as needed and demolition of the existing structure; • Proper handling and disposal of waste oil below the building; • Management of stockpiles, including sampling, disposal, and dust and runoff control including implementation of a stormwater pollution prevention program; • Management of underground structures encountered, including utilities and/or underground storage tanks; • Procedures to follow if evidence of an unknown historic release of hazardous materials (e.g., underground storage tanks, buried debris, contamination) is discovered during excavation or demolition activities; • Traffic control during site improvements; • Noise, work hours, and other relevant City regulations; • Mitigation of soil vapors; and • Monitoring, reporting, and regulatory oversight arrangements. 36. REDUCTION OF INTERIOR NOISE LEVELS MM NOI-1.1: Provide a suitable form of forced-air mechanical ventilation, as determined by the City of Cupertino Building Official, for all the units so that windows could be kept closed at the occupant’s discretion to control noise and achieve the 45 dBA CNEL interior noise standard. MM NOI-1.2: Provide sound rated windows and doors for Homes 1-5 to maintain interior noise levels at acceptable levels. Preliminary calculations made based on the data contained in the conceptual design plans indicate that sound-rated windows and doors with a sound transmission class rating of STC 30 to 35 would be sufficient to control noise and achieve the 45 dBA CNEL interior noise standard. MM NOI-1.3: Confirm the final specifications for noise insulation treatments during final design of the project. Results of the analysis, including the description of the necessary noise control treatments, shall be submitted to the City along with the building plans and approved prior to issuance of building permits. 37. CONTRUCTION NOISE MITIGATION MEASURES The following construction noise mitigation measures shall be taken in order to reduce noise event impacts to nearby receptor areas: • MM NOI-2.1: Avoid the unnecessary idling of equipment and stage construction equipment as far as reasonable from residences adjacent to the site. • MM NOI-2.2: Prepare a detailed construction plan identifying the schedule for major noise- generating construction activities. • MM NOI-2.3: Notify adjacent residents to the project site of the construction schedule. 318 Resolution No. 14-___ DP-2014-02 May 20, 2014 • MM NOI-2.3: Locate stationary noise generating equipment such as air compressors or portable power generators as far as possible from sensitive receptors. • MM NOI-2.4: Construct temporary noise barriers to screen stationary noise generating equipment when located near adjoining sensitive land uses. • MM NOI-2.5: Utilize “quiet” air compressors and other stationary noise sources where technology exists. • MM NOI-2.6: Control noise from construction workers’ radios to a point that they are not audible at existing residences bordering the project site. • MM NOI-2.8: Designate a “noise disturbance coordinator” who would be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. The disturbance coordinator would determine the cause of the noise complaints (e.g., starting too early, bad muffler, etc.) and would require that reasonable measures warranted to correct the problem be implemented. Conspicuously post a telephone number for the disturbance coordinator at the construction site and include it in the notice sent to neighbors regarding the construction schedule. 38. PRE-CONSTRUCTION MEETING AND CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PLAN Prior to commencement of construction activities, the applicant shall arrange for a pre-construction meeting with the pertinent departments (including, but not limited to, Building, Planning, Public Works, Santa Clara County Fire Department) to review an applicant-prepared construction management plan including, but not limited to: a. Plan for compliance with conditions of approval b. Plan for public access during work in the public right-of-way c. Construction staging area d. Construction schedule and hours e. Construction phasing plan, if any f. Contractor parking area g. Tree preservation/protection plan h. Site dust, noise and storm run-off management plan i. Emergency/complaint and construction site manager contacts 39. CONSTRUCTION HOURS Construction activities shall be limited to Monday through Friday, 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. and Saturday and Sunday, 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. Construction activities are not allowed on holidays. The developer shall be responsible for educating all contractors and subcontractors of said construction restrictions. Rules and regulation pertaining to all construction activities and limitations identified in this permit, along with the name and telephone number of a developer appointed disturbance coordinator, shall be posted in a prominent location at the entrance to the job site. 40. DEMOLITION REQUIREMENTS All demolished building and site materials shall be recycled to the maximum extent feasible subject to the Building Official. The applicant shall provide evidence that materials were recycled prior to issuance of final demolition permits. 319 Resolution No. 14-___ DP-2014-02 May 20, 2014 41. HAZARDOUS MATERIAL MITIGATION DURING DEMOLITION The following requirements shall apply for the demolition phase of the project: a. In conformance with state and local laws, a visual inspection/pre-demolition survey, and possible sampling, shall be conducted prior to the demolition of on-site buildings to determine the presence of lead-based paint and/or asbestos-containing materials. b. 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 Regulations 1532.1, including employee training, employee air monitoring, and dust control. Any debris or soil containing lead-based paint or coatings would be disposed of at landfills that meet acceptance criteria for the waste being disposed. c. All potentially friable ACMs shall be removed in accordance with 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 CCR, Section 1529, to protect workers from exposure to asbestos. d. A registered asbestos abatement contractor shall be retained to remove and dispose of ACMs identified in the asbestos survey performed for the site in accordance with the standards stated above. e. Materials containing more than one percent (1%) asbestos are also subject to BAAQMD regulations. Removal of materials containing more than one percent (1%) asbestos shall be completed in accordance with BAAQMD requirements. f. The project, with the implementation of the above standard project conditions, would not result in significant impacts from lead-based paint and ACMs. 42. DUST CONTROL The following construction practices shall be implemented during all phases of construction for the proposed project to prevent visible dust emissions from leaving the site: a. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered or treated with non-toxic stabilizers or dust palliatives two times per day and more often during windy periods to prevent dust from leaving the site. b. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material on-site shall be covered to maintain at least 2 feet of freeboard. c. 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. d. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph. e. All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. f. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. g. 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. h. Idling times shall be minimized either by 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]). 320 Resolution No. 14-___ DP-2014-02 May 20, 2014 i. Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. j. 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. k. Construction equipment shall not be staged within 200 feet of existing residences. l. The applicant shall incorporate the City’s construction best management practices into the building permit plan set. 43. MITIGATION OF CONSTRUCTION-RELATED WATER QUALITY IMPACTS In conformance with the City of Cupertino’s Municipal Code Chapter 9.18, the project shall implement the following standard measure to reduce construction-related water quality impacts to a less than significant level: • 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 construction period. − 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. 44. MITIGATION OF POST-CONSTRUCTION WATER QUALITY IMPACTS In conformance with the City of Cupertino’s Municipal Code Chapter 9.18, the project shall implement the following standard measures to reduce post-construction water quality impacts to a less than significant level: • 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 in compliance 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 vegetated swales, rain gardens, and flow-through planters 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. • 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 BMPs shall be implemented to protect groundwater; 321 Resolution No. 14-___ DP-2014-02 May 20, 2014 − 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 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 − Infiltration devices shall be located a minimum of 100 feet horizontally from any water supply wells. • 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. • To maintain effectiveness, all storm water treatment facilities shall include long-term maintenance programs. • 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. 45. CULTURAL RESOURCES DISCOVERIES DURING CONSTRUCTION MM CUL-1.1: In the event of the discovery of prehistoric or historic archaeological deposits or paleontological deposits, work shall be halted within 50 feet of 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. 322 Resolution No. 14-___ DP-2014-02 May 20, 2014 MM CUL-1.2: In the event that human remains and/or cultural materials are found, all project- related construction shall cease within 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: a. In the event of 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 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 location not subject to further subsurface disturbance. b. MM CUL-1.3: A final report summarizing the discovery of cultural materials shall be submitted to the Director of Community Development prior 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 Community Development. 46. CONSULTATION WITH OTHER DEPARTMENTS The applicant is responsible to consult with other departments and/or agencies with regard to the proposed project for additional conditions and requirements. Any misrepresentation of any submitted data may invalidate an approval by the Community Development Department. 47. INDEMNIFICATION To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the “indemnified parties”) from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside, or void this ordinance or any permit or approval authorized hereby for the project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City its actual attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its choice. 48. NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees, dedication requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(d) (1), these Conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations, and other exactions. You are hereby further notified that the 90-day approval period in which you may protest these fees, dedications, reservations, and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a), has begun. If you fail to file a protest within this 90-day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such exactions. 323 Resolution No. 14-___ DP-2014-02 May 20, 2014 Building Division: 49. INFORMATION TO PROVIDE ON CONSTRUCTION PERMIT PLANS The applicant shall submit construction drawings to the City for review, including, but not limited to the following information on the construction permit plans: a. Note that fire sprinklers are by deferred submittal and approved by the Santa Clara County Fire Department. b. Note that building codes should include the California Residential Code (2013). c. Accessible uncovered guest parking shall be designated and compliant for a van space. d. Access to workspace areas and the common open space area shall be accessible. e. Sizing of drainage shall comply with the 2013 CPC. f. In workspace areas, provide 48-inch clear space in front of lavatory. g. Kitchenettes shall be accessible. SECTION IV: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 1. STREET WIDENING Public street widening and dedications shall be provided in accordance with City Standards and specifications and as required by the City Engineer. The proposed detached sidewalk on Foothill Blvd will require 3’ of dedication along the project frontage. It is not acceptable to reduce the pavement width to achieve the 11’ wide landscape and sidewalk area. No narrowing of Foothill Blvd will be permitted. 2. STREET IMPROVEMENTS Curbs and gutters, driveways, sidewalks, pavement and related structures shall be installed in accordance with grades and standards as specified by the City Engineer. Project shall construct two new ADA ramps at the northwest and southwest corners of the Foothill Blvd/Silver Oak Way intersection and improve up to half of street along the project frontage on Silver Oak Way and Foothill Blvd. Project shall extend a new storm drain main west from Foothill Blvd along Silver Oak Way to serve the project. No connection to the back of the existing catch basin will be permitted. In addition, the project shall construct a storm drain on Silver Oak Way. 3. PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE IMPROVEMENTS Developer shall provide pedestrian and bicycle related improvements consistent with the Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan and the Pedestrian Transportation Guidelines, and as approved by the City Engineer. The City Engineer shall have the final authority to approve the proposed pedestrian improvement at Foothill Blvd & Silver Oak Way. If the proposed bulb-out is approved, additional improvements may be required such as storm inlet and lateral to address drainage. 4. STREET LIGHTING INSTALLATION Street lighting shall be installed and shall be as approved by the City Engineer. Lighting fixtures shall be positioned so as to preclude glare and other forms of visual interference to adjoining 324 Resolution No. 14-___ DP-2014-02 May 20, 2014 properties, and shall be no higher than the maximum height permitted by the zone in which the site is located. 5. GRADING Grading shall be as approved and required by the City Engineer in accordance with Chapter 16.08 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. 401 Certifications and 404 permits maybe required. Please contact Army Corp of Engineers and/or Regional Water Quality Control Board as appropriate. 6. DRAINAGE Drainage shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Hydrology and pre- and post- development hydraulic calculations must be provided to indicate whether additional storm water control measures are to be constructed or renovated. The storm drain system may include, but is not limited to, subsurface storage of peak stormwater flows (as needed), bioretention basins, vegetated swales, and hydrodynamic separators to reduce the amount of runoff from the site and improve water quality. The storm drain system shall be designed to detain water on-site (e.g., via buried pipes, retention systems or other approved systems and improvements) as necessary to avoid an increase of the ten percent flood water surface elevation to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Any storm water overflows or surface sheeting should be directed away from neighboring private properties and to the public right of way as much as reasonably possible. 7. UNDERGROUND UTILITIES Developer shall comply with the requirements of the Underground Utilities Ordinance No. 331 and other related Ordinances and regulations of the City of Cupertino, and shall coordinate with affected utility providers for installation of underground utility devices. Developer shall submit detailed plans showing utility underground provisions. Said plans shall be subject to prior approval of the affected Utility provider and the City Engineer. 8. IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT The project developer shall enter into a development agreement with the City of Cupertino providing for payment of fees, including but not limited to checking and inspection fees, storm drain fees, park dedication fees and fees for under grounding of utilities. Said agreement shall be executed prior to issuance of construction permits. Fees: a. Checking & Inspection Fees: $ Per current fee schedule ($2,707 or 5%) b. Grading Permit: $ Per current fee schedule ($2,542.00 or 6%) c. Development Maintenance Deposit: $ 1,000.00 d. Storm Drainage Fee: $ TBD e. Power Cost: ** f. Map Checking Fees: $ Per current fee schedule ($8,213.00) g. Park Fees: $ Per current fee schedule ($9,000 per unit) h. Street Tree $338 per tree to be installed by City ** Based on the latest effective PG&E rate schedule approved by the PUC Bonds: Faithful Performance Bond: 100% of Off-site and On-site Improvements 325 Resolution No. 14-___ DP-2014-02 May 20, 2014 Labor & Material Bond: 100% of Off-site and On-site Improvement On-site Grading Bond: 100% of site improvements. -The fees described above are imposed based upon the current fee schedule adopted by the City Council. However, the fees imposed herein may be modified at the time of recordation of a final map or issuance of a building permit in the event of said change or changes, the fees changed at that time will reflect the then current fee schedule. 9. TRANSFORMERS Electrical transformers, telephone cabinets and similar equipment shall be placed in underground vaults. The developer must receive written approval from both the Public Works Department and the Community Development Department prior to installation of any above ground equipment. Should above ground equipment be permitted by the City, equipment and enclosures shall be screened with fencing and landscaping such that said equipment is not visible from public street areas, as determined by the Community Development Department. Transformers shall not be located in the front or side building setback area. 10. WATER BACKFLOW PREVENTERS Domestic and Fire Water Backflow preventers and similar above ground equipment shall be placed away from the public right of way and site driveways to a location approved by the Cupertino Planning Department, Santa Clara County Fire Department and the water company. 11. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES Utilize Best Management Practices (BMPs), as required by the State Water Resources Control Board, for construction activity, which disturbs soil. BMP plans shall be included in grading and street improvement plans. 12. NPDES CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PERMIT When and where it is required by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), the developer must obtain a Notice of Intent (NOI) from the SWRCB, which encompasses preparation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), use of construction Best Management Practices (BMPs) to control storm water runoff quality, and BMP inspection and maintenance. 13. C.3 REQUIREMENTS C.3 regulated improvements are required for all projects creating and/or replacing 10,000 S.F. or more of impervious surface (collectively over the entire project site). The developer shall reserve a minimum of 4% of developable surface area for the placement of low impact development measures, for storm water treatment, on the tentative map, unless an alternative storm water treatment plan, that satisfies C.3 requirements, is approved by the City Engineer. The developer must include the use and maintenance of site design, source control and storm water treatment Best Management Practices (BMPs), which must be designed per approved numeric sizing criteria. A Storm Water Management Plan, Storm Water Facilities Easement Agreement, Storm Water Facilities Operation and Maintenance Agreement, and certification of ongoing operation and maintenance of treatment BMPs are each required. 326 Resolution No. 14-___ DP-2014-02 May 20, 2014 All storm water management plans are required to obtain certification from a City approved third party reviewer. 14. EROSION CONTROL PLAN Developer must provide an approved erosion control plan by a Registered Civil Engineer. This plan should include all erosion control measures used to retain materials on site. Erosion control notes shall be stated on the plans. 15. WORK SCHEDULE Every 6 months, the developer shall submit a work schedule to the City to show the timetable for all grading/erosion control work in conjunction with this project. 16. OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT Developer shall enter into an Operations & Maintenance Agreement with the City prior to final occupancy. The Agreement shall include the operation and maintenance for non-standard appurtenances in the public road right-of-way that may include, but is not limited to, sidewalk, pavers, and street lights. 17. TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN The developer must submit a traffic control plan by a Registered Traffic Engineer to be approved by the City. The plan shall include a temporary traffic control plan for work in the right of way as well as a routing plan for all vehicles used during construction. All traffic control signs must be reviewed and approved by the City prior to commencement of work. The City has adopted Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) standards for all signage and striping work throughout the City. 18. TRAFFIC SIGNS Traffic control signs shall be placed at locations specified by the City. 19. FULL TRASH CAPTURE SYSTEM The developer will be responsible for installing a full trash capture system/device to capture trash from the onsite storm drain before the storm water reaches the City owned storm drain system and storm inlets in the street adjacent to the project, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. A full capture system or device is a single device or series of devices that traps all particles retained by a 5 mm mesh screen and has a design treatment capacity of not less than the peak flow rate Q resulting from a one-year, one-hour storm in the sub-drainage area (see the Municipal Regional Permit section C.10 for further information/requirements). 20. TRASH MANAGEMENT The proposed pilot trash management plan must be designed to the satisfaction of the Environmental Programs Manager. Additional off-street parking maybe reduced to accommodate the requirements. Clearance by the Public Works Department is needed prior to obtaining a building permit. The following is required: a. Since this group of homes may have five home businesses, at a minimum Homes 1-5 shall be able to provide an extra 64-gallon recycling bin for each “work area” (in addition to the bins for each home). 327 Resolution No. 14-___ DP-2014-02 May 20, 2014 b. There shall be spaces drawn on the plan showing the spaces for 23 toters (18 regular + 5 additional for workspaces) to be stored once weekly on the street. c. Since this project would normally be required to have a trash enclosure, the HOA shall fund the City’s time in monitoring the site and the street on collection day to see what impact the work spaces have on the neighborhood, the traffic, and the containment of the trash/recycling and organics using toters in a relatively dense configuration. Additional measures, including, but not limited to, construction of a trash enclosure, may be required if problems persist. 21. REFUSE TRUCK ACCESS Developer must obtain clearance from the Environmental Programs Manager in regards to refuse truck access for the proposed development. 22. STREET TREES Street trees shall be planted within the Public Right of Way to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and shall be of a type approved by the City in accordance with Ordinance No. 125. 23. FIRE PROTECTION Fire sprinklers shall be installed in any new construction to the approval of the City. 24. SANTA CLARA COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT A letter of clearance for the project shall be obtained from the Santa Clara County Fire Department prior to issuance of building permits. Clearance should include written approval of the location of any proposed Fire Backflow Preventers, Fire Department Connections and Fire Hydrants (typically Backflow Preventers should be located on private property adjacent to the public right of way, and fire department connections must be located within 100’ of a Fire Hydrant). 25. FIRE HYDRANT Fire hydrants shall be located as required by the City and Santa Clara County Fire Department as needed. 26. SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY CLEARANCE Provide San Jose Water Company approval for water connection, service capability and location and layout of water lines and backflow preventers before issuance of a building permit approval. 27. DEDICATION OF WATERLINES Developer shall dedicate to the City all water mains and appurtenances installed to City Standards. The developer shall reach an agreement with San Jose Water Company for water service to the subject development. 28. DEDICATION OF UNDERGROUND WATER RIGHTS Developer shall “quit claim” to the City all rights to pump, take or otherwise extract water from the underground basin or any underground strata in the Santa Clara Valley. 29. SANITARY DISTRICT A letter of clearance for the project shall be obtained from the Cupertino Sanitary District prior to issuance of building permits. 328 Resolution No. 14-___ DP-2014-02 May 20, 2014 30. UTILITY EASEMENTS Clearance approvals from the agencies with easements on the property (including PG&E, AT&T, and Water Company, and/or equivalent agencies) will be required prior to issuance of building permits. SECTION V: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE SANTA CLARA COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT 1. FIRE SPRINKLERS REQUIRED IN RESIDENCES AND DETACHED WORKSPACES An automatic sprinkler system shall be installed in one-and two-family dwellings (including detached workspaces) as follows: In all new one-and two-family dwellings and in existing one- and two-family dwellings when additions are made that increase the building area to more than 3,600 square feet. Exception: A one-time addition to an existing building that does not total more than 1,000 square feet of building area. NOTE: The owner(s), occupant(s), and any contractor(s) or subcontractor(s) are responsible for consulting with the water purveyor of record in order to determine if any modification or upgrade of the existing water service is required. NOTE: Covered porches, patios, balconies, and attic spaces may require fire sprinkler coverage. A State of California licensed (C-16) Fire Protection Contractor shall submit plans, calculations, a completed permit application and appropriate fees to this department for review and approval prior to beginning their work. Sections 903.2 as adopted in Section 16-40-210 of the CMC. 2. WATER SUPPLY REQUIREMENTS Potable water supplies shall be protected from contamination caused by fire protection water supplies. It is the responsibility of the applicant and any contractors and subcontractors to contact the water purveyor supplying the site of such project, and to comply with the requirements of that purveyor. Such requirements shall be incorporated into the design of any water-based fire protection system, and/or fire suppression water supply systems or storage containers that may be physically connected in any manner to an appliance capable of causing contamination of the potable water supply of the purveyor of record. Final approval of the system(s) under consideration will not be granted by this office until compliance with the requirements of the water purveyor of record are documented by that purveyor as having been met by the applicant(s). 2010 CFC Sec. 903.3.5 and Health and Safety Code 13114.7. 3. CONSTRUCTION SITE FIRE SAFETY All construction sites must comply with applicable provisions of the CFC Chapter 33 and County Fire Standard Detail and Specification SI-7. Provide appropriate notations on subsequent plan submittals, as appropriate to the project. CFC Chp. 33. 4. PREMISES IDENTIFICATION Approved numbers or addresses shall be placed on all new and existing buildings in such a position as to be plainly visible and legible from the street or road fronting the property. Numbers shall contrast with their background. CFC Sec. 505. 5. CONSTRUCTION PLAN NOTES To prevent plan review and inspection delays, the above noted Development Review Conditions shall be addressed as “notes” on all pending and future plan submittals and any referenced diagrams to be reproduced onto the future plan submittal. 329 Resolution No. 14-___ DP-2014-02 May 20, 2014 SECTION VI: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE CUPERTINO SANITARY DISTRICT HOMES 1-5 1. SANITARY SEWER AVAILABILITY Sanitary sewer service is (not) available for Homes 1-5. Sanitary sewer service is available for Home 6. 2. FEES AND PERMITS Cupertino Sanitary District Fees and Permits shall be required for the subject improvements. 3. OWNERSHIP OF ONSITE SEWERS All onsite sewers shall be privately owned. The District will only maintain sewers on Silver Oak Way. This new service line should be 6” in size, with two new manholes (one just outside the public street right of way and one at the tie-in to existing 8” main). The Homeowner’s Association CC&Rs shall include annual requirements for onsite sewer maintenance program and repair program, including backflow device as required. The applicant shall enter into an installers’ agreement with the District which will cover design and construction of sewers, necessary right of way/easements, payment for all fees and costs, furnishing bonds and indemnity. The District may require posting of bond for maintenance work, since if there is SSO, District would be held liable by the Regional Board. This development will not be considered under an individual lateral connection. 4. BACKFLOW DEVICE An approved backflow device (IAPMO or UPC approved) is required since the lowest finished floor with plumbing is less than (1’) foot above the rim of the nearest upstream manhole (O.C. 4105). The backflow device will be inspected to verify existence and serviceability by a District Inspector at the time of video inspection. District to provide Building Department with written notification upon completion of inspection (O.C. 5104). 5. PROPERTY LINE CLEANOUT Install new property line cleanout. Property line cleanout must be within 5 feet of the property line. Cleanout shall be the same diameter as the street portion of the service lateral. Gravity lateral is 4” diameter minimum (O.C. 4101). 6. INFORMATION REQUIRED ON PLANS a. Show upstream sanitary sewer manhole with existing rim and invert elevation, main, and lateral on plans (O.C. 4104). b. If street dedication is required, street portion of existing sanitary sewer lateral is to be extended by permit from the District to the new property line (O.C. 4104). c. Sanitary sewer connection in accordance with approved improvement plans (O.C. 5205). d. Cupertino Sanitary District Sewer Notes and Signature Block shall be included on improvement plans for District approval. District notes shall be located on the same sheet as the City of Cupertino Approval signature block. District notes are available on the District’s website under “Contractors” (O.C. 5100). 330 Resolution No. 14-___ DP-2014-02 May 20, 2014 7. CONNECTION PERMIT A Cupertino Sanitary District Connection Permit is required for the proposed improvements (O.C. 8100) 8. LATERAL PERMIT A Cupertino Sanitary District Lateral Permit is required for the proposed improvements (O.C. 8300). Lateral Permit will only be issued to Licensed Underground Contractor registered to work in the Cupertino Sanitary District. Instructions for Contractor’s registration can be found on the District’s website under “Contractors.” (O.C. 5100). 9. SEWER SERVICE CHARGES Sewer service charges $27.50/month, which is due and payable prior to clearance for City of Cupertino Final Inspection. 10. RUNOFF TO SANITARY SEWER PROHIBITED Storm water from surface or roof drains, other general surface runoff water or condensate from any residential HVAC equipment shall not be discharged to the sanitary sewer. 11. CLOSED-CIRCUIT VIDEO Closed-circuit video of the new property line cleanout, point of connection and District lateral is required prior to clearance for City of Cupertino Final Inspection. Owner to call District at least 48 hours prior to video inspection to schedule a District Inspector. District to provide Building Department with written notification upon completion of inspection (O.C. 5104). PASSED AND ADOPTED this 20th day of May, 2014, Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote: AYES: CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS: ATTEST: APPROVED: Grace Schmidt Gilbert Wong, Mayor City Clerk City of Cupertino G:\Planning\PDREPORT\CC Res\2014\DP-2014-02 CC res.doc 331 ASA-2014-02 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. 14-___ OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO APPROVING AN ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE APPROVAL PERMIT TO ALLOW THE DEMOLITION OF AN ABANDONED AUTOMOBILE SERVICE STATION AND CONSTRUCT SIX RESIDENTIAL UNITS, INCLUDING FIVE LIVE-WORK UNITS WITH DETACHED WORKSPACES, ALONG WITH ASSOCIATED SITE AND OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS, LOCATED AT 10121 N. FOOTHILL BLVD SECTION I: PROJECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: ASA-2014-02 Applicant: Tate Development Property Owner: Foothill Auto Service & Detail, Inc. Location: 10121 N. Foothill Boulevard (APN 342-32-070) SECTION II: FINDINGS FOR AN ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE APPROVAL PERMIT: WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Cupertino received an application for an Architectural and Site Approval Permit as described in Section I. of this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Committee and Planning Commission have recommended adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration; and WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given as required by the Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the City Council has held at least one public hearing in regard to the application; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds as follows with regard to this application: 1. The proposal, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience; Given that the project is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance; has been designed to be compatible with and respectful of adjoining land uses; and that relevant mitigation measures will be incorporated as part of the CEQA review process to mitigate potential impacts to a less than significant level, the project will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience. 2. The proposal is consistent with the purposes of Chapter 19.168, Architectural and Site Review, of the Cupertino Municipal Code, the General Plan, any specific plan, zoning ordinances, applicable 332 Resolution No. 14-___ ASA-2014-02 May 20, 2014 planned development permit, conditional use permits, variances, subdivision maps or other entitlements to use which regulate the subject property including, but not limited to, adherence to the following specific criteria: a) Abrupt changes in building scale have been avoided. A gradual transition related to height and bulk has been achieved between new and existing buildings. The project is compatible with the scale of the surrounding residential buildings and streetscape in terms of height, bulk, and form. The proposed two-story height of the residences would generally be about the same height as the surrounding one-story duplex residences since the building pad area is lower in elevation than the duplex residences. b) Design harmony between new and existing buildings have been preserved and the materials, textures and colors of new buildings harmonize with adjacent development with design and color schemes, and with the future character of the neighborhood and purposes of the zone in which it is situated. The location, height and materials of walls, fencing, hedges and screen planting harmonize with adjacent development. Unsightly storage areas, utility installations and unsightly elements of parking lots have been concealed. Ground cover or various types of pavements have been used to prevent dust and erosion, and the unnecessary destruction of existing healthy trees have been avoided. Lighting for development is adequate to meet safety requirements as specified by the engineering and building departments, and shielding to adjoining property owners. The project is designed in a modern architectural theme with redwood cladding to mimic the natural features of the local foothills. Both the residences and workspaces feature alternating flat and pitched roof forms with metal canopies above entries and workplace storefronts to provide visual interest. The location, height, and massing of the buildings are compatible with the adjacent and surrounding developments. The proposed siting of the two-story residences also minimize shading impacts to adjoining residences given the project’s lower grade than its adjoining neighbors. Low pedestrian-scale walls are proposed along the project frontages, consistent what is typically allowed in residential zones. All above ground utility installations are required to be screened from public view. The design has incorporated decorative paving material that maximizes permeability and water-efficient landscaping, as well as lighting to illuminate pedestrian paths and vehicular routes, which will not glare onto adjoining properties. The City’s consultant arborist confirmed that none of the five existing Monterey Pine trees are suitable for preservation. c) The number, location, color, size, height, lighting and landscaping of outdoor advertising signs and structures have been designed to minimize traffic hazard, positively affect the general appearance of the neighborhood and harmonize with adjacent development. If workspace signage is requested, the project is required to submit a master sign program in order to ensure that exterior signage is designed and located to minimize traffic hazards, positively affect the general appearance of the neighborhood, and harmonize with adjacent development. d) This new development has been designed to protect residents from noise, traffic, light and visually intrusive effects by use of buffering, setbacks, landscaping, walls and other appropriate design measures. The project has been designed to protected residents from noise through traffic, light and visually intrusive effects by use of buffering, setbacks, landscaping, walls and other appropriate design measures. Residences 333 Resolution No. 14-___ ASA-2014-02 May 20, 2014 along Foothill Boulevard are buffered from traffic and noise through greater setbacks and the detached workspaces, and mitigation measures that mitigate potential impacts to a less than significant level. Landscaping and trees are in provided along the project frontage and through the interior to shade and buffer the site from the street. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of the initial study, maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution beginning on PAGE 2 thereof,: A Mitigated Negative Declaration (Application no. EA-2014-01) is hereby adopted; and the application for an Architectural and Site Approval Permit, Application no. ASA-2014-02 is hereby approved and that the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this resolution are based and contained in the Public Hearing record concerning Application no. ASA-2014-02 as set forth in the Minutes of City Council Meeting of May 20, 2014, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 1. APPROVED EXHIBITS Approval recommendation is based on the plan set received May 8, 2014 consisting of 40 sheets labeled A0-A20, AL1.1-AL1-4, C1-C5, TM, L0, L0.1, L0.2, L1, L2, L2.1, and L2.2, entitled, “Foothill Blvd PUD, 10121 N Foothill Blvd., Cupertino, CA 95014,” drawn by Modative, SMP Engineers, and Miriam Rainville; except as may be amended by conditions in this resolution. 2. ACCURACY OF PROJECT PLANS The applicant/property owner is responsible to verify all pertinent property data including but not limited to property boundary locations, building setbacks, property size, building square footage, any relevant easements and/or construction records. Any misrepresentation of any property data may invalidate this approval and may require additional review. 3. CONCURRENT APPROVAL CONDITIONS The conditions of approval contained in file nos. Z-2014-01, TM-2014-01, DP-2014-02, and TR-2014- 08 shall be applicable to this approval. 4. TOTAL OVERALL HEIGHT OF HOME 6 The total overall height of Home 6 as identified on the plans shall be reduced by five (5) feet. Height reduction measures may be achieved by grading, wall, and roofline changes. 4. FINAL BUILDING DESIGN The final building design and exterior treatment plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development prior to issuance of building permits. The Director of Community Development may approve additional designs or make minor variations as deemed appropriate. The final building exterior plan shall closely resemble the details shown on the original approved plans. Any exterior changes determined to be substantial by the Director of Community Development shall require a modification approval. 334 Resolution No. 14-___ ASA-2014-02 May 20, 2014 5. FINAL ARCHITECTURAL, SITE, AND LANDSCAPING DETAILS Prior to building permit issuance, the final architectural, site, and landscaping details shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development, including, but not limited to: a. Building design and exterior treatments b. Frontage details c. Paving details d. Landscaping and tree selection and arrangement (including trees for privacy screening) e. Private common open space area f. Screening of boundary retaining walls g. Fencing and lighting details 6. FINAL LOCATION AND DESIGN DETAILS OF HOME 4 AND 5 TRASH ENCLOSURE Prior to building permit issuance, the final location and design details of the Home 4 and 5 trash enclosures shall be reviewed and approved by the Directors of Community Development and Public Works. The construction plans shall contain the following revisions/clarifications: a. Given that the trash enclosures are a focal point, higher quality wall materials and flowering vine landscaping shall be considered. b. The location shall be adjusted as determined by Public Works and Community Development staff so there is adequate turning radius for the ADA parking space. c. A metal roof shall be provided. d. The trash enclosure shall be consistent with the City’s Trash Enclosure Guidelines. 7. PRIVACY PLANTING The final privacy-planting plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division prior to issuance of building permits. The variety, size, planting distance shall be consistent with the City’s requirements. 8. FRONTAGE FENCING/WALLS All fences and walls within the Foothill Blvd and Silver Oak Way frontages (within 12 feet of the property line) shall not exceed 3 feet high as measured from the adjoining finish grade. 9. RESURFACING OF EXISTING SITE WALLS Prior to final occupancy of site permits, the residential side existing site walls along the west and south sides shall be finished to match the coating material on the project side to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development, provided that consent is obtained from the neighboring residential property owners. 10. INDEMNIFICATION To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the “indemnified parties”) from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside, or void this ordinance or any permit or approval authorized hereby for the project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City its actual attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its choice. 335 Resolution No. 14-___ ASA-2014-02 May 20, 2014 11. NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees, dedication requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(d) (1), these Conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations, and other exactions. You are hereby further notified that the 90-day approval period in which you may protest these fees, dedications, reservations, and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a), has begun. If you fail to file a protest within this 90-day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such exactions. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 20th day of May, 2014, Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote: AYES: CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS: ATTEST: APPROVED: Grace Schmidt Gilbert Wong, Mayor City Clerk City of Cupertino 336 Resolution No. 14-___ ASA-2014-02 May 20, 2014 G:\Planning\PDREPORT\CC Res\2014\ASA-2014-02 CC res.doc 337 TR-2014-08 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. 14-___ OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO APPROVING A TREE REMOVAL PERMIT TO ALLOW THE REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT OF FIVE MONTEREY PINE TREES LOCATED AT 10121 N. FOOTHILL BLVD SECTION I: PROJECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: TR-2014-08 Applicant: Tate Development Property Owner: Foothill Auto Service & Detail, Inc. Location: 10121 N. Foothill Boulevard (APN 342-32-070) SECTION II: FINDINGS FOR TREE REMOVAL PERMIT: WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Cupertino received an application for a Tree Removal Permit as described in Section I. of this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Committee and Planning Commission have recommended adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration; and WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given as required by the Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the City Council has held at least one public hearing in regard to the application; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds as follows with regard to this application: a) That the trees are irreversibly diseased, are in danger of falling, can cause potential damage to existing or proposed essential structures, or interferes with private on-site utility services and cannot be controlled or remedied through reasonable relocation or modification of the structure or utility services; The City’s consulting arborist has determined that the trees proposed for removal are all in conflict with the proposed new buildings and site improvements, and, given their condition, are not suitable for preservation or relocation. b) That the location of the trees restricts the economic enjoyment of the property by severely limiting the use of property in a manner not typically experienced by owners of similarly zoned and situated property, and the applicant has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the approval authority that there are no reasonable alternatives to preserve the tree(s). 338 Resolution No. 14-___ TR-2014-08 May 20, 2014 The City’s consulting arborist has determined that the trees proposed for removal are all in conflict with the proposed new buildings and site improvements, and, given their condition, are not suitable for preservation or relocation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of the initial study, maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution beginning on PAGE 2 thereof,: A Mitigated Negative Declaration (Application no. EA-2014-01) is hereby adopted; and the application for a Tree Removal Permit, Application no. TR-2014-08 is hereby approved and that the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this resolution are based and contained in the Public Hearing record concerning Application no. DP-2014-02 as set forth in the Minutes of City Council Meeting of May 20, 2014, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. Planning Division: 1. APPROVED EXHIBITS Approval recommendation is based on the plan set received May 8, 2014 consisting of 40 sheets labeled A0-A20, AL1.1-AL1-4, C1-C5, TM, L0, L0.1, L0.2, L1, L2, L2.1, and L2.2, entitled, “Foothill Blvd PUD, 10121 N Foothill Blvd., Cupertino, CA 95014,” drawn by Modative, SMP Engineers, and Miriam Rainville; and the City’s consulting arborist report entitled, “An Evaluation of the Existing Trees – 10121 N. Foothill Boulevard, Cupertino, California,” prepared by Michael Bench, Registered Consulting Arborist # WE-1897 dated March 22, 2013 except as may be amended by conditions in this resolution. 2. CONCURRENT APPROVAL CONDITIONS The conditions of approval contained in file nos. Z-2014-01, TM-2014-01, ASA-2014-02, and DP-2014- 02 shall be applicable to this approval. 3. TREE REPLACEMENTS AND FINAL PLANTING PLAN The applicant shall plant replacement trees in accordance with the replacement requirements of the Protected Tree Ordinance. The trees shall be planted prior to final occupancy of site permits. The final planting plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development with consultation by the City Arborist prior to issuance of building permits. The Director of Community Development shall have the discretion to require additional tree replacements as deemed necessary. The City Arborist shall confirm that the replacement trees were planted properly and according to plan prior to final occupancy. 4. TREE REPLACEMENT BOND The applicant shall provide a tree replacement bond in an amount determined by the City Arborist prior to removals and issuance of demolition and grading permits. The bond shall be returned after the required tree replacements have been planted and verified by the City Arborist. 339 Resolution No. 14-___ TR-2014-08 May 20, 2014 5. SCHEDULING OF TREE REMOVALS TO AVOID IMPACTS TO NESTING BIRDS The project shall implement the following measures to avoid impacts to nesting birds: a) 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. b) 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 & Game (CDFG), designate a construction-free buffer zone (typically 250 feet) around the nest until the end of the nesting activity. Buffers for other birds shall be determined by the ornithologist. c) 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 grading or tree removal. 6. CONSULTATION WITH OTHER DEPARTMENTS The applicant is responsible to consult with other departments and/or agencies with regard to the proposed project for additional conditions and requirements. Any misrepresentation of any submitted data may invalidate an approval by the Community Development Department. 7. INDEMNIFICATION To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the “indemnified parties”) from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside, or void this ordinance or any permit or approval authorized hereby for the project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City its actual attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its choice. 8. NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees, dedication requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(d) (1), these Conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations, and other exactions. You are hereby further notified that the 90-day approval period in which you may protest these fees, dedications, reservations, and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a), has begun. If you 340 Resolution No. 14-___ TR-2014-08 May 20, 2014 fail to file a protest within this 90-day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such exactions. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 20th day of May, 2014, Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote: AYES: CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS: ATTEST: APPROVED: Grace Schmidt Gilbert Wong, Mayor City Clerk City of Cupertino G:\Planning\PDREPORT\CC Res\2014\TR-2014-08 CC res.doc 341 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. Agenda Date: April 22, 2014 Applications: DP-2014-02, ASA-2014-02, TM-2014-01, TR-2014-08, Z-2014-01, EA-2014-01 Applicant: Tate Development (Foothill Auto Service and Detail, Inc.) Location: 10121 North Foothill Boulevard (APN 342-32-070) APPLICATION SUMMARY: 1. Rezoning (Z-2014-01) of a .87 gross acre parcel from Planned Development General Commercial - P(CG) to Planned Development General Commercial and Residential - P(CG, Res); 2. Tentative Map (TM-2014-01) to subdivide a .62 net acre parcel into six residential lots and one common area lot; 3. Development Permit (DP-2014-02) to allow the demolition of an abandoned automobile service station and construct six residential units, including five live-work units with detached workspaces, along with associated site and off-site improvements; 4. Architectural and Site Approval (ASA-2014-02) to allow the demolition of an abandoned automobile service station and construct six residential units, including five live-work units with detached workspaces, along with associated site and off-site improvements; 5. Tree Removal Permit (TR-2014-08) to allow the removal and replacement of five Monterey Pine trees; and 6. Mitigated Negative Declaration (EA-2014-01) for the project per the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval/adoption of the following: 1. Rezoning (Z-2014-01), in accordance with the draft resolution (Attachment 1) 2. Tentative Map (TM-2014-01), in accordance with the draft resolution (Attachment 2) 3. Development Permit (DP-2014-02), in accordance with the draft resolution (Attachment 3) 4. Architectural and Site Approval (ASA-2014-02), in accordance with the draft resolution (Attachment 4) 5. Tree Removal Permit (TR-2014-08), in accordance with the draft resolution (Attachment 5) 6. Mitigated Negative Declaration (EA-2014-01) (Attachment 6) COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 (408) 777-3308 • FAX (408) 777-3333 342 10121 N. Foothill Blvd Foothill Live-Work April 22, 2014 PROJECT DATA: General Plan designation Commercial/Residential Existing zoning designation P (CG) - Planned Development with General Commercial intent Proposed zoning designation P (CG, Res) - Planned Development with General Commercial and Residential intent Gross lot area (includes up to 30’ of street area) 38,019 s.f. (0.87 acres) Net lot area 27,120 s.f. (0.62 acres) Proposed lot sizes Lot 1 (Home 1 and workspace): 4,750 s.f. (.10 acres) Lot 2 (Home 2 and workspace): 3,603 s.f. (.08 acres) Lot 3 (Home 3 and workspace): 3,603 s.f. (.08 acres) Lot 4 (Home 4 and workspace): 3,103 s.f. (.07 acres) Lot 5 (Home 5 and workspace): 3,177 s.f. (.07 acres) Lot 6 (Home 6): 4,119 s.f. (.09 acres) Lot 7 (Common area): 4,290 s.f. (.09 acres) Proposed building area Homes 1-5: 2,668 s.f. (1,320 s.f. first floor, 1,348 second floor) Home 6: 2,690 s.f. (1,271 s.f. first floor, 1,419 s.f. second floor) Home 1-3 workspaces: 452 s.f. Home 4-5 workspaces: 411 s.f. Total gross building area: 18,208 sq. ft. Existing commercial building area (to be demolished) 1,608 s.f. Existing building height 18 feet (one story) Required/Allowed Proposed Density (dwelling units per gross acres) 15 or 13 based on gross acreage of site 6.89 Height (from existing grade) 30 feet Residences: 26 feet (two stories) Workspaces: 14 feet (one story) Setbacks No minimum required – as determined by the Planning Commission and City Council Front (Foothill): 12 feet (21 feet from curb) Street Side (Silver Oak): 10 feet (20 feet, 9 inches from curb) Interior Side (South): 6 feet (only for Workspace 5) Rear (West): 15 feet (only for Home 6) Open Space (includes yard area and balconies) Home 1: 1,342 s.f. Home 2: 1,009 s.f. Home 3: 1,016 s.f. Home 4: 768 s.f. Home 5: 873 s.f. Home 6: 1,427 s.f. Common area: 799 s.f. 343 10121 N. Foothill Blvd Foothill Live-Work April 22, 2014 Parking 22 onsite stalls, based on 2.8 spaces per unit plus 1 space per workspace (based on parking analysis) 22 onsite stalls (12 garage, 10 open) *Plus 5 new on-street parallel stalls available to the public (not counted toward required parking for the project) BACKGROUND: Existing Site and Surroundings The project site is located at the southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Silver Oak Way. To the west of the site are residential duplexes; to the east and across Foothill Boulevard is the Sunnyview Retirement Community; to the north and across Silver Oak Way are residential duplexes; and to the south are residential duplexes. The site currently contains an abandoned 1,608 square foot automobile service station with a fueling canopy, which was previously occupied by Foothill Auto Service and Detail. The site was originally developed in 1971, and has been historically used for automobile service, fueling, and convenience purposes. Planning Commission and City Council Study Sessions The applicant, Ron Tate, of Tate Development, representing the property owner, Foothill Auto Service and Detail, Inc., requested study sessions with the Planning Commission on March 26, 2013 and City Council on April 16, 2013 to receive input on the feasibility of a residential townhome/live-work proposal. Please refer to Attachments 7 and 8 for the detailed Planning Commission and City Council study session staff report and meeting minutes. The following is a summary of Planning Commission and Council comments from its respective study sessions (Where applicable, staff comments are provided in italics). March 26, 2013 Study Session Summary Comments – Planning Commission: Currently the site is dilapidated and is need of improvements. The proposed architectural concept is appealing. The proposed live-work concept may be a desirable use for the site and it interfaces well with Foothill Boulevard. Generally, the proposed rezoning to commercial and residential is appropriate. The ideal land use for the site should be discussed further. Site Aerial 344 10121 N. Foothill Blvd Foothill Live-Work April 22, 2014 Consider commercial uses to serve the community and provide sales tax revenue. Consider a residential-only project given the neighborhood context. Enforcement and parameters for the appropriate uses for the workspaces will need to be addressed. April 16, 2013 Study Session Comments – City Council: Live-work may be a good use for the site, given the lack of retail success on Foothill Boulevard. The proposed modern architectural concept is desirable. The project may serve as a good transition to the existing surrounding neighborhood. Consider viable non-retail commercial uses, such as specialized schools (martial arts, tutoring) or child care centers. The density of the project should be consistent with the surrounding neighborhood. The proposed density of 6.89 dwelling units per gross acre is within the maximum 15 units per gross acre allowed by General Plan Policy 2-32. The proposed density is also comparable and in most cases, less dense than the neighborhood context on the west side of Foothill Boulevard and north of Stevens Creek. Enforcement and limitations on the workspaces will need to be discussed to prevent the conversion of workspaces to residential uses. Condition #8 of Attachment 3 prohibits the conversion of workspaces to living area and requires it to be recorded as part of the project’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). DISCUSSION: Appropriate Land Use & Site Constraints Many of the comments received at the Commission and Council study sessions relate to determining the ideal land use for the project site. According to the General Plan, both general commercial and/or residential uses have been deemed to be appropriate uses for the project site. However, the project site presents several challenges that severely limit the marketability and suitability of general commercial and residential uses. These challenges are summarized as follows: The property is much removed and disconnected from the primary commercial/commerce areas in Cupertino, typically located near or along prominent major streets with the necessary adequate visibility, foot traffic, and vehicle trips (i.e., Stevens Creek/De Anza/Homestead/Wolfe). The property is not located at a prominent intersection with controlled traffic lights that would allow potential shoppers to easily and safely access the site. The property is not big enough (.62 net acres) to facilitate any companion commercial uses/shoppers to support a standalone commercial center. The residential neighborhood surrounding the site is relatively low intensity and does not generate enough population to support commercial uses on this site. The previous commercial uses (automobile service station and convenience market) on the site were not economically viable due to the above reasons and the site has been vacant since 2010. Please refer to the attached letters (Attachments 9 and 10) from the applicant and various retail brokers in the area obtained by the applicant to further explain the specific site challenges. 345 10121 N. Foothill Blvd Foothill Live-Work April 22, 2014 Residential Interface Challenges with Foothill Boulevard Typically, projects are encouraged to open up to the street and to maximize public interface. The General Plan has numerous policies that encourage development to activate the street frontage and minimize large walls/gates that will isolate developments from the community. One of the concerns with the site is that being adjacent to Foothill Boulevard, with high volume and high speed vehicular and truck traffic, it is not desirable and appropriate to have residential uses fronting onto Foothill Boulevard due to the visual/noise impacts and unsafe vehicular access. Most of the existing residential uses in the area back up to Foothill Boulevard and are situated on elevated grades above the street and/or have unattractive sound walls to buffer the noise and visual impacts from street. Any standalone residential projects would have the difficulty of interfacing with Foothill Boulevard by either having to manipulate the topography of the site and/or erect large sound walls that would be undesirable to the community. Proposed Live-Work Project The project consists of a rezoning and subdivision of the site into seven lots to facilitate six (6) residential townhomes with five (5) live-work units. The five (5) residential live-work units will be fronting onto Foothill Boulevard with one (1) residential (non-live-work) unit fronting onto Silver Oak Way. The applicant is proposing a horizontal live-work format with the workspaces in the front along Foothill Boulevard and residences in the rear. This format places a desirable “commercial studio” frontage along Foothill Boulevard, while providing a harmonious transition/buffer to the residential component of the project and the residential areas to the south and west of the property. In addition, the proposed project format is consistent with the City’s General Plan Policy 2-32, which specifies for this area to provide neighborhood commercial uses along the street and to discourage standalone commercial developments. The project proposes an allocation of six residential units from the Other Commercial Centers General Plan residential allocation area (leaving a balance of 294 units), and would backfill 1,608 square feet into the Other Commercial Centers General Plan commercial allocation area (leaving a balance of 1,608 square feet). Staff supports the proposed live-work project because it is consistent with the General Plan. Further, the project will complement the neighborhood and at the same time facilitate neighborhood service-oriented businesses. Rezoning As previously mentioned, the project site currently has a General Plan land use designation of Commercial/Residential with a specific zoning designation of P(CG) – Planned Development General Commercial. The current zoning designation allows any permitted general commercial or retail use as part of the General Commercial Ordinance (Section 19.60) to operate on the site. In order to introduce residential uses to the site, the property will be rezoned to P(CG, Res) – Planned Development General Commercial and Residential. Staff is supportive of the rezone request since it will be consistent with the General Plan’s land use designation for the site. If the City Council approves the rezoning request to facilitate the live-work units, the conditions of approval of the Development Permit will further define the permitted and/or prohibited workspace uses. 346 10121 N. Foothill Blvd Foothill Live-Work April 22, 2014 Staff recommends that the uses permitted in the workspaces be consistent with the uses allowed in the City’s Home Occupation Ordinance (Attachment 11), which are incidental in nature to the primary residential uses. Below are some examples of typical home occupation businesses: Consulting One-on-one instruction Internet sales Design services Professional offices (excluding medical) Home offices Arts and crafts without exterior display of merchandise The Planning Commission and City Council have the ability to prescribe other neighborhood-serving commercial uses that can operate at a lower intensity similar to uses allowed by the Home Occupation Ordinance. Some of the existing conditions from the Home Occupation Ordinance that would apply to the live-work units are summarized as follows: Prevent intrusion of light, noise, and unsightly conditions form disturbing neighbors. Maintain visual character and restrict scope of workspace activity to ensure that residential use remains primary. Ensure that pedestrian, automobile or truck traffic, or parking is not significantly above normal levels. Maintain residential scale of utility services to limit workspace activity to an incidental use. Ensure that stored materials are contained within enclosed areas. Excluded occupations such as automobile, food, medical, and specialized school uses. Staff is recommending that the following conditions be added to the project to further clarify the parameters of the live-work functions: The residential and the commercial space must be occupied by the same tenant, and no portion of the live/work unit may be rented or sold separately. The commercial component as designated on the floor plan approved shall remain commercial and cannot be converted to residential use. The residential component as designated on the floor plan approved shall remain residential and cannot be converted to commercial use. The commercial component shall be restricted to the unit and shall not be conducted in the yard, garage, or any accessory structures. The commercial component shall not detract from, or otherwise be a nuisance to, the residential character or appearance of the dwelling units. No explosive, toxic, combustible or flammable materials in excess of what would be allowed incidental to normal residential use shall be stored or used on the premises. Signage shall be developed in accordance with a master sign plan for the overall development. 347 10121 N. Foothill Blvd Foothill Live-Work April 22, 2014 The project shall record in the CC&Rs disclosures and notices to future property owners that the surrounding area of the project may be subject to levels of noise, activities, and impacts associated with commercial uses at higher levels than would be expected in typical residential projects. Noise and other standards shall be those applicable to commercial properties in the applicable zoning district. Tentative Map The applicant is proposing to subdivide the existing .62 net acre site into six residential ownership lots and one common area lot. The applicant is also required to dedicate three feet of the frontage on Foothill Boulevard to accommodate a new detached sidewalk. The six residential lots include the workspaces and portions of the common driveway. The common area lot includes the common open space area, portions of the common driveway, guest parking, and an ADA-compliant walkway connecting the guest parking area to Foothill Boulevard. A Homeowner’s Association (HOA) is required to be formed to maintain the common areas of the property. Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) will govern the use of the property, including the permitted uses inside the workspaces. Architectural Review The proposed residences are designed in a modern architectural theme with redwood cladding to mimic the natural features of the local foothills. The detached workspaces are designed in the same theme of the residences with wide storefront bays and pedestrian entrances from the street. Both the residences and workspaces feature alternating flat and pitched roof forms with metal canopies above entries and workplace storefronts to provide visual interest. The location, height, and massing of the buildings are compatible with the adjacent and surrounding developments. There are no required setbacks since this is a planned development zoned-property. However, the proposed setbacks generally appear to respect patterns in the existing area. The proposed siting of the two-story residences also minimize shading impacts to adjoining residences given the project’s lower grade than its adjoining neighbors. The City’s Architectural Consultant has reviewed the site and architectural details and supports the design. The applicant has worked with staff to incorporate all of the comments from the architectural consultant. Site and Off-Site Improvements The project proposes to significantly upgrade the appearance of the existing automobile service station site by implementing a series of on- and off-site improvements intended to enhance the pedestrian environment and safety, and maximize landscaping and onsite permeability. The streetscape concept features detached sidewalks with landscaping and tree buffers designed to coincide with the front building entries along the street. Low walls with architectural openings along the frontage complement the modern architectural style of the project. Pedestrian safety is enhanced by new pedestrian-scale lighting; a curb bulb-out that increases visibility of pedestrians and decreases crossing distance; the closure of three existing driveway curb cuts; and a well-defined crosswalk across Silver Oak Way. The onsite improvements continue the pedestrian-oriented streetscape concept with an ADA-compliant walkway connecting the rear parking lot and common open space area to Foothill Boulevard and 348 10121 N. Foothill Blvd Foothill Live-Work April 22, 2014 decorative paving in the common driveway to visually soften a large paving area. The hardscape areas are designed to provide more efficient storm water control measures, such as pervious pavement and rain gardens. The project provides more trees than what are required, and a mature privacy screening arrangement will be provided at the edges of the site adjacent to existing residential uses. Parking and Street Improvements The City’s Parking Ordinance does not specifically have a parking ratio for live-work developments; therefore, a parking study by the City’s transportation consultant was commissioned for the project (Attachment 12). The parking requirements were determined using two methodologies (see staff comments in italics): 1. To obtain a conservative parking requirement, the City’s Parking Ordinance ratio for townhomes (2.8 spaces per unit: 2 garage spaces + 0.8 open guest spaces) was used with one additional parking space per workspace to account for the allowance of one customer at a time. Based on this ratio, the project would be required to provide 22 stalls onsite. The proposed site plan meets this requirement with 12 garage spaces and 10 uncovered guest spaces. 2. Set a minimum parking requirement using the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ (ITE) Parking Generation and the Urban Land Institute’s (ULI) Shared Parking manuals. Shared parking is expected to occur between the workspace and residential portions of the project. The demand for residences with workspaces was calculated at 3.16 spaces per unit, and the demand for the residence without a workspace was calculated at 2.0 spaces per unit. Based on these ratios, the project would be required to provide 18 stalls onsite. The proposed project exceeds this requirement by 4 stalls. The proposed project exceeds the parking requirements for live-work units as required by other surrounding cities. See below for how other local cities regulate parking in live-work developments: Sunnyvale San Jose Campbell Palo Alto No additional spaces beyond minimum residential requirements (two covered) No additional spaces required above what is required for the workspace use (typically one space per 200 s.f. of workspace area) Three total parking spaces per unit A maximum total of two spaces for the residential unit, plus one space per 200 s.f. for the gross square footage of the work area, less one space from the total Public parallel on-street parking is currently allowed on Silver Oak Way, and the project proposes to enhance and better define the parking area with five surplus stalls that will serve as overflow parking. Traffic The City’s transportation consultant conducted a trip generation analysis based on the existing and proposed uses, applying the most conservative land use codes per the ITE Trip Generation manual (Attachment 12). The project is estimated to generate 25 fewer AM peak-hour trips and 44 fewer PM peak hour trips than the previous automobile service station when it was occupied. Tree Removals, Replacements, and Protection The project proposes to remove all five existing Monterey Pine trees onsite in order to facilitate the 349 10121 N. Foothill Blvd Foothill Live-Work April 22, 2014 proposed buildings and site improvements. It should be noted that none of the trees removed are specimen trees, as they are not on the City’s protected species list. The City’s Consulting Arborist reviewed and concurred with the project’s removal request (see Attachment 13). In order to mitigate the trees being removed, the project proposes to plant 55 low and medium water use 24- and 36-inch box trees (including California Sycamore, Coast Live Oak, Red Maple, and Western Redbud) in the parking lot and street frontage, consistent with the replacement requirements of the Protected Tree Ordinance. In addition, over 115 privacy shrubs are proposed along the south and west property lines in order to screen the views from the second story windows and balconies. The final location and species of the tree replacements will be reviewed by staff in conjunction with the building permit review. The applicant’s and the City’s consulting arborists also reviewed potential impacts to neighboring trees to the west. The arborists observed trenching where grading is expected to occur and did not find any significant neighboring tree roots within the limits of construction area (Attachment 14). A condition of approval requires the applicant to retain the City’s Consulting Arborist to review all construction permit drawings to ensure impacts to neighboring trees are minimized. The applicant is also required to retain the arborist to confirm the health of the neighboring trees and take corrective measures, if necessary, following construction. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT The City contracted with David J. Powers & Associates to prepare the initial study for the project (Attachment 6) per the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The project site is identified by the State as a hazardous materials site, and soil sampling found elevated levels of petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from recently removed underground storage tanks (USTs). The Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health (SCCDEH) has taken oversight for the cleanup of the site. The initial study concluded that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment based on the following mitigation required measures: Hazards and Hazardous Materials: Measures to remediate contaminated soils and reduce health risks associated with soil vapor on-site, including, but not limited to: o Additional soil sampling and mitigation in accordance with the SCCDEH-approved work plan o Site Remediation Plan o Health and Safety Plan o Site Management Plan o Removal and disposal of contaminated soils o Closure report upon completion of remediation activities and confirmation that the resulting conditions are adequately protective of residential development Biological Resources: Tree replacements required by the City’s Protected Tree Ordinance. Cultural Resources: Construction work stoppage and additional investigation if archaeological deposits are discovered. Noise: Provide sound-rated windows for all residences and implementation of temporary construction noise mitigation measures. 350 10121 N. Foothill Blvd Foothill Live-Work April 22, 2014 On March 27, 2014, the City issued a Notice of Intent (NOI) to adopt an MND for the project. The public comment period on the MND and initial study ends on April 28, 2014. On April 3, 2014, the Environmental Review Committee recommended a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the project based on the initial study. The initial study’s mitigation measures are included as conditions of approval for the project. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Attachment 15) lists the specific mitigation measures, the timeframe and method of compliance, and responsible departments/agencies for oversight of implementation. OTHER DEPARTMENT/AGENCY REVIEW The City’s Public Works Department, Building Division, the Santa Clara County Fire Department, the Cupertino Sanitary District, PG&E, San Jose Water, Cupertino School Districts, and Recology reviewed the project and have no objections. Their pre-hearing comments have been incorporated as conditions of approval in the draft resolutions. PUBLIC NOTICING & OUTREACH The following table is a brief summary of the noticing done for this project: Notice of Public Hearing and Intent, Site Notice & Legal Ad Agenda  57 public hearing notices mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the project site (10 days prior to the hearing)  Notice of intent to adopt an MND mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the project site and posted on the City’s website (at least 30 days prior to final decision on the project)  Site Signage (14 days prior to the hearing)  Legal ad placed in newspaper (at least 10 days prior to the hearing)  Posted on the City's official notice bulletin board (one week prior to the hearing)  Posted on the City of Cupertino’s Web site (one week prior to the hearing) Neighborhood Meetings The applicant voluntarily held a neighborhood meeting prior to the Planning Commission and City Council study sessions on February 7, 2013, which was attended by 13 members of the public. The applicant held another neighborhood meeting on March 13, 2014, which was attended by four adjacent property owners. The neighboring property owners were in general supportive of the redevelopment of the site, but had several concerns on the merits of the project. The following is a summary of comments received at the meeting. Staff comments, if any, are provided in italics: Concerns with blockage of views to the hills and loss of sunlight – The City’s Municipal Code does not prescribe any specific development standards pertaining to view preservation or sunlight. The closest building (Home 6) is setback 15 feet to the west property line, which is a typical second floor side yard setback in single- family residential development. Further, the exterior elevation plans show that the proposed two-story height of the residences would generally be about the same height as the surrounding one-story duplexes since the 351 10121 N. Foothill Blvd Foothill Live-Work April 22, 2014 building pad area is lower in elevation than the duplexes. The applicant has also provided line of sight diagrams and has installed story poles at the project site to demonstrate the extent of potential view and sunlight impacts. Privacy concerns with new second floor windows and balconies – Privacy planting is not required in Planned Development zoning districts, however the applicant proposes to plant mature (15-20 feet tall at time of planting) privacy trees/shrubs along the entire west and south property lines in order to mitigate these concerns. The applicant has the option of securing a waiver from the neighboring property owners to plant trees or shrubs that are not on the City’s approved list but ar e acceptable to the neighbors. Further, the neighbors have the ability to waive the City’s privacy requirements if trees or shrubs are not desired. Potential impacts to adjacent trees – The City’s and the applicant’s consulting arborist reviewed whether the project would impact existing trees on neighboring properties (Attachment 14). The applicant’s engineering team trenched an area at the limits of construction to determine whether any roots were present. Both arborists confirmed that no significant roots were present and that the impacts to the existing trees would not be significant. In addition, the developer will be required to obtain the services of the City’s Consulting Arborist to review detailed construction plans and provide tree protection measures prior to construction activities. The project will be required to implement the recommended tree protection measures, which will be field-verified by the arborist. History of poor drainage on and off-site – The project is subject to mandatory enhanced storm water management performance standards to significantly reduce runoff from the site. In addition, the Public Works Department conditions of approval for the project require a new storm drain and main along Silver Oak Way, which is expected to improve drainage flow along the site. PERMIT STREAMLINING ACT This project is not subject to the Permit Streamlining Act (Government Code Section 65920 – 65964) since the rezoning required for the project is a legislative land use decision. CONCLUSION/NEXT STEPS The Planning Commission’s recommendation will be forwarded to the City Council for final consideration, tentatively scheduled for May 20, 2014. If the Council approves the project, the second reading of the rezoning ordinance is tentatively scheduled for June 2, 2014. Prepared by: George Schroeder, Associate Planner Reviewed by: Approved by: /s/ Gary Chao /s/ Aarti Shrivastava Gary Chao Aarti Shrivastava Assistant Director of Community Development Assistant City Manager 352 10121 N. Foothill Blvd Foothill Live-Work April 22, 2014 ATTACHMENTS: 1 – Z-2014-01 Draft Resolution 2 – TM-2014-01 Draft Resolution 3 – DP-2014-02 Draft Resolution 4 – ASA-2014-02 Draft Resolution 5 – TR-2014-08 Draft Resolution 6 – Mitigated Negative Declaration (EA-2014-01) with Initial Study 7 – March 26, 2013 Planning Commission staff report and meeting minutes 8 – April 16, 2013 City Council staff report and meeting minutes 9 – Applicant’s justification letter 10– Applicant’s retail consultant analysis 11 – Home Occupation Ordinance, Chapter 19.120 of the Cupertino Municipal Code 12 – Transportation evaluation by Fehr & Peers, dated January 13, 2014 13 – City’s Consulting Arborist report dated March 2013 14 – City and applicant’s consulting arborist reports dated November 2013 15 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 16 – Plan set G:\Planning\PDREPORT\pc DP reports\2014 DP Reports\DP-2014-02, TM-2014-01, Z-2014-01, ASA-2014-02, TR-2014-08_4-22-2014.docx 353 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT MINUTES 6:45 P.M. APRIL 22, 2014 TUESDAY CUPERTINO COMMUNITY HALL The regular Planning Commission meeting of April 22, 2014 was called to order at 6:45 p.m. in the Cupertino Community Hall, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA. by Chair Paul Brophy. SALUTE TO THE FLAG . ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Chairperson: Paul Brophy Vice Chairperson: Winnie Lee Commissioner: Margaret Gong Commissioner: Don Sun Commissioner: Alan Takahashi Staff present: Asst. Director of Community Development: Gary Chao Associate Planner: George Schroeder Asst. City Attorney: Colleen Winchester APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of the January 23, 2014 Planning Commission meeting: MOTION: Motion by Vice Chair Lee, second by Com. Takahashi, and unanimously carried 5-0-0, to approve the January 23, 2014 Planning Commission minutes as presented. Minutes of the February 19, 2014 Planning Commission meeting: Com. Takahashi noted on Page 26, his comments on Hamptons were from Chair Brophy; changes will be made to reflect the correction. MOTION: Motion by Vice Chair Lee, second by Com. Gong, and unanimously carried 5-0-0, to approve the February 19, 2014 Planning Commission minutes as amended WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: It was noted that several emails had been received regarding the Public Hearing. No other written communications noted. POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None 354 Cupertino Planning Commission April 22, 2014 2 CONSENT CALENDAR: None PUBLIC HEARING 3. DP-2014-02, ASA-2014-02, Foothill Live/Work Project. Development Permit to allow TM-2014-01, TR-2014-08, demolition of an abandoned auto service station and construct Z-2014-01 Tate Development six residential units, including five live-work units with detached (Foothill Auto Service & Detail workspaces along with associated site and off-site improvements Inc.) 10121 No. Foothill Blvd. Architectural and Site Approval to allow the demolition of an abandoned automobile service station and construct six Residential units, including five live-work units with detached workspaces, along with associated site and off-site improvements; Tentative Map to subdivide a .66 net acre parcel into six residential lots and one common area lot; Tree Removal Permit to allow the removal and replacement of five Monterey Pine trees; Rezoning of a .87 gross acre parcel from Planned Development General Commercial – P(CG) to Planned Development General Commercial and Residential – P(CG, Res). Tentative City Council date: May 20, 2014 George Schroeder, Associate Planner, presented the staff report: He reviewed the project application to demolish an abandoned automobile service station and construct six residential units, including five live-work units with detached workspaces together with associated site and off-site improvements. The project also includes rezoning a .87 gross acre parcel from Planned Development General Commercial P(CG) to Planned Development General Commercial and Residential P(CG, Res); Tentative Map, Architectural and Site Approval, Tree Removal Permit, and Mitigated Negative Declaration, as outlined in the staff report. He reviewed the Power Point presentation as outlined in the staff report, including comments from the Planning Commission and City Council study sessions, commercial site challenges, residential interface challenges; rezoning; workspace uses/intensity; proposed site plan; architectural review; parking/traffic; tree removals/planting plan; Environmental Assessment; and outreach/public comments. Staff supports the project and recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the project to the City Council for the rezoning approval, Tentative Map, Development Permit, Architectural and Site Approval; Tree Removal Permit, Mitigated Negative Declaration. City Council Hearing is scheduled for May 20 and if approved, second reading schedule for June 2. Staff answered Commissioners’ questions. Below is a summary of staff responses to Commissioners’ questions regarding the proposed project. Each unit is required to provide 2.8 parking spaces which follows the city’s townhome standards; 2 spaces are enclosed in a garage, and .8 are for guest parking. Staff is putting in a condition to prohibit owner renting out the commercial unit; already in conditions. With regards to the environmental assessment, would the mitigation of the contaminated soils be required whether it be converted to commercial or residential; yes, any kind of significant redevelopment of the site would require mitigation, especially its being converted to a lot of residential uses which would introduce sensitive receptors to the site. In any case of a full scale development there would be cleanup of the gas station. Interior noise environment … the 5 homes could be subject to more than the sound ordinance would require; is that a possibility even after all the sound proofing and the highly rated windows … it could be a possibility but there are city measures to ensure that the noise level maximums are met; there will be a post construction requirement that the city’s noise consultant goes out and tests/confirms that the noise levels will be in the noise ordinance and if any additional measures need to be incorporated, the project would be required to carry them out. The Astoria Townhomes on Imperial Ave. has 13 units designated for live/work. Sound walls are discouraged; typically gates and other walls to block off residential areas from the street are discouraged but not prohibited. There could be mitigation measures such as shrubs or vines to mask the wall. There are General Plan policies that talks about encouraging strongly projects to open up to 355 Cupertino Planning Commission April 22, 2014 3 the community. Public Works would not likely be supportive of having houses facing Foothill with the driveway curb cuts and garages because of the safety factor. With residences facing Silver Oak there would be the potential of the sound wall issue. If the owner of the live/work unit does not live in the unit, they cannot rent the unit out separately; the conditions will be set forth in the CC&Rs. Changes to the CC&Rs would have to go through city review, through modification of their approval. Com. Gong suggested restrictions during work hours for the guest/visitor parking. Clients visits in excess of one person at a time is not allowed. It can be specified no more than 2 people at a time in the case of a couple visiting a tax person. There will be a row of screening trees and shrubs along the west and south parameters. The proposed location is not a good retail site. The location is somewhat disconnected from the primary center of the city. Mr. Tate, Applicant: Said he has done 30 condo projects with different aspects; first one of this nature; has put together a Homeowners Association and very strict CC&Rs and then hired an offsite property management company to manage the landscaping and the HOA. What is going to happen to the workspace? There will be some strict rules and regulations; when finished working with the city and city attorney on that there will be some documents that people will be pleased with it. If one had to go out and police it themselves,, it would be a nightmare; it is done by the HOA which takes home ownership seriously, they have a big investment. There are two property owners behind us; Mr. Nass and Mr. Pleshay, and Mr. Tate has been in close touch with them because their concern has been line of sight of the project. They are going to plant a hedge on their side of the property that will be 12’ 6” from the beginning above the wall which will totally screen their visual impact from the property on their side of the fence. Said he has tried hard to make them happy with what they are doing and feels successful because they will have no line of site of the project. Said he was in a joint venture with the owner and when the project is approved would become a full partner and would be the developers of the property. They have been working together for three years to see if there is a commercial use for the parcel. In the commercial business if you can’t make a gas station and convenience store combination work, you will have a difficult time getting anything else to work. Previous business failed miserably and they closed it in 2010 and they have been working with the brokerage community till now to see if there was another commercial use and it doesn’t have the right demographics, or the right traffic flow. It doesn’t have a stoplight; it is not a hard corner and couldn’t come up with anything; that is why they have pursued the residential aspect to it and have been working on for 20 months. Said their research showed that they would have to spend about $700K on environmental cleanups; there is a set of economics that has to work with any development. With land costs, you can’t afford to have a day care center; the land is too expensive; daycare needs a very small building and a lot of yard space. It doesn’t work economically. Com. Gong: Said currently there are five live/work units and one pure residential unit and she felt Unit 6 was shoehorned in. Asked the applicant what the economical impact would be if the sixth unit was eliminated. Mr. Tate: Said the economic impact of taking away the sixth unit would be drastic, between the environmental cleanup and the cost of the land. Com. Gong: Said she felt it was restrictive with the sixth home. She asked if there were illustrations of what the sides of Units 1 through 5 looks like; the interiors; are there windows, is it solid siding for privacy and aesthetics? 356 Cupertino Planning Commission April 22, 2014 4 Jesus Hernandez, Architect: Regarding the courtyards, looking at the site plan the property lines abut up against the north side of Unit 2; wherever that property line abuts there is no window opening on that side of the wall, but in Unit 1 there are openings on that side of the wall. Consequently every single home there is no privacy concerns in between the two homes in that courtyard space; essentially the northern units get views to the south and the one below does not because of that property line. In every courtyard there is only one wall with windows, which is the one that does not have the property line up against it. There are openings on the southern side of the homes. Said there are no restrictions to allow a covered walkway, so the most of the homes have that side yard where there is a parking space towards the end and that courtyard space is sunken down below that portion, as you step up to the building, also from that point you step down to the courtyard so it creates a separate level of differentiation between the home, the courtyard and the workspace so there is some difference there. It does not necessarily need a covered patio; you want to get good daylight in there for it to be a more enjoyable space. Com. Gong: There is no restriction for not allowing it. Gary Chao: They are not proposing any walkways; if they were to come back later and show a walkway or covered walkway they would discuss the building code and the fire code if allowed. He said it would not be a major issue, although he agreed with the applicant that the good weather and having light in the small constraint courtyard area, it is probably best to leave it open. Mr. Tate indicated he would plant a 12’6” high hedge to provide privacy for the neighbors. Mr. Tate: Said the hedge would be taller than that, it would be 12’ 6” above the wall which would screen them from any line sight from the homes. You can’t have it both ways; you can either see the houses or have privacy. He said there probably won’t be an optimal solution for everyone, but he stressed they went to great lengths to come up with a solution because they didn’t want to see any part of the houses; it is a solution that is environmentally inviting because they are planting a lot of greenery. Said he received feedback from Mr. Nazhand that he was concerned about the light into his unit; however he has some very high Cyprus trees in his back yard, higher that what they were going to plant. Said he was not aware if they had predicted how many minutes of sunlight will be blocked by the hedge in the morning. Christian Avira, co-owner of architectural firm: Said they take the sun studies very seriously at their company; and have a history of doing townhouse projects similar to the proposal where the two challenges are view vs. sunlight. After much consideration they modified the original proposal to locate Unit 6 to front off DeAnza Blvd. in order to maximize the amount of morning sun they would get during the winter months and still provide some shading during the harsher summer months, while still meeting the city requirements proposing a lot that is within the means of the 15 foot setback requirements that are typical within the context of this community. Com Sun: Asked if the business was approved but not successful, would they expect to apply for rezoning to the full residential or prefer to go residential now? 357 Cupertino Planning Commission April 22, 2014 5 Mr. Tate: Said he has presented an interesting concept and has had many calls since starting the project from people who are excited about buying a unit with their own private work space. Gary Chao: Addressed the scenario if the business in the live/work unit failed; said that they do have usage standards in the condition that goes beyond the type of uses that can and cannot be allowed including that the floorplan has to be demonstrated to the city before allowing construction. Said the storefront design is very transparent; the rules state that it cannot be covered and put up a blind and screen it such as the Imperial sites were able to. The way the condition is set up makes it difficult for somebody to convert it into a living room, because of all the provisions, the sign, the frontage requirements, the transparency, and the floor plan. If the owner did want to transfer the usage later into residential, they would have to come back as a whole, instead of one entity a building with six entities go through a process and a public hearing and provide justification to all. There may have to be design changes, architectural changes, to make it suitable for a living room or a residential space; the way it is designed its position and all the transparency provided is not suitable for a bedroom. There is a process, a way out, for whatever reason later on, as a group if it doesn’t work out they can come back and make some adjustments but they do have to go through the Planning Commission. Com. Sun: Asked if they were running the business as their first try instead of 50 years experience for this type of combined business and residential together; is there any alternative to transform it into any other type of business? Mr. Tate: When the buyers come in the CC&Rs and rules and regulations will be explained; that is what they are buying and that is the way they have to do it. They cannot change it; it is part of the CC&Rs and rules and regulations; if that is not what they are going to do, they should not buy the unit. Chair Brophy opened the public hearing. Jan Stoeckenius, 22386 Cupertino Road: Said his main concern about the project reflects Chair Brophy’s concern about the size of the units; they are 2200 sq. ft. without garage and without the office and the ones that have the office are 3,000+ sq. ft. which is larger than the city would normally allow on a 6,000 sq. ft. lot as a detached single family home. It does not however, meet the FAR for there or the parking; because of the size it is felt that it would be used as would a home of that size. That means you would normally expect to see 4 parking spaces per unit and it would normally expect to see the 45% FAR. As suggested by others, reduction to five units would remedy that; reduction to four units would be wonderful, but economics are not so good. Said he understood and was sympathetic with the applicant’s economics argument that it is useful to have more units there. He pointed out that it is his partner who is setting the land price. Julia Tien, 22386 Cupertino Road: Said her main concerns were the traffic issues on the parcel. If all the parking spaces were occupied by cars, there is no turnaround space inside. What you do not want is someone dropping off their child and putting their car on Foothill Expwy. There was a mailbox in front of that gas station; just south of there are bus stops on both sides of Foothill and there is a crosswalk at Cupertino Road; where there was a fatality about year ago. They requested that the Council put flashing lights; cars don’t stop. This plan has pedestrian access to the work spaces but you need to make sure there are no 358 Cupertino Planning Commission April 22, 2014 6 pedestrians crossing at Silver Oaks and Foothill; it is not a safe place to cross. The other question is regarding the people moving in to the work spaces; 50 years down the line they will retire; what will happen to their work spaces? Are they told they have to move out because they can’t use the work spaces anymore? Is this going to be their lifetime home; how is the live/work arrangement going to grow with the family in terms of their lifestyle as they reach retirement age? Coast Live Oak trees are huge trees with 20 foot diameter; how will they fit on the parcel if you plant very many of those. Jeff Plashay, resident: Opposed to the project. Said his main concern was Unit 6 with the view and screening because it will be a huge building right behind his house. Said he would rather have the privacy trees on the applicant’s parcel, but not have Unit 6 because it will block his view; the balcony on Unit 6 will look down on his back yard. Sam Nazhand, 22566 Silver Oak Way: Resides behind Unit 6. Said he was originally supportive of the project until he learned about Unit 6; which is being built mostly in his back yard and with its height, it will not get the sunlight which would result in privacy issues. He referred to photos which illustrated the loss of his view, and the amount of current sunlight and loss of sunlight into his home. Said he did not have a preference for residential or commercial; commercial zoning would increase the parking problems. Chair Brophy closed the public hearing. Com Sun: Said he felt the public hearing ran smoothly except for the last speaker who raised some serious concerns about the sunlight and blocking of his views. He said he was interested in listening to the applicant’s rebuttal; can anything be done; is there anything you can do, or whether his claim is correct, is it factual with no dispute? Mr. Tate: Said they have gone to great lengths to please everyone, but if every subdivision was subject to the next door neighbor not seeing any part of the property, there would never be anything built. Every subdivision that is built, one house sees another, you see the front and the back; they volunteer to plant a hedge on their side of the property. The homeowner may lose a few minutes of sunlight in the morning; but they are trying to give him the best of both worlds. If they don’t want the hedge it would save about $90K if they don’t plant hedge. Said Mr. Nazhand could either have all the sunlight he desires and see the houses, or they can plant the hedge. They would trim the hedge, keep it trimmed at the top of the roof line if he doesn’t want to see that, and they will make certain to include it in the CC&Rs that the HOA will have to trim that hedge so that it is just one or two inches above the roofline. The homeowner will lose a few moments of sunlight in the morning but he will have all the privacy he wants. It will also provide some sound barrier from the noise from Foothill Blvd. He said he wants to try to please everybody, but in the business it just isn’t possible. Com. Sun: Said he understood that the applicant has really tried to please all parties. Technically there is no problem for his claim that it isn’t just blocking for a few minutes in the morning but it entirely blocks the sunshine. He asked if it was true based on his explanation. Mr. Tate: Said that staff noted in their presentation that they were 15 feet off of that setback; Within Cupertino, DeAnza would technically be considered the front, so that would be the side yard and the rear yard is where the balcony is located. One thing to consider in terms of the views on the sunlight, when they 359 Cupertino Planning Commission April 22, 2014 7 are putting a project like this on market, views are by direction, so it has to be designed in a manner that someone who is going to purchase it doesn’t want to have the same view concerns as the neighbor behind. It goes both ways, therefore they limit the amount of windows along the side yard; they are placed high; frost the glass and in terms of the sun and solar orientation, this is the one unit where they slope the roof towards the east, so as the sun rises the roof peak isn’t blocking his view and the sun angle is in his favor. He discussed the photos showing the placement of the sun at various times of the day and the resulting privacy impacts. He noted that the project would not affect the present areas where the sun shines into the bedrooms; nor will the hedges impact the privacy. The balcony is located in the rear so that nobody’s balcony is looking into their side yard, and regarding the property owner to the south, they will continue to add a screen wall along that side to block his angle. He said they were willing to alter the design of that balcony, and are also confident that the way they designed it is going to maximize his privacy and still be a benefit to the future buyer of that project. Pointed out that it has been an ongoing process over the last 20 months; they have met with the city’s consulting architect and gone back and forth numerous times; privacy issue was the number one concern of his before they began the project and they received positive feedback on the design as noted in the staff report. They mitigated the situation in terms of privacy and sunlight and he felt comfortable as a team member stating that the developer and their own consulting architect were in agreement. The public hearing was closed. Gary Chao: Said the city does not have any specific policies or directives they can use to make findings specific to sunlight and views, hence the difficulty responding to some of the concerns. It is totally within their ability to talk about architecture, building setbacks, height, and square footage. Pointed out that if they are inclined to talk about consistency or compatibility of massing or distance, it is more appropriate to address it more in concrete terms that the ordinance can relate to in terms of height, setback; they are not able to address one person’s view of the sky or perspective on what might be the prevalent time of the day that the sun would hit. Vice Chair Lee: Asked if staff would support a neighbor having full line of sight into another resident’s yard from his balcony? Gary Chao: Under the R1 ordinance you are able to have second floor balconies and they would have to be mitigated by privacy screening; it would not necessarily be supported or denied; they would demonstrate a cone of vision, have them provide either waivers from the neighbors or have a solution for privacy screening. Com. Takahashi: Given height is a concern with regard to the view, what is the feasibility from an economic standpoint; one design, repeated six times is the most economical solution but are there any other mitigating elements for Unit 6 that could reduce its height in any way. Gary Chao: Reiterated the Planning Commission has the ability to discuss the height, square footage, the unit is about 2600 sq. ft. two levels, setbacks 15 ft., the height was clarified; you can have direct dialogue with the architect to see if there are any possible adjustments. To the extent you were to offer additional setback, that would have to be absorbed from the floor plan or if you wanted to potentially reduce the square footage it would come out from the second floor but that is something you can 360 Cupertino Planning Commission April 22, 2014 8 discuss with the applicant. Chair Brophy: Normally the policy is sitting through neighborhood squabbles about people being unhappy about a two story house next to a one story house, the difference in this case is it is a planned development, not a subdivision where someone wants to simply put up a second floor onto their one story home. Said he was trying to make the project work without unduly burdening the properties behind, primarily Mr. Nazhand’s because it is directly behind Unit 6, and it would seem that it would not be unrealistic under a Planned Development to consider the possibility of limiting that to one or 1-1/2 stories for that one unit. It may not make the applicant happy but in terms of trying to minimize the problem with the two duplex owners behind them; that is one possible solution. Gary Chao: It is a possibility; they have the discretion given the fact that they have a Planned Development and all the entitlements. He said if they wanted to go that route, make sure the applicant has a solution for that or put it in their condition; staff can work with the applicant to work out a revision. Since they are talking about the possibilities and proximity to adjacent duplexes for the duplex home, he emphasize the fact that they are also allowed to have a two story home; presently the situation is a single story duplex being compared with the project; in the future there is the opportunity for the property owner of the duplex to add on and have a two story level as well. There was a discussion about grading, wherein applicant answered Commissioners’ questions. Com. Takahashi: Referring to Page A-18 relative to grading, a feasibility question; looking at the existing grade in comparison to the proposed grade, is an additional foot of grading an option? Does that create a problem on the entry from Silver Creek given there will be another foot of height difference. Said he was looking for what the possibilities are for height mitigation on Unit 6. Male speaker (?) The existing grade as it stands follows the grade to a fair degree but could an additional foot of grading take place which would create a height difference of one foot between Unit 6 and the adjacent neighbor; it could create another foot of vertical delta on the entrance at Silver Creek. The question is, is that even an option. Chair Brophy: Said there was a concern about how Unit 6 interacts with the two duplex properties to the west, and to that extent are they in a position to provide some ideas as to how it might be mitigated Applicant: Said they use building information modeling in the office so everything is surveyed; it is modeled digitally including all the houses next door so they are accurately represented as well as all of the trees. One of the things that is known contradicts what staff said about the difference in height, because DeAnza if flowing down toward Foothill and then ramping down, there is actually a difference of 5 feet from the adjacent neighbors grade, not 3, from property line to the finish floor of Home 6. Regarding that what you have always been discussing is a two story house, we look at it more as a ground floor being semi-subterranean because that is what it is; that was the first mitigating issue that we put into play. Looking at the finished floor, the second floor of all of these units, especially the ones along Foothill, they are actually in line with grade of the finish floor of the neighboring properties. The height needs to be measured from the peak of the roof at its highest point and what it is showing now is where we are having clear stories that are shooting towards the east and Home 6. 361 Cupertino Planning Commission April 22, 2014 9 We can remove those altogether and if we do you can see that the peak of height 6 is actually already a foot lower than the neighboring properties, height and peak. Said they would confirm with the civil engineer that they have room to lower it some more; but to get into Home 6 they actually step down steps off the internal walkway. Referring to the sections of Unit 6 and elevations of Unit 6 on Page A16, relative to the neighbor to the south you will see on that elevation, if they are in their back yard looking at that; they are actually seeing a one story house from that side. The response is Yes, they could probably look at a one foot reduction. Male Speaker: Said they could probably lower it as well, and do a balance of grading and lowering the peak; they can go fully to a flat roof; one of the things the consulting architect wanted was to show more variation because every unit was exactly the same, so they went to a variation of a flat roof and a peaked roof and that one still has a peaked roof on it, so they can lower that peak height as well. Applicant: Said that they are trying to mitigate the concerns and come into the community with a valuable project, not just something that is developer driven; obviously the economics need to work and they are trying to design not only what works, but what fits and blends within a forward thinking community such as Cupertino. Vice Chair Lee: Said that although talking about details of the setbacks, and line of sight etc., the Planning Commission is supposed to govern land use issues. She explained to the newer commissioners that in 2009 and 2010 about every six months, they would receive applications for day care use or specialized schools. They are popular here and they have to go through a lot of hoops and use permits, etc. because they are not allowed in the retail areas, on Stevens Creek and City Center. They need to decide where they want them to be located; presently day care centers are in people’s homes; there is definitely a niche for that. There has not been a lot of research on it for the proposed site; it is not ideal for residential, the environmental assessment says it is too loud for residential; and it is evident that retail doesn’t work because there are no stop lights, not enough cars. Said she felt they should explore other uses such as day care centers, karate studios, dance studios; they are in metropolitan and many other areas. Said for land use, she preferred it to remain as commercial. Due to the fact about the land use and the neighbors do not support the project; she was sympathetic to the neighbors’ concerns and said she did not support the application and would deny it. Com. Takahashi: Said that it was clear what is there now is not acceptable to anyone; owners, neighbors, and there is overwhelming evidence that commercial use is problematic and economically not viable, especially since whoever will develop it for commercial use would have to go through all of the environmental remediation which has to be factored into the economics of a dance studio or similar use, and it probably not survive. The proposal is as good a compromise as possible given the location and the need for housing on the west side; there is not a lot of sites where there is a possibility of adding housing on the west side of the town. The residents’ concerns are legitimate from the standpoint of impact and any mitigation with regard to height would be of benefit with regard to a synergistic relationship with the neighbors and the neighborhood. The restrictions on the use that are in place or proposed are adequate to protect against misuse, which is acceptable. He complimented the architect on the look and feel of the development from the standpoint of the frontage; the project fits well with younger individuals, families in the work force; overall from a standpoint of impact to the greater neighborhood, it is a positive project and most of the neighbors would benefit from having the project move forward. 362 Cupertino Planning Commission April 22, 2014 10 Said he supported the project and it is an overall improvement for the city and that specific location. Com. Sun: Supports the project. Said although they reviewed the land use he preferred to leave land use for either the developer or property owner. If they propose day care center or some other use, it would probably be acceptable, but for the private owner the important thing is a day care center cannot make money; they buy the property now but they eventually go bankrupt. Relative to the project, most of his concerns have been addressed except Unit 6; which is not an insolvable problem. There is room for the applicant to work with the neighbor to reduc e the height either of the house or Unit 6 or do something else. He said he would prefer to approve the project with conditions to reduce Unit 6 to solve the neighborhood impact. Com. Gong: Commended staff and architect for creating a challenging piece of property. Said she was sympathetic to the developer’s ROI requirements; they are not doing this for the public; the concerns are from the existing neighbors. The architect has given respectful responses to the neighbors and she said she would support approval of the project. A second concern which is easily addressed is the visitor parking; it is important because it currently is a live/work development that the outside parking, guest parking spaces be restricted during the daytime, post a sign that it is for guest use only during normal operating hours. The residents would appreciate that as well. Chair Brophy: Responded to Vice Chair Lee’s concerns; said that in the last few years there have been a number of applications come before them in which he would describe the staff as giving grudging approval to day care centers and the like, in retail space that was built by developers or commonly mandated by the city as part of a residential project, that couldn’t get anybody else. The applicant would state that the space has been vacant for 5 years, and they have gone through 3 brokers, and are powerless to do more. They had visions of great retail sales and vibrant street activity but ran up against the facts of life, hence they would be approved. What that may mean is that those are the kind of locations that businesses go to and are in effect the failure locations, because the rents are so low that nobody else is willing to outbid what they can afford to pay. The letters from the three brokers are pretty damming relative to the potential for commercial development and the idea that you can build brand new space on any site at an economic level for Kung Fu classes or after school or day care is simply not the case. This has been a complicated site; he said he appreciated that the applicant and architects have worked very hard. Said the only way he felt it could work is to set a maximum height limit for Unit 6 that is significantly below what it currently is. He suggested 5 feet below where it is now and if it can be done through lowering the unit, and flattening the roof. If not they will be in a situation where your client may have no choice but to have a one story unit for Unit 6. He said he felt they were trying to balance it off, and are concerned about the unit, the duplexes immediately adjacent to No. 6 and he is trying to figure out how best to bring it down to a level that would seem to be less obtrusive. One other issue which didn’t come up in the discussion, as part of the conditions there is the point that the residential part of the unit may not be used for commercial and the commercial part of the unit may not be used for residential. He said he had no problem with the first part because it is meant to be a residential project but given that the whole concept of live/work is kind of fake in this position; this is not a live/work type of location. He suggested deleting the line on Page 69, 8aii that requires that the commercial not be used as residential; if somebody wishes to use that front part for elderly parents or live-in nanny, there is no reason why it would not work. It is not a commercial street; all have agreed that it will mostly be used as home offices, or at best offices where people will work from and have an 363 Cupertino Planning Commission April 22, 2014 11 occasional visitor. Said he saw no reason why if somebody wanted to convert it to residential because it will likely happen; he would rather be honest up front and it wouldn’t make the project worse, and would likely reduce the likelihood of future homeowner conflicts. With the exception of Vice Chair Lee there is a consensus vote to recommend approval of a project; there is concern about the height of Unit 6 and how it affects the duplexes to the west, especially the one on the north side. Said his concern about whether or not they need to enforce the “no residential” in the front part, he would understand if there is no interest in that. Other concerns are the exterior parking, outside parking; restrictions during normal working hours is important; if in fact they do get used as office uses. Said he agreed with Com. Gong that there should be some posting on that, an appropriate means by which that can be managed. Also the restriction of one person, creating a one- client unit; staff’s terminology of one client unit is appropriate. Com. Takahashi: In terms of comment of allowing residential in the front, that may require revision of other elements in what was originally proposed. He is undecided whether or not it should be part of it or not, but if that is decided, there are some other things that might become inconsistent with that; it would need to change in terms of the report. Com. Sun: Asked Vice Chair Lee if she might reconsider her decision because he believes this property is better suited for a day care center or preschool and those kinds of decisions are left for the developer to decide, and the role of the Commission is to decide whether it can accept it or deny it. Perhaps it could be considered, put in some conditions and let the project move forward. Vice Chair Lee: Said that rather than it be day care, it could be specialty schools, tutoring, karate or kung fu studios, dance studio, or martial arts. Commented that when they joined the project, they knew there was going to be more remediation and remediation is expensive. It was not a surprise to them; they have been in the business for many years. Chair Brophy: Said he felt the owners of the site did not know that remediation was so costly. Com. Takahaski: Said it was clear from the brokers’ letters and driving by the site, that the alternative to some project predominantly residential in character is not a retail space, whether it is aimed at specialty schools, etc. the alternative is to leave the gas station closed and blocked off for years to come. Vice Chair Lee: Said she suggested residential because on No. Foothill there are a lot of big houses; it doesn’t have to be small houses with huge FARs; residential would be acceptable. Staff said that if residential, if you cut into two lots you could minimize the curb cutouts; allowing more setbacks; maybe noise wouldn’t be an issue but they are not able to support residential facing Foothill or facing Silver Oak for two reasons. The traffic engineer isn’t supportive of the ones facing it, so as you drive down Foothill there is a lot of big houses. It would add a lot if you put two big houses there, two lots, residential, it would be pretty and people would pay top price for two new houses on Foothill, but staff is not supportive of residential. She said she was open to residential and open to commercial. Com. Sun: He said he felt Vice Chair Lee was going to the other extreme; said at the beginning he was concerned 364 Cupertino Planning Commission April 22, 2014 12 about the live/work condition which looked like a fake project; either it go to the residential or to commercial; the applicant has a design for the current model and he did not feel he could convince them; therefore he would approve the project with the condition on Unit 6 height to reduce it. Said he was concerned about the applicant’s financial interest and business interest, whether they can go to the first floor or the single floor or reduce height. He said he concurred with Com. Gong’s suggestion to add another parking condition and modify the other condition. Com. Cong: Suggested modified language regarding parking: To restrict guest/visitor parking to normal working hours … day and time residential usage restriction for normal working hours, M-F, 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. during weekends and evenings anybody can use. Chair Brophy: Regarding Com. Sun’s earlier point, suggested improved language: Minimum height two story because one story height equivalent is going to be difficult to do without it being one story; would a more flexible solution be minimum height, two stories or just an overall maximum height. Gary Chao: Said the applicant suggested that they get rid of the clear story and manipulate the gray to the maximum extent possible; 5 feet is achievable which will result in achieving the effective visual alignment with the adjacent or even lower than adjacent duplex. He suggested being more concrete and suggest that to the maximum extent possible reduce the height to 5 feet, either by reducing the clear story, lowering the building and/or manipulating lowering the grade; that way it would be clear for them to work with it. Chair Brophy: Said they could do it at 5 feet; state you just want a one story house but at 5 feet you probably get the result you are looking at. He said he felt they should set a standard. Said he felt they presented an interesting concept and have had a lot of calls from people who are excited about buying a unit where they have their own private workspace. Motion: Motion by Com. Gong, second by Com. Takahashi, and unanimously carried 4-0-1, Vice Chair Lee voted No, to recommend approval to City Council approval Z-2014-01, TM-2014-01, DP-2014-02, ASA-2014-02, TR-2014-08 and EA-2014-01 with the following amendments: (a) include a clause in the Development Permit regarding the restricting of guest visiting parking during weekday working hours; (b) correct the one person clause in the current language to refer to one client unit, and (c) modify the Architectural and Site Approval such that Unit 6 have a building height not to exceed 20 ft. 9 ins. from the current proposal. OLD BUSINESS: None NEW BUSINESS: None REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Environmental Review Committee: Meeting held regarding current agenda item. Housing Commission: No report. 365 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. Agenda Date: March 26, 2013 Application: Study Session for potential live-work development Applicant: Ron Tate (Foothill Auto Service and Detail, Inc.) Location: 10121 North Foothill Boulevard (APN 342-32-070) APPLICATION SUMMARY: Study Session to provide feedback on a conceptual proposal to demolish an abandoned automobile service station and construct six (6) residential units, including five (5) live-work units. If the project proponent files a formal application the project will require: 1. Rezoning the property from P(CG) – Planned General Commercial to P(CG, Res) – Planned General Commercial and Residential; 2. Tentative Map application to subdivide the parcel for ownership units; 3. Development Permit; 4. Architectural and Site Approval; 5. Tree Removal Permit – to remove five (5) trees; and 6. Environmental Review RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review the conceptual proposal from the applicant and provide comments. The City Council will also provide comments at a subsequent study session. STUDY SESSION FORMAT: The applicant has requested study sessions by the Planning Commission and City Council to receive input on the feasibility of the proposal. The applicant has not submitted a formal development application, so no action, decision, or direction may be provided. The purview of the Commission at this meeting is solely to provide comments and feedback on the concept presented at the study session. Staff suggests that the Commission focus any comments on the major conceptual issues discussed in this report, including: Whether the proposed residential/commercial use is desirable at this location or maintaining the existing commercial use is preferable; COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 (408) 777-3308 • FAX (408) 777-3333 366 10121 N. Foothill Blvd Foothill Live-Work Study Session March 26, 2013 If the proposed use is desirable, whether the proposed residential/commercial format and density is compatible with the existing neighborhood; and Specific issues or concerns related to the live/work use that the City may wish to consider addressing or regulating. If and when the applicant decides to formally submit an application, the project will be processed in accordance with appropriate City procedures, which will likely include public hearings by the Environmental Review Committee, Planning Commission, and City Council. PROPOSAL DATA: Existing land use Automobile service station Proposed land use Single-family residential live-work project with 6 dwelling units Existing/Proposed General Plan designation Commercial/Residential Specific Plan None Existing zoning designation P (CG)—Planned Development with General Commercial uses Proposed zoning designation P (CG, Res) – Planned Development with General Commercial and Residential uses Gross lot area (includes up to 30’ of street area) 38,019 square feet (0.87 acres) Net lot area 28,837 square feet (0.66 acres) Allowable maximum residential density, if re- zoning is approved 15 dwelling units (DU) per gross acre (AC) or 13 units based on gross acreage of the site, per General Plan Policy 2-32 Proposed density 6.9 units per gross acre Existing building area 1,608 square feet Existing building height 18 feet (one story) Proposed building area Residences with workspaces: 3,099 sq. ft. (including 435 sq. ft. workspace) Residence without workspace: 2,579 sq. ft. Total gross building area: 18,074 sq. ft. Allowed building height 30 feet Proposed building height 25 feet, 5 inches (two stories) Required parking Townhomes – 2.8 spaces/unit. Home occupations allow 1 employee and require 1 additional space) Standard for live-work units to be determined through a parking study Proposed parking Residences with workspaces: 2 enclosed, 2 uncovered Residence without workspace: 2 enclosed, 1 uncovered 23 total onsite, with 4-5 additional on-street stalls on Silver Oak Way 367 10121 N. Foothill Blvd Foothill Live-Work Study Session March 26, 2013 BACKGROUND: Existing Site and Surroundings The proposal site is located at the southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Silver Oak Way, and is surrounded by higher density residential (residential clusters and duplexes) and quasi-public uses. To the west of the site are residential duplexes; to the east and across Foothill Boulevard is the Sunnyview Retirement Community; to the north and across Silver Oak Way are residential duplexes; and to the south are residential duplexes. The site currently contains an abandoned 1,608 square foot automobile service station with a fueling canopy, which was previously occupied by Foothill Auto Service and Detail. The site was originally developed in 1971, and has been historically used for automobile service, fueling, and convenience purposes. The site topography slopes up towards the south and west side of the property and slopes down from Silver Oak Way along the north side of the property. DISCUSSION: Proposal Concepts The proposal concept consists the following: Demolish the existing automobile service station Construct six (6) detached, small-lot, single-family residences Five (5) live-work units with detached workspaces are included within the six (6) residences Associated site improvements (See Attachment 1 for the preliminary plan set). The five (5) live-work units are proposed along the Foothill Boulevard frontage, and contain detached workspaces, designed with a “commercial studio/storefront” appearance. One other residential unit without a workspace is situated along the Silver Oak Way frontage to help transition the project to the residential neighborhood to the north and west. Live-work developments allow residents to operate small neighborhood-serving businesses in or near the buildings they live, which may reduce commuter-traffic impacts, reduce or eliminate Site Aerial 368 10121 N. Foothill Blvd Foothill Live-Work Study Session March 26, 2013 child care expenses for people with young families, and provides the opportunity to test creative business ventures with greatly reduced startup costs. The intensity of the live-work workspaces is expected to be similar to home occupation businesses (Chapter 19.120) with additional allowance for neighborhood-serving commercial uses that can operate at a lower intensity. Land Use & Zoning The project site currently has a General Plan land use designation of Commercial/Residential with a specific zoning designation of P(CG) – Planned Development General Commercial. The current zoning designation allows any permitted general commercial or retail use as part of the General Commercial Ordinance (Section 19.60) to operate on the site. In order to introduce residential uses to the site, the property must be rezoned to Planned Development General Commercial and Residential. This parcel is not identified as a potential housing site in the City’s General Plan Housing Element. However, the City will be able to claim credit for units provided on this site as part of our current Housing Element. A new commercial project may be desirable to serve the area and provide the City with the potential of sales tax revenue. Properties at key intersections in the City are zoned commercial to provide essential commercial neighborhood-serving uses in proximity to neighboring residential areas. Examples along Foothill Boulevard are at the intersections of McClellan Road and Stevens Creek Boulevard. Keeping these provides essential neighborhood-serving commercial/professional office uses for neighboring residential areas. The project site, however, is further away from the intersection and Stevens Creek Boulevard and is separated from the commercial uses by a residential development. The Commission may want to comment on whether a live-work project (residential with limited commercial uses) in this location is desirable to the extent that it may maintain the intent o f providing neighborhood-serving uses while serving as a transition to the residential area to the west, or whether maintaining a more standard commercial use is preferable. Mixed-Use Options There are generally two types of commercial/residential mixed-use formats. A vertical mixed- use format is where residential is stacked on top of commercial (e.g., Travigne and Metropolitan) and a horizontal mixed-use format is where the residential is located behind the commercial part of the project either attached or detached (e.g., the recently approved Biltmore mixed-use project along Stevens Creek Boulevard). Typically the vertical mixed-use format is appropriate in more urban areas, at or near intersections of major commercial thoroughfares, allowing greater building and/or parking design efficiency over a smaller area. Vertical mixed- use projects would typically appear more urban. The applicant is proposing a horizontal live-work format with the workspaces in the front along Foothill Boulevard and residential dwellings in the back. This format may create a better 369 10121 N. Foothill Blvd Foothill Live-Work Study Session March 26, 2013 transition on the site by providing a commercial frontage along Foothill Boulevard, while providing a harmonious transition/buffer to the residential component of the project and the residential areas to the south and west of the property. In addition, the proposed project format is consistent with the City’s General Plan Policy 2-32 (Attachment 2) which discourages exclusive general commercial uses and encourages developments that are not in an identified commercial area (such as the proposal site) to include a neighborhood commercial presence along the street with storefronts and residential uses. The Commission may want to provide further feedback on this proposed commercial/residential format for this site. Density The proposed density of 6.9 dwelling units per gross acre is within the maximum 15 units per gross acre allowed by General Plan Policy 2-32. The proposed density is also comparable and in most cases, less dense than the neighborhood context on the west side of Foothill Boulevard and north of Stevens Creek. The table below shows the density of several neighboring residential developments: Location Zoning Existing unit count Gross acreage Density Westridge Condos (between Silver Oak Way and California Oak Way) R1C-2.9 136 units 13.45 gross acres 9.62 net acres 14.1 DU/Net. Ac. (density based on net acreage in R1C zone) Silver Oak Condos (between Silver Oak Ln and Stevens Creek Bl) P (Res, CG) 24 units 3.25 acres 7.38 DU/Gr. Ac. 22527-22537 Silver Oak Way R2-4.25 2 units 0.313 gross acres 6.38 DU/Gr. Ac. 22547-22557 Silver Oak Way R2-4.25 2 units 0.242 gross acres 8.26 DU/Gr. Ac. 22556-22566 Silver Oak Way R2-4.25 2 units 0.253 gross acres 7.9 DU/Gr. Ac. 22576-22586 Silver Oak Way R2-4.25 2 units 0.254 gross acres 7.87 DU/Gr. Ac. 22596-22606 Silver Oak Way P (R2) 2 units 0.196 gross acres 10.2 DU/Gr. Ac. 22616-22626 Silver Oak Way P (R2) 2 units 0.251 gross acres 7.9 DU/Gr. Ac. 22636-22646 Silver Oak Way P (R2) 2 units 0.316 gross acres 6.3 DU/Gr. Ac. 370 10121 N. Foothill Blvd Foothill Live-Work Study Session March 26, 2013 Live-Work Concept The Municipal Code allows home occupations in residential zones under certain conditions and subject to specific requirements. The Code does not, however, contain requirements for developments designed specifically for live/work uses. The City would have the authority, assuming the applicant pursues the proposal as a Planned Development application, to establish specific standards and regulations for permitted and conditional uses. Copies of the City’s home occupation standards (Attachment 3) and sample live/work regulations from other cities (Attachment 4) are attached to this report, and the Commission may wish to provide feedback on whether specific standards and regulations for the proposed live/work use may b e desirable. The Astoria townhomes on Imperial Avenue between Lomita and Granada Avenue were approved by the City in 2001 for 13 live-work units along the street frontage. The allowed uses in the workspaces were neighborhood commercial uses such as personal services and neighborhood offices. The approved parking ratio was 3.17 spaces per unit. Neighborhood Compatibility The applicant stated that the proposal will be designed to be compatible in scale, mass, and bulk with the surrounding neighborhood. The exterior elevation exhibits (Attachment 1) show that the proposed two-story height of the residences would generally be about the same height as the surrounding one-story duplex residences since the building pad area is lower in elevation than the duplex residences. General Plan Policy 2-32 allows one or two story buildings on this site, to be determined on a case-by-case basis. The proposed residences are designed in a modern architectural theme with redwood cladding to mimic the natural features of the local foothills. The detached workspaces are designed in the same theme of the residences with wide storefront bays and pedestrian entrances from the street. The proposed siting and roof pitches of the residences minimize shading impacts to adjoining residences. The City’s Consulting Architect will review the architectural details prior to and during the formal review process if an application is submitted. There are no required setbacks since this is a planned development zoned-property. The proposal includes a 15-foot setback along the Foothill Boulevard property line; an 11.5-foot setback along the Silver Oak Way (street side) property line; a 15-foot setback along the west side property line; and a 10-foot setback along the south side property line. The proposed setbacks generally appear to respect patterns in the existing area, but the Commission may wish to provide further feedback on compatibility issues. 371 10121 N. Foothill Blvd Foothill Live-Work Study Session March 26, 2013 Public Improvements The project proposes a detached sidewalk with landscaping buffer along the street frontages. On-street parallel parking spaces are provided along the street frontage on Silver Oak Way, which would be available for public parking. Parking The City’s Parking Ordinance does not specifically have a parking ratio for live -work developments. The ratio of 2.8 spaces per unit (2 covered, 0.8 open) for “Small Lot Single-family, Townhouse” developments was used as a baseline to determine the appropriate parking intensity for the project. Based on this ratio, the project would be required to provide 17 stalls. Each proposed residence includes a two-car garage. The five residences with workspaces also include two uncovered spaces and the residence without a workspace includes one uncovered space, for a total project supply of 23 park ing spaces, or 3.8 spaces per unit. Based on initial consultation with the City’s Transportation Consultant, the additional parking supply (at 1 space per each unit) should accommodate the limited parking demand for the workspaces due to their lower intensity client/customer visits similar to that of home occupation businesses. About four to five on-street parallel parking spaces will also be provided along Silver Oak Way. The on-street parking spaces are not included in the proposal parking count. A preliminary survey of parking demand for other existing live-work developments in Santa Clara County will be provided to the Planning Commission at the study session to help inform any additional comments the Commission may have related to parking. If a formal application is submitted, the transportation consultant will prepare a traffic and parking analysis for the project. Tree Removals, Privacy Protection, and Landscaping Existing trees onsite and offsite will likely be impacted by the proposed development and require a tree removal permit application as part of the development applications if removal is necessary. The planting plan for the project will have to provide replacement trees for those removed and privacy plantings to screen the views from new second floor windows onto neighboring residential properties. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS The study session is not considered a “project” per the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and is not subject to environmental review because no application has been submitted. The purpose of the study session is to provide general feedback on the conceptual issues and the comments provided at the study session do not commit the City to any particular course of 372 10121 N. Foothill Blvd Foothill Live-Work Study Session March 26, 2013 action if and when an application is submitted. Environmental review per CEQA will be required if the developer decides to formally submit a development application. PERMIT STREAMLINING ACT The study session is not considered a “development project” and is not subject to the Permit Streamlining Act (Government Code Section 65920 – 65964). The project will be subject to the Permit Streamlining Act if the applicant decides to formally submit a development application. PUBLIC NOTICING & OUTREACH The municipal code does not require public noticing for study sessions, since it does not involve action or decision by the Planning Commission and City Council. However, a courtesy notice was sent to 58 property owners within 300 feet of the proposal site informing them of tonight’s study session and the City Council study session. The applicant held a voluntary neighborhood meeting on February 7, 2013 to introduce the proposal to the community. The meeting was attended by the property owner; the applicant; the applicant’s development, design, and construction team; a Planning Division representative; and 13 members of the public. The following is a summary of public comments received at the meeting. Staff comments, if any, are provided in italics: Support for the proposal and desire to redevelop the existing site. Concerns about density, and suggestion for 2 to 4 units instead of 6 – The allowed density is 15 units/acre or 13 units. The project proposes less than half of the allowed density. Concerns about the proposed height of the residences and privacy impacts – The allowed height is 30 feet. The project proposes two-story buildings at a height of 25 feet and 5 inches, which is lower. Suggestion that the existing post-office box should be retained – At this time, the applicant has no plans to remove the mailbox. Clarification that the on-street parking proposed would be for public use – the on-street parking will be available for public use. Concerns about pedestrian safety and suggestions about various ways to enhance the area for pedestrians. Request that the existing trash receptacle near the VTA bus stop be serviced more often -- The trash receptacle is owned by the VTA, but is not serviced regularly. The City has been servicing this receptacle voluntarily until a formal maintenance agreement with the VTA is obtained. Inquiries about the allowed intensity of commercial uses – The workspaces will be operated by the person who occupies the home, and may include a few offsite employees as deemed necessary. The City has the ability to establish permitted and prohibited uses for the workspaces as part of the formal review process. 373 10121 N. Foothill Blvd Foothill Live-Work Study Session March 26, 2013 Inquiries about the construction process and timeline, and access on Silver Oak Way during construction – This information will be provided once the applicant makes a formal application. The applicant will be required to submit a construction management plan prior to issuance of building permits. Inquiries about the estimated cost of each of the proposed residences. NEXT STEPS A subsequent study session is scheduled with the City Council for May 7, 2013, which will include review of the comments from the Planning Commission study session. If the applicant decides to submit a formal development application following the study sessions, then the project will be reviewed at subsequent public hearings by the Environmental Review Committee, Planning Commission, and City Council. Prepared by: George Schroeder, Assistant Planner Reviewed by: Approved by: /s/ Gary Chao /s/ Aarti Shrivastava Gary Chao Aarti Shrivastava City Planner Community Development Director ATTACHMENTS: 1 – Plan set 2 – General Plan Policy 2-32 3 – Home Occupation Ordinance, Chapter 19.120 of the Cupertino Municipal Code 4 – Live-Work regulations in other Santa Clara County cities G:\Planning\PDREPORT\MISCELL\2013\Foothill Live Work Study Session PC 3-26-2013.doc 374 Cupertino Planning Commission 3 March 26, 2013 3.Ron Tate(Tate Development) Study Session for a potential application to demolish Mike Amidi (Foothill Auto an abandoned servicestation and construct six single- Service&Detail,Inc.) family residences withfive live-work units. Project will Location: 10121 No.Foothill Blvd require rezoning the property from P(CG),Planned General Commercial to P(CG,Res), Planned General Commercial and Residential and a TentativeMap Application to subdivide the parcel. Other associated permits that will be required include a Development Permit, Architectural and Site approval and a Tree Removal Permit. Tentative City Council date: 5-7-2013 Aarti Shrivastava: Explained that the purpose of the study session was to get comments from the PlanningCommission so that the applicant can go back and decide whether or not they want to amend the application based on commentsreceived. The Commission will not render a decision or provide specific direction; it is merely discussion at this point. George Schroeder,Assistant Planner: Reviewed the proposal for a live-work unit at the southwestcorner of Foothill Blvd. and Silver Oak Way at 10121 No. Foothill Blvd. Applicant has requested a study session toreceive input from the PlanningCommission on the feasibility of the project. The applicant proposes to rezone a .87 gross acre parcel from P(CG) to P(CG, res); demolish an abandoned service station and construct 6 residential units including 5 live-work units, along with associated site improvements. If the applicant decides to submit an application following the study session, several developmentpermits would be required including rezoning to allow for residential; a tentative map application to subdivide the parcel for ownershipunits; a development permit to allow 6 units and architectural and site approval and tree removalpermits, all subjectto environmental review per CEQA. He reviewed the video presentation, including the existing site plan, proposed site plan, neighborhood compatibility, parking. The neighborhood is primarily residential with a mix of housing types; and is not located within an established commercial district. The proposed density of 6.9 dwelling unitsper gross acre is comparable and inmany cases is less dense than some of the surrounding residential uses in the neighborhood; the height of the residences is about the same as the adjoining properties and the project was designed by the applicant to respect existing neighborhood scale, mass and bulk. The city's parking ordinance does not specifically have a standard for parking ratio for live-work developments, so a special parking analysis will be required. The city does have a standard for small lot single family townhouses which is 2.8 spaces per unit; based on the 2.8 ratio, the project will be required to provide 17 stalls. The project is proposing 23 parking stalls, for a ratio of 3.8 stalls per unit, plus 4 to 5 onstreet stalls available for public parking on Silver Oak which won't count toward the project's required parking. Each residence includes a two car garage and either one or two uncovered guest parking stalls. The city's transportationconsultant commentedthat the proposed supply should be proficient but will conduct a full parking study to confirm. Courtesy notices were sent out by the city for the study session to property owners within 300 feet of the project site; the applicant also held a voluntary neighborhood meeting last month. A summary of the comments from the meeting are contained in the staff report, page 35. Next steps include the PC reviewing the conceptualproposal from the applicant; provide comments; subsequent City Council study session is scheduled for May 7th and the Commission will also review the application again if the applicant decides to formally submit an application. 375 Cupertino Planning Commission 4 March 26, 2013 He reviewed the proposal concepts, land use and zoning, mixed use options, as outlined in the staff report. In order to introduceresidential uses to the site, the property must be rezoned to PD with CG and residential uses. The new commercial project may be desirable to serve the area and provide the city with potential sales tax revenue; however, the project site is further away from the commercial intersection atStevens Creek and Foothill and is separated from the commercial uses by a residential development. The proposed format is also consistent with a General Plan policy that discourages exclusive general commercial uses and encourages a neighborhood commercial presenceon the street with storefronts and residential uses. He reviewedguidelines for the study session: The Planning Commission cannot takeany action, make a decision or provide direction since a formal development application has not yet been submitted; they can provide comments and feedback on the proposal including comments on whether a live-work project is preferable inthis location. Staff answered questions on the proposed live-work units project. Chair Sun: Expressed concernabout the proposal to rezone from residential to commercial and questioned what standards would apply when making the decision. Aarti Shrivastava: Said considerations includewhat the fiscal impact would be; which could be provided when the application comes back with the formal staff report. Also the issue of how appropriate it is for its current zoning and does it make sense to rezone it. Some discussion has taken place; it is a short distance from the Crossroads. Staff wantsto maintain as many of the small commercial nodes as possible because they do provide some needed services for the residential developments around it. It seemed far removed and separated by another residential area, hence it is difficult for it to be successful. Those discussions will be brought to the Commission's attention when the project is brought forward; in addition to any environmental impacts and what the project will do. In order to keep it from resembling the Astoria where it is purely residential, she said the design of the units makes it more attractive to use as an office than as a bedroom, and it has better frontage on Foothill; when there are homes frontingFoothill, they tend not to want to be right on Foothill; it's a good transition. Gary Chao,City Planner: Said in addition to Ms. Shrivastava's comments onthe appropriateness of the zoning consideration, one thing to look at is consistency with the General Plan as well. In this particular case the General Plan has a land use zoning already allocated for commercial and residential; essentially the action of considering adding a layer of residential, in this case, mixed use, would be consistent with the General Plan. The blueprint of the city is already stating the fact that it's being encouraged to consider these types of uses in addition to all the other factors being considered such as compatibility, design and appropriateness. Aarti Shrivastava: Said the purpose of the study session was to get a sense of where the PlanningCommission and City Council were on rezoning. If it was a typical application with 6 units, a study session would not be warranted. The applicant wanted to get input before moving forward on actual studies on the project. Melissa Tronquet,Assistant City Attorney: Clarified that comments made will not bind the Planning Commission or City Council to anything; it 376 Cupertino Planning Commission 5 March 26, 2013 is merely an opportunity to get feedback. Com. Takahashi: He asked if from the standpoint of rezoning, was it deemed a compromise and easier to rezoneto the mixed use vs. 100%residential based on earlier comments. Aarti Shrivastava: To some extent staff looks at the appropriateness of the site and how might it is designed so that the design suits the location. Looking at Foothill, it was felt that it would be better to have a slightly different use or transition to the homes because most homes don't want to be right on Foothill. Ronald Tate,Applicant: Provided a background of the site which was previously a service station and said the proposed low density design is compatible with the neighborhood. At the neighborhoodmeeting there was positive feedback from people who thought it would be a good transition to the neighborhood. The previous gas station wassuccessful for many years until Highway 85 opened and when the traffic was diverted they tried to keep it operationalbut closed it after 5 years. Said the proposed project is compatible for the neighborhood with a commercial overtone. The proposed development would have strict rules and regulations that people cannot have employees in their space; a very extensive green landscaping program would be developed, retaining the stormwater on site with the HOA maintaining it. The landscape plan would be approved by the Commission and City Council. Said that at the public meeting only one speaker felt the project was too dense. He noted that in the beginning,they made certain that the density was compatible orlower than most densities in the area. All others were grateful they were proposing a low density residential development for the project. Said he had no direct experience with live-work units, but has built over 5,000homes in over 53 years. He added that he had interviewed 7 different architects experienced in building small developments on tight sites. Said that although he did not have alternative designs with more options, before he beganthe design process, hehad several meetings with the Planning staff, and has invested thousands of dollars on reports and studies. He said his first choice would be to build single family detached with no work area; but they wanted a blend so they came up with a commercial trend overlay which they felt the city would consider. Signage would be minimal, unobtrusive and small. Each one of the homes will be onits own individual lot;there will be a HOA to set up the rules. Chair Sun openedthe public hearing. Jennifer Griffin,Rancho Rinconada homeowner: Said she was interested to see what types of new uses are being considered for Cupertino parcels and she waspleased to see it being approached from a study sessionsince the work-live units are newto Cupertino. She said it was an interesting concept and thepeople who live around that area are the ones who need to determine whether it will fit into their area as it is a very busy street. There are safety factors to consider, quarry truckstravel upand down the streets; and there is a senior facility across thestreet. Whatever use is chosen to fit into that area must consider the safety of the pedestrians and residents. She inquired aboutthe yard setup, whether there is a private area for each of the families, how much land for young children to play, HOA fees for units; will they be condos or townhomes. Chair Sun closed the public hearing. 377 Cupertino Planning Commission 6 March 26, 2013 Aarti Shrivastava answered Commissioners' questions: In order toprevent someone other than the owner of the work-liveunit conducting business in the work unit; the owner would be bound to a condition of approval or an ordinance they would have to comply with; the CC&Rs of their HOA would be reviewed to ensure they were incorporated. She noted that HOAs are very good at policing the compliance. The owner has to follow the same procedures as those who have home occupations. It is notanticipated that it will takeany more staff time than a home based officewould. Relative to speaker Jennifer Griffin's concern about the owner not using the front unit for a work space, she said they have approvals for six homes and cannot convert it into a second unit. Said there would be restrictions on what kind of uses go in the work-live unit; there will be a home based occupation ordinance that restricts what you canand cannot do; and staff also plans to review the live-work standards for other cities that have developed these kinds of projects and the information will be provided as part of the application. Said theycould design a sign program for the site. Ronald Tate,Applicant: Said that the timeline of the project is approximately 9 months to completion, depending on weather. Aarti Shrivastava: Said there will bean environmental review of the site; staff will verify with the agencies to make sure they received a clean bill of health as part of the environmental review. Com.Brophy: Pointed out that if the parcel in question was notin the city limits today,and was being annexed; or if it was an undeveloped site, it would not be put as commercial zoning orput as commercial use on a land use plan. In the subject projectit is only about 9/10 of an acre site with no connection to any other commercial property that has no value as a commercial use. What is shown is an attemptto makebelieve that it is a commercial project by putting unitsin that no one would ever consider proposing in the first place. He said he didn't feel it was relevant to a low to medium density street like Foothill Avenue with a single parcel under oneacre. Said he felt the concept is basically silly and appears to be a way for the owner to getaround a property he cannot figure out how to develop under commercial zoning; to get some residential units in by putting in these units which will make believe they are commercial. The kind of uses being discussed are not neighborhood serving; peopledon't go down the block to their local accountant or architect; and they are not uses that will generate any sales tax revenue. It will have to go forward to the City Council because they have been much moreinsistentupon not rezoning commercial land. Said that the reality is they should be looking in to some type of exclusively residential use that fits in with the surrounding uses. Aarti Shrivastava: Said they considered that; it is challengingdoing something along Foothill and it seems like a good transition, more as a transition then as providing any fiscal impacts. Staff does notfeel the live-work units project will provide it. They aren't addressing the sales tax argument with this development; there is a sales tax issue but the project doesn't necessarily address it by providing a venue for sales tax. It is a better transition because most homes want walls along Foothill which are probably not the best thing to have and it seemed to be a good transition and there is a market out there that the developer felt he could tap. They felt it was a good format for buildings along Foothill. 378 Cupertino Planning Commission 7 March 26, 2013 Com.Brophy: There are residential uses on theparcel to the north and they may not want to have residential lots that have ingress and egress directly onto Foothill. He said he felt it would be a profound mistake to force the odd concept in order to make believe that it is still a commercial development. Aarti Shrivastava: Said Com. Brophy made a good point; and said they were not considering it commercial. Com.Lee: Said it was an interesting concept but she felt a commercial use would better serve the neighborhood and community. She felt the work-live use would not be appropriate as the number of potential tenants would be small and limited to tax preparers, accountants or similar. The low density would appeal to the neighbors and would go thru easier than commercial. Presently it is an old vacant gas station with little activity in the last 5 years; if it is turned into commercial, it would be different for the neighbors, more than they are accustomed to with trucks, delivery, refuse,parking, etc. She said she preferred commercial use for the parcel. Com.Takahashi: Said from hisperspective it was a compromise and given the situation associated with the location and past experience with regardto successful commercial endeavor there, he felt it wasthe best compromise from the standpoint of utilizing the available space. It is presently an eyesore, an unused gas station, and theproposed architecture does have some appeal. The reality is, if it were to remain commercial, it would take a long time to decide which would work best and there would be risk associated with that because of the high failure rate of a commercial endeavor. He said he would support the project. Com. Gong: Said she agreed with Com. Takahashi that it was a good compromise, and agreed with staff that having a large wall on Foothill would not be attractive to people using the area going back and forth. She said she understood Corn. Brophy's concern that it is not truly a commercialentity; it doesseem to be a residential option; but she was not sure how they could impose the restrictions for a work-live building. Making it an intentional option is a good compromise. Chair Sun: Asked what standards would apply to the rezoning. Said he visited the site which is in a quiet residential area, far from Stevens Creek and DeAnza City Center; and he questions what type of commercial use would best fit in that location. It appears that the applicant has tried hard to combine the commercial use and residential to maximize the land utility; it is a small piece of land they can try to convert from purely commercial to a combination for the future. Said he was concernedabout the legal consequences for the work-live environment; it is difficult to impose how the homeowner conducts business and if their business fails they may convert the work unit into a living room or children's room. The City Council might consider how to implement the law to try and meetthe expectations they have. Aarti Shrivastava: Said if the applicantbrings back the project they will address the Commissioners' questions and concerns. 379 Cupertino Planning Commission 8 March 26, 2013 REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Environmental Review Committee: No meeting. Housing Commission: No meeting Mayor's Monthly Meeting: Chair Sun reported City Council projects beingconsidered are General Plan Amendment, and Stevens Creek Trail. Economic Development Committee: No meeting REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Aarti Shrivastava,Director of Community Development: Reported that upcoming projects for the Planning Commissionincluded the General Plan Amendment and Tree Ordinance. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjournedto the April 9,2013 meeting at 6:45 p.m. Respectfully Submitted: Elizabeth I.,Recording Secretary Approved as amended: May 28, 2013 380 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY HALL 10 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3308 www.cupertino.org CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Meeting: April 16, 2013 Subject Study Session for a potential application to rezone a .87 gross acre parcel from Planned Development General Commercial to Planned Development General Commercial and Residential, demolish an abandoned automobile service station and construct 6 residential units, including 5 live-work units with detached workspaces, along with associated site improvements. Project Proponent: Ron Tate (Foothill Auto Service and Detail, Inc.) Location: 10121 North Foothill Boulevard (APN 342-32-070) Recommended Action Staff recommends that the City Council review the conceptual proposal and provide comments. Study Session Format The project proponent has requested study sessions by the Planning Commission and City Council to receive input on the feasibility of the proposal. A formal development application has not been submitted, so no action, decision, or direction may be provided. Comments at this study session will not bind or commit the City to any future action. The purview of the City Council at this meeting is solely to provide comments and feedback on the concept presented at the study session. Staff suggests that the Council focus any comments on the major conceptual issues discussed in the Planning Commission staff report (Attachment A), including: Whether the proposed residential/commercial use is desirable at this location or maintaining the existing commercial use is preferable; If the proposed use is desirable, whether the proposed residential/commercial format and density is compatible with the existing neighborhood; and Specific issues or concerns related to the live/work use that the City may wish to consider addressing or regulating. If and when the project proponent decides to formally submit an application, the project will be processed in accordance with appropriate City procedures, which will include 381 public hearings by the Environmental Review Committee, Planning Commission, and City Council. The project will require: 1. Rezoning the property from P(CG) – Planned General Commercial to P(CG, Res) – Planned General Commercial and Residential; 2. Tentative Map application to subdivide the parcel for ownership units; 3. Development Permit; 4. Architectural and Site Approval; 5. Tree Removal Permit – to remove five (5) trees; and 6. Environmental Review Discussion A. Background The applicant held a voluntary neighborhood meeting on February 7, 2013 to introduce the proposal to the community. On March 26, 2013, the Planning Commission conducted a study session on the conceptual proposal. Please refer to Attachment A for the Planning Commission staff report with a detailed discussion of the proposal and preliminary considerations. Also attached to this report are the conceptual plan set (Attachment B), General Plan Policy 2-32 (Attachment C), the City’s Home Occupation Ordinance (Attachment D), and a table of live-work regulations in four other Santa Clara County cities (Attachment E). B. Discussion from the March 26, 2013 Planning Commission Study Session The following is a summary of Planning Commissioner questions and comments at the March 26, 2013 study session: Questions What types of uses are envisioned for the workspaces, and will there be restrictions on them? Does the developer have any experience with live-work developments in the area? Has the developer explored any alternative formats, such as purely residential? What are the major factors to consider for a rezoning request from commercial to residential? Is it easier to rezone to mixed-use instead of purely residential, as a compromise for losing commercial zoning? How would the City prevent the conversion of the workspaces to living area and from leasing or selling them to an entity other than the homeowner? What are the environmental considerations associated with the existing underground storage tanks from the previous service station use? 382 Comments from Commissioners included: The site is currently an eyesore. The proposed architecture is appealing. The current proposal avoids having an unattractive large wall on Foothill Boulevard. It is a good idea to provide a workspace as an option for the homeowner. There could be potential enforcement problems related to the types of businesses in the workspaces, ensuring that the homeowner is the one operating the business, and converting the workspaces to living area. The proposed rezoning to commercial and residential is the best compromise for the site. If the site remains zoned for commercial, it will take a long time to develop, and if and when it does, it would have a higher potential for failure. The project should be residential only. Given that the site is located within an established residential area with no connection to any other commercial sites, the site would not currently be zoned for commercial if it was undeveloped or annexed into the City. Commercially-zoned land is scarce in the City. A primary commercial use would still be the best use for the site in order to serve the community. The workspaces will not generate significant sales tax revenue or generate foot traffic. One member of the public commented that live-work is an interesting concept, but expressed concerns about pedestrian safety in the area, the potential for converting workspaces to living area, and ensuring that some private open space will be provided for the project. The project proponent will address the above questions and comments if and when they decide to submit a formal application. ____________________________________ Prepared by: George Schroeder, Assistant Planner Reviewed by: Gary Chao, City Planner and Aarti Shrivastava, Community Development Director Approved for Submission by: David Brandt, City Manager 383 Attachments: A - Planning Commission staff report from March 26, 2013 B - Conceptual plan set C - General Plan Policy 2-32 D - Home Occupation Ordinance, Chapter 19.120 of the Cupertino Municipal Code E - Live-Work regulations in other Santa Clara County cities 384 Tuesday, April 16, 2013  Cupertino City Council     Successor to the Redevelopment Agency Members of the City staff reviewed various sections of the Cupertino Municipal  Code related to operating accessory facilities in a park zone and whether a  conditional use permit was needed.  It was determined that a restaurant and bar  could operate in a park zone in conjunction with a recreation activity such as the  golf course.  It was also determined that because the City owns the facility, a  conditional use permit is not needed and that the restaurant can stay open past  11:00 p.m. at Council’s discretion as part of the lease agreement.     Chang moved to postpone this item to the next Council meeting. There was no  second to the motion.    Wong moved and Chang seconded to grant the reconsideration. The vote was 2‐ 2 with Wong and Chang voting yes, Santoro and Mahoney voting no, and Sinks  absent. No action was taken thereby upholding the City’s decision to extend the  lease on the Blue Pheasant Restaurant.    STUDY SESSION  18. Subject:  Study Session for a potential application to rezone a .87 gross acre parcel  from Planned Development General Commercial to Planned Development  General Commercial and Residential, demolish an abandoned automobile  service station and construct 6 residential units, including 5 live‐work units with  detached workspaces, along with associated site improvements    Recommended Action:  Discuss Planning Commissionʹs comments of the  potential project and provide direction for Foothill Boulevard Live‐Work  Development     Description: Applicant: Ron Tate (Tate Development) and Mike Amidi (Foothill  Auto Service & Detail, Inc); Location: 10121 N Foothill Blvd  APN# 342‐32‐070,  342‐32‐144; Study Session for a potential application to rezone a .87 gross acre  parcel from Planned Development General Commercial to Planned Development  General Commercial and Residential, demolish an abandoned automobile  service station and construct 6 residential units, including 5 live‐work units with  detached workspaces, along with associated site improvements. The project will  require rezoning the property form P(CG), Planned General Commercial to  P(CG,Res), Planned General Commercial and Residential and a Tentative Map  application to subdivide the parcel. Other associated permits that will be  required include a Development Permit, Architectural and Site approval and a  Tree Removal Permit     385 Tuesday, April 16, 2013  Cupertino City Council     Successor to the Redevelopment Agency Written communications for this item included an email from Gayla Page, a staff  PowerPoint presentation, and plan set.     Associate Planner George Schroeder reviewed the staff report via a PowerPoint  presentation.     Applicant Ronald Tate said that the current owners of the property asked him to  take a look at this site because it’s hard to close a service station with a store. He  said that the neighborhood is really mostly residential and there is not enough  traffic there to keep a gas station and convenient store in this location.  He said  that he is proud of his work, is LEED certified, and has done other work in  Cupertino. He said he doesn’t believe this is a good site for something like  Starbucks because it takes a certain element in the location to make the  commercial successful. When the station closed and moved tanks in 1999 there  was some residual soil which was contaminated in this area, but the new double  tanks that were installed in 2000 had no residue when they were removed. He  said that some remediation needs to happen for anything other than a gas station  and that he is prepared to do that to make sure it is safe. He said he believes it’s a  good place for residential and doesn’t think it would work with anything  commercial.  He also said he had 40 people attend a community meeting and  that density was really the only issue.  He said his proposal is offering something  unique to Cupertino and it worked out well in Los Angeles.  The project would  be managed by a professional off‐site management company to handle  landscaping, the rules and regulations, and the workspace units cannot have  employees, rent or sublet the space.  He said the workspace units are for use of  the homeowner for their particular business. He requested direction from  Council to either continue to move forward with the project or not.       Sam Nazhand said that he has lived behind the gas station for eight years. He  said he was always concerned about the safety of children in the neighborhood  when the gas station was open due to traffic and that he does not prefer having a  commercial use of the space.  He said he supported the project and that it would  be good for the community.       Jennifer Griffin said that the project is an interesting concept for the area. She  said she is glad they are retaining some commercial at this site and likes the idea  of having a study session at the Planning Commission as well as Council for  something like this. She said she thinks a home business is a good idea with  commercial along Foothill Boulevard.     386 Tuesday, April 16, 2013  Cupertino City Council     Successor to the Redevelopment Agency Council comments included: Like the idea of combining residential and  commercial with an office in the home; site not good for supporting strictly  commercial; okay with all residential but not R‐1; Foothill Blvd. does not have  much to support commercial; okay with proposed project or all housing; site  could work as commercial for preschools, tutoring studios, karate studios; would  like it to be zoned R‐1 to be more in‐line with the houses in the area; preference  toward lower density housing; do either strictly commercial or planned unit  development with housing; instead of work units in back  have  more yard space.    REPORTS BY COUNCIL AND STAFF     Council members highlighted the activities of their committees and various  community events.     Santoro requested that Cupertino Municipal Code Section 14.12.120 be added to an  upcoming agenda and be modified so that it does not require a tree be planted prior  to issuing a building permit for minor work.      ADJOURNMENT    At 10:25 p.m., the meeting was adjourned.    /s/Grace Schmidt  ____________________________  Grace Schmidt, City Clerk    Staff reports, backup materials, and items distributed at the City Council meeting are  available for review at the City Clerk’s Office, 777‐3223, and also on the Internet at  www.cupertino.org. Click on Agendas & Minutes, then click on the appropriate Packet.    Most Council meetings are shown live on Comcast Channel 26 and AT&T U‐verse  Channel 99 and are available at your convenience at www.cupertino.org. Click on  Agendas & Minutes, then click Archived Webcast.  Videotapes are available at the  Cupertino Library, or may be purchased from the Cupertino City Channel, 777‐2364.          387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 Meacham/Oppenheimer, Inc. CORFAC International Commercial Brokerage Investment Sales Property Management 8 North San Pedro Street, Suite 300 | San Jose, CA 95110 Phone: 408-378-5900 | Fax: 408-378-5903 | www.moinc.net April 3, 2014 Ron Tate, President TATE DIVERSIFIED DEVELOPMENT, INC. 22 S. Santa Cruz Avenue, 2nd Floor Los Gatos, CA 95030 REFERENCE: 10121 NORTH FOOTHILL BLVD FORMER GAS STATION CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Dear Mr. Tate: Thank you for selecting Meacham/Oppenheimer, Inc., as your consultant in investigating the viability of the reuse of the property commonly described as 10121 North Foothill Boulevard, Cupertino, California, hereinafter referred to as (the “Property”) as some form of retail commercial use. Meacham/Oppenheimer, Inc. is a full-service commercial real estate brokerage and property management company serving Silicon Valley and all 13 Bay Area Counties from its San Jose headquarters. Earlier in its 30-plus year history Meacham/Oppenheimer Inc. focused on retail brokerage and development and later expanded to include office, industrial, R&D and land sales, representing both owners and tenants in property leasing and investment sales. The company prides itself in providing the highest level of service to all its clients with integrity and professionalism. The firm emphasizes teamwork among its experienced and veteran agents, a high degree of accountability and its entrepreneurial culture as the cornerstones for delivering a positive client experience and successful execution of each real estate assignment. I have been in the retail commercial real estate business for 27 years. I am very familiar with the Cupertino retail market as I have leased over 300,000 square feet of commercial retail space in my 27 years. Most recently I have leased the Cupertino Crossroads, the entire center for Alex Byer of Byer Properties. The Property is not viable as retail commercial use for many reasons but a major reason it is situated on a boulevard that by all reasonable criteria does not have enough vehicular or pedestrian traffic to support a stand-alone retail development. The low population of this immediate area is such that it could not support any additional retail. Additionally, there is virtually no available residential land to accommodate any measurable new residential development to increase a new customer shopping population. All of the retail in the immediate area consisting of: (a) service station on the hard corner of Foothill Boulevard and Stevens 395 Ron Tate, President TATE DIVERSIFIED DEVELOPMENT, INC. April 3, 2014 Page 2 Creek Boulevard; (b) the liquor store on the hard corner of Foothill Boulevard and Stevens Creek Boulevard produce very low sales revenues by all reasonable measures; (c) the retail strip center just south of Stevens Creek Boulevard and S. Foothill Boulevard in recent times has never been successful having vacancies and below market rate rents. To further emphasize the further lack of commercial viability of the Property it is not situated on a commercial hard-corner which is one of the most desirable locations for neighborhood commercial development. A commercial hard-corner allows a customer to gain easy ingress and egress in a convenient and safe manner having the protection of a signalized intersection and being able to either turn right or left out of a commercial property. The Property by all definitions is not on a hard-corner. It is an interior parcel of which it would only allow a customer the option of being able to turn right out of the Property without having to cross N. Foothill Boulevard which does have a traffic controlled intersection thus allowing the customer to be able to turn left out of the property conveniently and safely. The property is too close to the signalized intersections of Foothill Boulevard and Stevens Creek to be able to justify an additional stop light at N. Foothill and Silver Oak Way. For many other reasons other than those mentioned above we could not recommend another commercial development on the Property, even if the developer would be willing to offer an extended period of free rent and below market rate rents to attempt getting a commercial user to lease or purchase the Property. A commercial tenant and/owner of commercial property the rent and/or the cost of ownership is a small component of the users overhead. The cost of leasing or ownership is a minimal component compared to the cost of wages, insurance, cost of the good in trade, etc. Please feel free to contact me at your convenience if you require further information. Sincerely, MEACHAM/OPPENHEIMER, INC. David Taxin, Partner DRE# 00983163 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 Cupertino, CA Municipal Code CHAPTER 19.120: HOME OCCUPATIONS Section 19.120.010 Purpose. 19.120.020 General requirements. 19.120.030 Standards. 19.120.040 Interpretation of standards. 19.120.050 Excluded occupations. 19.120.060 Nonconforming uses. 19.120.010 Purpose. A. The purpose of this chapter is to permit and regulate the conduct of home occupations as an accessory use in a residence, whether owner or renter occupied, and to ensure that such home occupations are compatible with the neighborhoods in which they are located. The intent is to protect residential areas from adverse effects of activities associated with home occupations, while allowing residents of the community to use their homes as a workplace and a source of livelihood under certain conditions. B. The City acknowledges that changes in technology and composition of the work force, among other factors, have contributed to a growing interest on the part of Cupertino citize ns to live and work in their homes. The City also finds that home business enterprises can help reduce commuter-traffic impacts, reduce or eliminate child care expenses for people with young families, and provide the opportunity to test creative business v entures with greatly reduced startup costs. (Ord. 2085, § 2 (part), 2011; Ord. 1601, Exh. A (part), 1992) 19.120.020 General Requirements. A. Home occupations conducted in accordance with the provisions of this chapter shall be permitted in residential zones, and in other areas where residential use is allowed, provided that the occupation is clearly incidental and secondary to the use of the dwelling for residential purposes, and does not change the residential character thereof; and provided that such occupation is not detrimental to the health, safety, public welfare and property values in the neighborhood. 409 B. Authorization to establish a home occupation shall be evidenced by payment of a business tax and the issuance of a City of Cupertino business license tax certificate. All home occupations shall be subject to all provisions of the Cupertino Municipal Code regulating the issuance of business licenses. (Ord. 2085, § 2 (part), 2011; Ord. 1601, Exh. A (part), 1992) 19.120.030 Standards. The requirements set out in Table 19.120.030 must be met at the establishment of the home occupation, and maintained on a continuing basis during operation of the business activity. Table 19.120.030: Standards Topic Regulatory Intent Specific Standard Location Prevent intrusion of light, noise and unsightly conditions from disturbing neighbors -Confine home occupation to main dwelling or accessory building-Garage area may be used if the minimum required number of vehicles can be parked inside during non-business hours. Home occupation activity within garage areas is limited to the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.-Rear and side yards may be used for horticulture; no storage-Front yards, driveways may not be used for home occupation purposes Appearance Maintain visual character of the structure as a residence -The entrance to the space devoted to the home occupation shall be from within the main building-There shall be no internal or external alterations or construction not customarily found in residences Display Maintain visual character of structure as a residence -Home occupations shall involve no exterior display of merchandise or stock in trade for sale Sales activity Restrict scope of business activity to ensure that residential use remains primary -Direct sale of products off display shelves or racks to the general public is prohibited; however, an order may be filled on the premises if placed earlier by a customer using telephone or 410 mail order communications, or through attendance of sales party- Parties for the purpose of selling or taking orders for merchandise shall not be held more than two times in any month-Home occupations which involve the sale or rental of vehicles or vessels shall not be permitted to keep any vehicles on the premises at any time, or to deliver such vehicles to renters or purchasers on the premises Intrusive effects Ensure that processes, tools and hours of operation do not disturb neighbors through noise, odor, vibration, TV/radio interference -All home occupation activities shall comply with City noise ordinance daytime/nighttime limitations-All home occupations shall be conducted so as to maintain emissions at nonintrusive levels-Appropriate equipment shall be installed to reduce emissions to nonintrusive levels Table 19.120.030: Standards (Cont.) Topic Regulatory Intent Specific Standard Traffic Ensure that pedestrian, automobile or truck traffic, or parking demand is not significantly above normal levels for that zone -Deliveries to and from the premises restricted per the Municipal Code Employment Ensure that traffic is not significantly above normal levels for that zone - Home occupations shall be carried on by members of the household occupying the dwelling, with not more than one additional person employed on the premises who is not a resident thereof. This shall not exclude the employment of domestic servants, gardeners, janitors, or other persons concerned in the operation or maintenance of the dwelling, whether living on the premises or not. 411 Utility service Maintain residential scale of utility services to limit business activity to an incidental use -Home occupation activity requiring a water meter above the size customary to a residence in that zone is prohibited-Electrical panel restricted to size customary to a residence in that zone Business vehicle Restrict number, size and keeping of vehicles to reduce parking demand and maintain residential streetscape -No more than one vehicle primarily used for business purposes may be parked per site- Size limited to passenger auto, pickup truck or similar van Storage Ensure that stored materials do not take up required parking space or accumulate in yards -Storage outside of an enclosed structure is prohibited-Garage storage of materials is allowed if the remaining space allows parking of the required number of vehicles Signs Prohibit use of signs unless legally required -Legally required signs are restricted to a maximum one square foot area-Signs shall not be placed on the roof or within the required setback areas Cumulative effects Ensure that multiple home occupations at a site do not exceed single-activity performance levels -Cumulative impact of each home occupation shall not exceed the limits set forth in any portion of this section (Ord. 2085, § 2 (part), 2011; Ord. 1601, Exh. A (part), 1992) 19.120.040 Interpretation of Standards. The Director of Community Development, or the Planning Commission upon appeal, may interpret a proposed use as an acceptable home occupation activity, but may determine that the use is of an unusual nature or intensity such that the applicant may be required to obtain a conditional use permit from the Director of Community Development prior to commencing business activity, in accordance with the procedures outlined in Chapter 19.156. (Ord. 2085, § 2 (part), 2011; Ord. 1637, (part), 1993; Ord. 1601, Exh. A (part), 1992) 19.120.050 Excluded Occupations. 412 The occupations listed below, shall not be considered incidental and secondary to the use of a residence for dwelling purposes and are therefore prohibi ted in residential zones: A. Automobile repair shops, including paint and body work; B. Barbershops and beauty parlors; C. Boarding and/or rooming homes for more than two guests; D. Clinics and hospitals, also veterinary (animal) clinics and hospitals; E. Kennels and other boarding for pets, in excess of the number of animals allowed in the base zoning district where specified; F. Medical offices for physicians, dentists, osteopaths, and other practitioners; G. Private schools with organized classes; H. Upholstery, small engine repair, welding shops; I. Other uses which are found by the Community Development Director to be of similar intensity and characteristics of use to those enumerated in this section, and are thus inconsistent with the stated purposes of this chapter. (Ord. 2085, § 2 (part), 2011; Ord. 1784, (part), 1998; Ord. 1601, Exh. A (part), 1992) 19.120.060 Nonconforming Uses. Notwithstanding the provisions of this chapter, all home occupations which exist as nonconforming uses in any residential zone or in other areas wher e residential uses are allowed, shall be allowed to continue as legal, nonconforming uses subject to the provisions of Chapter 19.140. (Ord. 2085, § 2 (part), 2011; Ord. 1601, Exh. A (part), 1992) 413 160 West Santa Clara Street, Suite 675, San Jose CA 95113 (408) 278-1700 Fax (408) 278-1717 www.fehrandpeers.com MEMORANDUM Date: January 13, 2014 To: George Schroeder, Assistant Planner Community Development Department, City of Cupertino From: Ian Barnes, PE and Katy Cole, Fehr & Peers Subject: Evaluation of Proposed Live-Work Development at 10121 North Foothill Boulevard in Cupertino, CA SJ13-1428 The purpose of this memorandum is to summarize the results of a focused transportation evaluation of the proposed redevelopment at 10121 North Foothill Boulevard in Cupertino, California. This memorandum summarizes the transportation analysis for the following areas: • Project trip generation calculation • Parking requirements • Site plan evaluation The analysis was based on the site plan received December 6, 2013 from City of Cupertino staff, which is illustrated in Figure 1. BACKGROUND The proposed project is located at 10121 North Foothill Boulevard at the southwest corner of the North Foothill Boulevard and Silver Oak Way intersection in the north-west of Cupertino. The current approved use of the site is a gas station, but the site has previously been used as a vehicle repair shop without the gas facilities. The project applicant is seeking to redevelop the site with five live-work spaces (a single family residence with a detached 435-square foot work space) and one standalone single family residence. Currently, 28 parking spaces are proposed: six two-car garages (for a total of 12 spaces), five on-street guest spaces, and 11 off-street guest spaces. To reduce the number of parking spaces required for the site, each workspace would be permitted to have only one client meeting at a time would (for a maximum of five client meetings on site). ANALYSIS, RESULTS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS Trip Generation Project trip generation was calculated using trip rates from the Institute of Engineers’ (ITE) Trip Generation, 9th Edition. Credit was taken for the existing gas station use on site, which was analyzed using ITE Land Use Code 945 – Gasoline/Service Station with Convenience Market. Per Volume 1 of Trip Generation, the pass-by rate for gas stations averages around 50 percent. A 414 Mr. George Schroeder City of Cupertino Page 2 of 6 higher pass-by rate for existing uses results in a more conservative analysis as it decreases the trip credit for the existing uses. For the proposed land uses, the residences were analyzed using ITE Land Use Code 230 – Condominiums, and the work spaces were analyzed using ITE Land Use Code 710 – General Office. Land Use Code 710 assumes that persons are driving to/from home and work during the morning and afternoon peak hours of travel; since the project work spaces are on-site, Land Use Code 710 assumes additional the morning inbound trips and afternoon outbound trips that would not occur with the proposed land uses, resulting in a more conservative analysis. The trip generation calculation is detailed below in Table 1. TABLE 1 TRIP GENERATION ESTIMATES Land Use Units Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Rate Trips Rate In Out Total Rate In Out Total Existing Uses A Gas Station (ITE Land Use Code 945) 8 pump locations 162.78 1,303 10.16 41 41 82 13.51 54 55 109 B Pass-by reduction for Gas Station (50% reduction) -- 652 -- 21 21 42 -- 27 28 55 C=A-B Total Existing Trips -- 651 -- 20 20 40 -- 27 27 54 Proposed Uses D Condominium (ITE Land Use Code 230) 6 dwelling units 9.33 56 1.00 1 5 6 1.00 4 2 6 E Office (ITE Land Use Code 710) 2.18 KSF1 33.56 73 4.14 8 1 9 1.49 1 3 4 F=E+D Total Project Trips -- 129 -- 9 6 15 -- 5 5 10 G=F-C Total Net New Project Trips -- -522 -- -11 -14 -25 -- -22 -22 -44 Notes: 1. 1 KSF = 1,000 square feet (gross) Source: Fehr & Peers, January 2014 The project would produce fewer peak hour trips than the existing permitted use. Specifically, the proposed live-work development is estimated to generate 522 fewer daily trips, 25 fewer AM peak-hour trips, and 44 fewer PM peak hour trips than the site’s currently allowable uses. The City of Cupertino requires a focused transportation impact analysis when a project is projected to generate 50 or more net new peak hour trips. Since the overall trip generation for the site is less than 50 trips in either peak hour, a full transportation impact analysis is not required for the project per City guidelines. Similarly, a transportation impact analysis per the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (the congestion management agency for Santa Clara County) is not required, since the project is not projected to generate 100 or more net new peak hour trips. 415 Mr. George Schroeder City of Cupertino Page 3 of 6 Parking Requirements The City of Cupertino does not have parking standards specifically tailored to live-work developments. Therefore, parking requirements were calculated using two methodologies: 1. Use the City’s Parking Ordinance for townhomes (2.8 spaces per unit: 2 garage spaces + 0.8 open guest spaces) and add one additional parking space per live/work unit to account for the live/work units allowing only one customer at a time. 2. Set a minimum parking requirement using ITE’s Parking Generation, 4th Edition and the Urban Land Institute’s (ULI) Shared Parking, 2nd Edition. Shared parking is expected to occur between the workspace and residential portions of the project. The minimum parking requirement is informational and the ultimate parking recommendation is based on the City’s Parking Ordinance. City Parking Ordinance The City of Cupertino Parking Ordinance (Title 19, Chapter 19.124, Table 19.124.040(A)) requires 2.8 parking spaces per unit (2 garage, 0.8 open) for “Small-Lot Single-Family, Townhouse”. The 0.8 space requirement above the 2 garage spaces is intended to provide space for guests. The Ordinance does not specify requirements for the workspace component of a live/work unit; however, the live/work units will only allow one customer per unit at a time. Therefore, 1 parking space per live/work will provide adequate parking supply for the live/work unit customers. Table 2 displays the parking requirements based on the City of Cupertino Parking Ordinance. TABLE 2 PARKING SUPPLY REQUIREMENT FOR LIVE-WORK SPACES: CITY OF CUPERTINO PARKING ORDINANCE Land Use Parking Ordinance Size2 Parking Required Residential Units 2.8 spaces/unit 6 units 16.8 = 17 spaces (12 garage + 5 guest) Live/Work Units: Workspace 1.0 space/unit 5 units 5 spaces Total Parking Required 22 parking spaces Source: Fehr & Peers, January 2014 Shared Parking (Informational Only) Since there is a significant potential for shared parking between the workspace and residential portions of the project, research from the ITE’s Parking Generation, 4th Edition and the Urban Land Institute’s (ULI) Shared Parking, 2nd Edition were used to develop a minimum parking supply standard for the site. The residential parking demand was estimated using the Single-Family Detached Housing rate (ITE Land Use Code 210) of 2.0 spaces per unit. The Condominium (ITE Land Use Code 230) rate 416 Mr. George Schroeder City of Cupertino Page 4 of 6 was 1.4 spaces per unit, so using Land Use Code 210 was ultimately more conservative. For the workspaces, the parking demand was calculated using the Office Building (ITE Land Use Code 701) rate as no other land use types in Parking Generation fit the proposed land use type. To account for parking supply turnover throughout the day, these demand rates are multiplied by a factor of 1.20 to determine the supply required for the land use. Shared Parking, 2nd Edition was used to determine the shared parking percentages for the residential and office uses. The maximum visitor parking demand for the office uses occurs in the 2:00 PM hour. At this time, 100 percent of the office demand is used along with 70 percent of the residential demand. The shared parking calculation for live-work units is summarized below in Table 3. TABLE 3 SHARED PARKING CALCULATION FOR LIVE-WORK SPACES Land Use Rate1 Size2 Calculat ed Demand Shared Parking Percentage for 2:00-3:00 PM3 Average Parking Demand for Shared Parking Peak Hour A Residential 2.00 spaces / du 1 du 2.00 70% 1.40 B Office 2.84 / KSF 435 SF GFA 1.24 100% 1.24 C=A+B Total Demand 2.64 D=120%*C Total supply required per live-work unit (Supply = 120% * demand for parking turnover purposes) 3.16 E Number of live-work units4 5 F=D*E Total number of parking spaces required for live-work spaces 15.8 G Spaces for dwelling unit without workspace 1.4 H=F+G Total Minimum Parking Supply 18 Notes: 1. 1 KSF = 1,000 square feet (gross), du = dwelling unit 2. SF GFA = square feet gross floor area 3. Per Shared Parking, 2nd Edition 4. Per June 2013 site plan Source: Fehr & Peers, January 2014 Based on published parking data and research, a parking supply of 18 spaces (for both residents and guests) could adequately accommodate the parking demand associated with the proposed uses on-site, while providing additional spaces for parking turnover. Site Plan Evaluation As shown in Figure 1, 28 parking spaces are shown on the site plan: six two-car garages (for a total of 12 spaces), 11 on-site spaces (for 23 on-site spaces total), and five on-street spaces. The project site plan evaluation focused on identifying issues that may affect on-site pedestrian and vehicular circulation, queuing, and parking supply. Figure 1 presents the proposed revisions to the site plan, which are discussed below. 417 Mr. George Schroeder City of Cupertino Page 5 of 6 On-Site Circulation The site plan identifies a 24-foot wide parking aisle between Home 1 and Home 6 on the site plan, which provides access to the garage and off-site parking areas. A turnaround area for vehicles that reach the end of the drive aisle is is provided for vehicles to turn around. ADA access to and from the van-accessible handicap parking stall has been provided by a paved walkway along the southern edge of the project site. Pedestrian Access A walkway is provided along the south side of the project site to allow pedestrians to bypass the parking aisle and access Foothill Boulevard. Access to and from Silver Oak Way would be provided by walking in the drive aisle of the parking area. The low number of vehicles using the parking aisle at any given time results in a low number of potential vehicle-pedestrian conflicts indicating that this is not a likely safety hazard. Queuing Silver Oak Way is a residential street that carries relatively low volumes of traffic. Queues that exceed the throat depth would only block the garage spaces for Home 1 for very short periods of time before dissipating. Parking Supply The December 2013 site plan shows 28 parking spaces provided for the site. Twelve spaces are in private garages attached to Homes 1-6 (2 spaces each) and 11 spaces are provided in an on-site parking lot (for a total of 23 on-site spaces). In addition, the site plan shows five on-street spaces for guest use. The on-street space shown in the trash pick-up area should be labeled as “no parking on trash pick-up days.” The on-site parking supply meets the parking requirements per City Ordinance described above. Table 4 details the parking supply vs. the parking requirements. 418 Mr. George Schroeder City of Cupertino Page 6 of 6 TABLE 4 ON-SITE PARKING SUPPLY VS. PARKING REQIREMENTS Land Use Number of Spaces Required Number of Spaces Provided On-Site1 Is the Requirement Met? Residential Units 12 garage 12 garage Yes 5 guest 5 guest Yes Live/Work Units: Workspace 5 customer 5 customer Yes Total 22 spaces 22 spaces Yes Notes: 1. After removal of one on-site parking space as outlined in this memorandum. Source: Fehr & Peers, January 2014 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS In summary, the proposed live-work project would result in fewer trips compared to the existing permitted use of a gas station. A full transportation impact analysis is not required for this project. The recommended parking supply for the site is 22 on-site spaces. The site plan meets this requirement. If you have any questions, please call Ian Barnes at (408) 645-7015. 419 420 10121 Foothill Boulevard, Cupertino, California Prepared by Michael L. Bench, Consulting Arborist March 22, 2013 1 Michael L. Bench Consulting Arborist (831) 594-5151 7327 Langley Canyon Road Prunedale, California 93907 An Evaluation of the Existing Trees 10121 N. Foothill Boulevard Cupertino, California Assignment I was asked by Mr. George Schroeder, Assistant Planner, City of Cupertino, to prepare an evaluation of the existing trees on the property at 10121 N. Foothill Boulevard, Cupertino, California. Also, I was asked to include any trees on adjoining properties, which may be impacted. Finally, I was asked to recommend acceptable replacement species and recommended locations. Methods I used a Diameter Tape (a Forestry service tape) to measure the trunks of the trees instead of a standard measuring tape, because of the greater accuracy. The measurements were done at 4 ½ feet above soil grade, referred as DBH (Diameter at Breast Height ). The measurement was rounded to the nearest inch. The measurement for multi-stem specimens was taken below the lowest fork on the trunk when possible in accordance with the International Society of Arboriculture standards. The height and canopy spread of each tree was estimated using visual references only. The estimated shape of the canopy relative to the other nearby trees has been added to the attached Site Plan. The trunks (or stems) of the neighboring trees could only be seen above the existing concrete sound wall, and for this reason, their DBH measurements were estimated. 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 I visited the site on March 22, 2013. There are 5 trees on this property and 13 trees on adjacent properties, which may be impacted by construction on this site. I have marked the approximate locations of the 18 total trees on the attached Site Plan. 421 10121 Foothill Boulevard, Cupertino, California Prepared by Michael L. Bench, Consulting Arborist March 22, 2013 2 Trees # 1-8 have trunk diameters large enough to qualify them as Protected Trees. The row of 9 Italian cypress (Cupressus sempervirens) would take many, many years before they would have trunks large enough to clearly qualify them as Protected, but in this case, they are used for screening, which is quite effective. I included Tree # 9, a Lemon tree, because it hangs over the west side concrete sound wall, and because some people are very particular and protective about their fruit trees. This photo shows the Lemon Tree # 9 (left side) and the 9 Italian cypress Trees # 10-18. The 18 total trees are listed by number on a Field Data Sheet, which follows this text. This Data Sheet provides the basic information about each tree, including the trunk diameter, height, spread, health, and an estimate of structural integrity. The health and structural integrity is rated on a scale of 1-5: (1) Excellent, (2) Good, (3) Fair, (4) Poor, (5) Extremely Poor. A working definition of these ratings are: (1) “Excellent” indicates outstanding Health and Structural integrity without obvious structural weaknesses; (2) “Good” usually indicates fine Health but some observed Structural weakness, which can typically be improved by cabling or pruning; (3) “Fair” usually indicates less than desirable but stable Health and often indicates at least one significant structural weakness, which is not observed to be immediately threatening; (4) “Poor” indicates less than average Health, possibly a result of disease or insect infestation, presumed to be in slow decline with unlikely recovery; and (5) “Extremely Poor” indicates significantly declining health with no hope of recovery, and possibly Hazardous structural integrity. Bear in mind that these are rough definitions. There are many variations, all of which cannot be listed here. Risks to the Existing Trees The Monterey pine (Pinus radiata) Trees # 1-5, located on this property are in Fair to Good condition. All of these are mature specimens. In my experience, the Pinus radiata species is very intolerant of root damage, especially when mature. It appears that all 5 of these trees would suffer significant, if not severe, root damage as a result of construction. I would not expect any of these five Monterey pine trees to survive. None of the Monterey pine Trees # 1-5 are of significant quality that they could not be replaced by 422 10121 Foothill Boulevard, Cupertino, California Prepared by Michael L. Bench, Consulting Arborist March 22, 2013 3 species better suited for the space, in my opinion. The neighboring Trees # 6-18 no doubt have roots extending onto this property. If the soil adjacent to the West side property boundary were to be excavated or graded significantly, these neighboring trees would not be expected to survive. It would be essential for the survival of these neighboring trees that there would be no grading or excavation within 15 feet of the West side property boundary in the areas of Trees # 6, 7, ad 8, and that there be no grading or excavation within 6 feet of the West side property boundary in the areas of Trees # 9-18. The residences on the west side of this property are at a higher elevation than the majority of this property, which slopes upward to those neighboring properties. I estimate the slope to be approximately 3:1. The steeper portion of the slope is in the shadows of this photo and difficult to see. There exists a post and beam concrete wall along the west side property boundary. This wall has been lifted by tree roots in a few locations. I could not find on the Site Plans whether or not this concrete wall is intended to be repaired, left as it exists, or replaced. Replacement may be a significant issue for the survival of the neighboring trees, especially if new piers would be required. This needs to be clarified by the plans. Replacement Trees The Site Plan shows potential locations for the planting of new trees. However, it appears that screening plants would be necessary, especially for the south and west sides. In my opinion, the preferred use of replacement trees would be for screening. I suggest the use of Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) along the west side where there is greater planting space, and the use of one of the following lower growing species, which can be managed in smaller spaces to be used on the south side: Evergreen Species: English holly (Ilex aquafolium) Strawberry tree (Arbutus unedo) Sweet olive (Osmanthus fragrans) Tawhiwhi (Pittosporum tenuifolium) 423 10121 Foothill Boulevard, Cupertino, California Prepared by Michael L. Bench, Consulting Arborist March 22, 2013 4 Hollywood juniper (Juniperus chinensis ‘Kaizuka’) California juniper (Juniperus californica) Paperbark melaleuca (Melaleuca linarifolia) It will likely be difficult, if not impossible, to find some of these in 24 inch boxed sizes. Three – fifteen gallon specimens are approximately equivalent to 1 – 24 inch boxed specimen. Recommendations I recommend for the survival of these neighboring trees that there would be no grading or excavation within 15 feet of the West side property boundary in the areas of Trees # 6, 7, ad 8, and that there be no grading or excavation within 6 feet of the West side property boundary in the areas of Trees # 9-18. Replacement trees could be planted in these areas, but these must be no trenching for irrigation within these areas near the neighboring trees. Respectfully submitted, Michael L. Bench, Consulting Arborist International Society of Arboriculture Certification # WE 1897A American Society of Consulting Arborists Member 424 425 10121 Foothill Boulevard Cupertino California Field Data Sheet Tree Name DBH Canopy Height Canopy Spread Health Structura l Integrity Overall Condition Notes 1 Monterey pine (Pinus radiata) 15 50 25 1 3 Fair/Good 2 Monterey pine 21 60 35 1 3 Fair/Good Extended limbs 3 Monterey pine 22 50 30 1 4 Fair Co-Dominant Leaders 4 Monterey pine 27 50 35 1 4 Fair Co-Dominant Leaders 5 Monterey pine 21/15 65 35 1 3 Fair/Good 6 Deodar cedar (Cedrus deodara) 24 (E)55 40 1 2 Good 7 Canary Island pine (Pinus canariensis) 18 (E)70 30 3 4 Fair/Poor Co-Dominant Leaders; Die-Back Top 6 feet 8 Blue atlas cedar (Cedrus atlantica glauca) 20 (E)65 35 2 2 Fair Competing Leaders 9 Lemon (Citrus species) 8 (E)15 15 1 2 Good 10 Italian cypress (Cupressus sempervirens) 6 (E)30 10 1 1 Excellent 11 Italian cypress 6 (E)30 10 1 1 Excellent 12 Italian cypress 6 (E)30 10 1 1 Excellent 13 Italian cypress 6 (E)30 10 1 1 Excellent 14 Italian cypress 6 (E)30 10 1 1 Excellent 15 Italian cypress 6 (E)30 10 1 1 Excellent 16 Italian cypress 6 (E)30 10 1 1 Excellent 17 Italian cypress 6 (E)30 10 1 1 Excellent 18 Italian cypress 6 (E)30 10 1 1 Excellent INDEX DBH = Diameter in Inches at Breast Height (54 inches above grade) Canopy Height in Feet (Approx.) Canopy Spread in Feet (Approx.) Hlth = Health (1-5 = Good to Poor) Strc = Structure (1-5 = Good to Poor) (E) = Estimated Prepared by Michael Bench Consulting Arborist March 22, 2013 426 Prepared by Michael L. Bench, Consulting Arborist November 20, 2013 Michael L. Bench Consulting Arborist (831) 594-5151 7327 Langley Canyon Road Prunedale, California 93907 Inspection of the Root Damage to Neighboring Trees After Trenching At The Tate Development Project 10121 N. Foothill Boulevard Cupertino, California Assignment I was asked by Mr. George Schroeder, Planner, City of Cupertino to meet at the site with Mr. Ron Tate and Mr. Gessner, Consulting Arborist, and Mr. Schroeder to review the root damage after trenching to the neighboring trees on the West side of the property proposed by Mr. Tate for development at 10121 N. Foothill Boulevard, Cupertino, California. Observations I visited the site and met the parties involved on November 20, 2013. The trenches for proposed retaining walls and footings on the West side of this site had been cut prior to this observation. I observed no roots in the soil face of the cut near the neighboring Italian cypress Trees # 9-18. I observed no roots in the soil face of the cut near the neighboring Blue Atlas cedar Tree # 8. I observed no roots in the soil face of the cut near the neighboring Canary Island pine Tree # 7. I observed only 1 root, approximately 1 inch in diameter, in the soil face of the cut near the neighboring Deodar Cedar Trees # 6. This one root would not be significant root damage. Conclusions This observation makes it clear that the damage to the root systems of the neighboring Trees # 6-18 by the excavations at this site would be non-existent or insignificant. Respectfully submitted, Michael L. Bench, Consulting Arborist International Society of Arboriculture Certification # WE 1897A American Society of Consulting Arborists Member 427 November 9, 2013 Ron Tate Tate Diversified Development, Inc. 22 S. Santa Cruz Avenue Los Gatos, CA 95030 Enclosed is the assessment of the trenching on 10121 N. Foothill Boulevard and the related influence on the trees located on 22576 and 22586 Silver Oak Way, Cupertino, CA 95014. There are three trees on 22576 and 22586 Silver Oak Way within close proximity to the proposed construction on 10121 N.Foothill Boulevard. The two species, Canary Island pine (Pinus canariensis) and deodar cedar (Cedrus deodara), have good tolerances to construction influences and root damage. The trench on 10121 N. Foothill Boulevard is outside the critical root zones and no roots from the trees were observed in the trench (Appendix A). With the limits of construction at the trench the influence the proposed construction will have on the trees is low. Assignment •Inspect the trenches located on 10121 N. Foothill Boulevard for tree roots. •Provide construction influence ratings regarding the two deodar cedar and one Canary Island pine. Limits of the assignment •No property boundaries or property ownership information was provided. •No tree risk assessments were performed. •No construction plans were provided. Purpose and use of the report The purpose of the report is to assess how the trenches on 10121 N. Foothill Boulevard may influence the neighboring trees located on 22576 and 22586 Silver Oak Way and how the future construction may affect them. The report is to be used by Tate Diversified Development, Inc. and the City of Cupertino to help determine the influence the project will have on the neighboring trees. 10121 N. Foothill Blvd - Tree and Trench Assessment November 9, 2013 Richard Gessner - Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - (831) 331-8982 - rick@monarcharborist.com 1 P.O. Box 1010 Felton, CA 95018 428 Analysis No biological, environmental, or technical analysis was performed for this assignment. Observations Site The property located at 10121 N. Foothill Boulevard is located at the corner of N. Foothill Boulevard and Silver Oak Way. The site is an old gas station with two duplexes located directly to the west segregated by a concrete wall. The old parking area is level grade covered in asphalt to about ten feet from the concrete privacy wall. Approximately ten feet from the privacy wall is a steep upward slope with bare soil. The ground is dry with no irrigation and heavily compacted. Two Monterey pines (Pinus radiata) are growing on the slope toward the southwest corner with visible roots growing along the soil surface. No roots from the three trees on 22576 and 22586 Silver Oak Way were observed in the trench (See Site Sketch on Pg. 3). Deodar cedar one Deodara cedar number one is located in the northeast corner of the backyard on 22576 Silver Oak Way. The tree has a trunk diameter of 27 inches measured at 4.5 feet above grade and is approximately 55 feet tall. The north side of the tree has been stripped of its scaffold branches near the property boundary and the crown consists of multiple codominant tops. Foliar color, size, and density are normal for the species. The trench 12 feet from the retaining wall and approximately 15 feet from the trunk directly east and six feet from the retaining wall to the southeast and nine feet from the trunk. Canary Island pine two Canary Island pine number two is located in the southeast corner of the backyard on 22576 Silver Oak Way. The tree has a trunk diameter of 19 inches measured at 4.5 feet above grade and is approximately 50 feet tall. The crown consists of codominant tops with an abrupt angle attachment forming the east leader. Foliar, color, size, and density are normal for the species. The trench is fifteen feet from the retaining wall and approximately eighteen feet from the trunk. Deodar cedar three Deodar cedar number three is located in the southeast corner of the backyard on 22586 Silver Oak Way. The tree has a trunk diameter of 28 inches measured at 4.5 feet above grade and is approximately 55 feet tall. The crown is composed of one central leader with moderate sized scaffold branches and foliar size, color, and density are normal for the species. The trench is nine feet from the retaining wall directly east and eleven feet to the southeast with an additional four feet to the trunk beyond the wall. 10121 N. Foothill Blvd - Tree and Trench Assessment November 9, 2013 Richard Gessner - Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - (831) 331-8982 - rick@monarcharborist.com 2 P.O. Box 1010 Felton, CA 95018 429 Site Sketch 22576 and 22586 Silver Oak Way 10121 N. Foothill Boulevard The oval represents the location of the trees and trench. 10121 N. Foothill Blvd - Tree and Trench Assessment November 9, 2013 Richard Gessner - Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - (831) 331-8982 - rick@monarcharborist.com 3 P.O. Box 1010 Felton, CA 95018 #1#2#3 4ft.3ft.3ft. 13ft. 18ft.15ft. 9ft. Trench Wall Trees N 430 Discussion Canary Island Pine Canary Island Pines (Pinus canariensis) grow naturally in the Canary Islands off the coast of Morocco. The trees grow 50 to 80 feet tall with a canopy spread of 25 feet. Canary Island pines cannot tolerate hard frost but are drought tolerant. The trees have been cultivated for timber production throughout the world and are grown as ornamentals in California. Canary Island pine trees are resistant to oak root fungus and Verticillium wilt but are susceptible to boring insects, Phytophthora root rot, and pitch canker. Canary Island pine trees rarely fail (Matheny and Clark, 1994). Canary Island pine trees have good tolerance to construction influences (Clark and Matheny, 1998). Deodar Cedar Deodar cedar (Cedrus deodara) is native to the Himalayas and is a fast growing tree reaching 80 feet tall and 40 feet wide. The trees are drought tolerant and have few pest problems, although they are susceptible to Phytophthora root rot and some types of bark beetles. Branch failure is usually associated with wind, hail, snow or ice (Matheny and Clark, 1994). Deodara cedar is tolerant of construction damage including both root and branch pruning. The trees cannot tolerate excessive soil moisture which may lead to Armillaria or Phytophthora (Clark and Matheny, 1998). Both species of trees have good tolerance to construction influences and root damage. Photo 1: Deodar cedar (Left), Canary Island pine (Right). Trees on 22576 Silver Oak Way. 10121 N. Foothill Blvd - Tree and Trench Assessment November 9, 2013 Richard Gessner - Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - (831) 331-8982 - rick@monarcharborist.com 4 P.O. Box 1010 Felton, CA 95018 431 Critical Root Zone The critical root zone (CRZ) is the area of soil around the trunk of a tree where roots are located that provide stability and uptake of water and nutrients required for the tree’s survival. The CRZ is the minimum distance from the trunk that trenching or root cutting can occur and will be defined by the trunk diameter as a distance of three times the DBH in feet, and preferably, five times (Smiley, Fraedrich and Hendrickson, 2007). For example if the tree is two feet in diameter, the minimum CRZ distance would be six to ten feet from the stem on one side of the tree (Image 1). Because the trees have trunk diameters between 19 and 28 inches the critical root zone distances would range between 8 and 12 feet from the trunks. The trench is outside the CRZ of all the trees at the recommended five times the trunk diameter distance. One exception is the area near tree number one where the trench encroaches to nine feet, but is still outside the maximum encroachment of three times the trunk diameter. Furthermore there were no roots from any of the trees observed in the trench. This is not surprising because the ground was heavily compacted and dry, which is not a good environment for roots to grow or one that would encourage root growth. There is limited moisture on the slope and the privacy wall footing may further obstruct root growth on to 10121 N. Foothill Boulevard. Image 1: Critical Root Zone ©Copyright - Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC, 2012. 10121 N. Foothill Blvd - Tree and Trench Assessment November 9, 2013 Richard Gessner - Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - (831) 331-8982 - rick@monarcharborist.com 5 P.O. Box 1010 Felton, CA 95018 432 Influence Level Influence level defines how a tree may be affected by construction activity and proximity to the tree, and is described as low, moderate, or high (Table 1). The following scale defines the influence ratings: •Low = The construction activity will have little influence on the tree. •Moderate = The construction may cause future health or structural problems, and steps must be taken to protect the tree to reduce future problems. •High = Tree structure and health will be compromised and removal is recommended, or other actions must be taken for the tree to remain. The tree is located in the building envelope. Tree Number Trunk Diameter Critical Root Zone Comments Influence Rating Deodar cedar 1 27 12 feet Trench 15 feet and 9 feet from trunk Low Canary Island Pine 2 19 8 feet Trench 18 feet from trunk Low Deodar cedar 3 28 12 feet Trench 13 feet and 15 feet from trunk Low Table 1: Influence Ratings With the limits of construction where the trench is located the construction influence on the trees will be low and likely have no effect on the trees. There were no roots in the trench and it is outside the critical root zone of all the trees. The construction is also only on one side of any given tree with limited root area to be influenced regardless. Conclusion There are three trees within close proximity to the proposed construction on 10121 N. Foothill Boulevard. All three trees are located on 22576 and 22586 Silver Oak Way and the two species, Canary Island pine and deodar cedar, have good tolerances to construction influences and root damage. The trench on 10121 N. Foothill Boulevard is outside the critical root zone distance of three to five times the trunk diameter in feet, and no roots from the trees were observed in the trench. With the limits of construction at the trench the influence the proposed construction will have on the trees will be low. Recommendations 1.Exclude equipment and personnel from accessing the area between the trench and retaining wall. 2.Submit this report and findings to the City of Cupertino for planning review or peer review. 10121 N. Foothill Blvd - Tree and Trench Assessment November 9, 2013 Richard Gessner - Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - (831) 331-8982 - rick@monarcharborist.com 6 P.O. Box 1010 Felton, CA 95018 433 Bibliography Clark, James R., and Nelda P. Matheny. A Photographic Guide to the Evaluation of Hazard Trees in Urban Areas. Bedminster, PA: International Society Of Arboriculture, 1994. Print. Matheny, Nelda P. Trees and development: A technical guide to preservation of trees during land development. Bedminster, PA: International Society of Arboriculture, 1998. Print. Smiley, E. Thomas, Fraedrich, Bruce R., and Hendrickson, Neil. Tree Risk Management. 2nd ed. Charlotte, NC: Bartlett Tree Research Laboratories, 2007. 10121 N. Foothill Blvd - Tree and Trench Assessment November 9, 2013 Richard Gessner - Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - (831) 331-8982 - rick@monarcharborist.com 7 P.O. Box 1010 Felton, CA 95018 434 Appendix A: Photographs A1: Southend of trench The photo above is of the southern end of the trench. The large roots in the trench are from the Monterey pine trees. 10121 N. Foothill Blvd - Tree and Trench Assessment November 9, 2013 Richard Gessner - Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - (831) 331-8982 - rick@monarcharborist.com 8 P.O. Box 1010 Felton, CA 95018 435 A2: Trench with deodar cedar number three The photo above is of the southern end of the trench with deodar cedar number three in the background beyond the wall. 10121 N. Foothill Blvd - Tree and Trench Assessment November 9, 2013 Richard Gessner - Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - (831) 331-8982 - rick@monarcharborist.com 9 P.O. Box 1010 Felton, CA 95018 436 A3: Trench with cedar one and Canary Island pine two The photo above is of the central portion of the trench near trees one and two. 10121 N. Foothill Blvd - Tree and Trench Assessment November 9, 2013 Richard Gessner - Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - (831) 331-8982 - rick@monarcharborist.com 10 P.O. Box 1010 Felton, CA 95018 437 Qualifications, Assumptions, and Limiting Conditions Any legal description provided to the consultant is assumed to be correct. Any titles or ownership of properties are assumed to be good and marketable. All property is appraised or evaluated as though free and clear, under responsible ownership and competent management. All property is presumed to be in conformance with applicable codes, ordinances, statutes, or other regulations. Care has been taken to obtain information from reliable sources. However, the consultant cannot be responsible for the accuracy of information provided by others. The consultant shall not be required to give testimony or attend meetings, hearings, conferences, mediations, arbitration, or trials by reason of this report unless subsequent contractual arrangements are made, including payment of an additional fee for such services. This report and any appraisal value expressed herein represent the opinion of the consultant, and the consultant’s fee is not contingent upon the reporting of a specified appraisal value, a stipulated result, or the occurrence of a subsequent event. Sketches, drawings, and photographs in this report are intended for use as visual aids, are not necessarily to scale, and should not be construed as engineering or architectural reports or surveys. The reproduction of information generated by architects, engineers, or other consultants on any sketches, drawings, or photographs is only for coordination and ease of reference. Inclusion of said information with any drawings or other documents does not constitute a representation as to the sufficiency or accuracy of said information. Unless otherwise expressed: a) this report covers only examined items and their condition at the time of inspection; and b) the inspection is limited to visual examination of accessible items without dissection, excavation, probing, or coring. There is no warranty or guarantee, expressed or implied, that structural problems or deficiencies of plants or property may not arise in the future. 10121 N. Foothill Blvd - Tree and Trench Assessment November 9, 2013 Richard Gessner - Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - (831) 331-8982 - rick@monarcharborist.com 11 P.O. Box 1010 Felton, CA 95018 438 Certification of Performance I Richard Gessner, Certify: That I have personally inspected the tree(s) and/or the property referred to in this report, and have stated my findings accurately. The extent of the evaluation and/or appraisal is stated in the attached report and Terms of Assignment; That I have no current or prospective interest in the vegetation or the property that is the subject of this report, and I have no personal interest or bias with respect to the parties involved; That the analysis, opinions and conclusions stated herein are my own; That my analysis, opinions, and conclusions were developed and this report has been prepared according to commonly accepted Arboricultural practices; That no one provided significant professional assistance to the consultant, except as indicated within the report. That my compensation is not contingent upon the reporting of a predetermined conclusion that favors the cause of the client or any other party, nor upon the results of the assessment, the attainment of stipulated results, or the occurrence of any other subsequent events; I further certify that I am a Registered Consulting Arborist® with the American Society of Consulting Arborists, and that I acknowledge, accept and adhere to the ASCA Standards of Professional Practice. I am an International Society of Arboriculture Board Certified Master Arborist® and Tree Risk Assessor Qualified. I have been involved with the practice of Arboriculture and the care and study of trees since 1998. Richard J. Gessner ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist® #496 ISA Board Certified Master Arborist® WE-4341B ISA Tree Risk Assessor Qualified Copyright © Copyright 2013, Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC. Other than specific exception granted for copies made by the client for the express uses stated in this report, no parts of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, recording, or otherwise without the express, written permission of the author. 10121 N. Foothill Blvd - Tree and Trench Assessment November 9, 2013 Richard Gessner - Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - (831) 331-8982 - rick@monarcharborist.com 12 P.O. Box 1010 Felton, CA 95018 439 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project April 2014 440 1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project Impacts Mitigation and/or Avoidance Measure(s) Timeframe and Responsibility for Implementation Method of Compliance Oversight of Implementation Biological Resources Impact BIO-1: The development of the proposed project could result in direct impacts to nesting birds, if present on or adjacent to the site at the time of construction. Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated 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 zone around 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- If tree removal on the site is to occur between January and August, the project applicant shall be responsible for implementing MM BIO-1.2 no more than 14 days prior to the initiation of demolition/ construction activities during the early part of the breeding season (January through April) and no more than 30 days prior to the initiation of these activities during the late part of the breeding season (May through August). A final report of nesting birds, including any protection measures, shall be submitted to the Director of Community Development prior to the start of grading or tree removal. Director of Community Development and CDFW (if necessary) 441 2 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project Impacts Mitigation and/or Avoidance Measure(s) Timeframe and Responsibility for Implementation Method of Compliance Oversight of Implementation 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 grading or tree removal. Cultural Resources Impact CUL-1: Development of the proposed project could result in significant impacts to buried cultural resources, if encountered. Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated MM CUL-1.1: In the event of the discovery of prehistoric or historic archaeological deposits or paleontological deposits, work shall be halted within 50 feet of 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 are found, all project-related construction shall cease within 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 event of 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 During construction, the project applicant and contractor shall be responsible for notification of any discoveries. All measures shall be printed on all construction documents, contracts, and project plans and shall be reviewed by the Director of Community Development prior to the issuance of permits. Director of Community Development 442 3 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project Impacts Mitigation and/or Avoidance Measure(s) Timeframe and Responsibility for Implementation Method of Compliance Oversight of Implementation determination as to whether the remains are Native American. If the Coroner 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 location not subject to further subsurface disturbance. MM CUL-1.3: A final report summarizing the discovery of cultural materials shall be submitted to the Director of Community Development prior 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. Hazards and Hazardous Materials 443 4 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project Impacts Mitigation and/or Avoidance Measure(s) Timeframe and Responsibility for Implementation Method of Compliance Oversight of Implementation Impact HAZ-1: Construction workers and future residences could be exposed to contaminated soils and health risks associated with soil vapor on-site. Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated MM HAZ-1.1: The project shall conduct soil sampling and analysis of the extent of petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) and volatile organic compounds (VOC) contamination in soil, soil vapor, and/or groundwater in accordance with the Work Plan approved by the Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health (SCCDEH) on November 5, 2013. The approved Work Plan describes sample methodology, sample locations, the quality assurance/quality control plan, reporting, and schedule. The Work Plan shall be implemented by the project and the results of the sampling shall be submitted to the SCCDEH. If additional investigation is required to sufficiently delineate the contaminants of concern, additional sampling or mitigation measures shall be proposed and be reviewed and approved by the SCCDEH. The Work Plan shall be completed to the satisfaction of the SCCDEH prior to issuance of grading permits for project construction. MM HAZ-1.2: A Site Remediation Plan shall be prepared based on the documented soil conditions and approved by the SCCDEH. The Site Remediation Plan shall include the design of a remedy that has the goal of mitigating ongoing threats to water quality and to conditions of unacceptable risk for residential land use. The Site Remediation Plan shall include implementation and monitoring schedules. Upon approval of the Site Remediation Plan, the approved remediation design shall be implemented at the project site, prior to issuance of grading permits for project construction. The project applicant is responsible for implementing MM HAZ-1.1 through MM HAZ-1.3 prior to the issuance of a grading permit. The Work Plan pursuant to MM HAZ-1.1 shall be implemented by the project applicant and the results of the sampling shall be submitted and completed to the satisfaction of the SCCDEH. The Site Remediation Plan pursuant to MM HAZ-1.2 would require approval by the Santa Clara Valley Water District. Necessary permits from agencies such as BAAQMD and SCVWD shall be obtained for system operations. Soil sampling, mitigation (removal, disposal, and reporting), and SCCDEH and the Director of Community Development 444 5 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project Impacts Mitigation and/or Avoidance Measure(s) Timeframe and Responsibility for Implementation Method of Compliance Oversight of Implementation Based on the current understanding of site conditions, soil vapor extraction (SVE) is considered an appropriate remedy to mitigate the soil vapor levels to an acceptable level for residential use. An SVE system would consist of a series of soil vapor extraction wells connected to a vacuum pump. The depth and number of wells would be determined based on results of the additional sampling. Vapors collected via the extraction system would be treated either through absorption onto activated carbon or destroyed using an on- site combustion system. The operation of the mitigation system would be tuned for optimal performance during the early operations period. Mitigation of soil vapors to levels acceptable for residential land use is expected to take approximately three months. System operation shall comply with City noise ordinances and necessary permits (e.g., Bay Area Air Quality Management District) shall be obtained prior to operation of the system. In addition, required permits for well installation shall be obtained from the Santa Clara Valley Water District. If vapor mitigation through SVE is the only remedy implemented, confirmation of its effectiveness shall be documented by four quarters of soil vapor monitoring (multi-depth vapor wells installed to five and 10 feet at each proposed residence) performed after the termination of the remediation system. closure pursuant to MM HAZ-1.3 through MM HAZ- 1.5 shall be approved and completed to the satisfaction of the SCCDEH. Final approval that the site is suitable for residential uses shall be issued by the SCCDEH and copied to the City. 445 6 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project Impacts Mitigation and/or Avoidance Measure(s) Timeframe and Responsibility for Implementation Method of Compliance Oversight of Implementation If a different remedy is approved, the Site Remediation Plan shall include an applicable implementation plan, schedule, monitoring, and confirmation program. Other feasible remedies could include soil excavation with or without above-ground treatment, passive sub-slab vapor barriers, active sub-slab vapor management systems, or a combination of these components. MM HAZ-1.3: In addition to the sampling described above, soils at the site shall be assessed for impact from other potential contaminant sources. These sources shall be sampled and analyzed as follows: Soil samples shall be collected near the location of the former hydraulic hoists and analyzed for PCBs. Samples shall be collected at locations dictated by visual evidence of discoloration and analyzed using EPA SW 846 methodology (e.g., 8081 or 8082). If no discoloration is evident, one soil sample shall be collected at each hoist. Three soil samples shall be collected from the site at a maximum depth of 0.5 feet below the native soil surface and analyzed for organochlorine pesticides and arsenic. Additional samples may be required based on the results of this analysis. The soil sampling results shall be compared to appropriate risk-based screening levels and submitted to SCCDEH and the Director of Community Development 446 7 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project Impacts Mitigation and/or Avoidance Measure(s) Timeframe and Responsibility for Implementation Method of Compliance Oversight of Implementation prior to construction grading on the site. If additional investigation is required to sufficiently delineate the contaminants of concern, additional sampling or mitigation measures shall be proposed and reviewed and approved by the SCCDEH prior to construction grading. MM HAZ-1.4: Soil containing pesticides, PCB, and/or petroleum hydrocarbons shall be removed by properly trained and licensed personnel and contractors, prior to construction workers entering the site to begin earthwork. Contaminated soil shall be handled by trained personnel using appropriate protective equipment and engineering controls, in accordance with local, state, and federal laws. Contaminated soil shall be transported separate from other soil excavated at the site, and disposed at an appropriate offsite facility in accordance with its characteristics or, if mitigated by an alternative method, with approval from SCCDEH, or other appropriate regulatory agency. The project applicant and project contractor are responsible for implementing MM HAZ-1.4 prior to construction workers entering the site to begin earthwork. Soil sampling, mitigation (removal, disposal, and reporting), and closure pursuant to MM HAZ-1.3 through MM HAZ- 1.5 shall be approved and completed to the satisfaction of the SCCDEH. Final approval that the site is suitable for residential uses shall be issued by the SCCDEH and copied to the City. SCCDEH and the Director of Community Development MM HAZ-1.5: Upon completion of remediation activities and confirmation that the resulting conditions are adequately protective of residential development, a Closure Report shall be prepared and submitted to the City and The project applicant is responsible for completion of remediation activities SCCDEH and the Director of Community Development 447 8 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project Impacts Mitigation and/or Avoidance Measure(s) Timeframe and Responsibility for Implementation Method of Compliance Oversight of Implementation SCCDEH for review and approval. The report shall summarize: Past investigations, analytical reports, and current site conditions; Implemented mitigation measures and soil management activities; Off-site transport and disposal of excavated soil, and Excavation backfill materials and procedures. Once the mitigation measures described have achieved thresholds established for residential use, the report shall include a request regulatory closure for the property. Final approval that the site is suitable for residential land uses shall be issued by SCCDEH and copied to the City of Cupertino prior to issuance of grading or demolition permits for project construction. and obtaining site regulatory closure per MM HAZ-1.5 prior to the issuance of grading and demolition permits. MM HAZ-1.6: A site-specific Health and Safety Plan (HASP) shall be prepared prior to issuance of grading permits for project construction to address potential health and safety hazards associated with implementation of the Work Plan and proposed redevelopment activities (e.g., site preparation, demolition, grading and construction). The HASP shall govern activities of all personnel present during field activities. A job hazard analysis (JHA) shall be prepared for each task prior to performing said task. The JHAs shall include, at a minimum, identification of likely hazards associated with the task, requirements and The project applicant is responsible for preparing a Health and Safety Plan outlined in MM HAZ-1.6 prior to the issuance of a grading permit. The project applicant is also responsible for implementation of the HASP during site work. The project applicant and project contractors shall prepare and implement a HASP governing all site redevelopment activities. SCCDEH and the Director of Community Development 448 9 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project Impacts Mitigation and/or Avoidance Measure(s) Timeframe and Responsibility for Implementation Method of Compliance Oversight of Implementation procedures for employee protection, and required mitigation measures. Any contractor performing a task not covered in the HASP shall be required to develop a JHA specific to that task prior to performing the task. MM HAZ-1.7: A Site Management Plan (SMP) shall be developed to establish management practices for handling contaminated soil or other materials encountered during construction activities. The SMP shall identify potential health, safety, and environmental exposure considerations associated with redevelopment activities and shall identify appropriate mitigation measures. The SMP shall be submitted to the City and SCCDEH for approval prior to commencing construction activities. The SMP will include the following: Proper mitigation as needed and demolition of the existing structure; Proper handling and disposal of waste oil below the building; Management of stockpiles, including sampling, disposal, and dust and runoff control including implementation of a stormwater pollution prevention program; Management of underground structures encountered, including utilities and/or underground storage tanks; Procedures to follow if evidence of an unknown historic release of hazardous materials (e.g., underground storage tanks, buried debris, contamination) is The project applicant is responsible for preparing a SMP per MM HAZ-1.7, which shall be approved by the City and SCCDEH prior to the commencement of construction activities. The project contractor is responsible for implementing the SMP during construction activities. The City and SCCDEH shall review and approve the SMP. SCCDEH and the Director of Community Development 449 10 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project Impacts Mitigation and/or Avoidance Measure(s) Timeframe and Responsibility for Implementation Method of Compliance Oversight of Implementation discovered during excavation or demolition activities; Traffic control during site improvements; Noise, work hours, and other relevant City regulations; Mitigation of soil vapors; and Monitoring, reporting, and regulatory oversight arrangements. Noise Impact NOI-1: Proposed Homes 1-5 could have interior noise levels exceeding the City’s standard of 45 dBA CNEL. Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated MM NOI-1.1: Provide a suitable form of forced-air mechanical ventilation, as determined by the City of Cupertino Building Official, for all the units so that windows could be kept closed at the occupant’s discretion to control noise and achieve the 45 dBA CNEL interior noise standard. MM NOI-1.2: Provide sound rated windows and doors for Homes 1-5 to maintain interior noise levels at acceptable levels. Preliminary calculations made based on the data contained in the conceptual design plans indicate that sound-rated windows and doors with a sound transmission class rating of STC 30 to 35 would be sufficient to control noise and achieve the 45 dBA CNEL interior noise standard. MM NOI-1.3: Confirm the final specifications for noise insulation treatments during final design of the project. Results of the analysis, including the description of the necessary noise control treatments, shall be submitted to the City along with the building plans and approved prior to The project applicant is responsible for having a qualified acoustical consultant confirm the noise attenuation measures required to meet the City’s interior noise standard and submit a report to the City Project Planner prior to issuance of building permits. At the construction phase, the project applicant and contractor shall be responsible for completing all improvements. All attenuation measures shall be printed on construction documents, contracts, and project plans and reviewed by the City of Cupertino prior to issuance of building permits. Director of Community Development 450 11 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project Impacts Mitigation and/or Avoidance Measure(s) Timeframe and Responsibility for Implementation Method of Compliance Oversight of Implementation issuance of building permits. Impact NOI-2: Construction of the proposed project would result in a significant temporary noise impact. Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated MM NOI-2.1: Avoid the unnecessary idling of equipment and stage construction equipment as far as reasonable from residences adjacent to the site. MM NOI-2.2: Prepare a detailed construction plan identifying the schedule for major noise-generating construction activities. MM NOI-2.3: Notify adjacent residents to the project site of the construction schedule. MM NOI-2.3: Locate stationary noise generating equipment such as air compressors or portable power generators as far as possible from sensitive receptors. MM NOI-2.4: Construct temporary noise barriers to screen stationary noise generating equipment when located near adjoining sensitive land uses. MM NOI-2.5: Utilize “quiet” air compressors and other stationary noise sources where technology exists. MM NOI-2.6: Control noise from construction workers’ radios to a point that they are not audible at existing residences bordering the project site. Prior to construction, the project applicant shall be responsible for printing these measures on all construction documents, contracts, and project plans. During construction, the project applicant and contractor shall be responsible for implementing these measures. All measures shall be printed on construction documents, contracts, and project plans and reviewed by the Director of Community Development prior to issuance of grading and building permits. Director of Community Development 451 12 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project Impacts Mitigation and/or Avoidance Measure(s) Timeframe and Responsibility for Implementation Method of Compliance Oversight of Implementation MM NOI-2.8: Designate a “noise disturbance coordinator” who would be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. The disturbance coordinator would determine the cause of the noise complaints (e.g., starting too early, bad muffler, etc.) and would require that reasonable measures warranted to correct the problem be implemented. Conspicuously post a telephone number for the disturbance coordinator at the construction site and include it in the notice sent to neighbors regarding the construction schedule. 452 13 Standard Conditions In addition to the mitigation measures listed above, the following standard measures are conditions of project approval. Environmental Issue Standard Measure(s) Timeframe and Responsibility for Implementation Method of Compliance Oversight of Implementation Air Quality The project shall implement the following dust and diesel exhaust control measures recommended by BAAQMD and 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 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; Prior to construction, the project proponent shall be responsible for printing these measures on all construction documents, contracts, and project plans. During construction, the project proponent and contractor shall be responsible for implementing these measures. All measures shall be printed on construction documents, contracts, and project plans and reviewed by the Director of Community Development prior to issuance of grading and building permits. Director of Community Development 453 14 Standard Conditions In addition to the mitigation measures listed above, the following standard measures are conditions of project approval. Environmental Issue Standard Measure(s) Timeframe and Responsibility for Implementation Method of Compliance Oversight of Implementation Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to five 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; and 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. Hazards and Hazardous Materials The project, in conformance with regulatory programs and with the implementation of the following standard mitigation measures, would not result in significant impacts from lead-based paint and/or ACMs: In conformance with state and local laws, a visual inspection/pre-demolition survey, and possible sampling, shall be conducted prior to the demolition of on-site buildings to determine the presence of lead-based paint and/or asbestos-containing materials. During demolition activities, all building Prior to construction, the project proponent shall be responsible for printing these measures on all construction documents, contracts, and project plans. During construction, the project proponent and contractor shall be responsible for implementing these All measures shall be printed on all construction documents, contracts, and project plans and be reviewed by the Director of Community Development prior to issuance of grading and building permits. SCCDEH and the Director of Community Development 454 15 Standard Conditions In addition to the mitigation measures listed above, the following standard measures are conditions of project approval. Environmental Issue Standard Measure(s) Timeframe and Responsibility for Implementation Method of Compliance Oversight of Implementation materials containing lead-based paint shall be removed in accordance with Cal/OSHA Lead in Construction Standard, Title 8, California Code Regulations 1532.1, including employee training, employee air monitoring, and dust control. Any debris or soil containing lead-based paint or coatings would be disposed of at landfills that meet acceptance criteria for the waste being disposed. All potentially friable ACMs shall be removed in accordance with 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 CCR, Section 1529, to protect workers from exposure to asbestos. A registered asbestos abatement contractor shall be retained to remove and dispose of ACMs identified in the asbestos survey performed for the site in accordance with the standards stated above. Materials containing more than one percent (1%) asbestos are also subject to BAAQMD regulations. Removal of materials containing more than one percent (1%) asbestos shall be measures. 455 16 Standard Conditions In addition to the mitigation measures listed above, the following standard measures are conditions of project approval. Environmental Issue Standard Measure(s) Timeframe and Responsibility for Implementation Method of Compliance Oversight of Implementation completed in accordance with BAAQMD requirements. The project, with the implementation of the above standard project conditions, would not result in significant impacts from lead-based paint and ACMs. Water Quality In conformance with the City of Cupertino’s Municipal Code Chapter 9.18, the project shall implement the following standard measure to reduce construction and post-construction related water quality impacts to a less than significant level: 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 construction period. - Cover soil, equipment, and supplies that could contribute to non-visible pollution Prior to construction, the project proponent shall be responsible for printing these measures on all construction documents, contracts, and project plans. During construction, the project proponent and contractor shall be responsible for implementing these measures. All measures shall be printed on all construction documents, contracts, and project plans and be reviewed by the Director of Public Works prior to issuance of grading and building permits. Director of Public Works 456 17 Standard Conditions In addition to the mitigation measures listed above, the following standard measures are conditions of project approval. Environmental Issue Standard Measure(s) Timeframe and Responsibility for Implementation Method of Compliance Oversight of Implementation prior to rainfall events or monitor runoff. - Perform monitoring of discharges to the stormwater system. 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 in compliance 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. 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 . 457 18 Standard Conditions In addition to the mitigation measures listed above, the following standard measures are conditions of project approval. Environmental Issue Standard Measure(s) Timeframe and Responsibility for Implementation Method of Compliance Oversight of Implementation a minimum, the following conditions: - Pollution prevention and source control BMPs shall 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 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 458 19 Standard Conditions In addition to the mitigation measures listed above, the following standard measures are conditions of project approval. Environmental Issue Standard Measure(s) Timeframe and Responsibility for Implementation Method of Compliance Oversight of Implementation 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. To maintain effectiveness, all storm water 459 20 Standard Conditions In addition to the mitigation measures listed above, the following standard measures are conditions of project approval. Environmental Issue Standard Measure(s) Timeframe and Responsibility for Implementation Method of Compliance Oversight of Implementation treatment facilities shall include long-term maintenance programs. 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. Public Services (Parks) In conformance with standard practices in the City of Cupertino, the proposed project shall implement the following standard measure to reduce park impacts: The project shall comply with the Municipal Code requirements for parkland dedication and/or payment of in-lieu fees (Section 18.24.060). Prior to issuance of building permits, the project proponent shall be responsible for complying with the Municipal Code requirements for parkland dedication and/or payment of in- lieu fees (Section 18.24.060). The project proponent shall provide proof of compliance with the City’s Municipal Code requirements for parkland dedication and/or payment of in-lieu fees (Section 18.24.060) to the Director of Community Development prior to issuance of building permits. Director of Public Works 460 DP-2014-02 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. 6734 OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO ALLOW THE DEMOLITION OF AN ABANDONED AUTOMOBILE SERVICE STATION AND CONSTRUCT SIX RESIDENTIAL UNITS, INCLUDING FIVE LIVE-WORK UNITS WITH DETACHED WORKSPACES, ALONG WITH ASSOCIATED SITE AND OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS, LOCATED AT 10121 N. FOOTHILL BLVD SECTION I: PROJECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: DP-2014-02 Applicant: Tate Development Property Owner: Foothill Auto Service & Detail, Inc. Location: 10121 N. Foothill Boulevard (APN 342-32-070) SECTION II: FINDINGS FOR DEVELOPMENT PERMIT: WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an app lication for a Development Permit as described in Section I. of this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Committee has recommended adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration; and WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given as re quired by the Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held at least one public hearing in regard to the application; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds as follows with regard to this application: a) The proposed development, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the publ ic health, safety, general welfare, or convenience; Given that the project is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance; has been designed to be compatible with and respectful of adjoining land uses; and that relevant mitigation measures will be incorporated as part of the CEQA review process to mitigate potential impacts to a less than significant level, the project will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience. b) The proposed development will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Cupertino General Plan and the purpose of the City’s zoning ordinances. 461 Resolution No. 6734 DP-2014-02 April 22, 2014 The proposed development is in conformance with the General Plan Land Use Map of the City of Cupertino, since it is consistent with the existing land use designation (Commercial/Residential). In addition, the design is consistent with General Policies that encourage development to activate streetscapes, be o riented to public streets, and avoid walls and gates that isolate developments from the community. The location, height, and massing of the buildings are compatible with the adjacent and surrounding developments. The proposed project format is consistent with the City’s General Plan Policy 2-32, which specifies for this area to provide neighborhood commercial uses along the street and to discourage standalone commercial developments. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of the initial study, maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution beginning on PAGE 2 thereof,: A Mitigated Negative Declaration (Application no. EA-2014-01) is hereby recommended for adoption; and the application for a Development Permit, Application no. DP-2014-02 is hereby recommended for approval and that the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this resolution are based and contained in the Public Hearing record concerning Application no. DP-2014-02 as set forth in the Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting of April 22, 2014, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. Planning Division: 1. APPROVED EXHIBITS Approval recommendation is based on the plan set received April 16, 2014 consisting of 39 sheets labeled A0-A19, AL1.1-AL1-4, C1-C5, TM, L0, L0.1, L0.2, L1, L2, L2.1, and L2.2, entitled, “Foothill Blvd PUD, 10121 N Foothill Blvd., Cupertino, CA 95014,” drawn by Modative, SMP Engineers, and Miriam Rainville; except as may be amended by conditions in this resolution. 2. ACCURACY OF PROJECT PLANS The applicant/property owner is responsible to verify all pertinent property data including but not limited to property boundary locations, building setbacks, property size, building square footage, any relevant easements and/or construction records. Any misrepresentation of any property data may invalidate this approval and may require additional review. 3. CONCURRENT APPROVAL CONDITIONS The conditions of approval contained in file nos. Z-2014-01, TM-2014-01, ASA-2014-02, and TR-2014- 08 shall be applicable to this approval. 4. ANNOTATION OF THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL The conditions of approval set forth shall be incorporated into and annotated on the first page of the building plans. 462 Resolution No. 6734 DP-2014-02 April 22, 2014 5. SUPERCEDANCE OF U-1987-53 The conditions contained in this Development Permit shall supersede the previously appro ved Use Permit (U-1987-53) on the property, since this Development Permit involves the complete demolition of the use associated with Use Permit application no. U-1987-53. 6. DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL AND PROJECT AMENDMENTS Development Permit approval is granted to allow the demolition of 1,608 square feet of existing commercial space (abandoned automobile service station) and the construction of six residential units, including five live-work units with detached workspaces. The following square footages are approved for the residential units and workspaces: Homes 1-5: 2,668 s.f. (1,320 s.f. first floor, 1,348 second floor) Home 6: 2,690 s.f. (1,271 s.f. first floor, 1,419 s.f. second floor) Home 1-3 workspaces: 452 s.f. Home 4-5 workspaces: 411 s.f. The Planning Commission shall review amendments to the project considered major by the Director of Community Development. 7. TOTAL OVERALL HEIGHT OF HOME 6 The total overall height of Home 6 as identified on the plans shall be reduced by five (5) feet. Height reduction measures may be achieved by grading, wall, and roofline changes. 8. DEVELOPMENT ALLOCATION The applicant shall receive an allocation of six residential units from the Other Commercial Centers General Plan residential allocation area. 1,608 commercial square feet shall be backfilled into the Other Commercial Centers General Plan commercial allocation area. 9. WORKSPACE PERMITTED/PROHIBITED USES AND PERFORMANCE STANDARDS Permitted uses in the workspaces shall be consistent with the City’s Home Occupation Ordinanc e, currently Chapter 19.120 of the Municipal Code and shall be subject to the following performance standards (including prohibited uses): a. Usage: i. The residential and the commercial space must be occupied by the same tenant, and no portion of the live/work unit may be rented or sold separately. ii. The commercial component as designated on the floor plan approved shall remain commercial and cannot be converted to residential use. iii. The residential component as designated on the floor plan approved shall remain residential and cannot be converted to commercial use. iv. The commercial component shall be restricted to the unit and shall not be conducted in the yard, garage, or any accessory structures. v. The commercial component shall not detract from, or otherwise be a nu isance to, the residential character or appearance of the dwelling units. vi. No explosive, toxic, combustible or flammable materials in excess of what would be allowed incidental to normal residential use shall be stored or used on the premises. vii. Client/customer visits are limited to one vehicle or client unit at a time. 463 Resolution No. 6734 DP-2014-02 April 22, 2014 viii. Client/customer visits may only occur during the hours of 7 AM to 6 PM. b. Location: Prevent intrusion of light, noise and unsightly conditions from disturbing neighbors. i. Confine home occupation to workspaces. ii. Front yards, driveways may not be used for home occupation purposes. c. Display: Maintain visual character of principal residence as a residence. i. Workspace activities shall involve no exterior display of merchandise or stock in trade for sale. d. Sales Activity: Restrict scope of workspace activity to ensure that residential use remains primary. i. Direct sale of products off display shelves or racks to the general public is prohibited; however an order may be filled on the premises if placed earli er by a customer using telephone, e-mail, or mail order communications, or through attendance at a sales party. ii. Parties for the purpose of selling or taking orders for merchandise shall not be held more than two times in any month. iii. Workspace activities which involve the sale or rental of vehicles or vessels shall not be permitted to keep any vehicles on the premises at any time, or to deliver such vehicles to renters or purchasers on the premises. e. Intrusive Effects: Ensure that processes, tools, and hours of operation do not disturb neighbors through noise, odor, vibration, TV/radio interference. i. All workspace activities shall comply with City noise ordinance daytime/nighttime limitations. ii. All workspace activities shall be conducted so as to maintain emissions at nonintrusive levels. iii. Appropriate equipment shall be installed to reduce emissions to nonintrusive levels. f. Traffic: Ensure that pedestrian, automobile, or truck traffic, or parking demand is not significantly above normal levels for that zone. i. Deliveries to and from the premises restricted per the Municipal Code. g. Employment: Ensure that traffic is not significantly above normal levels for that zone. i. Workspace activities shall be carried on by members of the household occupying the dwelling, with not more than one additional person employed on the premises who is not a resident thereof. This shall not exclude the employment of domestic servants, gardeners, janitors, or other persons concerned in the operation or maintenance of the dwelling, whether living on the premises or not. h. Utility Service: Maintain residential scale of utility services to limit workspace activity to an incidental use. i. Workspace activity requiring a water meter above the size customary to a residence in that zone is prohibited. ii. Electrical panel restricted to size customary to a residence in that zone. 464 Resolution No. 6734 DP-2014-02 April 22, 2014 i. Business Vehicle: Restrict number, size, and keeping of vehicles to reduce parking demand and maintain residential streetscape. i. No more than one vehicle primarily used for business purposes may be parked per site. ii. Size limited to passenger auto, pickup truck, or similar van. j. Guest Parking Area: i. Guest parking shall be reserved for workspace patrons and allowable incidental employees only during the hours of 7 AM to 6 PM, Monday through Friday. ii. Guest parking shall be open to all parties during the hours of 6 PM to 7AM, Monday through Friday and 24 hours a day on weekends and holidays. iii. Signage restricting the usage of the spaces shall be reviewed by the City and installed prior to final occupancy. k. Storage: Ensure that stored materials do not take up required parking space or accumulate in yards. i. Storage outside of an enclosed structure is prohibited. ii. Garage storage of materials is not allowed. l. Signs: i. Signage shall be developed in accordance with a master sign program for the overall development. ii. Signage intended to promote workspace businesses shall be restricted to two square foot signs permanently affixed to the door or wall of the workspace. iii. All advertising for workspace businesses shall clearly state “by appointment only.” iv. Signs shall not be placed on the roof or within the required setback areas. m. Excluded Occupations: The occupations listed below, shall not be considered incidental and secondary to the primary residence and are therefore prohibited: i. Automobile repair shops, including paint and body work; ii. Barbershops and beauty parlors, except for hair stylists by appointment only; iii. Boarding and/or rooming homes for more than two guests; iv. Clinics and hospitals, also veterinary (animal) clinics and hospitals; v. Kennels and other boarding for pets, in excess of the number of animals allowed in the base zoning district where specified; vi. Medical offices for physicians, dentists, osteopaths, and other practitioners; vii. Massage, acupuncture, and other alternative medical practices. viii. Private schools with organized classes; ix. Upholstery, small engine repair, welding shops; x. Food uses (including, but not limited to cottage foods, restaurants, other uses involving food preparation) xi. Client/customer visits in excess of one vehicle or client unit at a time. xii. Other uses which are found by the Community Development Director to be of similar intensity and characteristics of use to those enumerated in this section, and are thus inconsistent with the stated purposes of the Home Occupation Ordinance. All workspace businesses shall obtain a City of Cupertino business license. 465 Resolution No. 6734 DP-2014-02 April 22, 2014 10. FORMATION OF A HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION (HOA) AND COVENANTS, CONDITIONS, AND RESTRICTIONS (CC&Rs): A Homeowner’s Association shall be formed to maintain the common areas of the property. The Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (CC&Rs) shall be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney and the Director of Community Development prior to recordation of final map. A deposit determined by staff shall be provided for the City Attorney’s review. The CC&Rs shall include, but not be limited to the following terms: a. The members/board shall meet at a minimum of once/year b. The Association dues shall cover: i. Maintenance of common area on the property including driveways, walkways, hardscaping, parking, landscaping and accessory items, such as trash bins/areas, on and off -site landscaping and trees, outside trash bins, fences, etc, ii. Building and site repair on a regular schedule, or as otherwise necessary, and building renovation and replacement as necessary. c. Private driveway and walkway maintenance d. Protection and maintenance of perimeter privacy trees/shrubs e. Any changes to the CC&R’s must be reviewed and approved by the City f. Disbanding of the Association shall require an amendment to the development permit. g. Performance standards for the workspaces h. Permitted and prohibited workspace uses i. Workspace performance standards j. Signage for the workspaces k. Procedures for maintenance in the City’s right-of-way l. Procedures for architectural and site modifications m. Environmental mitigation monitoring n. Compliance with other project conditions of approval o. Trash Management: The HOA shall provide a deposit for the City’s time in monitoring the site and the street on collection days to see what impact the work spaces have on the neighborhood, the traffic, and the containment of the trash/recycling and organics using toters in a relatively dense configuration. Additional measures, including, but not limited to, construction of a trash enclosure, may be required if problems persist. p. The project may be subject to levels of noise, activities, and impacts associated with commercial uses at higher levels than would be expected in typical residential projects. Noise and other standards shall be those applicable to commercial properties in the applicable zoning district. q. Master sign program (if signage is requested). 11. PARKING RATIO The project auto parking ratio shall be 3.8 spaces per unit with a workspace (2 enclosed, .8 open) and 2.8 space per unit without a workspace (2 enclosed, .8 open). 12. INTERIOR GARAGE DIMENSION The interior garage clearance shall be 20 feet by 20 feet (measured from inside walls). 466 Resolution No. 6734 DP-2014-02 April 22, 2014 13. COMPLIANCE WITH MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP) The project shall be required to adhere to the mitigation measures identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration (EA-2014-01) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the project. 14. HOUSING MITIGATION FEES The applicant shall participate in the City’s Below Market Rate (BMR) Housing Program by paying the housing mitigation fees as per the Housing Mitigation Manual. The estimated mitigation fee for this project is $53,531.52 based on the 2013-2014 fiscal year rate of $2.94 per square foot of residential area. 15. SCHOOL IMPACT FEES The applicant shall pay the applicable school impact fees assessed by the school districts prior to issuance of building permits. 16. BICYCLE PARKING The applicant shall provide Class II bicycle parking based on a minimum of five percent of the required auto parking in accordance with the City’s Parking Regulations under Chapter 19.124 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. 17. WORKSPACE STOREFRONTS The workspace storefront entrances shall remain oriented towards Foothill Boulevard. The entrance doors and storefront are to be kept open and free of any obstructions. No more than 25% of each storefront window bay may be obstructed. Boarding, closure, shelves, permanent walls, opaque painting/material of windows, and other storefront obstructions are not permitted. 18. MASTER SIGN PROGRAM Signage is not approved with this application. A separate master sign program application for the entire development if signage for the workspaces is requested. 19. TRASH AND DELIVERY ACTIVITIES A detailed refuse and truck delivery plan shall be prepared by the applicant. The plan shall include, but not be limited to the following: a. Location and design of trash facilities (i.e. trash enclosures and receptacles). Trash enclosures shall provide ample space to include trash, recycling, food waste, and waste receptacles along with a tallow bin. b. Quantity of trash receptacles. c. Primary and alternative truck routes. d. Signage for parking stalls displaced during pick-up and delivery hours. e. Trash pick-up schedule. All trash facilities must be screened and enclosed to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department. The final plan shall be submitted to the City and the City’s refuse service for review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. 467 Resolution No. 6734 DP-2014-02 April 22, 2014 20. TRANSFORMERS Electrical transformers, telephone cabinets and similar equipment shall be placed in underground vaults. The developer must receive written approval from both the Public Works Department and the Community Development Department prior to installation of any above ground equipment. Should above ground equipment be permitted by the City, equipment and enclosures shall be screened with fencing and landscaping such that said equipment is not visible from public street areas, as determined by the Community Development Department. Transformers shall not be located in the front or side building setback area. 21. UTILITY STRUCTURE PLAN Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall work with staff to provide a detailed utility plan to demonstrate screening or undergrounding of all new utility structures [including, but not limited to backflow preventers (BFP), fire department connections (FDC), post -indicator valves (PIV), and gas meters] to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development, Public Works, Fire Department, and applicable utility agencies. 22. ROOFTOP EQUIPMENT AND OTHER ABOVE-GROUND EQUIPMENT SCREENING All mechanical and other equipment on the building or on the site shall be screened so they are not visible from public street areas or adjoining developments. The height of the screening shall be taller than the height of the mechanical equipment that it is designed to screen. A line of sight plan may be required to demonstrate that the equipment will not be visible from any public right -of-way. The location of the equipment and necessary screening shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development prior to issuance of building permits. 23. SITE LIGHTING All new lighting must conform to the standards in the City’s Parking Ordinance, and the final lighting plan (including a detailed photometric plan) shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director prior to building permit issuance. Prior to final occupancy, a licensed lighting consultant shall confirm that the lighting is in compliance with the City’s standards. 24. CITY ARBORIST REVIEW OF EXISTING NEIGHBORING AND NEW SITE TREES Prior to grading or building permit issuance, the City’s consulting arborist shall be retained by the developer to review all construction permit drawings and details concerning the area near existing neighboring property trees in order to more accurately assess the impacts to the neighboring trees. The developer shall implement any additional recommendations and tree protection measures by the City’s consulting arborist. The City’s consulting arborist shall also be retained by the developer to inspect the existing neighboring trees to confirm their good health following construction. Corrective measures shall be taken, if necessary. Additionally, prior to final occupancy, the City’s consulting arborist shall be retained to inspect the new tree plantings to ensure that they were planted properly and according to the approved plan. 25. LANDSCAPE PROJECT SUBMITTAL Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit a full landscape project submittal per section 14.15.040 of the Landscaping Ordinance. The Water-Efficient Design Checklist 468 Resolution No. 6734 DP-2014-02 April 22, 2014 (Appendix A of Chapter 14.15), Landscape and Irrigation Design Plans, and Water Budget Calculations shall be reviewed and approved to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development prior to issuance of building permits. 26. LANDSCAPE INSTALLATION REPORT A landscape installation audit shall be conducted by a certified landscape professional after the landscaping and irrigation system have been installed and prior to final occupancy. The findings of the assessment shall be consolidated into a landscape installation report. The landscape installation report shall include, but is not limited to: inspection to confirm that the landscaping and irrigation system are installed as specified in the landscape and irrigation design plan, system tune-up, system test with distribution uniformity, reporting overspray or run -off that causes overland flow, and preparation of an irrigation schedule. The landscape installation report shall include the following statement: “The landscape and irrigation system have been installed as specified in the landscape and irrigation design plan and complies with the criteria of the ordinance and the permit.” 27. LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION MAINTENANCE A maintenance schedule shall be established and submitted to the Director of Community Development or his/her designee, either with the landscape application package, with the landscape installation report prior to issuance of final occupancy, or any time before the landscape installation report is submitted prior to issuance of building permits. a) Schedules should take into account water requirements for the plant establishment period a nd water requirements for established landscapes. b) Maintenance shall include, but not be limited to the following: routine inspection; pressure testing, adjustment and repair of the irrigation system; aerating and de -thatching turf areas; replenishing mulch; fertilizing; pruning; replanting of failed plants; weeding; pest control; and removing obstructions to emission devices. c) Failed plants shall be replaced with the same or functionally equivalent plants that may be size - adjusted as appropriate for the stage of growth of the overall installation. Failing plants shall either be replaced or be revived through appropriate adjustments in water, nutrients, pest control or other factors as recommended by a landscaping professional. 28. SOIL ANALYSIS REPORT A soils analysis report shall document the various characteristics of the soil (e.g. texture, infiltration rate, pH, soluble salt content, percent organic matter, etc) and provide recommendations for amendments as appropriate to optimize the productivity and water efficiency of the soil. The soil analysis report shall be made available to the professionals preparing the landscape and irrigation design plans in a timely manner either before or during the design process. A copy of the soils analysis report shall be submitted to the Director of Community Development as part of the landscape documentation package. 29. SOIL SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS MM HAZ-1.1: The project shall conduct soil sampling and analysis of the extent of petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) and volatile organic compounds (VOC) contamination in soil, soil vapor, and/or groundwater in accordance with the Work Plan approved by the Santa Clara County 469 Resolution No. 6734 DP-2014-02 April 22, 2014 Department of Environmental Health (SCCDEH) on November 5, 2013. The approved Work Plan describes sample methodology, sample locations, the quality assurance/quality control plan, reporting, and schedule. The Work Plan shall be implemented by the project and the results of the sampling shall be submitted to the SCCDEH. If additional investigation is required to sufficiently delineate the contaminants of concern, additional sampling or mitigation measures shall be proposed and be reviewed and approved by the SCCDEH. The Work Plan shall be completed to the satisfaction of the SCCDEH prior to issuance of grading permits for project construction. 30. SITE REMEDIATION PLAN MM HAZ-1.2: A Site Remediation Plan shall be prepared based on the documented soil conditions and approved by the SCCDEH. The Site Remediation Plan shall include the design of a remedy that has the goal of mitigating ongoing threats to water quality and to conditions of unacceptable risk for residential land use. The Site Remediation Plan shall include implementation and monitoring schedules. Upon approval of the Site Remediation Plan, the approved remediation design shall be implemented at the project site, prior to issuance of grading permits for project construction. Based on the current understanding of site conditions, soil vapor extraction (SVE) is considered an appropriate remedy to mitigate the soil vapor levels to an acceptable level for residential use. An SVE system would consist of a series of soil vapor extraction wells connected to a vacuum pump. The depth and number of wells would be determined based on results of the additional sampl ing. Vapors collected via the extraction system would be treated either through absorption onto activated carbon or destroyed using an on-site combustion system. The operation of the mitigation system would be tuned for optimal performance during the ear ly operations period. Mitigation of soil vapors to levels acceptable for residential land use is expected to take approximately three months. System operation shall comply with City noise ordinances and necessary permits (e.g., Bay Area Air Quality Management District) shall be obtained prior to operation of the system. In addition, required permits for well installation shall be obtained from the Santa Clara Valley Water District. If vapor mitigation through SVE is the only remedy implemented, confirm ation of its effectiveness shall be documented by four quarters of soil vapor monitoring (multi-depth vapor wells installed to five and 10 feet at each proposed residence) performed after the termination of the remediation system. If a different remedy is approved, the Site Remediation Plan shall include an applicable implementation plan, schedule, monitoring, and confirmation program. Other feasible remedies could include soil excavation with or without above -ground treatment, passive sub-slab vapor barriers, active sub-slab vapor management systems, or a combination of these components. 31. OTHER SOIL CONTAMINANT SOURCES SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS MM HAZ-1.3: In addition to the sampling described above, soils at the site shall be assessed for impact from other potential contaminant sources. These sources shall be sampled and analyzed as follows: Soil samples shall be collected near the location of the former hydraulic hoists and analyzed for PCBs. Samples shall be collected at locations dictated by visual evide nce of discoloration and 470 Resolution No. 6734 DP-2014-02 April 22, 2014 analyzed using EPA SW 846 methodology (e.g., 8081 or 8082). If no discoloration is evident, one soil sample shall be collected at each hoist. Three soil samples shall be collected from the site at a maximum depth of 0.5 feet below the native soil surface and analyzed for organochlorine pesticides and arsenic. Additional samples may be required based on the results of this analysis. The soil sampling results shall be compared to appropriate risk -based screening levels and submitted to SCCDEH and the Director of Community Development prior to construction grading on the site. If additional investigation is required to sufficiently delineate the contaminants of concern, additional sampling or mitigation measures shall be proposed and reviewed and approved by the SCCDEH prior to construction grading. 32. REMOVAL AND DISPOSAL OF CONTAMINATED SOILS MM HAZ-1.4: Soil containing pesticides, PCB, and/or petroleum hydrocarbons shall be removed by properly trained and licensed personnel and contr actors, prior to construction workers entering the site to begin earthwork. Contaminated soil shall be handled by trained personnel using appropriate protective equipment and engineering controls, in accordance with local, state, and federal laws. Contaminated soil shall be transported separate from other soil excavated at the site, and disposed at an appropriate offsite facility in accordance with its characteristics or, if mitigated by an alternative method, with approval from SCCDEH, or other appropriate regulatory agency. 33. CLOSURE REPORT MM HAZ-1.5: Upon completion of remediation activities and confirmation that the resulting conditions are adequately protective of residential development , a Closure Report shall be prepared and submitted to the City and SCCDEH for review and approval. The report shall summarize: Past investigations, analytical reports, and current site conditions; Implemented mitigation measures and soil management activities; Off-site transport and disposal of excavated soil, and Excavation backfill materials and procedures. Once the mitigation measures described have achieved thresholds established for residential use, the report shall include a request regulatory closure for the property. Final approval that the site is suitable for residential land uses shall be issued by SCCDEH and copied to the City of Cupertino prior to issuance of grading or demolition permits for project construction. 34. HEALTH AND SAFETY PLAN (HASP) MM HAZ-1.6: A site-specific Health and Safety Plan (HASP) shall be prepared prior to issuance of grading permits for project construction to address potential health and safety hazards associated with implementation of the Work Plan and proposed redevelopment activities (e.g., site preparation, demolition, grading and construction). The HASP shall govern activities of all personnel present during field activities. A job hazard analysis (JHA) shall be prepared for each task prior to performing said task. The JHAs shall include, at a minimum, identification of likel y hazards associated with the task, requirements and procedures for employee protection, and required mitigation measures. Any contractor performing a task not covered in the HASP shall be required to develop a JHA specific to that task prior to performing the task. 471 Resolution No. 6734 DP-2014-02 April 22, 2014 35. SITE MANAGEMENT PLAN (SMP) MM HAZ-1.7: A Site Management Plan (SMP) shall be developed to establish management practices for handling contaminated soil or other materials encountered d uring construction activities. The SMP shall identify potential health, safety, and environmental exposure considerations associated with redevelopment activities and shall identify appropriate mitigation measures. The SMP shall be submitted to the City and SCCDEH for approval prior to commencing construction activities. The SMP will include the following: Proper mitigation as needed and demolition of the existing structure; Proper handling and disposal of waste oil below the building; Management of stockpiles, including sampling, disposal, and dust and runoff control including implementation of a stormwater pollution prevention program; Management of underground structures encountered, including utilities and/or underground storage tanks; Procedures to follow if evidence of an unknown historic release of hazard ous materials (e.g., underground storage tanks, buried debris, contamination) is discovered during excavation or demolition activities; Traffic control during site improvements; Noise, work hours, and other relevant City regulations; Mitigation of soil vapors; and Monitoring, reporting, and regulatory oversight arrangements. 36. REDUCTION OF INTERIOR NOISE LEVELS MM NOI-1.1: Provide a suitable form of forced-air mechanical ventilation, as determined by the City of Cupertino Building Official, for all the units so that windows could be kept closed at the occupant’s discretion to control noise and achieve the 45 dBA CNEL interior noise standard. MM NOI-1.2: Provide sound rated windows and doors for Homes 1-5 to maintain interior noise levels at acceptable levels. Preliminary calculations made based on the data contained in the conceptual design plans indicate that sound-rated windows and doors with a sound transmission class rating of STC 30 to 35 would be sufficient to control noise and achieve the 45 dBA CNEL interior noise standard. MM NOI-1.3: Confirm the final specifications for noise insulation treatments during fin al design of the project. Results of the analysis, including the description of the necessary noise control treatments, shall be submitted to the City along with the building plans and approved prior to issuance of building permits. 37. CONTRUCTION NOISE MITIGATION MEASURES The following construction noise mitigation measures shall be taken in order to reduce noise event impacts to nearby receptor areas: MM NOI-2.1: Avoid the unnecessary idling of equipment and stage construction equipment as far as reasonable from residences adjacent to the site. MM NOI-2.2: Prepare a detailed construction plan identifying the schedule for major noise - generating construction activities. MM NOI-2.3: Notify adjacent residents to the project site of the construction schedule. 472 Resolution No. 6734 DP-2014-02 April 22, 2014 MM NOI-2.3: Locate stationary noise generating equipment such as air compressors or portable power generators as far as possible from sensitive receptors. MM NOI-2.4: Construct temporary noise barriers to screen stationary noise generating equipment when located near adjoining sensitive land uses. MM NOI-2.5: Utilize “quiet” air compressors and other stationary noise sources where technology exists. MM NOI-2.6: Control noise from construction workers’ radios to a point that they are not audible at existing residences bordering the project site. MM NOI-2.8: Designate a “noise disturbance coordinator” who would be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. The disturbance coordinator would determine the cause of the noise complaints (e.g., starting too early, bad muffler, etc.) and would require that reasonable measures warranted to correct the problem be imple mented. Conspicuously post a telephone number for the disturbance coordinator at the construction site and include it in the notice sent to neighbors regarding the construction schedule. 38. PRE-CONSTRUCTION MEETING AND CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PLAN Prior to commencement of construction activities, the applicant shall arrange for a pre -construction meeting with the pertinent departments (including, but not limited to, Building, Planning, Public Works, Santa Clara County Fire Department) to review an applicant-prepared construction management plan including, but not limited to: a. Plan for compliance with conditions of approval b. Plan for public access during work in the public right-of-way c. Construction staging area d. Construction schedule and hours e. Construction phasing plan, if any f. Contractor parking area g. Tree preservation/protection plan h. Site dust, noise and storm run-off management plan i. Emergency/complaint and construction site manager contacts 39. CONSTRUCTION HOURS Construction activities shall be limited to Monday th rough Friday, 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. and Saturday and Sunday, 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. Construction activities are not allowed on holidays. The developer shall be responsible for educating all contractors and subcontractors of said construction restrictions. Rules and regulation pertaining to all construction activities and limitations identified in this permit, along with the name and telephone number of a developer appointed disturbance coordinator, shall be posted in a prominent location at the entrance to the job site. 40. DEMOLITION REQUIREMENTS All demolished building and site materials shall be recycled to the maximum extent feasible subject to the Building Official. The applicant shall provide evidence that materials were recycled prior to issuance of final demolition permits. 473 Resolution No. 6734 DP-2014-02 April 22, 2014 41. HAZARDOUS MATERIAL MITIGATION DURING DEMOLITION The following requirements shall apply for the demolition phase of the project: a. In conformance with state and local laws, a visual inspection/pre-demolition survey, and possible sampling, shall be conducted prior to the demolition of on-site buildings to determine the presence of lead-based paint and/or asbestos-containing materials. b. 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 Regulations 1532.1, including employee training, employee air monitoring, and dust control. Any debris or soil containing lead-based paint or coatings would be disposed of at landfills that meet acceptance criteria for the waste being disposed. c. All potentially friable ACMs shall be removed in accordance with 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 CCR, Section 1529, to protect workers from exposure to asbestos. d. A registered asbestos abatement contractor shall be retained to remove and dispose of ACMs identified in the asbestos survey performed for the site in accordance with the standards stated above. e. Materials containing more than one percent (1%) asbestos are also subject to BAAQMD regulations. Removal of materials containing more than one percent (1%) asbestos shall be completed in accordance with BAAQMD requirements. f. The project, with the implementation of the above standard project conditions, would not result in significant impacts from lead-based paint and ACMs. 42. DUST CONTROL The following construction practices shall be implemented during all phases of construction for the proposed project to prevent visible dust emissions from leaving the site: a. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered or treated with non-toxic stabilizers or dust palliatives two times per day and more often during windy periods to prevent dust from leaving the site. b. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material on-site shall be covered to maintain at least 2 feet of freeboard. c. 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. d. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph. e. All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. f. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. g. 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 applicabl e regulations. h. Idling times shall be minimized either by 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]). 474 Resolution No. 6734 DP-2014-02 April 22, 2014 i. Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. j. All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer‘s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certifie d visible emissions evaluator. k. Construction equipment shall not be staged within 200 feet of existing residences. l. The applicant shall incorporate the City’s construction best management practices into the building permit plan set. 43. MITIGATION OF CONSTRUCTION-RELATED WATER QUALITY IMPACTS In conformance with the City of Cupertino’s Municipal Code Chapter 9.18, the project shall implement the following standard measure to reduce construction-related water quality impacts to a less than significant level: 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 construction period. 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. 44. MITIGATION OF POST-CONSTRUCTION WATER QUALITY IMPACTS In conformance with the City of Cupertino’s Municipal Code Chapter 9.18, the project shall implement the following standard measures to reduce post-construction water quality impacts to a less than significant level: 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 in compliance 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 vegetated swales, rain gardens, and flow-through planters 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. 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 BMPs shall be implemented to protect groundwater; 475 Resolution No. 6734 DP-2014-02 April 22, 2014 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 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 Infiltration devices shall be located a minimum of 100 feet horizontally from any water supply wells. 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. To maintain effectiveness, all storm water treatment facilities shall include long-term maintenance programs. 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. 45. CULTURAL RESOURCES DISCOVERIES DURING CONSTRUCTION MM CUL-1.1: In the event of the discovery of prehistoric or historic archaeological deposits or paleontological deposits, work shall be halted within 50 feet of 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. 476 Resolution No. 6734 DP-2014-02 April 22, 2014 MM CUL-1.2: In the event that human remains and/or cultural materials are found, all project - related construction shall cease within 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: a. In the event of 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 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 location not subject to further subsurface disturbance. b. MM CUL-1.3: A final report summarizing the discovery of cultural materials shall be submitted to the Director of Community Development prior 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 Community Development. 46. CONSULTATION WITH OTHER DEPARTMENTS The applicant is responsible to consult with other departments and/or agencies w ith regard to the proposed project for additional conditions and requirements. Any misrepresentation of any submitted data may invalidate an approval by the Community Development Department. 47. INDEMNIFICATION To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the “indemnified parties”) from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside, or void this ordinance or any permit or approval authorized hereby for the project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City its actual attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its choice. 48. NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees, dedication requirements, reservation require ments, and other exactions. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(d) (1), these Conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations, and other exactions. You are hereby further notified that the 90-day approval period in which you may protest these fees, dedications, reservations, and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a), has begun. If you fail to file a protest within this 90-day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such exactions. 477 Resolution No. 6734 DP-2014-02 April 22, 2014 Building Division: 49. INFORMATION TO PROVIDE ON CONSTRUCTION PERMIT PLANS The applicant shall submit construction drawings to the City for review , including, but not limited to the following information on the construction permit plans: a. Note that fire sprinklers are by deferred submittal and approved by the Santa Clara County Fire Department. b. Note that building codes should include the California Residential Code (2013). c. Accessible uncovered guest parking shall be designated and compliant for a van space. d. Access to workspace areas and the common open space area shall be accessible. e. Sizing of drainage shall comply with the 2013 CPC. f. In workspace areas, provide 48-inch clear space in front of lavatory. g. Kitchenettes shall be accessible. SECTION IV: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 1. STREET WIDENING Public street widening and dedications shall be provided in accordance with City St andards and specifications and as required by the City Engineer. The proposed detached sidewalk on Foothill Blvd will require 3’ of dedication along the project frontage. It is not acceptable to reduce the pavement width to achieve the 11’ wide landscape and sidewalk area. No narrowing of Foothill Blvd will be permitted. 2. STREET IMPROVEMENTS Curbs and gutters, driveways, sidewalks, pavement and related structures shall be installed in accordance with grades and standards as specified by the City Engineer. Project shall construct two new ADA ramps at the northwest and southwest corners of the Foothill Blvd/Silver Oak Way intersection and improve up to half of street along the project frontage on Silver Oak Way and Foothill Blvd. Project shall extend a new storm drain main west from Foothill Blvd along Silver Oak Way to serve the project. No connection to the back of the existing catch basin will be permitted. In addition, the project shall construct a storm drain on Silver Oak Way. 3. PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE IMPROVEMENTS Developer shall provide pedestrian and bicycle related improvements consistent with the Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan and the Pedestrian Transportation Guidelines, and as approved by the City Engineer. The City Engineer shall have the final authority to approve the proposed pedestrian improvement at Foothill Blvd & Silver Oak Way. If the proposed bulb -out is approved, additional improvements may be required such as storm inlet and lateral to address drainage. 4. STREET LIGHTING INSTALLATION Street lighting shall be installed and shall be as approved by the City Engineer. Lighting fixtures shall be positioned so as to preclude glare and other forms of visual interference to adjoining 478 Resolution No. 6734 DP-2014-02 April 22, 2014 properties, and shall be no higher than the maxi mum height permitted by the zone in which the site is located. 5. GRADING Grading shall be as approved and required by the City Engineer in accordance with Chapter 16.08 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. 401 Certifications and 404 permits maybe required. Plea se contact Army Corp of Engineers and/or Regional Water Quality Control Board as appropriate. 6. DRAINAGE Drainage shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Hydrology and pre - and post- development hydraulic calculations must be provided to indicate whether additional storm water control measures are to be constructed or renovated. The storm drain system may include, but is not limited to, subsurface storage of peak stormwater flows (as needed), bioretention basins, vegetated swales, and hydrodynamic separators to reduce the amount of runoff from the site and improve water quality. The storm drain system shall be designed to detain water on -site (e.g., via buried pipes, retention systems or other approved systems and improvements) as necessary to avoid an increase of the ten percent flood water surface elevation to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Any storm water overflows or surface sheeting should be directed away from neighboring private properties and to the public right of way as much as reasonably possible. 7. UNDERGROUND UTILITIES Developer shall comply with the requirements of the Underground Utilities Ordinance No. 331 and other related Ordinances and regulations of the City of Cupertino, and shall coordinate with affected utility providers for installation of underground utility devices. Developer shall submit detailed plans showing utility underground provisions. Said plans shall be subject to prior approval of the affected Utility provider and the City Engineer. 8. IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT The project developer shall enter into a development agreement with the City of Cupertino providing for payment of fees, including but not limited to checking and inspection fees, storm drain fees, park dedication fees and fees for under groundin g of utilities. Said agreement shall be executed prior to issuance of construction permits. Fees: a. Checking & Inspection Fees: $ Per current fee schedule ($2,707 or 5%) b. Grading Permit: $ Per current fee schedule ($2,542.00 or 6%) c. Development Maintenance Deposit: $ 1,000.00 d. Storm Drainage Fee: $ TBD e. Power Cost: ** f. Map Checking Fees: $ Per current fee schedule ($8,213.00) g. Park Fees: $ Per current fee schedule ($9,000 per unit) h. Street Tree $338 per tree to be installed by City ** Based on the latest effective PG&E rate schedule approved by the PUC Bonds: Faithful Performance Bond: 100% of Off-site and On-site Improvements 479 Resolution No. 6734 DP-2014-02 April 22, 2014 Labor & Material Bond: 100% of Off-site and On-site Improvement On-site Grading Bond: 100% of site improvements. -The fees described above are imposed based upon the current fee schedule adopted by the City Council. However, the fees imposed herein may be modified at the time of recordation of a final map or issuance of a building permit in the event of said change or changes, the fees changed at that time will reflect the then current fee schedule. 9. TRANSFORMERS Electrical transformers, telephone cabinets and similar equipment shall be placed in underground vaults. The developer must receive written approval from both the Public Works Department and the Community Development Department prior to installation of any above ground equipment. Should above ground equipment be permitted by the City, equipment and enclosures shall be screened with fencing and landscaping such that said equipment is not visible from public street areas, as determined by the Community Development Department. Transformers shall not be located in the front or side building setback area. 10. WATER BACKFLOW PREVENTERS Domestic and Fire Water Backflow preventers and similar above ground equipment shall be placed away from the public right of way and site driveways to a location approved by the Cupertino Planning Department, Santa Clara County Fire Department and the water company. 11. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES Utilize Best Management Practices (BMPs), as required by the State Water Resources Control Board, for construction activity, which disturbs soil. BMP plans shall be included in grading and street improvement plans. 12. NPDES CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PERMIT When and where it is required by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), the developer must obtain a Notice of Intent (NOI) from the SWRCB, which encompasses preparation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), use of construction Best Management Practices (BMPs) to control storm water runoff quality, and BMP inspection and maintenance. 13. C.3 REQUIREMENTS C.3 regulated improvements are required for all projects creating and/or replacing 10,000 S.F. or more of impervious surface (collectively over the entire project site). The developer shall reserve a minimum of 4% of developable surface area for the placement of low impact development measures, for storm water treatment, on the tentative map, unless an alternative stor m water treatment plan, that satisfies C.3 requirements, is approved by the City Engineer. The developer must include the use and maintenance of site design, source control and storm water treatment Best Management Practices (BMPs), which must be designed per approved numeric sizing criteria. A Storm Water Management Plan, Storm Water Facilities Easement Agreement, Storm Water Facilities Operation and Maintenance Agreement, and certification of ongoing operation and maintenance of treatment BMPs are each required. 480 Resolution No. 6734 DP-2014-02 April 22, 2014 All storm water management plans are required to obtain certification from a City approved third party reviewer. 14. EROSION CONTROL PLAN Developer must provide an approved erosion control plan by a Registered Civil Engineer. This plan should include all erosion control measures used to retain materials on site. Erosion control notes shall be stated on the plans. 15. WORK SCHEDULE Every 6 months, the developer shall submit a work schedule to the City to show the timetable for all grading/erosion control work in conjunction with this project. 16. OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT Developer shall enter into an Operations & Maintenance Agreement with the City prior to final occupancy. The Agreement shall include the operation and maintenance for non -standard appurtenances in the public road right-of-way that may include, but is not limited to, sidewalk, pavers, and street lights. 17. TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN The developer must submit a traffic control plan by a Registered Traffic Engineer to be approved by the City. The plan shall include a temporary traffic control plan for work in the right of way as well as a routing plan for all vehicles used during construction. All traffic control signs must be reviewed and approved by the City prior to commencement of work. The City has adopted Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) standards for all signage and striping work throughout the City. 18. TRAFFIC SIGNS Traffic control signs shall be placed at locations specified by the City. 19. FULL TRASH CAPTURE SYSTEM The developer will be responsible for installing a full trash capture system/device to capture trash from the onsite storm drain before the storm water reaches the City owned storm drain system and storm inlets in the street adjacent to the project, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. A full capture system or device is a single device or series of devices that traps all particles retained by a 5 mm mesh screen and has a design treatment capacity of not less than the peak flow rate Q resulting from a one-year, one-hour storm in the sub-drainage area (see the Municipal Regional Permit section C.10 for further information/requirements). 20. TRASH MANAGEMENT The proposed pilot trash management plan must be designed to the satisfaction of the Environmental Programs Manager. Additional off-street parking maybe reduced to accommodate the requirements. Clearance by the Public Works Department is needed prior to obtaining a building permit. The following is required: a. Since this group of homes may have five home businesses, at a minimum Homes 1-5 shall be able to provide an extra 64-gallon recycling bin for each “work area” (in addition to the bins for each home). 481 Resolution No. 6734 DP-2014-02 April 22, 2014 b. There shall be spaces drawn on the plan showing the spaces for 23 toters (18 regular + 5 additional for workspaces) to be stored once weekly on the street. c. Since this project would normally be required to have a trash enclosure, the HOA shall fund the City’s time in monitoring the site and the street on collection day to see what impact the work spaces have on the neighborhood, the traffic, and the containment of the trash/recycling and organics using toters in a relatively dense configuration. Additional measures, including, but not limited to, construction of a trash enclosure, may be required if problems persist. 21. REFUSE TRUCK ACCESS Developer must obtain clearance from the Environmental Programs Manager in regards to refuse truck access for the proposed development. 22. STREET TREES Street trees shall be planted within the Public Right of Way to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and shall be of a type approved by the City in accordance with Ordinance No. 125. 23. FIRE PROTECTION Fire sprinklers shall be installed in any new construction to the approval of the City. 24. SANTA CLARA COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT A letter of clearance for the project shall be obtained from the Santa Clara County Fire Department prior to issuance of building permits. Clearance should include written approval of the location of any proposed Fire Backflow Preventers, Fire Departme nt Connections and Fire Hydrants (typically Backflow Preventers should be located on private property adjacent to the public right of way, and fire department connections must be located within 100’ of a Fire Hydrant). 25. FIRE HYDRANT Fire hydrants shall be located as required by the City and Santa Clara County Fire Department as needed. 26. SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY CLEARANCE Provide San Jose Water Company approval for water connection, service capability and location and layout of water lines and backflow preventers before issuance of a building permit approval. 27. DEDICATION OF WATERLINES Developer shall dedicate to the City all water mains and appurtenances installed to City Standards. The developer shall reach an agreement with San Jose Water Company for water s ervice to the subject development. 28. DEDICATION OF UNDERGROUND WATER RIGHTS Developer shall “quit claim” to the City all rights to pump, take or otherwise extract water from the underground basin or any underground strata in the Santa Clara Valley. 29. SANITARY DISTRICT A letter of clearance for the project shall be obtained from the Cupertino Sanitary District prior to issuance of building permits. 482 Resolution No. 6734 DP-2014-02 April 22, 2014 30. UTILITY EASEMENTS Clearance approvals from the agencies with easements on the property (including PG&E, AT&T, and Water Company, and/or equivalent agencies) will be required prior to issuance of building permits. SECTION V: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE SANTA CLARA COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT 1. FIRE SPRINKLERS REQUIRED IN RESIDENCES AND DETACHED WORKSPACES An automatic sprinkler system shall be installed in one-and two-family dwellings (including detached workspaces) as follows: In all new one -and two-family dwellings and in existing one- and two-family dwellings when additions are made that increase the building area to more than 3,600 square feet. Exception: A one-time addition to an existing building that does not total more than 1,000 square feet of building area. NOTE: The owner(s), occupant(s), and any contractor(s) or subcontractor(s) are responsible for consulting with the water purveyor of record in order to determine if any modification or upgrade of the existing water service is required. NOTE: Covered porches, patios, balconies, and attic spaces may require fire sprinkler coverage. A State of California licensed (C-16) Fire Protection Contractor shall submit plans, calculations, a completed permit application and appropriate fees to this department for review and approval prior to beginning their work. Sections 903.2 as adopted in Section 16-40-210 of the CMC. 2. WATER SUPPLY REQUIREMENTS Potable water supplies shall be protected from contamination caused by fire protection water supplies. It is the responsibility of the applicant and any contractors and subcontractors to contact the water purveyor supplying the site of such project, and to comply with the requirements of that purveyor. Such requirements shall be incorporated into the design of any water -based fire protection system, and/or fire suppression water supply systems or storage containers that may be physically connected in any manner to an appliance capable of causing contamination of the potable water supply of the purveyor of record. Final approval of the system(s) under consideration will not be granted by this office until compliance with the requir ements of the water purveyor of record are documented by that purveyor as having been met by the applicant(s). 2010 CFC Sec. 903.3.5 and Health and Safety Code 13114.7. 3. CONSTRUCTION SITE FIRE SAFETY All construction sites must comply with applicable provisions of the CFC Chapter 33 and County Fire Standard Detail and Specification SI-7. Provide appropriate notations on subsequent plan submittals, as appropriate to the project. CFC Chp. 33. 4. PREMISES IDENTIFICATION Approved numbers or addresses shall be placed on all new and existing buildings in such a position as to be plainly visible and legible from the street or road fronting the property. Numbers shall contrast with their background. CFC Sec. 505. 5. CONSTRUCTION PLAN NOTES To prevent plan review and inspection delays, the above noted Development Review Conditions shall be addressed as “notes” on all pending and future plan submittals and any referenced diagrams to be reproduced onto the future plan submittal. 483 Resolution No. 6734 DP-2014-02 April 22, 2014 SECTION VI: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE CUPERTINO SANITARY DISTRICT HOMES 1-5 1. SANITARY SEWER AVAILABILITY Sanitary sewer service is (not) available for Homes 1-5. Sanitary sewer service is available for Home 6. 2. FEES AND PERMITS Cupertino Sanitary District Fees and Permits shall be required for the subject improvements. 3. OWNERSHIP OF ONSITE SEWERS All onsite sewers shall be privately owned. The District will only maintain sewers on Silver Oak Way. This new service line should be 6” in size, with two new manholes (one just outside the public street right of way and one at the tie -in to existing 8” main). The Homeowner’s Association CC&Rs shall include annual requirements for onsite sewer maintenance program and repair program, including backflow device as required. The applicant shall enter into an installers’ agreement with the District which will cover design and construction of sewers, necessary right of way/easements, payment for all fees and costs, furnishing bonds and indemnity. The District may require posting of bond for maintenance work, since if there is SSO, District would be held liable by the Regional Board. This development will not be considered under an individual lateral connection. 4. BACKFLOW DEVICE An approved backflow device (IAPMO or UPC approved) is required since the lowest finished floor with plumbing is less than (1’) foot above the rim of the nearest upstream manhole (O.C. 4105). The backflow device will be inspected to verify existence and serviceability by a District Inspector at the time of video inspection. District to provide Building Department with written notification upon completion of inspection (O.C. 5104). 5. PROPERTY LINE CLEANOUT Install new property line cleanout. Property line cleanout must be within 5 feet of the property line. Cleanout shall be the same diameter as the street portion of the service lateral. Gravity lateral is 4” diameter minimum (O.C. 4101). 6. INFORMATION REQUIRED ON PLANS a. Show upstream sanitary sewer manhole with existing rim and invert elevation, main, and lateral on plans (O.C. 4104). b. If street dedication is required, street portion of existing sanitary sewer lateral is to be extended by permit from the District to the new property line (O.C. 4104). c. Sanitary sewer connection in accordance with approved improvement plans (O.C. 5205). d. Cupertino Sanitary District Sewer Notes and Signature Block shall be included on improvement plans for District approval. District notes shall be located on the same sheet as the City of Cupertino Approval signature block. District notes are available on the Distr ict’s website under “Contractors” (O.C. 5100). 484 Resolution No. 6734 DP-2014-02 April 22, 2014 7. CONNECTION PERMIT A Cupertino Sanitary District Connection Permit is required for the proposed improvements (O.C. 8100) 8. LATERAL PERMIT A Cupertino Sanitary District Lateral Permit is required for the proposed improvements (O.C. 8300). Lateral Permit will only be issued to Licensed Underground Contractor registered to work in the Cupertino Sanitary District. Instructions for Contractor’s registration can be found on the District’s website under “Contractors.” (O.C. 5100). 9. SEWER SERVICE CHARGES Sewer service charges $27.50/month, which is due and payable prior to clearance for City of Cupertino Final Inspection. 10. RUNOFF TO SANITARY SEWER PROHIBITED Storm water from surface or roof drains, other general surface runoff water or condensate from any residential HVAC equipment shall not be discharged to the sanitary sewer. 11. CLOSED-CIRCUIT VIDEO Closed-circuit video of the new property line cleanout, point of connection and District lateral is required prior to clearance for City of Cupertino Final Inspection. Owner to call District at least 48 hours prior to video inspection to schedule a District Inspector. District to provide Building Department with written notification upon completion of inspection (O.C. 5104). PASSED AND ADOPTED this 22nd day of April, 2014, Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Chair Brophy, Gong, Sun, Takahashi NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Vice Chair Lee ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: none ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: none ATTEST: APPROVED: /s/Gary Chao /s/Paul Brophy Gary Chao Paul Brophy, Chair Assist. Director of Community Development Planning Commission G:\Planning\PDREPORT\RES\2014\DP-2014-02 res.doc 485 ASA-2014-02 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. 6735 OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE APPROVAL PERMIT TO ALLOW THE DEMOLITION OF AN ABANDONED AUTOMOBILE SERVICE STATION AND CONSTRUCT SIX RESIDENTIAL UNITS, INCLUDING FIVE LIVE-WORK UNITS WITH DETACHED WORKSPACES, ALONG WITH ASSOCIATED SITE AND OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS, LOCATED AT 10121 N. FOOTHILL BLVD SECTION I: PROJECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: ASA-2014-02 Applicant: Tate Development Property Owner: Foothill Auto Service & Detail, Inc. Location: 10121 N. Foothill Boulevard (APN 342-32-070) SECTION II: FINDINGS FOR AN ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE APPROVAL PERMIT: WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for an Architectural and Site Approval Permit as described in Section I. of this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Committee has recommended adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration; and WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given as required by the Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held at least one public hearing in regard to the application; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds as follows with regard to this application: 1. The proposal, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience; Given that the project is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance; has been designed to be compatible with and respectful of adjoining l and uses; and that relevant mitigation measures will be incorporated as part of the CEQA review process to mitigate potential impacts to a less than significant level , the project will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vici nity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience. 2. The proposal is consistent with the purposes of Chapter 19.168, Architectural and Site Review, of the Cupertino Municipal Code, the General Plan, any specifi c plan, zoning ordinances, applicable 486 Resolution No. 6735 ASA-2014-02 April 22, 2014 planned development permit, conditional use permits, variances, subdivision maps or other entitlements to use which regulate the subject property including, but not limited to, adherence to the following specific criteria: a) Abrupt changes in building scale have been avoided. A gradual transition related to height and bulk has been achieved between new and existing buildings. The project is compatible with the scale of the surrounding residential buildings and streetscape in terms of height, bulk, and form. The proposed two-story height of the residences would generally be about the same height as the surrounding one-story duplex residences since the building pad area is lower in elevation than the duplex residences. b) Design harmony between new and existing buildings have been preserved and the materials, textures and colors of new buildings harmonize with adjacent development with design and color schemes, and with the future character of the neighborhood and purposes of the zone in which it is situated. The location, height and materials of walls, fencing, hedges and screen planting harmonize with adjacent development. Unsightly storage areas, utility installations and unsightly elements of parking lots have been concealed. Ground cover or various types of pavements have been used to prevent dust and erosion, and the unnecessary destruction of existing healthy trees have been avoided. Lighting for development is adequate to meet safety requirements as specified by the engineering and building departments, and shielding to adjoining property owners. The project is designed in a modern architectural theme with redwood cladding to mimic the natural features of the local foothills. Both the residences and workspaces featur e alternating flat and pitched roof forms with metal canopies above entries and workplace storefronts to provide visual interest. The location, height, and massing of the buildings are compatible with the adjacent and surrounding developments. The proposed siting of the two-story residences also minimize shading impacts to adjoining residences given the project’s lower grade than its adjoining neighbors. Low pedestrian-scale walls are proposed along the project frontages, consistent what is typically allowed in residential zones. All above ground utility installations are required to be screened from public view. The design has incorporated decorative paving material that maximizes permeability and water-efficient landscaping, as well as lighting to illuminate pedestrian paths and vehicular routes, which will not glare onto adjoining properties. The City’s consultant arborist confirmed that none of the five existing Monterey Pine trees are suitable for preservation. c) The number, location, color, size, height, lighting and landscaping of outdoor advertising signs and structures have been designed to minimize traffic hazard, positively affect the general appearance of the neighborhood and harmonize with adjacent development. If workspace signage is requested, the project is required to submit a master sign program in order to ensure that exterior signage is designed and located to minimize traffic hazards, positively affect the general appearance of the neighborhood, and harmonize with adjacent development. d) This new development has been designed to protect residents from noise, traffic, light and visually intrusive effects by use of buffering, setbacks, landscaping, walls and other appropriate design measures. The project has been designed to protected residents from noise through traffic, light and visually intrusive effects by use of buffering, setbacks, landscaping, walls and other appropriate design measures. Residences 487 Resolution No. 6735 ASA-2014-02 April 22, 2014 along Foothill Boulevard are buffered from traffic and noise through greater setbacks and the detached workspaces, and mitigation measures that mitigate potential impacts to a less than significant level . Landscaping and trees are in provided along the project frontage and through the interior to shade and buffer the site from the street. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of the initial study, maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution beginning on PAGE 2 thereof,: A Mitigated Negative Declaration (Application no. EA-2014-01) is hereby recommended for adoption; and the application for an Architectural and Site Approval Permit, Application no. ASA-2014-02 is hereby recommended for approval and that the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this resolution are based and contained in the Public Hearing record concerning Application no. ASA-2014-02 as set forth in the Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting of April 22, 2014, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 1. APPROVED EXHIBITS Approval recommendation is based on the plan set received April 16, 2014 consisting of 39 sheets labeled A0-A19, AL1.1-AL1-4, C1-C5, TM, L0, L0.1, L0.2, L1, L2, L2.1, and L2.2, entitled, “Foothill Blvd PUD, 10121 N Foothill Blvd., Cupertino, CA 95014,” drawn by Modative, SMP Engineers, and Miriam Rainville; except as may be amended by conditions in this resolution. 2. ACCURACY OF PROJECT PLANS The applicant/property owner is responsible to verify all pertinent property data including but not limited to property boundary locations, building setbacks, property size, building square footage, any relevant easements and/or construction records. Any misrepresentation of any property data may invalidate this approval and may require additional review. 3. CONCURRENT APPROVAL CONDITIONS The conditions of approval contained in file nos. Z-2014-01, TM-2014-01, DP-2014-02, and TR-2014- 08 shall be applicable to this approval. 4. TOTAL OVERALL HEIGHT OF HOME 6 The total overall height of Home 6 as identified on the plans shall be reduced by five (5) feet. Height reduction measures may be achieved by grading, wall, and roofline changes. 4. FINAL BUILDING DESIGN The final building design and exterior treatment plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development prior to issuance of building permits. The Director of Community Development may approve additional designs or make minor variations as deemed appropriate. The final building exterior plan shall closely resemble the details shown on the original approved plans. Any exterior changes determined to be substantial by the Director of Community Development shall require a modification approval. 488 Resolution No. 6735 ASA-2014-02 April 22, 2014 5. FINAL ARCHITECTURAL, SITE, AND LANDSCAPING DETAILS Prior to building permit issuance, the final architectural, site, and landscaping details shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development, including, but not limited to: a. Building design and exterior treatments b. Frontage details c. Paving details d. Landscaping and tree selection and arrangement (including trees for privacy screening) e. Private common open space area f. Screening of boundary retaining walls g. Fencing and lighting details 6. FINAL LOCATION AND DESIGN DETAILS OF HOME 4 AND 5 TRASH ENCLOSURE Prior to building permit issuance, the final location and design details of the Home 4 and 5 trash enclosures shall be reviewed and approved by the Directors of Community Development and Public Works. The construction plans shall contain the following revisions/clarifications: a. Given that the trash enclosures are a focal point, higher quality wall materials and flowering vine landscaping shall be considered. b. The location shall be adjusted as determined by Public Works and Community Development staff so there is adequate turning radius for the ADA parking space. c. A metal roof shall be provided. d. The trash enclosure shall be consistent with the City’s Trash Enclosure Gui delines. 7. PRIVACY PLANTING The final privacy-planting plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division prior to issuance of building permits. The variety, size, planting distance shall be consistent with the City’s requirements. 8. FRONTAGE FENCING/WALLS All fences and walls within the Foothill Blvd and Silver Oak Way frontages (within 12 feet of the property line) shall not exceed 3 feet high as measured from the adjoining finish grade. 9. RESURFACING OF EXISTING SITE WALLS Prior to final occupancy of site permits, the residential side existing site walls along the west and south sides shall be finished to match the coating material on the project side to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development, provided that consent is obtained from the neighboring residential property owners. 10. INDEMNIFICATION To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the “indemnified parties”) from and against a ny claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside, or void this ordinance or any permit or approval authorized hereby for the project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City its actual attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its choice. 489 Resolution No. 6735 ASA-2014-02 April 22, 2014 11. NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees, dedication requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(d) (1), these Conditions constitute written notice of a statement of t he amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations, and other exactions. You are hereby further notified that the 90-day approval period in which you may protest these fees, dedications, reservations, and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a), has begun. If you fail to file a protest within this 90-day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such exactions. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 22nd day of April, 2014, Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Chair Brophy, Gong, Sun, Takahashi NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Vice Chair Lee ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: none ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: none ATTEST: APPROVED: /s/Gary Chao /s/Paul Brophy Gary Chao Paul Brophy, Chair Assist. Director of Community Development Planning Commission 490 Resolution No. 6735 ASA-2014-02 April 22, 2014 G:\Planning\PDREPORT\RES\2014\ASA-2014-02 res.doc 491 TM-2014-01 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. 6736 OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A TENTATIVE MAP TO SUBDIVIDE A .62 NET ACRE PARCEL INTO SIX RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND ONE COMMON AREA LOT LOCATED AT 10121 N. FOOTHILL BLVD SECTION I: PROJECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: TM-2014-01 Applicant: Tate Development Property Owner: Foothill Auto Service & Detail, Inc. Location: 10121 N. Foothill Boulevard (APN 342-32-070) SECTION II: FINDINGS FOR A TENTATIVE MAP: WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for a Tentative Map as described in Section I. of this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Committee has recommended adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration; and WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given as required by the Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held at least one public hearing in regard to the application; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds as follows with regard to this application: a. That the proposed subdivision map is consistent with the City of Cupertino General Plan. The proposed tentative map is in conformance with the General Plan Land Use Map of the City of Cupertino, since it is consistent with the existing land use designation (Commercial/Residential). In addition, the subdivision design is consistent with General Policies that encourage development to activate streetscapes, be oriented to public streets, and avoid walls and gates that isolate developments from the community. b. That the design and improvements of the proposed subdivision are consistent with the General Plan. The subdivision design and improvements are in conformance with the General Plan. The improvements will enhance pedestrian and vehicular safety and maximize site landscaping and permeability. c. That the site is physically suitable for the type and intensity of development contemplated under the approved subdivision. 492 Resolution No. 6736 TM-2014-01 April 22, 2014 The property involved is physically suitable in size and shape to conform to development standards and is appropriately configured to accommodate reasonable single-family dwelling units and workspaces. The proposed subdivision is compatible with the adjoining land uses and no physical constraints are present that would conflict with anticipated land use development. d. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development. The property involved is physically suitable in size and shape to conform to development standards and is appropriately configured to accommodate reasonable single-family dwelling units and workspaces. The proposed density is 6.89 dwelling units per acre, where 15 dwelling units per acre are allowed. e. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage nor substantially and unavoidable injure fish and wildlife or their habitat. The proposed subdivision design is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage nor substantially and unavoidably injure fish and wildlife or their habitat; mitigation measures related to biological resources will be incorporated as part of the CEQA review process to mitigate potential impacts to a less than significant level. f. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements associated there with is not likely to cause serious public health problems. The proposed subdivision design or type of improvements associated there with is not likely to cause serious public health problems, as relevant mitigation measures will be incorporated as part of the CEQA review process to mitigate potential impacts to a less than significant level. g. That the design of the subdivision and its associated improvements will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. The proposed subdivision design or type of improvements will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision; a portion of the property will be dedicated to the City for street frontage improvements, and a private road is proposed for access to the lots created by the proposed subdivision. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of the initial study, maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution beginning on PAGE 2 thereof,: A Mitigated Negative Declaration (Application no. EA-2014-01) is hereby recommended for adoption; and the application for a Tentative Map, Application no. TM-2014-01 is hereby recommended for approval and that the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this resolution are based and contained in the Public Hearing record concerning Application no. TM-2014-01 as set forth in the Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting of April 22, 2014, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. 493 Resolution No. 6736 TM-2014-01 April 22, 2014 SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. Planning Division: 1. APPROVED EXHIBITS Approval recommendation is based on the Tentative Map sheet labeled TM in the plan set received April 16, 2014 consisting of 39 sheets labeled A0-A19, AL1.1-AL1-4, C1-C5, TM, L0, L0.1, L0.2, L1, L2, L2.1, and L2.2, entitled, “Foothill Blvd PUD, 10121 N Foothill Blvd., Cupertino, CA 95014,” drawn by Modative, SMP Engineers, and Miriam Rainville; except as may be amended by conditions in this resolution. 2. ACCURACY OF PROJECT PLANS The applicant/property owner is responsible to verify all pertinent property data including but not limited to property boundary locations, building setbacks, property size, building square footage, any relevant easements and/or construction records. Any misrepresentation of any property data may invalidate this approval and may require additional review. 3. CONCURRENT APPROVAL CONDITIONS The conditions of approval contained in file nos. Z-2014-01, DP-2014-02, ASA-2014-02, and TR-2014- 08 shall be applicable to this approval. 4. TENTATIVE MAP APPROVAL Tentative Map approval is granted to subdivide a .62 net acre parcel into seven lots as described below: Lot 1 (Home 1 and workspace): 4,750 s.f. (.10 acres) Lot 2 (Home 2 and workspace): 3,603 s.f. (.08 acres) Lot 3 (Home 3 and workspace): 3,603 s.f. (.08 acres) Lot 4 (Home 4 and workspace): 3,103 s.f. (.07 acres) Lot 5 (Home 5 and workspace): 3,177 s.f. (.07 acres) Lot 6 (Home 6): 4,119 s.f. (.09 acres) Lot 7 (Common area): 4,290 s.f. (.09 acres) 5. FORMATION OF A HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION (HOA) AND COVENANTS, CONDITIONS, AND RESTRICTIONS (CC&Rs): A Homeowner’s Association shall be formed to maintain the common areas of the property. The Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (CC&Rs) shall be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney and the Director of Community Development prior to recordation of final map. A deposit determined by staff shall be provided for the City Attorney’s review. The CC&Rs shall include, but not be limited to the following terms: a. The members/board shall meet at a minimum of once/year b. The Association dues shall cover: i. Maintenance of common area on the property including driveways, walkways, hardscaping, parking, landscaping and accessory items, such as trash bins/areas, on and off -site landscaping and trees, outside trash bins, fences, etc, ii. Building and site repair on a regular schedule, or as otherwise necessary, and building renovation and replacement as necessary. 494 Resolution No. 6736 TM-2014-01 April 22, 2014 c. Private roadway and driveway maintenance d. Protection and maintenance of perimeter privacy trees/shrubs e. Any changes to the CC&R’s must be reviewed and approved by the City f. Disbanding of the Association shall require an amendment to the development permit. g. Usage of workspaces h. Permitted and prohibited workspace uses i. Workspace performance standards j. Signage for the workspaces k. Procedures for maintenance in the City’s right-of-way l. Procedures for architectural and site modifications i. Environmental mitigation monitoring j. Compliance with other project conditions of approval k. Trash Management: The HOA shall fund the City’s time in monitoring the site and the street on collection days to see what impact the work spaces have on the neighborhood, the traffic, and the containment of the trash/recycling and organics using toters in a relatively dense configuration. Additional measures, including, but not limited to, construction of a trash enclosure , may be required if problems persist. 6. ROAD MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT: A reciprocal maintenance agreement shall be required for all parcels which share a common private drive or private roadway with one or more parcels. Said agreement shall be recorded in conjunction with recordation of the final map, and shall be subject to prior approval as to form and content of the City Attorney. 7. DEMOLITION OF STRUCTURES Prior to recordation of the final map, the applicant shall demolish and remove all structures on the property. All demolished buildings and site materials shall be recycled to the maximum extent feasible. 8. EXPIRATION The approval or conditional approval of a tentative subdivision map shall expire thirty -six (36) months from the date of City Council approval. An extension or extensions may be approved as provided in Section 18.20.080, or when required by the Subdivision Map Act. 9. CONSULTATION WITH OTHER DEPARTMENTS The applicant is responsible to consult with other departments and/or agencies with regard to the proposed project for additional conditions and requirements. Any misrepresentation of any submitted data may invalidate an approval by the Community Development Department. 10. INDEMNIFICATION To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indem nify and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the “indemnified parties”) from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside, or void this ordinance or any permit or approval authorized hereby for the project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City its actual attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in 495 Resolution No. 6736 TM-2014-01 April 22, 2014 defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its choice. 11. NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees, dedication requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(d) (1), these Conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations, and other exactions. You are hereby further notified that the 90-day approval period in which you may protest these fees, dedications, reservations, and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a), has begun. If you fail to file a protest within this 90-day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such exactions. SECTION IV: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 1. STREET WIDENING Public street widening and dedications shall be provided in accordance with City Standards and specifications and as required by the City Engineer. The proposed detached sidewalk on Foothill Blvd will require 3’ of dedication along the project frontage. It is not acceptable to reduce the pavement width to achieve the 11 ’ wide landscape and sidewalk area. No narrowing of Foothill Blvd will be permitted. 2. STREET IMPROVEMENTS Curbs and gutters, driveways, sidewalks, pavement and related structures shall be installed in accordance with grades and standards as specified by the City Engineer. Project shall construct two new ADA ramps at the northwest and southwest corners of the Foothill Blvd/Silver Oak Way intersection and improve up to half of street along the project frontage on Silver Oak Way and Foothill Blvd. Project shall extend a new storm drain main west from Foothill Blvd along Silver Oak Way to serve the project. No connection to the back of the existing catch basin will be permitted. In addition, the project shall construct a storm drain on Silver Oak Way. 3. PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE IMPROVEMENTS Developer shall provide pedestrian and bicycle related improvements consistent with the Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan and the Pedestrian Transportation Guidelines, and as approved by the City Engineer. The City Engineer shall have the final authority to approve the proposed pedestrian improvement at Foothill Blvd & Silver Oak Way. If the proposed bulb -out is approved, additional improvements may be required such as storm inlet and lateral to address drainage. 4. STREET LIGHTING INSTALLATION Street lighting shall be installed and shall be as approved by the City Engineer. Lighting fixtures shall be positioned so as to preclude glare and other forms of visual interference to adjoining 496 Resolution No. 6736 TM-2014-01 April 22, 2014 properties, and shall be no higher than the maximum height permitted by the zone in which the site is located. 5. GRADING Grading shall be as approved and required by the City Engineer in accordance with Chapter 16.08 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. 401 Certifications and 404 permits mayb e required. Please contact Army Corp of Engineers and/or Regional Water Quality Control Board as appropriate. 6. DRAINAGE Drainage shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Hydrology and pre - and post- development hydraulic calculations must be provided to indicate whether additional storm water control measures are to be constructed or renovated. The storm drain system may include, but is not limited to, subsurface storage of peak stormwater flows (as needed), bioretention basins, vegetated swales, and hydrodynamic separators to reduce the amount of runoff from the site and improve water quality. The storm drain system shall be designed to detain water on -site (e.g., via buried pipes, retention systems or other approved systems and improvements) as necessary to avoid an increase of the ten percent flood water surface elevation to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Any storm water overflows or surface sheeting should be directed away from neighboring private properties and to the public right of way as much as reasonably possible. 7. UNDERGROUND UTILITIES Developer shall comply with the requirements of the Underground Utilities Ordinance No. 331 and other related Ordinances and regulations of the City of Cupertino, and shall coordinate with affected utility providers for installation of underground utility devices. Developer shall submit detailed plans showing utility underground provisions. Said plans shall be subject to prior approval of the affected Utility provider and the City Enginee r. 8. IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT The project developer shall enter into a development agreement with the City of Cupertino providing for payment of fees, including but not limited to checking and inspection fees, storm drain fees, park dedication fees and fees for under grounding of utilities. Said agreement shall be executed prior to issuance of construction permits. Fees: a. Checking & Inspection Fees: $ Per current fee schedule ($2,707 or 5%) b. Grading Permit: $ Per current fee schedule ($2,542.00 or 6%) c. Development Maintenance Deposit: $ 1,000.00 d. Storm Drainage Fee: $ TBD e. Power Cost: ** f. Map Checking Fees: $ Per current fee schedule ($8,213.00) g. Park Fees: $ Per current fee schedule ($9,000 per unit) h. Street Tree $338 per tree to be installed by City ** Based on the latest effective PG&E rate schedule approved by the PUC Bonds: Faithful Performance Bond: 100% of Off-site and On-site Improvements 497 Resolution No. 6736 TM-2014-01 April 22, 2014 Labor & Material Bond: 100% of Off-site and On-site Improvement On-site Grading Bond: 100% of site improvements. -The fees described above are imposed based upon the current fee schedule adopted by the City Council. However, the fees imposed herein may be modified at the time of recordation of a final map or issuance of a building permit in the event of said change or changes, the fees changed at that time will reflect the then current fee schedule. 9. TRANSFORMERS Electrical transformers, telephone cabinets and similar equipment shall be placed in underground vaults. The developer must receive written approval from both the Public Works Department and the Community Development Department prior to installation of any above ground equipment. Should above ground equipment be permitted by the City, equipment and enclosures shall be screened with fencing and landscaping such that said equipment is not visible from public street areas, as determined by the Community Development Department. Transformers shall not be located in the front or side building setback area. 10. WATER BACKFLOW PREVENTERS Domestic and Fire Water Backflow preventers and similar above ground equipment shall be placed away from the public right of way and site driveways to a location approved by the Cupertino Planning Department, Santa Clara County Fire Department and the water company. 11. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES Utilize Best Management Practices (BMPs), as required by the State Water Resources Control Board, for construction activity, which disturbs soil. BMP plans shall be included in grading and street improvement plans. 12. NPDES CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PERMIT When and where it is required by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), the developer must obtain a Notice of Intent (NOI) from the SWRCB, which encompasses preparation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), use of construction Best Management Practices (BMPs) to control storm water runoff quality, and BMP inspection and maintenance. 13. C.3 REQUIREMENTS C.3 regulated improvements are required for all projects creating and/or replacing 10,000 S.F. or more of impervious surface (collectively over the entire project site). The developer shall reserve a minimum of 4% of developable surface area for the placement of low impact development measures, for storm water treatment, on the tentative map, unless an alternative storm water treatment plan, that satisfies C.3 requirements, is approved by the City Engineer. The developer must include the use and maintenance of site design, source control and storm water treatment Best Management Practices (BMPs), which must be designed per approved numeric sizing criteria. A Storm Water Management Plan, Storm Water Facilities Easement Agreement, Storm Water Facilities Operation and Maintenance Agreement, and certification of ongoing operation and maintenance of treatment BMPs are each required. 498 Resolution No. 6736 TM-2014-01 April 22, 2014 All storm water management plans are required to obtain certification from a City approved third party reviewer. 14. EROSION CONTROL PLAN Developer must provide an approved erosion control plan by a Registered Civil Engineer. This plan should include all erosion control measures used to retain materials on site. Erosion control notes shall be stated on the plans. 15. WORK SCHEDULE Every 6 months, the developer shall submit a work schedule to the City to show the timetable for all grading/erosion control work in conjunction with this project. 16. OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT Developer shall enter into an Operations & Maintenance Agreement with the City prior to final occupancy. The Agreement shall include the operation and maintenance for non-standard appurtenances in the public road right-of-way that may include, but is not limited to, sidewalk, pavers, and street lights. 17. TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN The developer must submit a traffic control plan by a Registered Traffic Engineer to be a pproved by the City. The plan shall include a temporary traffic control plan for work in the right of way as well as a routing plan for all vehicles used during construction. All traffic control signs must be reviewed and approved by the City prior to commencement of work. The City has adopted Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) standards for all signage and striping work throughout the City. 18. TRAFFIC SIGNS Traffic control signs shall be placed at locations specified by the City. 19. FULL TRASH CAPTURE SYSTEM The developer will be responsible for installing a full trash capture system/device to capture trash from the onsite storm drain before the storm water reaches the City owned storm drain system and storm inlets in the street adjacent to the project, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. A full capture system or device is a single device or series of devices that traps all particles retained by a 5 mm mesh screen and has a design treatment capacity of not less than the peak flow rate Q resulting from a one-year, one-hour storm in the sub-drainage area (see the Municipal Regional Permit section C.10 for further information/requirements). 20. TRASH MANAGEMENT The proposed pilot trash management plan must be designed to the satisfaction of the Environmental Programs Manager. Additional off -street parking maybe reduced to accommodate the requirements. Clearance by the Public Works Department is needed prior to obtaining a building permit. The following is required: a. Since this group of homes may have five home businesses, at a minimum Homes 1-5 shall be able to provide an extra 64-gallon recycling bin for each “work area” (in addition to the bins for each home). 499 Resolution No. 6736 TM-2014-01 April 22, 2014 b. There shall be spaces drawn on the plan showing the spaces for 23 toters (18 regular + 5 additional for workspaces) to be stored once weekly on the street. c. Since this project would normally be required to have a trash enclosure, the HOA shall fund the City’s time in monitoring the site and the street on collection day to see what impact the work spaces have on the neighborhood, the traffic, and the containment of the trash/recycling and organics using toters in a relatively dense configuration. Additional measures, including, but not limited to, construction of a trash enclosure, may be required if problems persist. 21. REFUSE TRUCK ACCESS Developer must obtain clearance from the Environmental Programs Manager in regards to refuse truck access for the proposed development. 22. STREET TREES Street trees shall be planted within the Public Righ t of Way to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and shall be of a type approved by the City in accordance with Ordinance No. 125. 23. FIRE PROTECTION Fire sprinklers shall be installed in any new construction to the approval of the City. 24. SANTA CLARA COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT A letter of clearance for the project shall be obtained from the Santa Clara County Fire Department prior to issuance of building permits. Clearance should include written approval of the location of any proposed Fire Backflow Preventers, Fire Department Connections and Fire Hydrants (typically Backflow Preventers should be located on private property adjacent to the public right of way, and fire department connections must be located within 100’ of a Fire Hydrant). 25. FIRE HYDRANT Fire hydrants shall be located as required by the City and Santa Clara County Fire Department as needed. 26. SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY CLEARANCE Provide San Jose Water Company approval for water connection, service capability and location and layout of water lines and backflow preventers before issuance of a building permit approval. 27. DEDICATION OF WATERLINES Developer shall dedicate to the City all water mains and appurtenances installed to City Standards. The developer shall reach an agreement with San Jose Water Company for water service to the subject development. 28. DEDICATION OF UNDERGROUND WATER RIGHTS Developer shall “quit claim” to the City all rights to pump, take or otherwise extract water from the underground basin or any underground strata in the Santa Clara Valley. 29. SANITARY DISTRICT A letter of clearance for the project shall be obtained from the Cupertino Sanitary District prior to issuance of building permits. 500 Resolution No. 6736 TM-2014-01 April 22, 2014 30. UTILITY EASEMENTS Clearance approvals from the agencies with easements on the property (includin g PG&E, AT&T, and Water Company, and/or equivalent agencies) will be required prior to issuance of building permits. CITY ENGINEER’S CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE OF ENGINEERING/SURVEYING CONDITIONS (Section 66474.10 of the California Government Code) I hereby certify that the engineering and surveying conditions specified in Section IV. Of this resolution conform to generally accepted engineering practices /s/Timm Borden Timm Borden, Director of Public Works City Engineer CA License 45512 PASSED AND ADOPTED this 22nd day of April, 2014, Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Chair Brophy, Gong, Sun, Takahashi NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Vice Chair Lee ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: none ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: none ATTEST: APPROVED: /s/Gary Chao /s/Paul Brophy Gary Chao Paul Brophy, Chair Assist. Director of Community Development Planning Commission G:\Planning\PDREPORT\RES\2014\TM-2014-01 res.doc 501 TR-2014-08 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. 6737 OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A TREE REMOVAL PERMIT TO ALLOW THE REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT OF FIVE MONTEREY PINE TREES LOCATED AT 10121 N. FOOTHILL BLVD SECTION I: PROJECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: TR-2014-08 Applicant: Tate Development Property Owner: Foothill Auto Service & Detail, Inc. Location: 10121 N. Foothill Boulevard (APN 342-32-070) SECTION II: FINDINGS FOR TREE REMOVAL PERMIT: WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for a Tree Removal Permit as described in Section I. of this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Committee has recommended a doption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration; and WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given as required by the Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held at least one public hearing in regard to the application; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds as follows with regard to this application: a) That the trees are irreversibly diseased, are in danger of falli ng, can cause potential damage to existing or proposed essential structures, or interferes with private on -site utility services and cannot be controlled or remedied through reasonable relocation or modification of the structure or utility services; The City’s consulting arborist has determined that the trees proposed for removal are all in conflict with the proposed new buildings and site improvements, and, given their condition, are not suitable for preservation or relocation. b) That the location of the trees restricts the economic enjoyment of the property by severely limiting the use of property in a manner not typically experienced by owners of similarly zoned and situated property, and the applicant has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the approval authority that there are no reasonable alternatives to preserve the tree(s). 502 Resolution No. 6737 TR-2014-08 April 22, 2014 The City’s consulting arborist has determined that the trees proposed for removal are all in conflict with the proposed new buildings and site improvements, and, given their condition, are not suitable for preservation or relocation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of the initial study, maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution beginning on PAGE 2 thereof,: A Mitigated Negative Declaration (Application no. EA-2014-01) is hereby recommended for adoption; and the application for a Tree Removal Permit, Application no. TR-2014-08 is hereby recommended for approval and that the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this resolution are based and contained in the Public Hearing record concerning Application no. DP-2014-02 as set forth in the Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting of April 22, 2014, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. Planning Division: 1. APPROVED EXHIBITS Approval recommendation is based on the plan set received April 16, 2014 consisting of 39 sheets labeled A0-A19, AL1.1-AL1-4, C1-C5, TM, L0, L0.1, L0.2, L1, L2, L2.1, and L2.2, entitled, “Foothill Blvd PUD, 10121 N Foothill Blvd., Cupertino, CA 95014,” drawn by Modative, SMP Engineers, and Miriam Rainville; and the City’s consulting arborist report entitled, “An Evaluation of the Existing Trees – 10121 N. Foothill Boulevard, Cupertino, California,” prepared by Michael Bench, Registered Consulting Arborist # WE-1897 dated March 22, 2013 except as may be amended by conditions in this resolution. 2. CONCURRENT APPROVAL CONDITIONS The conditions of approval contained in file nos. Z-2014-01, TM-2014-01, ASA-2014-02, and DP-2014- 02 shall be applicable to this approval. 3. TREE REPLACEMENTS AND FINAL PLANTING PLAN The applicant shall plant replacement trees in accordance with the replacement requirements of the Protected Tree Ordinance. The trees shall be planted prior to final occupancy of site permits. The final planting plan shall be reviewed and approved by the D irector of Community Development with consultation by the City Arborist prior to issuance of building permits. The Director of Community Development shall have the discretion to require additional tree replacements as deemed necessary. The City Arborist shall confirm that the replacement trees were planted properly and according to plan prior to final occupancy. 503 Resolution No. 6737 TR-2014-08 April 22, 2014 4. TREE REPLACEMENT BOND The applicant shall provide a tree replacement bond in an amount determined by the City Arborist prior to removals and issuance of demolition and grading permits. The bond shall be returned after the required tree replacements have been planted and verified by the City Arborist. 5. SCHEDULING OF TREE REMOVALS TO AVOID IMPACTS TO NESTING BIRDS The project shall implement the following measures to avoid impacts to nesting birds: a) 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. b) 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 & Game (CDFG), designate a construction-free buffer zone (typically 250 feet) around the nest until the end of the nesting activity. Buffers for other birds shall be determined by the ornithologist. c) 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 grading or tree removal. 6. CONSULTATION WITH OTHER DEPARTMENTS The applicant is responsible to consult with other departments and/or agencies with regard to the proposed project for additional conditions and requirements. Any misrepresentation of any submitted data may invalidate an approval by the Community Development Department. 7. INDEMNIFICATION To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the “indemnified parties”) from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside, or void this ordinance or any permit or approval authorized hereby for the project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City its actual attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its choice. 8. NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees, dedication requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant to Government Code Section 504 Resolution No. 6737 TR-2014-08 April 22, 2014 66020(d) (1), these Conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations, and other exactions. You are hereby further notified that the 90-day approval period in which you may protest these fees, dedications, reservations, and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a), has begun. If you fail to file a protest within this 90-day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such exactions. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 22nd day of April, 2014, Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Chair Brophy, Gong, Sun, Takahashi NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Vice Chair Lee ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: none ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: none ATTEST: APPROVED: /s/Gary Chao /s/Paul Brophy Gary Chao Paul Brophy, Chair Assist. Director of Community Development Planning Commission G:\Planning\PDREPORT\RES\2014\TR-2014-08 res.doc 505 Z-2014-01 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. 6738 OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE REZONING OF A .87 GROSS ACRE PARCEL FROM P(CG) – PLANNED DEVELOPMENT GENERAL COMMERCIAL TO P(CG, RES) – PLANNED DEVELOPMENT GENERAL COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL, LOCATED AT 10121 N. FOOTHILL BLVD SECTION I: PROJECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: Z-2014-01 Applicant: Tate Development Property Owner: Foothill Auto Service & Detail, Inc. Location: 10121 N. Foothill Boulevard (APN 342-32-070) SECTION II: FINDINGS FOR A REZONING: WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for a Rezoning as described in Section I. of this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Committee has recommended adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration; and WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given as required by the Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held at least one public hearing in regard to the application; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds as follows with regard to this application: a. That the proposed zoning is in accord with this title of the Municipal Code and the City's Comprehensive General Plan. The rezoning is in conformance with the General Plan Land Use Map of the City of Cupertino, since the zoning designation would be consistent with the existing land use designation (Commercial/Residential). The rezoning has been processed in accord with Chapter 19.152 of the City’s Municipal Code. b. The proposed zoning is in compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). A mitigated negative declaration (MND) was prepared which analyzed biological resources, cultural resources, hazardous material, noise, air quality, geology and soils, water quality, parkland and other potential environmental impacts in accordance with CEQA requirements. The Initial Study determined that these 506 Resolution No. 6738 Z-2014-01 April 22, 2014 potential environmental impacts were either less than significant or will be less than significant with implementation of the required mitigation measures identified in the MND. c. The site is physically suitable (including, but not limited to, access, provision of utilities, compatibility with adjoining land uses, and absence of physical constraints) for the requested zoning designation(s) and anticipated land use development(s). The property involved is adequate in size and shape to conform to the new zoning designation and is appropriately configured to accommodate residential uses. The rezoning is compatible with the adjoining land uses and no physical constraints are present that would conflict with anticipated land use development. Provision of utilities and related infrastructure to service the property are required as part of the future development. d. The proposed zoning will promote orderly development of the City. The rezoning promotes the orderly development of the city in that the rezoning facilitates the development of additional housing units where municipal services are currently available. The proposed rezoning is consistent with General Plan Policy 2-32 which discourages exclusive general commercial uses and encourages developments that are not in an identified commercial area (such as the project site) to include a neighborhood commercial presence along the street with storefronts and residential uses. e. That the proposed zoning is not detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of subject parcels. The proposed rezoning is not detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals and general welfare of t he persons residing or working in the neighborhood of subject parcels, 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 RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of the initial study, maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution beginn ing on PAGE 2 thereof,: A Mitigated Negative Declaration (Application no. EA-2014-01) is hereby recommended for adoption; and the application for a Rezoning, Application no. Z-2014-01 is hereby recommended for approval and that the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this resolution are based and contained in the Public Hearing record concerning Application no. Z-2014-01 as set forth in the Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting of April 22, 2014, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 1. APPROVED EXHIBITS Approval recommendation is based on Exhibit A: Zoning plat map and legal description. 2. ACCURACY OF PROJECT PLANS The applicant/property owner is responsible to verify all pertinent property data including but not limited to property boundary locations, building setbacks, property size, building square footage, 507 Resolution No. 6738 Z-2014-01 April 22, 2014 any relevant easements and/or construction records. Any misreprese ntation of any property data may invalidate this approval and may require additional review. 3. CONCURRENT APPROVAL CONDITIONS The conditions of approval contained in file nos. ASA-2014-02, TM-2014-01, DP-2014-02, and TR- 2014-08 shall be applicable to this approval. 4. INDEMNIFICATION To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the “indemnified parties”) from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside, or void this ordinance or any permit or approval authorized hereby for the project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City its actual attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its choice. 5. NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS The Conditions of Project Approval set forth he rein may include certain fees, dedication requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(d) (1), these Conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations, and other exactions. You are hereby further notified that the 90-day approval period in which you may protest these fees, dedications, reservations, and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a), has begun. If you fail to file a protest within this 90-day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such exactions. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 22nd day of April, 2014, Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Chair Brophy, Gong, Sun, Takahashi NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Vice Chair Lee ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: none ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: none ATTEST: APPROVED: /s/Gary Chao /s/Paul Brophy Gary Chao Paul Brophy, Chair Assist. Director of Community Development Planning Commission 508 Resolution No. 6738 Z-2014-01 April 22, 2014 EXHIBIT A: ZONING PLAT MAP AND LEGAL DESCRIPTION G:\Planning\PDREPORT\RES\2014\Z-2014-01 res.doc 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3223 www.cupertino.org CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Meeting: May 20, 2014 Subject Designate voting delegate and alternates for League of California Cities Annual Conference September 3-5 in Los Angeles. Recommended Action Designate voting delegate and up to two alternates. Discussion The League’s 2014 Annual Conference is scheduled for September 3-5 in Los Angeles. An important part of the Annual Conference is the General Assembly Annual Business meeting at noon on Friday, September 5. At this meeting, the League membership considers and takes action on resolutions that establish League policy. In order to vote at the Annual Business meeting, the City Council must designate a voting delegate, and may also appoint up to two alternate voting delegates, one of whom may vote in the event that the designated voting delegate is unable to serve in that capacity. _____________________________________ Prepared by: Grace Schmidt, City Clerk Approved for Submission by: David Brandt, City Manager Attachments: A - Conference Information 550 May 1, 2014 TO: Mayors, City Managers and City Clerks RE: DESIGNATION OF VOTING DELEGATES AND ALTERNATES League of California Cities Annual Conference – September 3 - 5, Los Angeles The League’s 2014 Annual Conference is scheduled for September 3 - 5 in Los Angeles. An important part of the Annual Conference is the Annual Business Meeting (at the General Assembly), scheduled for noon on Friday, September 5, at the Los Angeles Convention Center. At this meeting, the League membership considers and takes action on resolutions that establish League policy. In order to vote at the Annual Business Meeting, your city council must designate a voting delegate. Your city may also appoint up to two alternate voting delegates, one of whom may vote in the event that the designated voting delegate is unable to serve in that capacity. Please complete the attached Voting Delegate form and return it to the League’s office no later than Friday, August 15, 2014. This will allow us time to establish voting delegate/alternate records prior to the conference. Please note the following procedures that are intended to ensure the integrity of the voting process at the Annual Business Meeting. • Action by Council Required. Consistent with League bylaws, a city’s voting delegate and up to two alternates must be designated by the city council. When completing the attached Voting Delegate form, please attach either a copy of the council resolution that reflects the council action taken, or have your city clerk or mayor sign the form affirming that the names provided are those selected by the city council. Please note that designating the voting delegate and alternates must be done by city council action and cannot be accomplished by individual action of the mayor or city manager alone. • Conference Registration Required. The voting delegate and alternates must be registered to attend the conference. They need not register for the entire conference; they may register for Friday only. To register for the conference, please go to our website: www.cacities.org. In order to cast a vote, at least one voter must be present at the 1400 K Street, Suite 400 • Sacramento, California 95814 Phone: 916.658.8200 Fax: 916.658.8240 www.cacities.org Council Action Advised by July 31, 2014 -over- 551 Business Meeting and in possession of the voting delegate card. Voting delegates and alternates need to pick up their conference badges before signing in and picking up the voting delegate card at the Voting Delegate Desk. This will enable them to receive the special sticker on their name badges that will admit them into the voting area during the Business Meeting. • Transferring Voting Card to Non-Designated Individuals Not Allowed. The voting delegate card may be transferred freely between the voting delegate and alternates, but only between the voting delegate and alternates. If the voting delegate and alternates find themselves unable to attend the Business Meeting, they may not transfer the voting card to another city official. • Seating Protocol during General Assembly. At the Business Meeting, individuals with the voting card will sit in a separate area. Admission to this area will be limited to those individuals with a special sticker on their name badge identifying them as a voting delegate or alternate. If the voting delegate and alternates wish to sit together, they must sign in at the Voting Delegate Desk and obtain the special sticker on their badges. The Voting Delegate Desk, located in the conference registration area of the Los Angeles Convention Center, will be open at the following times: Wednesday, September 3, 9:00 a.m. – 5:30 p.m.; Thursday, September 4, 7:00 a.m. – 4:00 p.m.; and Friday, September 5, 7:30–10:00 a.m. The Voting Delegate Desk will also be open at the Business Meeting on Friday, but will be closed during roll calls and voting. The voting procedures that will be used at the conference are attached to this memo. Please share these procedures and this memo with your council and especially with the individuals that your council designates as your city’s voting delegate and alternates. Once again, thank you for completing the voting delegate and alternate form and returning it to the League office by Friday, August 15. If you have questions, please call Karen Durham at (916) 658-8262. Attachments: • 2014 Annual Conference Voting Procedures • Voting Delegate/Alternate Form 552 Annual Conference Voting Procedures 2014 Annual Conference 1. One City One Vote. Each member city has a right to cast one vote on matters pertaining to League policy. 2. Designating a City Voting Representative. Prior to the Annual Conference, each city council may designate a voting delegate and up to two alternates; these individuals are identified on the Voting Delegate Form provided to the League Credentials Committee. 3. Registering with the Credentials Committee. The voting delegate, or alternates, may pick up the city's voting card at the Voting Delegate Desk in the conference registration area. Voting delegates and alternates must sign in at the Voting Delegate Desk. Here they will receive a special sticker on their name badge and thus be admitted to the voting area at the Business Meeting. 4. Signing Initiated Resolution Petitions. Only those individuals who are voting delegates (or alternates), and who have picked up their city’s voting card by providing a signature to the Credentials Committee at the Voting Delegate Desk, may sign petitions to initiate a resolution. 5. Voting. To cast the city's vote, a city official must have in his or her possession the city's voting card and be registered with the Credentials Committee. The voting card may be transferred freely between the voting delegate and alternates, but may not be transferred to another city official who is neither a voting delegate or alternate. 6. Voting Area at Business Meeting. At the Business Meeting, individuals with a voting card will sit in a designated area. Admission will be limited to those individuals with a special sticker on their name badge identifying them as a voting delegate or alternate. 7. Resolving Disputes. In case of dispute, the Credentials Committee will determine the validity of signatures on petitioned resolutions and the right of a city official to vote at the Business Meeting. 1400 K Street, Suite 400 • Sacramento, California 95814 Phone: 916.658.8200 Fax: 916.658.8240 www.cacities.org 553 2014 ANNUAL CONFERENCE VOTING DELEGATE/ALTERNATE FORM Please complete this form and return it to the League office by Friday, August 15, 2014. Forms not sent by this deadline may be submitted to the Voting Delegate Desk located in the Annual Conference Registration Area. Your city council may designate one voting delegate and up to two alternates. In order to vote at the Annual Business Meeting (General Assembly), voting delegates and alternates must be designated by your city council. Please attach the council resolution as proof of designation. As an alternative, the Mayor or City Clerk may sign this form, affirming that the designation reflects the action taken by the council. Please note: Voting delegates and alternates will be seated in a separate area at the Annual Business Meeting. Admission to this designated area will be limited to individuals (voting delegates and alternates) who are identified with a special sticker on their conference badge. This sticker can be obtained only at the Voting Delegate Desk. 1. VOTING DELEGATE Name: Title: 2. VOTING DELEGATE - ALTERNATE 3. VOTING DELEGATE - ALTERNATE Name: Name: Title: Title: PLEASE ATTACH COUNCIL RESOLUTION DESIGNATING VOTING DELEGATE AND ALTERNATES. OR ATTEST: I affirm that the information provided reflects action by the city council to designate the voting delegate and alternate(s). Name: E-mail Mayor or City Clerk Phone: (circle one) (signature) Date: Please complete and return by Friday, August 15, 2014 League of California Cities FAX: (916) 658-8220 ATTN: Karen Durham E-mail: kdurham@cacities.org 1400 K Street, 4th Floor (916) 658-8262 Sacramento, CA 95814 CITY:________________________________________ 554