PC 12-18-00 City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 (408) 777-3308
AGENDA OF THE REGULAR ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION
Conference Room A
December 18, 2000, 5:30 p.m.
ORDER OF BUSINESS
SALUTE TO THE FLAG
ROLL CALL
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
POSTPONEMENTSfREMOVAL FROM CALENDAR
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS (Reserved for persons wishing to address the Commission
on issues which, are not already included in the regular Order of Business)
CONSENT CALENDAR
PUBLIC HEARING
OLD BUSINESS
1. Follow-up report on Hanson Cement and Stevens Creek Quarry operations.
NEW BUSINESS
2. Study session to set goals for 2001.
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS
ADJOURNMENT
If you challenge the action of the Planning Commission in court, you may be limited to raising
only those issues you or someone else raised at the public l~earing described in this agenda, or in
written correspondence delivered to the City of Cupertino at or prior to the public hearing.
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM
Application: Follow-up report on Hanson Cement and StevenS Creek Quarries
Agenda Date: December 18, 2000
BACKGROUND:
The Planning Commission met on November 1 to review the Hanson Cement and
Stevens Creek quarries. The Commission asked that staff respond to their unanswered
questions and return with the answers or describe what is involved in providing the
answers.
DISCUSSION:
The attached foltow~up report reviews the questions asked and provides answers where
available. The County provided partial responses to questions, and the Bay Area Air
Quality Management. District did not respond to the questions given to them by staff.
The air quality questions will take the most time to answer because the District's
information is not centralized and responses are fragmented. The Planning Commission
should designate this as a work program item for 2001/2002 if this continues to be a
priority issue. Depending on the extent of remaining questions, staff will then determine
if outside technical assistance in needed in preparing responses to these questions.
Enclosures:
Follow-up Report
Exhibit A: Noise Study
Exhibit B: Diocese Environmental Impact Report (Air Quality analysis) 1994
Submitted by: Ciddy Wordell, City Planner
Approved by: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Development
G:planning/misc/quarryreport 121800
FOLLOW-UP TO CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ON
HANSON AND STEVENS CREEK QUARRIES
TRAFFIC:
· Provide summary of citations on Foothill Blvd.
Response (Sheriffs DepartmenO :
Moving Violations County Park to
July 1 98 to June 30 99
July 1 99 to June 30 00
July 1 00 to Oct 31 00
McClellan/Foothill to 280
Stevens CanyonRoad/McClellan
12 109
30 163
13 75
Staff believes this is a high level of enforcement.
Truck traffic data; could them be a separate bike path? Could there be a separate truck
entrance along the RR tracks? Street sweeping - are we doing more street and
sidewalk sweeping in that area? Consider stepping up street cleaning.
Response (Raymond Chong) :
Truck traffic data: A new truck traffic survey couM be done on Foothill north of
Stevens Creek Boulevard and additional locations.
Separate bike path: Not feasible.
Separate truck entrance along railroad tracks: location would have to be identified
Street sweeping: Service Center performs twice a month, which is a high level of
service. There is no consideration for increased street sweeping. Sidewalk sweeping
is the responsibility of the property owner.
STEVENS CREEK QUARRY:
· Ask sheriff if we get complaints about off-hour operations (Stevens Creek Quarry).
Response: Sergeant Steve Angus states that there are no records or recollections of
reports for these complaints.
The County provided the information that there were four requests in 2000 by the
quarry for trucks operating outside normal hours.
· Are hours observed and are they monitored?
No response.
· What is purpose of condition 44 (monitoring truck traffic)
Response (Mike Lopez) : The condition requiring the traffic report was in response lo
requests by residents living along the haul route between the quarry and US280.
· Why was recycling operation included in original use permit, since it creates both in
and out traffic. How does County monitor weekend and evening use, can we get a
copy of county records as to what uses were last year? Are truck renting and
contracting part of the use permit? Is the use permit up in 2006?
Response (Mike Lopez) :
Recycling: The Planning Commission modified the use permit on July 6, 1990 to
allow the recycling of materials such as natural earth, asphalt and concrete at the
quarry. [No additional information was provided as to why it was included]
Weekend and evening use: Weekend and evening use are restricted by the permit
conditions. [Complete answer to the Commission's question was not providedJ
Truck renting and contracting: The equipment rental business was determined to be
an ancillary use associated with the use permit. The Planning Commission addressed
this issue at its October 2, 1986proceedings and the Board of Supervisors
established the following guidelines for a limited equipment rental and storage use, to
be permitted as an ancillary use to the basic permit for Quarry operations:
a. Only idled quarry equipment owned by the Quarry and actually used in
Quarry operations was to be stored or rentedpore the Quarry site; and
b. As an ancillary use to Quarry operations, the hours of operation of this use
were to be the same as those for the basic loading and hauling operations tg'
the Quarry.
These guidelines were established with the apparent agreement and accord of the
Quarry, in order to resolve enforcement proceedings relating to community concerns
regarding the impacts of truck traffic of the Quarry, which had been the principle .]bcus
of the two years of hearings and subcommittee attention by the Planning Commission and
Board of Supervisors.
Use Permit: The use permit will expire on February 18, 2015.
HANSON:
· Is there a base 'line for noise, as requested in 19777 Could we establish one?
· ASA Sept. 22 1977: Note says Cupertino requested noise study to establish an
existing noise level baseline for future reference. Was it done?
Response (Mike Lopez) :
A copy of the noise study is included (ExhibitA). In reviewing the study you will find
that the consultant took noise readings at 5 di~rent locations and concluded that
"... the noise emission levels from quarry and plant processing oeprations do not
exceed the proposed noise ordinance or the existing noise element standar& J'br
residential land use."
· Can oak trees that are removed be transplanted?
Response (dohn Giovanola) There is no current or future oak tree removal planned
· Could there be another truck entrance along the railroad tracks?
Response: See Raymond Chong response.
AIR QUALITY:
· BAAQMD: can they do local test? Check for particulates at Stevens Creek and
Foothill Boulevard.
· How can we be sure BAAQMD is being followed up? Need results of monitoring.
How are limits determined? Lead and virilium, what is measurement at Hanson and
what is standard: what is the maximum allowed and what is their measurement?
Similarly in the stack monitoring system, monitoring how opaque something is.
What does statement mean that "grandfathering of dust particulate sources" and to
which quarry does this apply? Is Hanson allowed to do hazardous materials, like
asbestos?
Response.' The Bay Area Air Quality Management District was Contacted by mail and
phone, but staff did not receive a response.
* Check Diocese EIR for any analysis.
Response (staff): Enclosed is the air quality analysis from the Diocese EIR (Exhibit
B) This analysis concludes there is no significant impact of the Kaiser [Hans'on]
facilities'emissions on the Diocese property. A 1991 Health Risk Assessment
concluded that pollutants did not constitute a significant health risk to the general
population in the vicinity. Results from an improved computer model were expected
in 1994, and were not expected to change the basic conclusion.
· Can trucks be covered, is any other jurisdiction requiring that?
Response (John Giovanola): Trucks aren't required to be covered If they are
uncovered, materials have to be six inches below the top of the truck opening.
OTHER:
Set public hearing to further review the quarries.
· Evaluate General Plan policies; are we doing what we say we'll do?
· Ask the county to enforce the conditions.
G:planning/misc/QUARRY FOLLOW UP
2940 SCOi9' BOULEVARD
SANTA CLARA, CALIF. 95050
EDWARD L. PACK AS OCIA'[ES,tNC.
1ELEPHONE: (,I08) 2.t9-18,10
EXHIBIT A
November 2, 1977
Project No. 9183
Mr. Richard H. Berby, Manager
Environmental Control and Energy
Kaiser Cement and Gypsum Corporation
300 Lakeside Drive
Oakland, California 94666
Subject:
Ref. (a)
(b)
(o)
Kaiser Cement and Gypsum Corporation,
Permanente Plant Boundary Existing Noise Levels
"Noise Plan, An Element of the General Plan,
Santa Clara County", July 1976
Proposed Ordinance of the County of Santa Clara
Relating to the Control of Noise and Vibration
Property Map., Kaiser Cement and Gypsum Corporation,
Permanente, California, Dated 10-13-77
Dear Mr. Berby:
This letter summarizes the results of our field measurements of
noise levels presently existing within and along the boundary
of the Permanente plant site. The measurements were taken
during daytime and nighttime periods to determine compliance
with th~ existing County of Santa Clara Noise Element, Ref. (a),
and the proposed an~inoise and vibration ordinance, Ref. (b).
To determine the in-plant and boundary noise environment,
measurements of daytime and nighttime levels were measured with
a Gen Rad Company Community Noise Analyzer. Noise levels were
EXHIBIT B
ACOUSTICAL 5OCIETY OF AMERICA
AMERICAN SOCIESTY OF SAFETY ENGINEERS
monitored for one-half hour periods to obtain total noise levels
in "A" weighted units, exceedance levels and equivalent-energy
(Leq) levels. The results of the field measurements are
summarized in Table I below:
TABLE I
Kaiser/Permanente Plant and Boundary
Noise Levels from Normal Operations
Location ~1 - Center Of Plant, Approximately 250
South of the Mill Building
% of Time the Sound
Level Was Exceeded
Sound Level (dBA)
Daytime
Nighttime
0.1 78 69
1 73 65
2 71 65
5 68 65
10 66 65
20 65 64
33 64 64
50 64 64
90 63' 59
99 62 51
Maximum Level 81 76
Minimum Level 61 50
Equival. ent Level (Leq) 65 63
The day-night level (L )for this central plant location is 69 dB.
dn
The L50 for both daytime and nighttime periods is 64 dB.
EXH. IBI_T, B
Location ~2 - 300 feet from East Edge of Quarry and
Along Boundary with Roman Catholic Church
Property
% of the Time the Sound
Level Was Exceeded
Sound Level (dBA)
Daytime Nighttime
0.1 62 51
1 56 49
2 53 49
5 49 45
10 46 43
20 44 41
33 42 40
50 41 39
90 38 36
99 37 33
Maximum Level 73 52
Minimum Level 36 26
Equivalent Level (Leq) 45 41
The L50 measured levels. for daytime and nighttime exposures
fall within the limits of Table Bl1-174 of the proposed noise
ordinance. The Ldn for this location is 48 dB and is within the
Ldn 55 dB limit for residential land use.
EXHIBIT. B
Location ~3 - Along east boundary at a point 900 ft.
north of the railroad overcrossing before
the plant gates
% of the Time the Sound
Level Was Exceeded
0.1
1
2
5
10
20
33
50
90
99
Maximum Level
Minimum Level
Equivalent Level (Leq)
Sound Level (dBA)
Daytime
64
57
54
51
48
46
44
42
39
37
67
36
46
Nighttime
49
47
45
44
41
40
40
38
36
54
35
40
The L50 measured levels for daytime and nighttime exposures
are within the proposed ordinance limits of Table Bl1-174.
The Ldn for this location was calculated to be 48 dB and is
within the Ldn 55 dB noise element limit for residential
land use.
EXHIBIT, B
Location #4 - West End of Voss Road at Boundary of
the Kaiser Plant
Sound Level (dBA)
% of the Time the Sound
Level Was Exceeded Daytime Nighttime
0.1 58 48
1 55 43
2 51 41
5 44 36
10 41 34
20 39 33
33 37 33
50 36 32
90 33 31
99 32 30
Maximum Level 60 49
Minimum Level 31 29
Equivalent Level (Leq) 41 34
The L50 measured levels for daytime and nighttime exposures
fall below the proposed ordinance limits of Table Bl1-174.
The Ldn for this location was calculated tobe 42 dB and is
far under the noise element limit of 55 dB for residential land
use.
EXHIBI.T. B
Location ~5 - 100 feet West of Madera Road at
Boundary of the Kaiser Plant
Sound Level (dBA)
% of the Time the Sound
Level Was Exceeded Daytime Nighttime
0.1 57 48
1 51 42
2 45 40
5 41 35
10 40 33
20 38 33
33 38 32
50 37 31
90 36 30
99 34 29
Maximum Level 58 50
Minimum Level 33 28
Equivalent Level (L ) 39 33
eq
The L50 measured levels for daytime and nighttime exposures
fall below the proposed ordinance limits of Table Bl1-174.
The Ldn was calculated to be 41 dB for this location and is
significantly under the55 dB limit for residential land use.
EXHIBI_T. B
Evaluation of the field data indicates all locations surveyed
meet the proposed ordinance standards of Table Bl1-174 for
one and two family residential land use in rural suburban zones.
The daytime limit of 50 dBA and the nighttime limit of 40 dBA
are not exceeded by more than 30 minutes in any hour as
indicated by the L50 values.
Our calculations of day-night levels for the four boundary survey
points reveals the residential land use limit of Ldn 55 dB is
not exceeded.
It is our conclusion that the noise emission levels from quarry
and plant processing operations does not exceed the proposed
noise ordinance or the existing noise element standards for
residential land use.
ELP:m
Respectfully submitted,
Edward L. Pack
Principal Acoustical Consultant
EXHIBIT. B
I-It
Genera/Plan Amendmem/I)ioce
Chat
D. PROPOSED PROJECT FOR DEVFJ ,OPMENT OF DIOCESE PROPERTY
The Notice of Preparation for the EIR identifies two Air Quality issues to be
examined, the impact of the nearby Kaiser Pcraianente Facility, and the/rapact of
additional auto trips from the new residences.
1. Kaiser Permanente Facility Emissions
The potential impact of the Kaiser Perrnanente facility emissions on the residents
of the proposed new development was requested to be examined.
a) Emissions of Ozone, Carbon Monoxide, and Suspended Particulate Matter.
Emission conuols have been established and appmved by the BAAQ1VID to
reduce emissions throughout the Bay Area to acceptable levels. The Kaiser
facility meets the standards set by the Air District. Day to day violations have
been eliminated since 1992.
There is no significant impact for the Kaiser facility upon potential new
residences on the Diocese Property.
b) Toxic Air Contaminants
1 ) Designated Toxic Hot Spot
The Air Toxic "Hot Spots" Information and Assessment Act of 1987
(Assembly Bill 2588) provides for the regulation of over 200 air wxics,
including all fifteen of the designated TAGs. Under Assembly Bill 2588
specified facilities must submit to the local pollution control agency a
comprehensive emissions inventory of these substances. After the local
air pollution control district receives completed emission inventories, it is
required to identify high priority facilities. These high priority facilities
must peffohn health risk assessments.
Acting under provision of AB2588, the Bay Area Air Quality
Management District has designated the Kaiser Penuanente facility as one
of a number of "toxic hot spots" for air quality hazards. As a result, a
Health Risk Assessment (HRA) for that facility was prepared for Kaiser
Petmanente facility by Radian Corporation in April 1991. The
assessment was accepted as current by the BAAQMD in August 1991.
After reviewing the Health Risk Assessment, the BAAQMD has
concluded that the amounts of pollutants as reported in this 1991 I-IRA did
not constitute a significant health risk to the general population in the
vicinity of the Kaiser Permanente facility. These toxics represent only
approximafly 1% of the total polhtants in the atmosphere in the South
Bay.
2) Estimating the Impact of PoHutants on Nearby Residents
There are no receptor monitoring stations in the immediate vicinity of the
Kaiser Permanente facility. Therefore the path of the pollutants in the air
was estimated using a computer model from the HRA report, coupled
/ qoL ·
General Plan Amendment/Diocese EIR - Air Quality
Chapter VI, Section 6-10
3)
with annual reporting. That model estimates that the concentration of
toxics from the facility will be highest in the immediate vicinity of the
facility. The model used was not ideally suited to the complicated land and
wind patterns in the vicinity of the facility. An improved computer model
is now analyzing the pattern of movement of the pollutants. Results of
this new analysis are expected in spring 1994. The new analysis is not
expected to change the basic conclusion that there is no health risk.
Probable Impacts in Irameal_late Vicinity of the Kai.qer P~rmanente Facility
The model identifies impacts throughout the South Bay. The site of
maximum exposure is the residential area west of Foothill Boulevard and
south of Stevens Creek Boulevard, especially the hillside sites closest to
the facility.
4) Probable Impacts for Residential Development on Seminary Property
The estimated exposure to pollutants from the Kaiser Pertmanente Facility
on houses built on the Diocese property would be considerably less than
for the maximum exposure sites described above. Since levels of
exposure at even those sites do not represent a health hazard, clearly there
is no health risk posed for potential residents living on the Diocese
Propely.
2. Potential Effect of Additonal Residences on the Property
in the
the Cristo
uips are the
the
project at two
evaluated.
6, the proposed residential development project would result
of a maximum of 293 residential units, approximately l~alf on
and haft on the Seminary Parcel. Project-related vehicle
sources of emissions associated with the implementation of
~roject. The potential air quality impact of the proposed
residential receptors (population)locations were
were identified.
The air quality of a area is not only dependent upon the amount of air
pollutants emitted r within the air basin, but also is directly related to the
weather patterns of the re The wind speed and direction, the temperature
prof~e of the atmosphere, the amount of humidity and sunlight detenxxine the
fate of the emitted pollutants and determine the resulting concentrations
of air ~qt~_ality."
a) Potential air quality impacts 'proposed development
Sensitive Receptor Location, - All project trips are carried on Cristo Rey
Drive and potentially could ct residences near that access route. The
closest residential receptors to th access route and ones used for evaluating
potential impact for this study e located a; 1) the entrance to the new
development near the east end Cristo Rey Drive, and 2) the Forum
residences near C~sto Rey Drive at e entrance to the west section of the new
development (see Figure 6-4). The eent to which these worst-case locations
or lower pollutant exposures.
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014
DEPARTMENT OF COMMLrNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM
Application: Study session to set goals for 2001
Agenda Date: December 18, 2000
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends:
I. Remove items 6 and 10 from the goals list
2. Add items 11-13 to the goals list
3. Consider removing or adding goals
DISCUSSION:
The attachment labeled "2000/2001 Goals/Projects" summarizes the status of City
Council/Planning Commission goals and projects for 2001/2002. New goals are included
for the Commission' s consideration.
2000 Goals
The Planning Commission sent its year 2000 goals to the City Council, who in turn
incorporated them into the City-wide goals. Exhibit A lists the Planning Commission's
goals and identifies their status. Exhibit A also includes goals added by the Council that
affect planning tasks.
2000 Work Program
The Planning Commission previously reviewed the 2000 work program (Exhibit B).
There are projects on the work program that were not identified as goals. So in terms of
assessing goals or projects that should be considered for 2001, staff suggests that both the
goals and the work program serve as resources.
The following work program projects were not 2000 goals: Zone Heart of the City Specific Plan
Heart of the City landscaping and DeAnza intersection (Fine Arts)
Proliferation of signs, multi-language
Antenna Master Plan
There were several projects accomplished in 2000 that were not a part of the work
program: R-1 ordinance amendments; zoning amendments related to basements; and
staff work on the new library proposal.
2001/2002 Goals
The list of goals for fiscal year 2001/2002 contains all the Planning Commission/City
Council goals and projects that are either in-progress or incomplete. Staff assumes that
the in-progress and incomplete/committed goals will be retained.
Incomplete/uncommitted goals should be discussed to determine if they should be
retained; new goals should be discussed to determine if they should be augmented.
2001/2002 Goals/Projects (committed projects are in italics)
In-Progress
1. Antenna Master Plan
2. Development Intensity Manual
3. Garden Gate annexation
4. Compact car parking ordinance
Incomplete
5. General Plan (all of Goal A) [ was delayed by City Council until 12/OOJ
6. Heart of the City landscaping and De Anza intersection (Fine Arts;)
7. Residential (All of Goal B)
8. Zone Heart of the City Specific Plan
9. Proliferation of signs, multi-language
10. Review some specific plans, such as redevelopment in the south De Anza Blvd. Area
New
11. Monta Vista Annexation: approach distinct islands to gauge support for annexation
12. Definition of second units (need to define "kitchen" due to difficulty in determining
when accessory structures are really living units).
13. Definition of remodel (needed due to difficulty in determining if a house demolition
is a remodel or new residence)
Private Projects (these projects are considered committed since they already are or
will be planning applications)
14. Vailco Use Permit
15. Compaq Master Plan and Use Permit
16. City Center (Civic Park) Master Plan and Use Permit
17. Summerhill/Imperial Avenue Residential (58 units)
18. Santa Barbara Grill mixed use
Staff recommends that Item 6, Heart of the City, be removed because it is a Fine Arts
Committee project and it will be implemented in conjunction with the City Center
Development. Item 10 is recommended for removal because the need for reviewing
specific plans can be determined in the General Plan review. There are many significant
remaining projects, such as the General Plan, Garden Gate annexation and the private
projects. Staff believes that some of the smaller projects may need to be eliminated if the
Commission adds other new projects.
Enclosures:
Exhibit A: Goals 2000-2001 (January 2001 update)
Exhibit B: Planning Department 2000 Work Program
Submitted by: Ciddy Wordell, City Planner
Approved by: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Developmental_
G:planning/misc/goals2001