The URL can be used to link to this page

General Plan 08-20-03 CITY OF CUPERTINO GENERAL PLAN TASK FORCE MEETING Quinlan Community Center - Cupertino Room 10185 N. Stelling Road Wednesday, August 20, 2003, 7:00 p.m. - 9:15 p.m. MINUTES AGENDA PREVIEW The meeting began at 7:05 P.M. Ciddy Wordell described what would be covered at this meeting ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None TABLE GROUP DISCUSSION Members of the Task Force met in table groups to discuss process issues and Environmental Resources/Sustainability, Health and Safety and Circulation. TABLE GROUP REPORTS Each Table Group Leader summarized the discussions and votes that took place at each table. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 P.M. Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Developmentc:\ Planning\ GenPlan \ Task Force \ 8-27-03 minutes.doc Task Force Members 8/28/03 First Last 7/9 7/16 7/23 8/6 8/13 8/20 8~27 9/10 9/17 9~24 Fari Aberg Charlie Ahern * * * Stan Barkey * * * Cynthia A. Bartlett Wong Girish Bhat * * * Dave Blau * * Rodney E Brown Mark Burns Pat Bustamante James Cai * * * Nolan Chen Cary Chien * * Matthew Cohn * Erve Conens Roger Costa Nina K, Daruwalla * Michael Di Tore * Linda Espinoza * * Suzanne Ford Mike Foulkes * * * Lisa A. Giefer * Andrew Golkar * Bob Graber * David Greenstein Mary Jo Gunderson * * * Andrea Harris * Robert Hendrickson * * Mary Holaday * Roberta Hollimon * * * * Absent Task Force Members 8/28/03 First Last 7/9 7/16 7/23 8/6 8/13 8/20 8/27 9/10 9/17 Shawna Holmes * George Hsing * Raymond Hsu * Micheile Hu Edward A. Jajko * * Olivia Jang * * * Beez Jones 7ack Kolev * * * John E. Kolski * * * Sally Larson Ni¢ol Lea * * * * ]'odd Lee * Robert Levy Brian Low * Jon Moss Shishir Mukherjee * * Malka Nagel * Mahesh Nihalani John Noone Peter Pau * * * * Zahra Pavlovic * Betsy Randolph * Kathy Robinson Douglas Rowe Dan Schofield * Joe $1uga * Maty Soha * Kathy Stakey Homer Tong * Joanne Tong * * Joseph Walton * * * Absent LEGAL NOTICE OF REGULAR PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING MEETING OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA, on December 8, 2016, at 5:00 p.m. in Conference Room C of the Cupertino City Hall, 10300 Torre Avenue is hereby given. The following application(s) for action by the Administrative Hearing Officer will be heard: 1. Application No.(s) TM-2016-01, R-2016-27, R-2016-30, TR-2016-27 Applicant: Raymond and Adeline Chu Location: 20030 Forest Avenue APN#316-23-107 Tentative Map application to allow a 0.47 acre single family lot to be subdivided into two lots of 11,099 and 9,776 square feet; Two-Story Permit to allow the construction of a 4,507 square foot single family residence with an attached 475 square foot accessory dwelling unit; Two-Story Permit to allow the construction of a 4,027 square foot single family residence with an attached 366 square foot accessory dwelling unit; Tree Removal Permit to allow the removal and replacement of three protected trees to facilitate the construction of two new single family residences on the newly subdivided lots Environmental Recommendation: Categorically Exempt All environmental documents for the described applications are available for public review at the Cupertino Community Development Department, 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California, 95014. If you challenge the action of the Hearing Officer in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Cupertino at, or prior to, the public hearing. Please note that Administrative Hearing Meeting policy is to allow an applicant and groups to speak for 10 minutes and individuals to speak for 3 minutes. Benjamin Fu Assist. Dir. of Community Development Publication Date: November 25, 2016 Ellen Yau From: Beth Ebben on behalf of City of Cupertino Planning Dept. Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2016 9:21 AM To: Benjamin Fu; Ellen Yau Subject: FW: Proposed Project on Forest Avenue--Dec 8th Meeting Frc�m th� Planning D�partm�nt°s g�n�ral mailbc�xe (Evid�ntly this p�rsc�n thinks tc�night°s m��ting is a Planning Cc�mmissic�n m��ting) From: Brkezzat@aol.com [mailto:Brkezzat@aol.com] Sent:Wednesday, December 07, 2016 5:29 PM To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept. <planning@cupertino.org> Cc: planningdept@cupertino.org Subject: Proposed Project on Forest Avenue--Dec 8th Meeting Dear Ms. Gong, Ms. Lee, Mr. Paulsen, Mr. Sun, and Mr. Takashi: I am writing as a neighbor who will be impacted by the proposed project at 20030 Forest Avenue; I am requesting that you reconsider and amend the project for the good of the neighborhood. To being with, the majority of the homes in this neighborhood are 1500-2400 square feet; the proposed homes are 50% larger or more than the current homes in the neighborhood. In the last five years, three homes on my street have been renovated, and all of these neighbors tried to rebuild or remodel in a fashion that was consistent with the surrounding dwellings. And then there is the issue of privacy for the surrounding homes, or lack of privacy. The fact that the City would even consider these dwellings as an exception to the surrounding homes has the neighbors talking. Based on that fact, I would like to request a list of all the exceptions being granted to this project based on R-1 zoning. Secondly, there are a healthy number of older trees on the property. Will the trees be retained? If not, why not? And if not, why does the City have a tree preservation ordinance if it is continually ignored? In fact, why does the City have zoning at all, if zoning regulations are considered a jumping off point for negotiation? Exceptions should be few and far between—for health or safety reasons—not to please the property owner. i And finally, the proposed project is objectionable because of the impact the construction on the school traffic. The proposed site is less than a block away from Collins School and about two blocks from Lawson. The west end of the street(Forest)has been blocked off by a cement and stone barrier. The east end of the street faces Collins school and the east end of the proposed project is framed by a cull de sac(Toni Court). There is little opportunity for traffic to get in or out of the area during school drop off and pick up times; adding construction equipment to the mix will make a difficult and dangerous situation for children impossible. I hope that you will reconsider the size and scope of the project for the good of the neighborhood. And I hope that exceptions to ordinances will be the exception, not the rule. Thanks for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Brooke Ezzat z �� ,N,� Vu /�y� �� u I �� i �� i �� ; � � �w'�'�� ti � ,, � I �.... , � ... ' .... � ' ; ; � �. j ..... � ! � � , i �� , ,,,,,,,,,,, February 12, 2016 I[::::��viu-�a��ir��1 � I[::::��i��i�� II:�� LIMITED PHASE II SUBSURFACE ��:�� INVESTIGATION Property Identification: �i�� :Il:��v��i��i�a�� 20030 Forest Avenue Il��ir��ll�i��i�a�� Cupertino, California AEI Project Na 333589 , „ I[::::��r�y If��r��a�r�i�� . I[:��ir��I�i�� Prepared for: Mr. Raymond Chiu 20030 Forest Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 :IC��llu��ri�l Il�y�i�� Prepared by: AEI Consultants 3880 S, Bascom Avenue, Suite 109 �"�a��ir��i�a�� San Jose, CA 95124 �"�a��u�l�i�� (408) 559-7600 ��7��II'��1�7��, �;i�� Ihili��i�a�� ;��a�r�i�uv��r �;�u�i�� .�a��i�� ly�i� II��IC.'n�au�� II...:1�� ;u�u��y� �� /�/,, �a�ii��1 ��s��ce i%'� /„�, ��gia�n�V�a�u�s , ,,�� .��al�al�w��ia�� '�i��%, r� �io�;>, iii�,,. � � TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 SITE DESCRIPTION.............................................................................................................1 2.0 BACKGROUND.....................................................................................................................1 3.0 INVESTIGATION EFFORTS ..................................................................................................2 3.1 Health and Safety Plan..................................................................................................................2 3.2 Permitting and Utility Clearance.....................................................................................................2 3.3 Drilling and Soil Sample Collection .................................................................................................2 3.4 Boring Destruction........................................................................................................................3 3.5 Laboratory Analyses......................................................................................................................3 3.6 Investigation Derived Wastes ........................................................................................................3 4.0 FINDINGS............................................................................................................................3 4.1 Subsurface Conditions...................................................................................................................3 4.2 Soil Analytical Results....................................................................................................................3 5.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS...........................................................................................4 6.0 REPORT LIMITATIONS AND RELIANCE...............................................................................4 FIGURES Figure 1 Site Location Map Figure 2 Site Map TABLES Table 1 Soil Sample Data Summary APPENDICES Appendix A Boring Logs Appendix B Laboratory Analytical Reports � �� e�w �w ��-,. �uu� ; ��' '� �� i j�u� � � y w�; �� d�m�y�`'�� -.�,� � ��M��'�� Em��vir�a�r-��r�tal �IEnc�iurn��rium��gi ��i�vi��s February 12, 2016 Mr. Raymond Chiu 20030 Forest Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 Subject: Limited Phase II Subsurface Investigation 20030 Forest Avenue Cupertino, California AEI Project No. 333589 Dear Mr. Chiu: AEI Consultants (AEI) is pleased to provide this report which describes the activities and results of the Limited Phase II Subsurface Investigation (Phase II) performed at the above referenced subject property, The location of the subject property is shown on Figure 1, This investigation was completed in general accordance with the authorized scope of services in AEI's revised proposal dated January 20, 2015 (AEI Proposal No. 44670). The purpose of the investigation is to assess whether residual concentrations of pesticides, if any, remain within surface soils, and possibly, underlying soils, as a result of the former agricultural activities at the subject property, The site description, background, scope of work, findings, conclusions, and recommendations are presented in the following sections, 1.0 SITE DESCRIPTION The subject property consists of a single-family residence, located on the southwest corner of the intersection of Forest Avenue and Toni Court in a residential area of Cupertino, California, The property totals approximately 0.48 acres and is improved with a single-story house with paved parking area, swimming pool, detached garage, and shed, The subject property is currently occupied by the client, On-site activities consist of typical residential activities, Based upon our review of State of California GeoTracker data from a nearby site, groundwater is present at an approximate depth of 79 feet below ground surface (bgs) and inferred to flow to the southwest, The closest surface water body to the property is Calabazas Creek, located approximately OJ2 miles to the south-southeast of the property. 2.0 BACKGROUND As described in AEI's Phase I Environmental Site Assessment dated August 29, 2014, prepared for the subject property, a recognized environmental condition (REC) was noted with respect to historical agricultural uses at the subject property, AEI understands that the subject property will undergo redevelopment, which will consist of the demolition of a single-family residence and construction of two (2) single-family residences, potentially having in-ground basements ��ar��I�u��irroCGS'�c�(�tf�� A�Ile�r��t � Chi�`,��[� ��:�'t��lle.�� I C��In�� L��oti��r� ��rt�5�utg�le��; �Mii�rr�i I I��ew 1fa7rrk ;�+H�a��e�o�tii�s � Pa��t4airroCl f a��ru 1�5� re�rwwv�r.�t�Y��"�rns�al��r�q�,a'�ac n e�ending to 12 feet below existing grade, Furthermore, AEI also understands that the City of Cupertino requires that a Phase II investigation be performed in order for the redevelopment to move forward. 3.0 INVESTIGATION EFFORTS This investigation focused on the advancement of shallow soil borings for the collection and analyses of soil samples, The investigation was conducted to assess whether residual concentrations of pesticides remain in the surface soils, as a result of former agricultural activities at the subject property, 3.1 Health and Safety Plan A site-specific health and safety plan was prepared, reviewed by onsite personnel, and kept onsite for the duration of the fieldwork. 3.2 Permitting and Utility Clearance A drilling permit was not required for this investigation. Boring locations were marked with white paint or staked, Underground Services Alert (USA) North was contacted, who, in turn, notified subscribing utility companies for their underground utility locations to be marked along property boundaries, A utility clearance also was performed by ist Call Utility Locating of Richmond, California under subcontract to AEI to check for the presence of underground utilities around planned boring locations and to shift boring locations, as appropriate. . 3.3 Drilling and Soil Sample Collection On January 27, 2016, four (4) soil borings (B-1 through B-4) were advanced on the subject property, The locations of the borings are shown on Figure 2, The borings were advanced by Environmental Control Associates, Inc. of Aptos, California using a hand auger. The borings were advanced to depths of 5 feet bgs, The location of each boring is listed as follows; • Boring B-1 was advanced adjacent to the east side of the driveway, • Boring B-2 was advanced in the lawn area along the west side of the flower bed, • Boring B-3 was advanced to the east of the gazebo in the backyard, • Boring B-4 was advanced adjacent to the southern side of the garage, The borings were continuously sampled throughout their entire depths for the purposes of lithologic logging and soil sample collection, Upon retrieval of the hand-auger, recovered soil samples were visually examined for soil classification and described on detailed boring logs in general conformance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS), The boring logs are presented in Appendix A. Soil samples selected for laboratory analyses were placed into laboratory-supplied glass jars, and then sealed, labeled, and entered onto chain of custody documentation for transportation to the analytical laboratory. The samples were obtained at depths of 0.5, 1.5, 2.5, 3.5, and 4.5 Project No. 333589 �� February 12, 2016 Page 2 �`��'��ii��III�P r��.s�H iu��`,��„ feet in each boring, The samples were labeled with the project name, project number, boring number, sample depth, and sampling date/time of sampling, After labeling, the samples were placed into a chilled ice chest for transport to the analytical laboratory, 3.4 Boring Destruction Borings were backfilled with native soils to match the surrounding conditions, 3.5 Laboratory Analyses Soil samples were submitted to McCampbell Analytical, Inc, of Pittsburg, California for laboratory analyses. Four (4) soil samples from the 0.5-foot depth were initially analyzed; additional samples below the 0,5-foot depth were placed on hold for future analyses, if warranted, The samples were analyzed for organochlorine pesticides (OCPs) using EPA Method 8081A and arsenic using EPA Method 6020, The samples were analyzed over a standard turnaround time, Chain-of-custody documentation and certified analytical reports are provided in Appendix B. 3.6 Investigation Derived Wastes No investigation derived waste was created during this investigation, 4.0 FINDINGS 4.1 Subsurface Conditions The results from the drilling program show that the subject property is underlain by alluvial soils, primarily consisting of silty clays and clayey silts, No groundwater was encountered during drilling activities, No visual or olfactory evidence (i,e,, soil discoloration, odor) of potentially-impacted soils was observed in any of the recovered soils during drilling activities, 4.2 Soil Analytical Results OCPs and arsenic were detected at the 0,5-foot depth in each boring, Soil analytical results are presented on Table 1, Chain-of-custody documentation and the certified analytical report are presented in Appendix B, Analytical results for soil are as follows; • Chlordane (Technical) was only detected in Boring B-3 at a concentration of 0,042 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg). • a-Chlordane was detected in Borings B-3 and B-4 at concentrations of 0,0038 and 0,0015 mg/kg, respectively, • g-Chlordane was only detected in Boring B-3 at a concentration of 0.0021 mg/kg, • Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane (p,p-DDD) was detected in Borings B-1 through B-3 at concentrations between 0,0024 and 0,0043 mg/kg, • Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethene (p,p-DDE) was detected in each of the borings at concentrations between 0,023 and 0,12 mg/kg, • Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (p,p-DDT) was detected in each of the borings at concentrations between 0,0044 and 0,053 mg/kg, Project No. 333589 �� February 12, 2016 Page 3 �`��'��ii��III�P r��.s�H iu��`,��„ • Arsenic was detected in each of the borings at concentrations between 3,6 and 4,5 mg/kg. No other OCPs were detected at or above their laboratory detection limits, 5.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS AEI has completed a Phase II at the subject property, The purpose of the subsurface investigation was to assess whether residual concentrations of pesticides remain in the surface soils, as a result of former agricultural activities at the subject property, Four (4) soil borings were advanced for the collection and analyses of soil samples, Select soil samples from the 0,5-foot depth in each boring were analyzed for OCPs and arsenic, Analytical results showed concentrations of various OCPs and arsenic, These Analytical results also were compared to their established San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQBC) Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs), Detected concentrations of OCPs were found to be below their established RWQCB ESLs, Detected concentrations of arsenic were found to be slightly above their established RWQCB ESLs, Although the arsenic concentrations were above their RWQCB ESLs, it was noted that these concentrations are representative of naturally-occurring background conditions for metals in California soils (Bradford, et,al,, 1996), Background concentrations for arsenic in soils in California generally range between 0,6 and 11 mg/kg. Based upon the results of this investigation, no further investigation or remedial action is recommended at this time, 6.0 REPORT LIMITATIONS AND RELIANCE This report presents a summary of work completed by AEI Consultants, The completed work includes observations and descriptions of site conditions encountered, Where appropriate, it includes analytical results for samples taken during the course of the work, The number and location of samples are chosen to provide the requested information, subject to scope of work for which AEI was retained and limitations inherent in this type of work, but it cannot be assumed that they are representative of areas not sampled, This report should not be regarded as a guarantee that no further contamination beyond that which could have been detected within the scope of this investigation is present beneath the subject property, Undocumented, unauthorized releases of hazardous materials, the remains of which are not readily identifiable by visual inspection and are of different chemical constituents, are difficult and often impossible to detect within the scope of a chemical specific investigation, Any conclusions and/or recommendations are based on these analyses and observations, as well as governing regulations, Conclusions beyond those stated and reported herein should not be inferred from this document, These services were performed in accordance with generally accepted practices, in the environmental engineering and construction field, which existed at the time and location of the work, No other warranty, either expressed or implied, has been made. Project No. 333589 �� February 12, 2016 Page 4 �`��'��ii��III�P r��.s�H iu��`,��„