The URL can be used to link to this page

.01 TM-2010-02 Pam Yoshida i I OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CITY HALL � ; 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTII��O, CA 9501�-3255 I C U P E RT 1 N 4 (�08) �i7-33os • FAX (408) 777-3333 •;plannin ��cu�ertulo.or� PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. � Agenda Date: A�ril 13, 2010 Application: TM-2010-02, V-2010-01, Z-2010-01, EA-2010-01 Applicant: Pam Yoshida for Westwood Investments, LLC/ Richard Gregersen Location: Property northerly and abutting 10642 North Portal Avenue, APN 316-25- 047, -048, -054 APPLICATION SUMMARY Tentative Map to subdivide 0.618 acre into two single-family residential lots of approximately 11, 737 and 13,982 gross square feet with an exception area of 1,211 square feet in the City of Sunnyvale; Variance to allow a lot width of 55 feet in an R-1 zoning district where 60 feet is required. Prezoning and Rezoning 0.028 acre from the City of Sunnyvale to pre-R1.7.5, and 0.590 acre from A1-43 to R1-7.5 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the following applications to the City Council: 1. The Negative Declaration, EA 2010-01 (Attaclunent 1) 2. The Tentative Parcel Map, TM-2010-02 �er the Model Resolution (Attachment 2) 3. Variance, V-2010-01 per the Model Resolution (Attachment 3) 4. Prezoning and Rezoning, Z-2010-01 (Attachment 4). PROJECT DATA General Plan Designation: Low Density (1-5 Dwelling Units/Gross Acre) Existing Zoning Designation: A1-43 (Agriculture-Residential - 43,000 square feet minimuin) and City of Sunnyvale ' Propos,ed Zoning Designation: R1-7.5 and pre-R1-7.5 (Single-Family Residential -- 7,500 square feet minimum) Total Gross Lot Area: 26,930 square feet (0.618 acre) 1-1 T�-2010-02, V-2010-01, Z-2010-01, EA-2010-01 N. Portal A�-enue Subdivision April 13, 2010 Page 2 Proposed Lot Areas: Gross Area Net Ar�e� Parcel 1: 13,982 sq. ft. 9,376 sq. ft. Parcel 2: 11,737 sq. ft. 9,348 sq. ft. Exception Area: 1,211 sq. ft. 1,211 sq. ft. Existing Land Use: Vacant Proposed Lancl LJse: Single-family residential Proposed Density: 3.24 dwellings/gross acre Proj ect Consistency with General I'1an: Yes Z�nia�g: Yes Environmental Ileview: Mitigated Negative Declaration �ACKGROUNI� The ap�licant, I'am Yoshida of MBA Architects, representing landowner Westwood Investments, is seeking the above captioned entitlements to subdivide a vacant lot into two single-family residential lots. The fenced lot is located at the terminus of North I'ortal Ave. and is accessed via a 20-foat uzgress-egress �asement Iocated on the left side of 10642 North Portal Ave. The lot is surrounded an the north and eas� by a Santa Clara Valley Water District drainage channel and High�vay 280, to the south by single-farnily dwellings, and to the west by 2-story apartment buildings. In Figure 1 the light � -- - ` __�. - � - . � `- ` y., � ` .�� ' �� . . � `� blu� llnes mark the � � i � w�..� :�'� . i�- �, _ � �w pro�ect property �, F� _ -�`��;; .��,;,�. boundaries. The red � �� .,��' .::-�,�� - �;��: :_ _...o . . . � �,��, .�;, � ; trianale is the lot � � � � � - �- r �� '� � ,.: , r � -r,` �; b ;�� -+�..,, � .. �� „" �. ' � exce tion area that is �` " ~ �� `` `�� ~ b � � �"+ � d � '�•_ l ;""�. � _ '" �. '�► ' ^,Y, y�i.-" . . -�; • ."' ,»�... . ''-� , � . . . � : ., - �., ' - � . „ • ��- ' .` located u1 the City of _ ; �� : � �.... � _ � : .� , . � , , Sunn ale, and the ' � �� :� _ �` _'�` �_ „ . Y�' � - :.----�;.--.. .� . �; - . _ , �, ti .� �"--� hatched rectangular � ' � T-. -�;,� � . . _�, �,�.,, �. �� r-�:. � : � „��, �- � ,. a d �� area de icts the �' � � .'�, \ � � � � ; � i �" ", sr?!� �lj., �' /' ,,,,. ] : i ` r M i. � � �� ,.. - k K�; �� -° _ ..,. „ . existin access �—''` -,. � � �'.��` �� ^�.� � " -> �► �� . � �� .�: � "��...�.`s ""---� . � • .-:�• ° -`a_ `'► �, ° ..� f•, '` - ai �. � ,� �� g �.-.�: � ` ..� , � � _ ~�' - easement to the lot. �� ..-.�.`�� -,:.. �,�;,.. � �,; � _ ,,, � , ,._ '�:°�:.�,� .�. � . The lot is im roved - - - ' ' - - � . �� a _ � .:: f''� � h «„ ` ! '4 ,� ' . 1 �4� ' .�fi • � " with accessor � � _ . � �c_� . , a _-:��: _ -� _ - `�= ... : � y . �' �= . --- . ;� � .�... .� � .�.�. � �w� ,. : ' . �_ _ _�� : _ -- � � structu�es, fencing a��d landscaping, where neighbors Figure 1 ha�Te extended their �rards into the property. DISCUSSION StgbC�lVflS10I1 �e51�gt T�he applicant pr�poses two pie-shaped lots accessed by an existing easement across 10642 North Portal 1�venue and an an-site cul-de-sac bulU (see attached �'lan set). For 1-2 TM-2010-02, V-2010-01, Z-2010-01, EA-2010-01 N. Portal Avenue SuUdivision Apri113, 2010 , Page 3 suUdivision purposes, the lot exception area in the City of Sunnyvale (northwest corner of property) must be treated as if it were a separate parcel. Since Cupertino does not have land use jurisdiction, the exception area cannot Ue counted toward the lot area or the setbacks of the proposed suUdivision. Even tllough no residential development is proposed at this tiine, Uoth proposed lots are of sufficient size and dimensions to accommodate R1 building setbacks and miniinum lot size requirements of the proposed R1-7.5 zoning district. The conceptual building footprints on Sheet C-1 of the plan set depict six on-site parking stalls for each lot, wllich is the minimum city requirement when no street parking is provided. The Parcel 1 wedge on the opposite side (easterly side) of the cul-de-sac will Ue needed to accommodate improvements for storm water retention for Uoth lots, a requirement of federal and state law. A condition has Ueen added to the model resolution. , _ _ _ ___ _ ___ _�.__ .. _ __...�� # , _ � - ,« , . +s.y�,� i ` y �...�......�. ;� '• - I _ � � - � I � _ _ �, � "_ . . . .. �{+". _ . . . , -- � _ : '--. � : �� f- ._- ' ' __ _ -.,�,, _ - : ' . - _ - =-ti . . , : ;... �,__ � • r : '•. ; , , • - _ . -_.. , r �: ,- --.' . - ..._, __ - i - __ . - �. ` j ' #' + .'. .. >� � r .r, , ~r '' ____ i _ ... � . - ^ R _ , rr r , _ �. • . I ' . ..... _ ... �. ..—�_ , J ` . • • ti i .�._� Y .. _ . y ` _ _ � , ; ... ^ .' ` ; .' - � 1 J a i - � , ... . � � ,. � -a� .- . . , _ . ' ' f ; �'�-' -'�--�` i aZ^ - ^ _ _� ., ' � � ..�-' -�� ' . - . . .. � . . _.. � , , :- .� ,.�... � ._ _; ..�._.�__�_—_.--.v _ - ' ' � .. �.- .. . _ _ . . _. ?. /_ � . . . -- - . _, . i � j , . � � � �r"-> � :.� ,, . , . . _ � , ',( ; �.�'",... `, . , . . ,. � ,. J c s�•� r ' �: . , , _ *'y Net Lot Size: 10642 North Portal Avenue The existing access easement, granted in 2009, reduces the net lot size of 10642 North Portal Avenue for development purposes by 2,510 square feet, according to the R1 zoning ordinance. The lot, however, is oversized for the area at 14,275 square feet so its reduction in net lot size to 11,765 square feet only increases the existing floor area ratio to (FAR) to 27.5%, which is Uelow the City R1 maximum FAR of 45%. 1-3 TM-2010-02, V-2010-01, Z-2010-01, EA-2010-01 N. Portal Avenue Subdivision Apri113, 2010 Page 4 Lot Width Variance Request To facilitate the suUdivision process, the applicant is requesting a variance to reduce the lot width to 55 feet where 60 feet is required. It should Ue noted that except for the lack of adequate lot width, the lots are larger than typical lots in the R1-7.5 zoning district. Smaller lot widths are typical of interior cul-de-sac lots as shown on the survey (Attachment5). All of the highlighted lots on N. Portal Avenue, Drake Court and Auburn Court have lot widths between 50 and 55 feet. � Staff supports the project and believes that the following findings for granting the variance for reduced lot width can be made (staff notes in italics): 1) There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved that do not apply generally to property in the same dist�ict; Staff response: The exceptional circunzstances are tlie oz�e��sized, trirzngular slirzpe of the project lot. T1ze most logicrcl subdivision design is a cul-de-sac style z��lzich is consistent z��ith the gener plan residential land use density ccnd tlie obse��z�ed lot zuidth of other interior cul-de-sac lots. 2) The granting of the application is necessary, for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship; Staff response: T11e project site is tlTree til�zes tlze size of adjacent single famil� residentinl lots. Given its irregular s)zape and the need for vehicular access, a subdiz�ision into tzc�o lots znith u�idths comparable to otJler interior cul-de-sac lots is ��easolzable. 3) The granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not Ue detrimental to the puUlic health, safety, and general welfare, or convenience, and to secure the purpose of the title. St�zff ��esponse: Property is proposed to be developed 111 accordance z��itli t12e Cit�'s requirements fo�� single frzmily liomes. The site location is sirnilar to other R1 pc�rcels in the neighborhood. Potentially negrztive effects of living next to a highzvay zi�ill be mitigrzted to the extent possible. Rezoning & Prezoning The applicant proposes to rezone the majority of the property fiom "A1-43" to "R1-7.5" and the small exception area from "City of Sunnyvale" to "Pre-R1-7.5." The R1-7.5 zoninb designation is consistent with the zoning of the surrounding single-family residential areas. The exception area can be used for landscaping, but not for Uuilding until such time the property owner seeks a realigrunent of Cupertino/Sunnyvale municipal Uoundaries and annexation to Cupertino. Trees An arborist report was not warranted for the property. A site inspection of the lot showed orily fruit trees, willows and incense cedars (laUeled pine on the plan set), which are not considered protected trees by t11e Protected Tree Ordinance. 1-4 ' TM-2010-02, V-2010-01, Z-2010-01, EA-2010-01 N. Portal Avenue SuUdivision Apri113, 2010 Page 5 Hazardous Materials A Phase 1 environmental analysis was commissioned by the property owner to identify historic and present uses/conditions of the property and adjacent lands may Ue indicative of releases of hazardous substances, such as, petroleum. The survey spanned 70 years of human activity and included 1listoric aerial photographs, interviews with the property owner and neighbors, search of government agency databases that regulate hazardous materials, visual inspection of the property, etc. The assessment concluded there were negative findings for a hazardous materials release on the property. Noise The north and east portions of the lot are separated from U.S. Highway 280 Uy a Santa Clara Valley Water Dist�ict drainage channel and a 12-foot tall freeway sound wall. The applicant commissioned the preparation of an acoustical study Uy Edward L. Pack Associates, Inc. to assess existing and future noise levels and compare them to City noise standards. Project mitigation is proposed to alleviate noise levels in excess of City standards (Attachment 6). Noise Existing Future Mitigated Standard Noise Level Noise Level Noise Level CNEL CNEL * CNEL CNEL) Interior 45 dB 53 dB 53 dB 45 dB 1St Floor Interior 45 dB 61 dB 61 dB 45 dB 21 Floor Exterior 60 dB 68 dB 68 dB 60 dB 1St Floor Exterior 60 dB 76 dB 76 dB N/ A . 21�a Floor * Worst Case Noise To achieve the mitigated interior noise levels, Sound Transmission Class (STC) rated glass must be installed in all first and second story living areas that have any highway orientation: STC 28 windows on the first floor and STC 36 windows on the second floor. A notification covenant requirement has Ueen added to the tentative map conditions of approval that will Ue recorded on each lot, informing potential purchasers of the noisy environment and requirement of interior noise mitigation. To achieve mitigated exterior noise levels, tlle side and rear yards must be enclosed with 15 to 22 foot tall sound walls along the perimeter and a sound wall Uetween the two lots (See Attachment 7). The apartments to the west would experience a noise increase of 3 dB from reflections. Staff is not recommending this mitigation. Air Quality The Environmental Review Committee expressed concerns with potential air quality impacts at the project site. The applicant enlisted the consultation of air quality 1-5 TM-2010-02, V-2010-01, Z-2010-01, EA-2010-01 N. Portal Avenue Subdivision Apri113, 2010 Page 6 specialist, Mike O'Corulor of M'OC Physics. It should be noted that a formal air quality analysis caruzot be accomplished at this point d'ue. to the fact that tize Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) has not adopted any guidelines. In a preliminary analysis of the project, (Attachment 4) Mr. O'Connor points out a few possible mitigation measures that could Ue applied to the project. These measures were , proposed (not adopted) Uy BAAQMD in December 2009 for sensitive receptors proposed ' for location near sources of diesel particulate matter, including: 1) tiered plantings of trees and oleander, 2) installation and maintenance of air filtration systems, and 3) installation of passive electrostatic filtering systems Even though there are no Ordinance requirements to require any mitigation measures to address air quality impacts, a condition of approval for the project requires planting of additional trees along its highway boundary and the installation of an air filtration system. We should require these conditions. Prepared by: Colin Jung, Senior Planner Reviewed Uy: Approved by: , � �f/f/� � Gary� arti Shrivastava City Planner Community Development Director ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1 Initial Study, ERC Recommendation and Negative Declaration Attachment 2 Model Resolution for TM-2010-02 Attachment 3 Model Resolution for V-2010-01 Attachment 4 Model Resolution for Z 2010-01 Attachtnent 5 Assessor Parcel Map depicting lots with widths less than 60 feet Attacl�unent 6 Noise Assessment Study for the Plaruzcu 2-Lot Su�division, dated DecemUer 18, 2009 Attachment 7 Noise Study Addendum dated March 23, 2010 Attachment 8 Air Quality - Mike O'Connor, M'OC Physics, dated Apri15, 2010 Attachment 9 Plan set � � G:pla�rniitg/�dreport/yc dn reports/2010tmreports/tm-2010-02, z�-2010-01, z-2010-Ol.doc �-6 Attachment 1 ' "`� i City of Cupertino � � �G d. 10300 Torre Avenue ��- Cupertino, CA 95014 CIT�' OF (408) 777-3251 C U P E�T I N 0 FAX (408) 777-3333 Community Development Department INITIAL STUDY - ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION CHECKLIST Staff Use Only EA File No. EA-2010-01 Case File No. TM-2010-02, V-2010-01, Z- 2010-01 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ttachments Noise Report, Phase 1 report Project Title: Subdivision & Rezoninq: Lands of Westwood Investors Project Location: No address, behind 10642 North Portal Avenue (APN316-25-047, - 048 -054) Project Description: Subdivide 0.618 acre into two residential lots of about 11,737 & 13 982 sq. ft. with an exception area of 1,211 sq. ft. in Sunnyvale. Variance to allow lot width of 55 ft. where 60 ft. is the minimum. Prezone 0.028 ac from Sunnyvale to pre-R1- 7.5 and 0.59 ac from A1-43 to R1-7.5 Environmental Setting: Vacant land surrounded by sinqle-familv detached land uses to the east and south, apartments to the west and US Hiqhway 280 to the north PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Site Area (ac.) — 0.618 Building Coverage - N/A % Exist. Building - 0 s.f. Proposed Bldg. - N/A s.f. Zone — A1-43 G.P. Designation — Low Densitv Res. (1-5 du/gr. Ac.) Assessor's Parcel No. 316 - 25 - 047, -048, -054 If Residential, Units/Gross Acre - 3.24 du/qr. Ac. Total# Rental/Own Bdrms Total s.f. Price Unit Type #1 Unit Type #2 Unit Type #3 Unit Type #4 Unit Type #5 Applicable Special Area Plans: (Check) ❑ Monta Vista Design Guidelines � S. De Anza Conceptual ❑ N. De Anza Conceptual ❑ S. Sara-Sunny Conceptual ❑ Stevens Crk Blvd. Conceptual ❑ Stevens Creek Blvd. SW & Landscape If Non-Residential, Building Area - s.f. FAR - Max. 1 1-7 Employees/Shift - Parking Required 6/lot Parking Provided 6/lot INITIAL STUDY SOURCE LIST Project Site is Within Cupertino Urban Service Area — YES � NO ❑ 2 1-8 A. CUPERTINO GENERAL PLAN SOURCES D. OUTSIDE AGENCIES (Continued) 26. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 1. Land Use Element 27. County Parks and Recreation Department 2. Public Safety Element 28. Cupertino Sanitary District 3. Housing Element 29. Fremont Union High School District 4. Transportation Element 30. Cupertino Union School District 5. Environmental Resources 31. Pacific Gas and Electric 6. Appendix A- Hillside Development 32. Santa Clara County Fire Department 7. Land Use Map 33. County Sheriff 8. Noise Element Amendment 34. CALTRANS 9. City Ridgeline Policy 35. County Transportation Agency 10. Constraint Maps 36. Santa Clara Valley Water District B. CUPERTINO SOURCE DOCUMENTS E. OUTSIDE AGENCY DOCUMENTS 11. Tree Preservation ordinance 778 37. BAAQMD Survey of Contaminant 12. City Aerial Photography Maps Excesses 13. "Cupertino Chronicle" (California History F. FEMA Flood Maps/SCVWD Flood Maps Center, 1976) G. USDA, "Soils of Santa Clara County" 14. Geological Report (site specific) 15. Parking Ordinance 1277 H. County Hazardous Waste Management 16. Zoning Map Plan 17. Zoning Code/Specific Plan Documents I. County Heritage Resources Inventory 18. City Noise Ordinance J. Santa Clara Valley Water District Fuel Leak Site C. CITY AGENCIES Site K. CaIEPA Hazardous Waste and 19. Community Development Dept. List Substances Site 20. Public Works Dept. 21. Parks & Recreation Department L. OTHER SOURCES 22. Cupertino Water Utility 44. Project Plan SetlApplication Materials M. Field Reconnaissance D. OUTSIDE AGENCIES N. Experience w/project of similar 23. County Planning Department scope/characteristics 24. Adjacent Cities' Planning Departments O. ABAG Projection Series 25. County Departmental of Environmental Health INSTRUCTIONS A. Complete all information requested on the Initial Study Cover page. LEAVE BLANK SPACES ONLY WHEN A SPECIFIC ITEM IS NOT APPLICABLE. B. Consult the Initial Study Source List; use the materials listed therein to complete, the checklist information in Categories A through O. C. You are encouraged to cite other relevant sources; if such sources are used, job in their title(s) in the "Source" column next to the question to which they relate. D. If you check any of the "YES" response to any questions, you must attach a sheet explaining the potential impact and suggest mitigation if needed. E. When explaining any yes response, label your answer clearly (Example "N - 3 Historical") Please try to respond concisely, and place as many explanatory responses as possible on each qaqe. F. Upon completing the checklist, sign and date the Preparer's Affidavit. G. Please attach the following materials before submitting the Initial Study to the City. ✓Project Plan Set of Legislative Document ✓Location map with site clearly marked (when applicable) 3 1-9 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: _ _ __ -- - -. _ . _ _- - --_ __ - - -- -- -- ------ -- -- ---- - >'� � � o�a� � �� t � � �. .� �c F- .� s � o � •� �a o �a ISSUES: c:= a ,� '-- "= � Q. '�- a. z a [and Supporting Information Sources] o � � � � 3 = � � '� � � a cn -� v� � c -� in - - I. AESTHETICS -- Would the project: _ _ a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 scenic vista? [5,9,24,41,44] b) Substantially damage scenic resources, ❑ ❑ ❑ � including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? [5,9 _ _ _ __ __ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ c) Substantially degrade the existing visual ❑ ❑ ❑ � character or quality of the site and its surroundings? [1,17,19,44] d} Create a new source of substantial light or ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 glare, which would adversely affect day or � nighttime views in the area? [1,16,44] __ __ ___ _ _ _ _ ._ _ . ____ ___ _ _ _ II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: _ _ _ a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of fhe California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? [5,7,39] b) Conflict with existing zoning for ❑ ❑ � � agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? [5,7,23] c) Involve other changes in the existing ❑ ❑ ❑ � environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of 5 1-10 O � � � t � � p c�C R � �+ �+ � V C� '� V L � L .= V C� C� �SSUES: +�' c6 I" _,, � O I � O� C.`� C. y=• � Q. N = Q. Z Q. [and Supporting Information Sources] o�� a, 3 � � � a� � � a cn � cn � c � ii� _ _ _ Farmland, to non-agricultural use? [�,-;�:;] _ __ _ _ ___ III. AIR QUALITY — Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of ❑ ❑ ❑ � the applicable air quality plan? [5,37,42,44] b) Violate any air quality standard or ❑ ❑ � 0 contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? [5,37,42,44] c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? [4,37,44] d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial ❑ ❑ � � pollutant concentrations? [4,37,44J e) Create objectionable odors affecting a ❑ ❑ � 0 substantial number of people? [4,37,44] _ IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) 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 Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? [5,10,27,44] b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any ❑ � � � riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional __ _ _ 6 1-11 -� -- - � - � ---- � O � � _ _ � V (� '= V�� L L V V V ,,. �i�+ .� � � 0 � •� � Q � ISSUES: �� a N � 3�Q. N :� Q. z a [and Supporting Information Sources] o � � � � = `o � � � � acn �cn � c , �in — — _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? [5,10,27,44] _ __ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ . c) 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? [20,36,44] _ _ __ _ _ _ d) Interfere substantially with the movement � ❑ ❑ � of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? [5,10,12,21,26] _ __ _ ____ _ _ _ __ _ __ ___ e) Conflict with any local policies or ❑ ❑ � � ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? [11,12,41 ] ---_ _ ----_ _____-- ---- ___ __ _-.- .___ _ _ __. _ IVe) Site survey by staff shows only two Willow trees (Salix sp.), two incense cedars and several fruit trees (apricot and orange) present on the property. There are no protected trees on the property as identified in the City's protected tree ordinance, CMC Section 14.18. � Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural ❑ p ❑ � Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? [5,10,26,27] V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ a) Cause a substantial adverse change in ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? [5,13,41] _ __ __ _ _ b) Cause a substantial adverse change in � ❑ ❑ � the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? [5,13,41] _ __ _ _ _ _ 7 1-12 -- - -- — , — A*r � }' � C �'+ ca � �� V t� � L L� V v �SSUES: �' � � ~ � �+ �C 0 1— v � O cC � N 4_.. � N '� Z [and Supporting Information Sources] o ,�, � � .a, 3 � ° J ' a� � � a cn tn c cn ____ ___ _ __- ___ __ _____ __ _ _ _ _ c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique � ❑ � � paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? [5,13,41 � _ ___ __ _ _ __ __ d) Disturb any human remains, including ❑ ❑ � 0 those interred outside of formal cemeteries? [�: _ _ _ VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS — Would the project: _ _ -- __ a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as ❑ ❑ � � delineated 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. [2,14,44] _ _ _ _ _ ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ❑ � � � [2,5,10,44] __ _ _ __ _ . _ _ _ _ iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including ❑ ❑ � 0 liquefaction? [2,5,10,39,44] iv) Landslides? [2,5,10,39,44] ❑ � 0 0 __ _ _ _ _ b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the ❑ ❑ � 0 loss of topsoil? [2,5,10,44] c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is ❑ ❑ � 0 unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? [2,5,10,39] _ _ _____ _ _ d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined ❑ ❑ � 0 in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (199i), creating substantial risks to life or property? [2,5,10] __ e) Have soils incapable of adequately O ❑ ❑ � _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . 8 1-13 O � � ,,.+ � � p � �C � ,►+ ++ r.�? � H.v t� O H•v � p R ISSUES: c:� a N :� �= o, Q, y = a Z Q. [and Supporting Information Sources] o a, � � a, �� o N a, � � a cn � cn � c � in _ __. supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? [6,9,36,39] VI. A review of the City's Geological Hazards Map indicates that the subject property and surrounding area are not subject to inundation, liquefaction or other soil issues that may occur in proximity to a drainage channel. Property will have access to sanitary sewerage and will not rely on septic systems. Property, as are all properties in the San Francisco Bay Area, are affected by seismic activity along the earthquake faults. Property is not in an Alquist-Priolo fault zone nor is the property near a potentially active fault line. Compliance with current building and seismic codes will be adequate to protect lives and property from seismic activity. VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS — Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or ❑ ❑ ❑ � the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous • materials? [32,40,42,43,44J _ __ � b) 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? [32,40,42,43,44] c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle O ❑ ❑ 0 hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? [2,29,30,40,44] d) 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, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? [2,42,40,43J _ _ e) For a project located within an airport land ❑ ❑ � 0 use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or 9 1-14 - _-- --- -- -- --- _ � � � � �.+ � � p � ' � � +r .rr � V t� � V�;�;,, � L V C� C� �SSUES: C � Q ~ � �'= � Q. ~ '�' Q � 2 [and Supporting Information Sources] o � � � , a, 3 � `o � '� � z � acn ��n � c �in — _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ working in the project area? [] _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ __ __ _ _ _ fl For a project within the vicinity of a private ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? [ ] _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ g) Impair implementation of or physically ❑ ❑ ❑ � interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? [2,32,33,44] _ _ _ __ _ __ h) Expose people or structures to a ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 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?[1,2,44] ___ . _--- _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ . VII. A Phase 1 environmental assessment indicates no prior land uses that would cause a hazardous waste contamination issue, other than the orchard use which was common throughout Cupertino. There are no local agency records indicating use, storage or spills of hazardous materials on the property. A physical inspection of the property also showed no evidence of use, storage or contamination by hazardous materials. VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY -- Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or ❑ ❑ ❑ � waste discharge requirements? [20,36,37] _ _ b) Substantially deplete groundwater ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? [20,36,42] c) 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 would result in substantial erosion of siltation on- or off-site? _ __ _.__ _ _ __ _ _ _ 10 1-15 O C � O cC " r.v � 1 .v .� � O H v c p� � S S I J E$: C:� C. "" �- a Q. a [and Supporting Information Sources] o� E � 3�' o ` �:a � z� a cn � cn �� cn - - _ _ __ _ _ _ ___ __ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ �� ',3E�1 d) Substantially alter the existing drainage ❑ � ❑ 0 pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site [20,36,38] e) Create or contribute runoff water which ❑ O O ❑ would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? [20,36,42] _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ . __ _ � Otherwise substantially degrade water ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ quality? [20,36,37] _ _ _ _ _ _ g) 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? [ h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area ❑ ❑ O 0 structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? [2,38] i) Expose people or structures to a significant ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? [2,36,38] j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or ❑ ❑ ❑ � mudflow? [2,36,38J __ _ _ . _ __ _ - -__ _ _ _ _ . __ _ _ ___ __ VIII. The amount of physical development of the property triggers requirements to retain storm flows onsite. Land has been reserved in the subdivision (eastern side) to accommodate C3 requirements. Improvements will be designed at the improvement plan stage of the final map approval. _ IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project: a) Physically divide an established ❑ ❑ ❑ � community? [7,12,22 11 1-16 o � w � _ �� t� v v :�. .v ca F— .�? ��_' O F— •v ca p� ISSUES: c:� Q y `�- �= � Q N "= a Z Q. [and Supporting Information Sources] o a, � � a, 3 � o � a, � � � N J f/� � C —� f/� b) Conflict with any appiicable 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? [1,7,8,16,17,18,44] _ _ c) Conflict with any applicable habitat ❑ ❑ ❑ � conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? [1,5,6,9,26] X. MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: _ _ __ _ _ _ a) Result in the loss of availability of a known � ❑ ❑ 0 mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? [5,10] _ _ _ b) 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? [5,10] XI. NOISE -- Would the project result in: a) 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? [8,18,44] _ _ ___ _ _ _ ____ __ ___ b) Exposure of persons to or generation of ❑ 0 � � excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? [8,18,44] _ __ __ __ _ _ _ c) A substantial permanent increase in ❑ ❑ � 0 ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? � � 8� d) A substantial temporary or periodic ❑ ❑ � � increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without 12 1-17 - - � O � . �' � � � � O � � � � ++ �4 V t L L V V �S.S�ES: � ~��C �� a and Su ortin Information Sources °�' a, � �' = a�, 3 � o y a� � Z � I pp 9 � a �in � c �'cn __ _ _ ___ __ __ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ ___ the project? [8 � �,44] _ _._ e) 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, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? [8,18,44] _ __ _ _ _ _ fl For a project within the vicinity of a private ❑ ❑ � 0 airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? [g ' 8] _ _ _ __ __ _ ___ _ _ _ __ _ _-- - --__ __ ___ _ _ _ __ _ _. _ _ ___ XI. A noise assessment for the project was prepared by Edward L. Pack Associates dated December 18, 2009. Measurements indicate that ground floor noise level will be 68 dB CNEL and second floor will be 76 d6 CNEL. Both levels exceed the "normally acceptable" General Plan noise exposure level for low density single-family land uses. The more important measure is the ground level measurement as this is the noise level of the yard areas (There is an existing 12-foot tall sound wall that was erected by CALTRANS). The higher ground floor noise level is in the "conditionally acceptable" range if detailed noise analysis is completed and noise reduction features are incorporated in the design of the dwellings. Interior noise levels in the most impacted rooms (facing the freeway) are estimated to be 53 dB CNEL for the first floor and 61 dB CNEL for the most impacted second floor spaces. The maximum interior noise requirement is 45 dBA. According to the consultant, this level can be achieved if all glass windows and doors facing the freeway remain close. The first floor windows must have a minimum STC rating of 28 and second floor windows (facing the freeway) must have a minimum STC rating of 36. All impacted windows must have high quality, durable frames and air-tight seals to be effective. Mechanical ventilation for living spaces that have a closed window condition, should also be required. As these mitigations apply to residential development of the properties and not the subdivision. A notification should be placed on the final map and covenants recorded on each lot, notifying future property owners of the availability of the noise report and building requirements needed to achieve conditionally acceptable City noise standards. 13 1-18 � c o � �a�� t� °� �`�� ISSUES: �=a N�3�a. y=a Za [and Supporting Information Sources] o a, � � a, = � �� a cn —i cn � c �'v� __ __ __ __ __ _ _ _ XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING -- Would � the project: ____ ____ a) Induce substantial population growth in an ❑ ❑ � ❑ area, either directly (for exampie, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? [3,16,47,44] __ _ _ . b) Displace substantial numbers of existing ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? [3,16,44] __ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ . c) Displace substantial numbers of people, ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? [3,16,44] _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ . XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, 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? [19,32,44] ❑ ❑ ❑ � _ _ ___ __ __ __ _ Police prot ection? [33,44] ❑ ❑ ❑ � Schools? [29,30,44] ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 __ _ __ ____ _ __._ ___ _ Parks? [5,17,19,21,26,27,44] ❑ '� ❑ � _ _ _ Other public facilities? [19,20,44J ❑ ❑ ❑ � ._ _. _ _ _ XIV. RECREATION -- _ _ __ _ _ _ a) Would the project increase the use of ❑ ❑ ❑ � existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the 14 1-19 � = c o �, �C R V L� � i t� V V � S S U E S: ;"� �� ~� r t3 � F— v cC O c4 [and Supporting Information Sources] o � � � � � � � � a, � z � a tn -� i!� � c -� cA __ -- - -__ _ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ _ -- _ -- __ _ _ ___ _ facility would occur or be accelerated? [5,17,19,21,26,27,44] - _ _ _ __ . _. b) 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? [5,44] _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC -- Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is ❑ � � 0 substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? [4,20,35,44] b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, ❑ ❑ � � a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? [4,20,44] c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, ❑ ❑ � 0 including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? [4,?] d) Substantially increase hazards due to a ❑ ❑ � � design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? [20,35,44] e) Result in inadequate emergency access? ❑ ❑ � � [2,19,32,33,44] _ _ _ __ --_ _ _ . _ _. _ _ _ _ __ _ fl Result in inadequate parking capacity? � ❑ � 0 [17,44] g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or ❑ ❑ � � programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? [4,34] _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ 15 1-20 � o � c� � � Rf � V t� � R L� V V �S.SUE.S: "�� ~�r�4o F-�R O�C G� C� y C •� � y C� Z�' [and Supporting Information Sources] o a, � � v, - � �,a� � � dfn Jfn � C J(%) _ _ _ _ ___ _ -- ___ _ _ _ _ _ __ XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS — Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment ❑ � � � requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? [5,22,28,36,4��] _ __ __ . _ b) Require or result in the construction of ❑ ❑ � 0 new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the • construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? [36,22,28,36] _ _ _ _ _ __. _ c) Require or result in the construction of ❑ ❑ � � new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? [5,22,28,36,44] e) 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? [5,22,28,36,44] ___ __ _ _ _ fl Be served by a landfill with sufficient ❑ ❑ � 0 permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? [?] ___ _. _ _ _ . _ g) Comply with federal, state, and local ❑ ❑ � 0 statutes and regulations related to solid waste? [?] 16 1-21 XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE (To be completed by City Staff) a) Does the project have the potential to ❑ ❑ � 0 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? [] __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ __ b) 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)? [l __ _ c) Does the project have environmental ❑ � � � effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? [J PREPARER'S AFFIDAVIT I hereby certify that the information provided in this Initial Study is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief; I certify that I have used proper diligence in responding accurately to all questions herein, and have consulted appropriate source references when necessary to ensure full and complete disclosure of relevant environmental data. I hereby acknowledge than any substantial errors dated within this Initial Study may cause delay or discontinuance of related project review procedures, and hereby agree to hold harmless the City of Cupertino, its staff and authorized agents, from t�ie consequences of such delay or discontinuance. �� , � ` � Preparer's Signature ��-� `:� � Print Preparer's Name Colin J q 17 1-22 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (To be Completed by City Staff) ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below wouid be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a"Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ❑ Aesthetics ❑ Agriculture Resources ❑ Air Quality 0 Biological Resources ❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Geology /Soils 0 Hazards & Hazardous � Hydrology / Water ❑ Land Use / Planning Materials Quality ❑ Mineral Resources 0 Noise ❑ Population / Housing ❑ Public Services ❑ Recreation ❑ Transportation/Traffic ❑ Utilities / Service � Mandatory Findings of Systems Significance DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) finds that: ❑ The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. 0 Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ The proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ❑ The proposed project MAY have a"potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ❑ Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. 18 1-23 � A ' � �� .� 2/ 17/ 10 Staff Evaluator Date 2/18/10 ERC Chairperson Date 19 1-24 CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE February 18, 2010 As provided Uy the Enviroiunental Assessment Procedure, adopted Uy the City Council of the City of Cupertino on May 27, 1983, as amended, the following descriUed project was reviewed Uy the Envirorunental Review Committee of the City of Cupertino on FeUruary 18, 2010. PROTECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION Application No.: TM-2010-02, V-2010-01, Z-2010-01 (EA-2010-01) Applicant: Pam Yoshida (Westwood Investments, LLC) Location: 10642 N Portal Avenue DISCRETIONARY ACTION REQUEST Tentative Map to subdivide 0.618 acres into two single family residential lots of approximately 11,737 and 13,982 gross square feet with an exception area of 1,211 square feet in the City of Suruzyvale; A Variance to allow a lot width of 55 feet in an R-1 zoning district where 60 feet is required; Pre-Zone and Re-Zone 0.028 acres from t11e City of Sunnyvale to pre-R1-7.5 and 0.590 acres from A1-43 to R1-7.5 FINDINGS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE The Environmental Review Committee recommends the granting of a Mitigated Negative Declaration finding that the project is consistent with the General Plan and has no significant environmental impacts, provided that the following mitigations are incorporated in the project: 1) Interior Noise Impact Add notification to Final Map and record covenants on each residential lot, notifying builder that STC-rated glass window asseinblies, high quality window frames and mechanical ventilation are required for living spaces witll windows that face freeway per the acoustical report. 2) Exterior Noise Impact Evaluate extent of sound wall needed to protect exterior rear yard areas from excessive noise levels generated Uy freeway traffic. Ascertain if higher soundwall will cause reflected noise impact on adjacent, residential properties. 1-25 3) Air ualit�m�acts Provide high quality air filters on mechanical ventilation to reduce potential toxic air contaminants. Provide landscaping screen along soundwall to control fugitive dust impacts. , ,- � � �� -�- ,,� ��',G%� � �� . ,, Aarti Shrivastava Director of Community Development g/erc/REC EA-2010-01 1-26 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 171977, May 1, 1978, and July 7, 1980, the following described project was granted a Mitigated Negative Declaration Uy the City Council of the City of Cupertino on 2010 PROTECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION Application No.: TM-2010-02, V-2010-01, Z-2010-01 (EA-2010-01) Applicant: Pam Yoshida (Westwood Investments, LLC) Location: Property northerly and aUutting 10642 N. Portal Ave DISCRETIONARY ACTION REQUEST Tentative Map to subdivide 0.618 acres into two single family residential lots of approximately 11,737 and 13,982 gross square feet with an exception area of 1,211 square feet in the City of Sunnyvale; A Variance to allow a lot width of 55 feet in an R-1 zoning dist�ict where 60 feet is required; Pre-Zone and Re-Zone 0.028 acres from the City of Sunnyvale to pre-R1-7.5 and 0.590 acres from A1-43 to R1-7.5 FINDINGS OF DECISIONMAKING BODY The City Council granted a Mitigated Negative Declaration since the project is consistent with the General Plan and there are no significant environmental impacts. The applicant shall adhere to all of the conditions required Uy the City Council on 2010 including but not limited to: 1) Mitigation efforts to address issues of indoor air quality 2) Mitigation efforts to address noise impacts from construction and the freeway 3) Landscaping improvements to allow for visual screen of the freeway soi.uzdwall(s) Aarti Shrivastava Director of Community Development CERTIFICATE OF THE CITY CLERK This is to certify that the above Mitigated Negative Declaration was filed in the Office of the City Clerk of the City of Cupertino on City Clerk g/erc/itegEA201001 1-27 TM-2010-02 CITY OF CUPERTINO Attachment 2 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. ' OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP TO SUBDIVIDE ONE PARCEL INTO TWO SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS OF APPROXIMATELY 11,737 AND 13,982 GROSS SQUARE FEET WITH AN EXCEPTION AREA OF 1,211 SQUARE FEET IN THE CITY OF SUNNYVALE LOCATED NORTHERLY AND ABUTTING TO 10642 NORTH PORTAL AVE. SECTION I: FINDINGS WHEREAS, the Planning Cominission of the City of Cupertino received an application for a Tentative Parcel Map, as described in Section II of this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the necessary puUlic notices have been given in accordance with the Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning�Corrunission has held one or more puUlic hearings on this matter; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the Uurden of proof required to support said application; and has satisfied the following requirements: 1) That the proposed subdivision map is consistent with the City of Cupertino General Plan. 2) That the design and iinprovements of the pro�osed subdivision are consistent with the General Plan. 3) That the site is physically suitable for the type and intensity of development conteinplated under the approved suUdivision. 4) That the design of the suUdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause suUstantial environmental damage and/or suUstantial and unavoidaUle injury to fish and wildlife or their haUitat. 5) That the design of the suUdivision or the type of improvements associated there with is not likely to cause serious public health proUlems. 6) That the design of the suUdivision and its associated improvements will not conflict with easements acquired Uy the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhiUits, testimony and other evidence suUmitted in this matter, the application for Tentative Parcel Map, file no. TM-2010-02, is hereby approved, suUject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution Ueginning on Page 2 thereof; and That the suUconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this resolution are Uased and contained in the puUlic hearuzg record concerning Application No. TM-2010-02 as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning CoiYUnission Meeting of April 13, 2010 and are 1-28 Resolution No. TM-2010-02 Apri113, 2010 Page 2 incorporated Uy reference as though fully set forth herein. SECTION II: PROTECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: TM-2010-02 Applicant: Pam Yoshida (for Westwood Investors/Richard Greg�rsen) Location: Property northerly and abutting to 10642 North Portal Ave. SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 1. APPROVED EXHIBITS Approval is Uased on Exhibits titled: " TWO LOT/ RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION/ NORTH PORTAL AVENUE/CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA " prepared Uy MBA ARCHITECTS dated January 21, 2010 and consisting of two sheets labeled GO and C-1 prepared Uy Westfall Engineers, Inc. dated FeUruary 2010, except as may Ue amended by the conditions contained in this resolution. 2. 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 hereUy further notified that the 90-day approval period in which you may protest these fees, dedications, reservations, and other exactions, pursuant to Goverrunent Code Section 66020(a), has begun If you fail to file a protest within this 90-day period complyuzg with all of the requirements of Section 66020, you will Ue legally Uarred froin later challenging such exactions. 3. DEMOLITION OF STRUCTURES Prior to recordation of the final map, the applicant shall demolish and remove all shuctures on the property. 4. RECORDING OF NOISE COVENANTS ON FINAL MAP Notication shall be placed on the Final Parcel Map and covenants recorded on each lot, notifying future purchasers of the highway noise and the requirement for interior noise mitigation for residential development. Map notes and covenants are suUject to ap�roval of the City Attorney. . 5. AIR UALITY MITIGATION Notication shall be placed on the Final Parcel Map and covenants recorded on each lot, notifying future purchasers of the air. quality mitigation requirements listed in the tentative map approval, file no. TM-2010-02 on file with the City of Cupertino. Map notes and covenants are subject to approval of the City Attorney. SECTION IV: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 6. STREET WIDENING St� eet widening and dedications shall be provided 'uz accordance with City Standards and specifications and as required by the City Enguzeer. 1-29 Resolution No. TM-2010-02 Apri113, 2010 Page 3 7. CURB AND GUTTER IMPROVEMENTS , CurUs and gutters, sidewalks and related structures shall Ue installed in accordance with grades and standards as specified by the City Engineer. 8. STREET LIGHTING INSTALT,ATION Street lighting shall Ue installed and shall be as approved by the City Engineer. Lighting fixtures shall Ue positioned so as to preclude glare and other forms of visual interfereizce to adjoining properties, and shall be no higher than the maximum height perinitted Uy the zone in which the site is located. 9. FIRE HYDRANT Fire hydrants shall be located as required Uy the City and Santa Clara County Fire Department as needed. 10. FIRE PROTECTION Fire sprinklers shall Ue installed in any new const�uction to the approval of the City. 11. GRADING Grading shall Ue as approved and required by the City Engineer in accordance with Chapter 16.08 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. 401 Certifications and 404 permits mayUe required. Please contact Army Corp of Engineers and/or Regional Water Quality Conhol , Board as appropriate. 12. DRAINAGE Drainage shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Pre- and post- development calculations must be provided to indicate whether additional storm water conh ol measures are to be installed. 13. UNDERGROUND UTILITIES The 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 undergiound utility devices. The developer shall suUmit detailed plans showing utility underground provisions. Said plans shall Ue subject to prior approval of the affected Utility provider and the City Engineer. 14. IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT The project developer shall enter ll1t0 a development agreement with the City of Cupertino providing for payment of fees, includuzg Uut 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: $ 5% of Off-Site Inlprovement Cost or $2,468.00 nlininlum b. Grading Permit: $ 6% of Site Improvement Cost or $2,217.00 iniiumum c. Development Maintenance Deposit: $ 2,000.00 d. Storm Drainage Fee: Per Acreage e. Power Cost: *'� 1-30 Resolution No. TM-2010-02 Apri113, 2010 Page 4 £ Map Checking Fees: $7,817.00 g. Park Fees: per ordulance h. Street Trees By Developer ** Based on the latest effective PGB�E rate schedule approved by the PUC Bonds: a. Faithful Performance Bond: 100% of Off-site and On-site Improvements b. Labor & Material Bond: 100% of Off-site and On-site Improven�ent c. 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. 15. TRANSFORMERS Elecfrical transformers, telephone vaults and siinilar above ground equipinent enclosures shall Ue screened with fencing and landscaping or located underground such that said equipment is not visiUle from public street areas. The t�ansformer shall not Ue located in the front or side Uuilding setback area. 16. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES Utilize Best Management Practices (BMPs), as required Uy the State Water Resources Cont�ol Board, for construction activity, which disturbs soil. BMP plans shall be included in grading and sfreet improvement plans. 17. NPDES CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PERMIT The applicant must obtain a Notice of Intent (NOI) from the State Water Resources Cont�ol Board, which encompasses preparation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), use of conshuction Best Management Practices (BMPs) to conhol storm water runoff quality, and BMP inspection and maintenance. 18. C.3 RE QUIREMENTS The developer shall reserve a minimum of 4% of developable surface area for the placement of storm water heatment facilities on the tentative map, unless an alternative storm water heatment plan to satisfy c.3 requirements is approved by the City Engineer. The applicant must include the use and maintenance of site design, source conh ol and storm water t�eatment BMP's, which must Ue designed per approved numeric sizing criteria. A Storm Water Management Plan, Storin Water Facilities Easement Agreeinent, Storm Water Facilities Operation and Maintenance Agreement, and certification of ongoing operation and maintenance of t�eatment BMP's are required. The Storin Water Management Plan will be required to oUtain approval from an approved third party reviewer, at the expense of the developer. 19. SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT CLEARANCE Provide Santa Clara Valley Water District approval Uefore recordation of the final map. The developer shall pay for and oUtain Water District �erinit for activities or 1-31 Resolution No. TM-2010-02 Apri113, 2010 Page 5 modifications within the District easement or fee right-of-way or affectulg District facilities. 20. CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE COMPANY CLEARANCE Provide California Water Service Company approval Uefore recordation of the final map. 21. EROSION CONTROL PLAN The developer must provide an approved erosion control plan by a Registered Civil Engineer. This plan should include all erosion conhol measures used to retain materials on site. Erosion conhol notes shall be stated on the plans. 22. TRAFFIC SIGNS Traffic cont�ol signs shall Ue placed at locations specified by the City. 23. TRASH ENCLOSURES The fi�ash enclosure plan must Ue designed to the satisfaction of the Environmental Programs Manager. 24. REFUSE TRUCK ACCESS The developer must oUtain clearance from the Environmental Programs Manager ll1 , regards to refuse truck access for the proposed development. 25. SANITARY DISTRICT A letter of clearance for the project shall be obtained from the Cupertino Sanitary Dishict prior to issuance of building permits. 26. SANTA CLARA COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT A letter of clearance for the project shall Ue obtained from the Santa Clara County Fire Department prior to issuance of Uuilding permits. 27. UTILITY EASEMENTS Clearance approvals from the agencies with easements on the property ( including PG&E, PacBell, and Califorrua Water Company, and/or equivalent agencies) will Ue required prior to issuance of building permits. 28. WORK SCHEDULE A work schedule shall Ue provided to the City to show the timetable necessary for completion of on and off-site improvements. CITY ENGINEER'S CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE OF ENGINEERING/SURVEYING CONDITIONS (Section 6647418 of the California Governinent Code) I hereby certify that the engineering and surveying conditions specified in Section IV. Of this resolution conform to generally accepted engineering practices 1-32 Resolution No. TM-2010-02 Apri113, 2010 Page 6 / s / Ral�h Qualls Ralph Qualls, Director of Public Works City Engineer CA License 22046 PASSED AND ADOPTED this 13�� day of April 2010, at a Regular Meeting of the Plaruzing Coinmission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ATTEST: APPROVED: Aarti Shrivastava, Director Paul Brophy, Chair Coinmunity Development Department Planning Con�unission G: � Plnnning � PDRepor � Res � 2010 � TM-2010-02 res.doc 1-33 V-2010-01 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Attachment 3 Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A LOT WIDTH OF 55 FEET IN AN R1-7.5 ZONING DISTRICT WHERE 60 FEET IS REQUIRED AT PROPERTY NORTHERLY AND ABUTTING 10642 NORTH PORTAL AVENUE (APN'S 316-25-047 AND -048) SECTION I: PROTECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: V-2010-01 Applicant: Pam Yoshida (for Westwood Investors/Richard Gregersen) Location: Property northerly and abutting 10642 North Portal Avenue SECTION II: FINDINGS WHEREAS, t11e Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for a Variance, as described on Section I. of this Resolution; and WHEREAS, tlle necessary notices have been given in accordance with the Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held one or more PuUlic Hearings on t11is matter; and � WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support this application, and has met the following findings in order to grant the variance: 1) There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved that do not apply generally to property in the same district in that the lot is oversized (compared to the neigllborhood) and triangular in shape. The most logical subdivision design is a cul-de-sac style which is consistent with the general plan residential land use density and the observed lot width of other interior cul-de-sac lots in the area. 2) Tl1e granting of the application is necessary, for the preservation and enjoyment of a suUstantial property right of the applicant, and to prevent uru easonaUle property loss or uruzecessary hardship. The project site is three times the size of adjacent single- family residential lots. Given its irregular shape and the need for vehicular access, a suUdivision into two lots with widths comparaUle to other interior cul-de-sac lots is a reasonable use. 1-34 Resolution No. V-2010-01 April 13, 2010 Page 2 3) The granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or iinproveinents in the vicinity and will not Ue detrimental to the public health, safety, and general welfare, or convenience, and to secure the purpose of the title. The property is proposed to Ue developed in accordance with the City's General Plan and development standards. Potentially negative effects of living next to a highway are mitigated to the extent feasible. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhiUits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, the application for variance is hereUy recommended for approval Uy the Plaruzing Cominission of the City of Cupertino. That the suUconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in tl Resolution are Uased and contained in the Public Hearing record concerning Application V-2010-01 as set forth in the Minutes of the Plaruling Commission Meeting of April 13, 2010 and are incorporated by reference though fully set forth herein. SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT , DEPT. 1. APPROVED EXHIBITS Approval is based on Exhibits titled: " TWO LOT/RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION/ NORTH PORTAL AVENUE/CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA " prepared Uy MBA ARCHITECTS dated January 21, 2010 and consisting of two sheets labeled GO and C-1 prepared Uy Westfall Engineers, Inc. dated FeUruary 2010, except as may Ue amended by the conditions contained in this resolution. 2. 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 hereUy furtller notified that the 90-day approval period in which you may protest these fees, dedications, reservations, and other exactions, pursuant to Goverrtment 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 Ue legally Uarred fi om later challenging such exactions. 1-35 Resolution No. V-2010-01 April 13, 2010 Page 3 PASSED AND ADOPTED this 13th day of April 2010, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino Uy the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ATTEST: APPROVED: Aarti Shrivastava, Director Paul Brophy, Chair Community Development Deparfinent P1aruling Cointnission g/ plar�ning/ pdreport J res/ 2010/ V-2010-01 1-36 Attachment 4 Z-2010-01 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDING THE PRE-ZONING AND RE-ZONING OF ONE LOT OF 0.618 ACRE, CONSISTING OF A PRE-ZONING OF 0.028 ACRE FROM THE CITY OF SUNNYVALE TO PRE-R1-7.5 (SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, 7,500 SQUARE FEET MINIMUM LOT SIZE) AND A RE-ZONING OF 0.59 ACRE FROM A1-43 TO R1-7.5 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED NORTH AND ABUTTING TO 10642 NORTH PORTAL AVENUE. SECTION I: PROTECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: Z-2010-01 (EA-2010-01) Applicant: City of Cupertino Location: Northerly and abutting to 10642 North Portal Avenue (APN's 316- 32-047, -048) SECTION II: FINDINGS FOR REZONING WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application � for the prezoning and rezoning of property, as descriUed on this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the necessary puUlic notices 11ave Ueen given in accordance with the Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held one or more puUlic hearings on this matter; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the suUject prezoning & rezoning meet the following requirements: 1) That the prezoning & rezoning are in conformance with the General Plan of the City of Cupertino. 2) That the property involved is adequate in size and shape to conform to the new zoning designation. 3) That the new zoning encourages the most appropriate use of land. 1-37 Resolution No. Z-2010-01 Apri113, 2010 Page 2 4) That the proposed prezoning & rezoning are otherwise not detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of suUject parcels. 5) That the prezoning & rezoning promotes the orderly development of the city. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhiUits, testimony and other evidence suUmitted in this matter, application no. Z-2010-01 is hereby recommended for approval; and That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this Resolution are Uased and contained in the Public Hearing record concerning Application Z-2010-01, as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Coinmission Meeting of April 13, 2010 and are incorporated Uy reference herein. � SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 1. APPROVED EXHIBITS The recommendation of approval is based on Exhibits A1 and A2: Zoning Plot � Maps, and Exhibit B1 & B2: Legal Descriptions. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 13�� day of April 2010, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ATTEST: APPROVED: Aarti Shrivastava, Director Paul Brophy, Chair Community Development Department Planning Commission G:\Plaiuling\PDREPORT\RES\2008\Z-2009-03 res.doc 1-38 ±�� 1t'��_��: ��_ REZONE FROM AI-43 TO RI-�.5 ��'� ZON I1�1C� ��,4T 1 � ` � ASSESSOR'S I SCALE: 1' = 3m' ` � \ PARGEL NUMBER: � ' � � REZONE: N 89°42'i(d" E �0�.50' � � FROM �.�..�..�..� TO , I I •• • I I � � I I '• e � 0 � � • • �' "n i i � • �'�!/. }- I 0' IRRICsATION ' � i i EASEMENT `� 4 • _ ■ 8 ,` 6 � � � �� . i ' • �'•�,� • i �• �, �:; 6 � rl ► �. IW i I �• � � PROPOSED � � . `� V ; �� I I � � PARCEL �.� � � 0 � I I � � BOUNDARI' �4� z 0 W I I g � 8`' ., 'W i I " F � �7 � � �� I�- I I � I � I I � , . I I I I � ; I I � I 6\ �I I �� ? I I � � �LL---------- ------------- ----� -- _ ..�..�.. .�a�G F'�.E�M�NT 1�3.31' , � �..�..�..�. ' . N 89°21'10" E 29�.(04' . ' . ' � \ / 31�0-32-048 (I.59 AC AI-�3 RI-�.5 PROPOSED INCsRESS, ECsRESS AND PIJE .� ►� • .� .� `•. � 8 ` `. ' 0• ` � -'�'� • • \ ��m� `•. / / / / 8�0.98' ..�..�..�..�.. � �A �� ° 'Z �i �: j � � � � , � ,.��. PORTION OF TI3E PARCEL TO BE REZONED FROM A1-43 TO R1-7.5 All that real property located in the City of Cupertino, County of Santa Clara, State of California, described as follows: A portion of the parcels of land conveyed to the State of California by Deeds numbers 13842 and 29598, recorded June 12, 1962 in Volume 5606 page 537 and 5604 page 513 of Official Records of Santa Clara County described as follows: Beginning at the Southwesterly corner of said parcel recorded in Volume 5606, Page 537 Official Records; thence along the city limit line between City of Sunnyvale and City of Cupertino North 89 Degrees 42 Minutes 10 Seconds East a length of 67.50 feet to the Southwesterly line of the parcel conveyed as parcel 2 to Santa Clara County Flood Control District; thence 267.78 feet along said Southwesterly line and non-tangent curve to the right, said curve having a radius of 3356.00 feet, a delta 4 Degrees 34 Minutes 18 Seconds and radial bearing South 28 Degrees 08 Minutes 32 Seconds West to the Northeasterly corner of Parcel B as shown on the Parcel Map recorded in Book 248 of Maps, at Page 45, Santa Clara County Records; thence along said Northerly line South 89 Degrees 21 Minutes 10 Seconds West a length of 297.64 feet to the Westerly parcel recorded in Volume 5606, Page 537 Official Records; thence along said Westerly line North 0 Degrees 17 Minutes 50 Seconds West a length of 138.60 to the point of beginning. ' Containing 0.590 acres more or less. 1-40 �:__� � 1 � � �i_ � � � � � � �'� �� . „ PREZONE FROM CITI' OF SUNNI'vALE TO PRE-Rl-�.5 zo� �� ,�� r�� A5SE5SOR'S `�\ PARGEL NUMBER: 31(0-32-04� r� PRE-ZONE: fd.03 AC � • ` -f R6p4- ._ ._ _�I�-43- ■ �� T�- , .�-�-=�r,� I � � I '• . I • I I `'�� I � � 6 �� ' `��9� � � � � I `�`: 3S y �G ui Im' IRRICsATION �G.O � q �; � � EASEMENT `� 0I � 5' PCsdE •�� I . !n � i i EASEMENT •�'' r • � 0 I � � `� • Z ■ � � �� I I � ``. ■ � I . � � `. � �..�..�..�..�..�■.�..�..�..�..�..�..�.'�� N 89°42'lm" E �o�.5(I�' � `� � I �k � � � 1 1: i� �-. PORTION OF THE PARCEL TO BE PREZONED FROM SUNNYVALE TO PRE-Rl-7.5 All that real property located in the City of Sunnyvale, County of Santa Clara, State of California, described as follows: A portion of the parcels of land conveyed to the State of California by Deeds numbers 13842 and 29598, recorded June 12, 1962 in Volume 5606 page 537 and 5604 page 513 of Official Records of Santa Clara County described as follows: Beginning at the Southwesterly corner of said parcel recorded in Volume 5606, Page 537 Official Records; thence along the Westerly boundary of said parcel North 0 Degrees 17 Minutes 50 Seconds West a length of 35.57 feet to the Southwesterly line of the parcel conveyed as parcel2 to Santa Clara County Flood Control District; thence 76.31 feet along said Southwesterly line and non-tangent curve to the right, said curve having a radius of 3356.00 feet, a delta 1 Degree 18 Minutes 10 Seconds and radial bearing South 26 Degrees 50 Minutes 22 Seconds West; thence leaving said Southwesterly line along the city limit line between City of Sunnyvale and City of Cupertino South 89 Degrees 42 Minutes 10 Seconds West a length of 67.50 feet to the point of beginning. Containing 0.028 acres more or less. 1-42 � T� o �� u Attachment 5 N �� ° � o a o v N �N I 'o � ��;, ° w� a � �w� � o � g d� �� N N � � ° � ° �-�--- \\ � // c ,�i � a � / ! ° w � � a c V E � � O � I � �`'�-" � m r � �o� � � � � J U U W N Q z � '� I O . iT"� �95'B8 � � _ � •- Z8 � •- O O £5'9'/ f`-' f 5 � N CI 1 N m \ � �'• .t m I J � \. r d o b � Q � n CY �� `a` �' } I ` V I �- N i i c� N N I �o � � i I :� � ', c s � o� 5 � 5 £ 9 t, \ t SE BE � EL /295i ^ ~� � l� q �. ;�SF/ l<9 � � �N 01 a `' 66 1 � �� j � `\ 2c D ��o #b ��_9c; 1 t p�9 O -� �ti \ \/� . �,o �� 6940 ,� ,� �I - �, U �� ti� �I �^ N I i�� e� �' w I � � � `_� m' o � •. \ � „� � o ' , �.� o I N o �� P b� �� _ -- � (,(f � \' � p� , ^.• .1�� Ck68 ¢ � �\ NI ` � 0 NI .- �t `5 E� W N C � � �1 ti �^ . Q N � � b '� 0 \ 0 '. i v \ O J a � ° � ��` b CV � o• � U � o,, �O ^� N � \ � i � � � � ^�i� � /� ` A. - = 8 -`i£ N Z �' � � i � ,o' Z� ¢ � � °� - � .�,9� ,a9s; w � �v �o ` \ �� , M °� ��' ' , 1� n o � _� � � �, Z � � � 'd- �; q �� ,1 4� �^ � � `� � N 2J � �1 fl b �U �. (�{ � Q ? ;Z.:6/ � I Q � � h ��-; .- r � � �� (� � � � � � � �v a .f;' R rcli °� m \��°� .o a 6 0, o °' ^� _ �' ;•. "'� '�:� �� Z w I M O Q� �Z � ,,."�, � n� ry �� I � . �` � „ �.J � Q „ m N N J �� , �, �, ,�, o �.;` , _ c ,�a m � d iM n� �� a m Q b �� rs ,� oc� __ -- � � . � ECBB \ b `^ ''0 �_ . - - °-� - � i � I • !_ - � � 1� / , Ool - - - � J � c o e a � �� Q� �'�� i a' � � � � � N �� T o� o� � f` � ba•e.. / �� Q�j l0� n ') �n N _ _ �. � N u � �' ,� s O� rn W � c, _ -- - __' 65 u: .i�• � � ` I � � � Z ! oC J� N � � _ �'�- ----- ---- N u� � O M n r"• 1� �� V� u �F� � T U ' � Q �� N � , N � I r � Na "2� N rn �� i n n � d -��'r - �o �,' � m L^ � � ' _ _ or65 �5 � a�' '' �� O Q C o� r�- -- -001 --- Q � m � Z N co r �: '� �� °_' ��... '� �- hI � N �„1 � ,? N ,^ _ .: N �� ~ �� ` a N _ --i� �� , �rn m� n � m Z � ^ '_ - ;"" _ V ¢ w 1 = v v t` 1 � `6f5: ��DB 0 �• a ' -- � � �I rn ^F �-c-.--- �:, �o � � , m p� �r, r . r 4 U - .o b �9��0� C`� �� ' � � _ rn �i � �� J 57 ?Q Z � j � _. .._ OCl ,_ - i �� , �d +,.01 _ - - ,,� I� QI �- � �p 'o � d �� - _ - .� m � �, i o . �, � _ � .� � ,� , m �,^ ti — �i �� i �� b 's'� � R,c�i �I � � ". �o, � N � Et'f5 '' L — 6 �� I " �`\. � m� � 06 ' SL ��, �£�0/ \ Q '. hl ; Z' ObBOI w �, �, ,� �N U . 5�cr ;° �L BB E8 d ^ � �o � /� �" � ti �' ^ <.y ou \ . ' � / �d li b ,tih m� N� . � . �:.9 J/ � . — � N ,�p i.. ' I O � � r S. r � J � � �� \ y O G , 1 �' �' 'N � _� �� " \� � 9ESZ � '� p. �a S 'G 3 � 5 ''_ Q I ' / p � o� �oo 1 � � . -Q /" , Y h� 1 ' � N � , '.. :� ' � •- p- Q / ^ •t ' � o -' 6 E B 6 � t � � � b � L`J J �... � 09 8L� J L� SE �.•. � W ; J � � � I., � � � ` k ,, 1 .. O �' "� r � �'1.� � V 1... �1�" 1 �' `' �� 1 ' � � � �-- � � �, �,,,� �•� a T��l �� , tit.i � G� 1'� i� �� 1 � �� 1— 4 3 - - `, �.'�� ct c'� � � , . �� , � Aitachment 6 EDWARD L. PACK ASSOC/ATES, INC. 1975 HAMILTON AVENUE Acoustical Consultants TEL: 408-371-1195 SUITE 26 FAX: 408-371-1196 SAN JOSE, CA 95125 www.packassociates.com December 18, 2009 Project No. 41-043 Mr. Richard Gregersen Westwood Investors 200 South Santa Cruz Avenue Suite 103 ` Los Gatos, CA 95030 Subject: Noise Assessment Study for the Planned 2-Lot Subdivision, 10642 North Portal Avenue, Cupertino Dear Mr. Gregersen: This report presents the results of a noise assessment study for the planned 2-lot subdivision at 10642 North Portal Avenue in Cupertino, as shown on the Tentative Map, Ref. (a). The noise exposures at the site were evaluated against the standards of the City of Cupertino Public Health and Safety Element (Noise), Ref. (b). The analysis of the on- site sound level measurements indicates that the existing noise environment is due primarily to traffic sources on Interstate 280. The results of the study indicate that noise exposure excesses occur and mitigation measures will be required. Sections I and II of this report contain a summary of our findings and recommendations, respectively. Subsequent sections contain the site, traffic and project descriptions, analyses and evaluations. Attached hereto are Appendices A, B and C, which include the list of references, descriptions of the applicable standards, definitions of the terminology, ventilation requirements, general building shell controls and the on-site noise measurement data and calculation tables. MEMBER: ACOUSTICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA NATIONAL COUNCIL OF ACOUSTICAL CONSULTANTS 1-44 -2- I. Summarv of Findin�s The noise assessment results presented in the findings were evaluated against the standards of the City of Cupertino "Noise" Element, which utilizes the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) descriptor for residential exterior areas. The Noise Element standards specify a limit of 60 dB CNEL for single-family residential exterior areas, such as rear yards. A limit of 45 dB CNEL is specified for interior living spaces. The noise exposures shown below are without the application of mitigation measures and represent the noise environment for existing and future site conditions. A. Exterior Noise Exnosures • The existing exterior noise exposure in the most impacted rear and side yards of homes closest to I-280, 125 ft. from the centerline of the road, is 68 dB CNEL. Under future conditions, the noise exposure is expected to remain at 68 dB CNEL. Thus, the noise exposures are up to 8 dB in excess of the City of Cupertino Noise Element standards. � The existing exterior noise exposure at the most impacted planned building setback at the first floors, 133 ft. from the centerline of the road, is 68 dB CNEL. Under future conditions, the noise exposure is expected to remain at 68 dB CNEL. • The existing exterior noise exposure at the most impacted planned building setback at the second floor is 76 dB CNEL. Under future conditions, the noise exposure is expected to remain at 76 dB CNEL. The site is presently shielded by a 12 ft. high soundwall that was erected by CalTrans. The CalTrans criterion for noise abatement is 67 dBA L i.e., the peak-hour hourly average. The peak hour L at the site is presently 67.5 dBA. As the peak hour L at this site is just slightly less than 1 decibel below the CNEL, the CalTrans standard can be viewed as 68 dB CNEL. 1-45 -3- Because of the incompatibility of the CalTrans criterion with local jurisdictional standards, reducing I-280 traffic noise to the City of Cupertino standard of 60 dB CNEL would require a 22 ft. high soundwall along the site property line contiguous with the flood control channel. This measure does not appear to be feasible and there are no other available noise mitigation measures for the exterior areas. Note that the existing residential uses in the area are subjected to the same noise exposures. B. Interior Noise Exposures • The interior noise exposure in the most impacted first floor living spaces closest to I-280 will be 53 dB CNEL under existing and future traffic conditions. The interior noise exposure in the most impacted second floor living spaces closest I-280 will be 61 dB CNEL under existing and future conditions. Thus, the noise exposures will be up to 16 dB in excess of the City of Cupertino Noise Element standards. • The interior noise exposure in the first and second floor living spaces that do not have a view to I-280 will be 45 and 53 dB CNEL, respectively, under existing and future traffic conditions. Thus, the noise exposures will be within the limits of the City of Cupertino Noise Element standards at the first floors, but will be up to 8 dB in excess of the standards at the second floors. As shown above the exterior noise exposures will exceed the limits of the City of Cupertino Noise Element standards. However, the noise mitigation measures for compliance with the exterior noise standards are not feasible. Noise exposure excesses will occur in interior living spaces and mitigation measures will be required. The recommended measures are described in Section II below. 1-46 -4- II. Recommendations A. Interior Noise Controls To achieve interior noise exposures in compliance with the 45 dB CNEL limit of the City of Cupertino Noise Element standards, the following noise control measures will be required. In addition, general construction measures affecting the building shell are also recommended, as described in Appendix B. • Maintain closed at all times all windows and glass doors of all second floor living spaces of the project and all first floor living spaces that have an orientation (direct or side view) toward I-280. Install windows rated minimum Sound Transmission Class (STC) 36 at the second floor living spaces with an orientation toward the freeway. Install windows rated minimum STC 28 at all first floor living spaces with an orientation toward the freeway and at all second floor living spaces that do not have an orientation toward the freeway. The first floor living spaces that do not have an orientation toward the freeway do not require noise controls. • Provide some type of inechanical ventilation for living spaces with a closed window condition. When windows are kept closed for noise control, they are to be operable, as the requirement does not imply a"fixed" condition. In addition, some form of inechanical ventilation which brings in fresh air from the outside of the home must be provided. Ventilation requirements specified in the Uniform Building Code are shown in Appendix B. All other windows of the development and all bathroom windows may use any type of glazing and may be kept open as desired. All windows of impacted living spaces inust have high quality, heavy duty frames and must provide an air-tight seal to the outside environment. All forms of ventilation shall not compromise the acoustical integrity of the building shell. 1-47 -5- The implementation of the above recommended measures will reduce excess noise exposures for compliance with the interior standards of the City of Cupertino Noise Element. III. Site, Noise Source and Proiect Descriptions The plalined project site is located at 10642 North Portal Avenue in Cupertino. The site is presently a vacant parcel that is flat and at-grade with the surrounding properties and I-280. A flood control channel that is 35 ft. wide is interposed between the site and I-280. A 12 ft. high masonry soundwall is situated along the property line between the flood control channel and the freeway. Surrounding land uses include single- family residential adjacent to the south and east, multi-family residential adjacent to the west and single-family residential across I-280 to the north. The primary source of noise at the site is traffic on I-280, which carries an Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volume of 158,000 vehicles, as reported by CalTrans, Ref. (c). The planned project includes the subdivision of the parcel into two parcels and the construction of two 2-story single-family homes. Ingress and egress to the site will be by way of a private driveway off of North Portal Avenue. 1-48 -6- IV. Analvsis of the Noise Levels A. Existin� Noise Levels To determine the existing noise environment at the site, continuous recordings of the sound levels were made at a location along the property boundary contiguous with the floor control channel. This location represents the most noise impacted property line of the site. Please see the aerial photograph on the following page. The measurements were made on December 8-9, 2009 for a continuous period of 24 hours. The noise level data were recorded and processed using a Larson-Davis Model 812 Precision Integrating Sound Level Meter, which yields by direct readout, a series of descriptors of the sound levels versus time, including the L1, Llo� Lso, �d L90, i.e., those levels exceeded 1%, 10%, 50% and 90% of the time. Also measured were the maximum and minimum levels and the equivalent-energy levels (L which are used to calculate the CNEL. The results of the measurements are shown in the data tables in Appendix C. The results of the field survey reveal that the L at the most impacted property line ranged from to 62.9 to 67.5 dBA during the daytime, from 63.7 to 64.9 dBA during the evening and from 53.9 to 65.5 dBA at night. Traffic noise diminishes at the rate of 3 to 6 dB for each doubling of the distance from the source to the receiver. Other locations on the site at greater distances from I-280 will have lower noise level. However, because of the presence of the CalTrans soundwall, the noise environment on the site is relatively uniform. Vehicular traffic noise contains a wide spectrum of frequency components (from 100 to 10,000 Hertz), which are associated with engines, tires, drive-trains, exhaust and other sources. The frequency components are centered primarily in the 500 and 1,000 Hz octave bands and were used in determining the noise control measures recommended for this project. 1-49 __ __ _ . -___ --- _ __ ___ _._ _ — _— — ..j L. ,., . . . �. �.a.wr�+R,.w"s" �,.�s��- . �r"" s f �� r N` � i �. � .t" � !� �1► .� � �� '— , ; � y �� ... .._ t ._. , . � ., , .:�, � � � . .� .. �,... R � � �� .. .. � ' . �� -. - �;..:-�; ��.. 6. #. F.'," ..�. � - .;:: , , , . •: _ .-__ � � _ , , - ,_ � .,- � .a,• .. . �. . �..-S. ._..... .. ..,. .. . . . :�.,.... _.. . . . . . -. . � . �. ... . . Ar .. . � � .•. . .:.. ,. �: -: .:.�' .. .. . ...... _. . ...... � s , �. . ... , �. ' ... � �' � .. . . .' . -,.' . �::, ... 'o- . . : . . . . . . . . . _ .: � ..�._.. . . -. , �e.. .... . . _ . . . ... . . � , . �.: � . � � . ,... .. ...±'3::^�^�°v' � . ....- . �,. � Fe: : �,. � y -. : _ � . . ,: ' " . ' : . -.. ...._ . . . . _ .. . � . �i'�: :� . ! � ;�;$�..;._- �.Sr:-�•- � . ..... . � . � .-. .. -. _ , . �3;." . . . ..� � a ;: . . . . � .. .. ::` . •� ` �. . . . � � _° . . _ . _ . ., • :. . -. , . .. . �_ ,a..: _ . . . , . , '�i ae�" �.. rt��"' . . . ��F'.. >°�, ` . �. '� ;� .+' � � � � ,�¢� �,� _ M, . +� � l k - � �- L a _ • .* . . ��P . � `��`• _ '',�•.-'�� .x -j . �':. . r ., . . � #, � �. } , -�.� . § . .. , ^t: a.t�f , �., , yz � �'�`_ , �jt �. ` �� ' `;, �� ^ j � �'��'� . . ' � � � Lr �' r . � • . � _ �•= . � . .!E�'.,r �' . , d-�. . . � . . . . . . >.rr. . . .,i.. ,. � �. � . . . ' ,. � :. : � . . , „ .. t p , � ._..:, .: � . , v , . . . ... ...- � . .. .., .vr-. . .r.:.�r. ' -.�.�w�� ' �..b.. �� w�.rs . f. . . .. . . a �, � ¢ . .. ' � . . . }-.�+ �..�.�� -�' :' ' � .. f . R � fa ... • -. rw�. s .. . . . „ ...._. . - .,� ,�t�...p[� � . r , t .� .. . r�f.'!A n -"�►� �.J .K v. _. , � � � " • 1�i1ls �.,�2�ia� � ��Fy'�'"' � "�r'r'r+Y .q.yrY+j" �.a. .. .. � . . . A�� af.v ��. yy_,.+.:. . . " .' � � . ` . � . . . . . . �� c. � .. . - - . .. .. , , .. . {.. : �. _ �� ' � : �n? � . . "��_. ^� � � � ' . - � �. �_ . >,: .. . ' � '� - ' _ .. , . � `. . • . e. ��. . .� . - �..., � ,. .-,..,.. + � � � ��:.. �..�i �� : . . . ,. , ,`. . . .... ' : ,-` . B- ':. ' ,g ' �'.'- ` �� . . � . ; -n„ '' � � y ,,� ,� «+ _r . " ^ .: - • w- .� � ' . • .... � - - .. �,�, . - .. ,. - - ,... x F��v;'.i �.w ��'•_ - �.- .� ai . _ .. .�?�.a"` Y , .�� ` ` _, q � . . �Y�, �� .... ... ,.� r.aFaw � m �, � _�. � ... _ .,. . .. �y� ., � i�4�� .! �.- a . , . _ . ,- . .'.� �....� . .� . . - � � ,�-°` . . . ..�„ :. . . . ''�':; ' ' . � : ' . _ . � � . ... . . . .-� . ... � • I �P%�" a^�{•w. !� ., • � _ _ 3 s � � �-- �j :. � as. ° ,Y? s6 . y � : '" ': : � s . ;h• . '�r � .. - . �. 7��, . �+ R .�. . .�. � � .. � � .,,�ar:w�,..�: '+�r�� . 5,�..�.a"`�i , . , . . . at� i' R \ � 3 e � f ' � � k� y � � � ��'� } � � � ,�,.�, f � + � � ��* � � �� .� .� .� g„� . . � :: . i �� ; , + t� � a - � w � ¢ . 'x ,� ' ' � _ . �' : ' �. , � u �. it. -. 1 -•. A n. •. �. � . y . . . �I� *.� �$ .- , J '� � ,s � ' a �' ' t K ,. � � J � � ��y. ±+'j: � �. r � 3` ,� a . + ., i. � �. . . , ., -. . , , . , � �� ' .:. ° ' .-� � . � � � � .. ' ��,n� �. - . . - `. . . . , . ,. .. . .� �. ' ;T . , _ � . �� ' �` _ � - ' :� . . . �� _ _ ' � # .. � �� . ' { � , T _ .. . . rc < ..,:, ,h . ..` �;. :., , . . .r 5.1� „ ,. , � . � � .. x . - ;� .. e� 'P.'_ � x . + . �... . . � � .. . '. . • .. c. ..�� , � . �� _ c��,f _ � x �„ .• �" ..�r * M '�° - �`� � �'� . �. „ � . " .. : . • .. � � � .. ... ,. .� .� � .', : :�" . �'1 � , . S ,�' S .ky � r� � � � . S F �t� � 4� �� . � �� y _ _ , � ^ � "� ., : � ; +R • :. - � � ft �' •_ : � � � •�r;',, �'�" ,'K. g _ ' .7t,b '� ° , .� �. `� � : :,. � :. . ,y_ .. : �.��-�� • •55 ' � .�� . _ � - 'k-.s� .:�"�'. • � n �^. !P' i { .. `' . . _.,.� Y � � tY'. � Y .. '. � A� ' -� ' f `� � 1, �' E t � C.� .� -� .�Y �E%:� , � � . 'r � tt •. � _ Y;Y ry � L. � . � � \ 1{� . �'1 � _ � � x j.�� . � � � � � .. � ! �� µ '3f � r �. � , � y� ,�=ti� , ; � .�'� ar� � �`� � - .� � �� ` . `:'* ;; � . =t' � � r � J �' � �,. � ,�,�� ` �� '�` ,`,,� � � � , ` � .n:, `� � " -+ ,.:s_ �, . . ' � `�� . � - f ..' • � �' � �- � ,.. . , . � � . �. ` �� . �.� . _ �, ..< y w . ■ ,� - .. � f� � r � �.:�. � 4,_ �� Y � � � ��;� � � �� r ��.i4: ' Y � ' � ! �^.��1 � �: � . �. t '. � . .:.�- , f � R' . _ � , r . ,�_ - � � '� C f � . : n..-s t . ' �. „,.. ':._ �- w t � LL . . i .; , -•.� ,,-� � . .. .�"� . � -.:�': . -r, -�., � , 4 { � • * 'i � ''�''� � s :: P "� �+ ,� . �i. tr � ` \?� T F �' ` � � �"" �. - � � ' ` � ;� . �'�. S� �� -: %� , � �' .. � R,?. � �.��. + �S ,' , �'.:� . . t .. ! �` 1 ' � a� � Y p � 31� , a �� .., ' .vx' � d�: �'� I�j '�� . . �.,,�.. �Fi _ . r »� ' ' ; ..: . . . � � „' .. . n � , �� _ . �.T . �.-� , ;iti".`• �- � . :➢'�-,5..�� W � }, �,u„��5w:�.. . � � E � � � . ,,�� t �. �; � '_ � _ . .�� .+ � � , . A �' `5' _ ` �° �s;. � y _. , � . F . � • , � , , , �� i ':' � � . � �+� �� . K `k i. ' . . . _ ` 1� a ' f, . . q �. y � - . ( ' Y, , �. . F ,. � � ? *r r _ . n � , . ' � � '� •' �. T� � �., . ;.. � _ .. ' � � . � +� � �r• ' �,t, •s :., � ■ � �, .' '�`• & - � M �� . - . . _* �. •` � x , �,' � � • � ` .,. �� - r, .� � s r w�* � ' , �" _ � ` � i►. r `�� ' �. , ,. .. � � •.�; . � � � � � � . - � ° � - - «► . , , • ' ' i. .S. ,._ _A : . . �� t ..- .. � . , i±'� ;r :' � . k _ �"`'� '�` . ._ ,_ _ _ . � . .,, _ : . . - .. _ � . ;:�• , . . , _ . .. - . .. . ' �', -�- B. Future Noise Levels The future noise exposures at the site were determined from future traffic volume projections for Interstate 280. Precise future traffic data are not available from CalTrans. Therefore, an average annual traffic volume growth rate was calculated from historical data. The existing (most recent) 2008 traffic volume for I-280 was reported to be 158,000 vehicles ADT. The 1998 traffic volume was 156,000 ADT, as reported by CalTrans, Ref. (d). The average annual growth rate from 1998 to 2008 was calculated to be 0.13% per year. By applying this same growth rate to the future 20 years, the 2028 traffic volume was calculated to be 162,077 vehicles ADT. This increase in traffic volume yields a 0.1 dB increase in the traffic noise levels, which is insignificant. Therefore, the future traffic noise levels are expected to remain similar to present levels. V. Evaluation of the Noise Exuosures A. Exterior Noise Exuosure To evaluate the on-site noise exposures against the City of Cupertino standards, the CNEL for the survey location was calculated as a decibel average of the L as they apply to the daily time periods of the CNEL index. The CNEL is a 24-hour noise descriptor that uses the measured L values to calculate a 24-hour time-weighted average noise exposure with a 5 dB penalty added to noise during the hours of 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. and a 10 dB penalty added to noise during the 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. hours. The formula used to calculate the CNEL is described in Appendix B. The results of the calculations indicate that the exterior noise exposure at the measurement location, 125 ft. from the centerline of I-280, is 68 dB CNEL. Noise barrier calculations reveal that the existing property line soundwall provides 13 dB of traffic noise reduction for first floors and 5 dB of traffic noise reduction for the second floors. Thus, the noise exposures at the planned building setback were calculated to be 68 dB CNEL at the first floor elevation and 76 dB CNEL at the second floor elevation. The exterior noise exposure in the exterior living areas of the project will be up to 8 dB in excess of the 60 dB CNEL limit of the City of Cupertino Noise Element standards. 1-51 -8- B. Interior Noise Exuosures To evaluate the interior noise exposures in project living spaces, a 15 dB reduction was applied to the exterior noise exposure to represent the attenuation provided by the building shell under annual-average conditions. The annual-average condition assumes that windows have single-strength (3/32") glass and are kept open up to 50% of the time for ventilation. The interior noise exposures in the most impacted living spaces closest to I-280 will be 53 dB CNEL at first floor elevations and up to 61 dB CNEL at second floor elevations that have an orientation toward I-280. For living spaces that do not have a view toward the freeway, the buildings will provide 8 decibels of noise attenuation. The interior noise exposures in project living spaces that do not have a view toward the freeway will be up to 45 and 53 dB CNEL at first and second floor elevations, respectively. The noise exposures in project living spaces will be up to 16 dB in excess of the 45 dB CNEL limit of the City of Cupertino Noise Element standards. Mitigation measures will be required all second floor living spaces and first floor living spaces that have a view toward the freeway. The recommended mitigation measures are in described in Section II of this report. This report presents the results of a noise assessment study for the planned 2-lot subdivision at 10642 North Portal Avenue in Cupertino. The study findings for present conditions are based on field measurements and other data, and are correct to the best of our knowledge. Future noise levels were based on estimates made by Edward L. Pack Associates, Inc. from information provided by CalTrans. Significant deviations in the predicted traffic volumes, speed limits, motor vehicle technology, or other future changes beyond our control may produce long-range noise results different from our estimates. 1-52 -9- If you have any questions or would like an elaboration on this report, please call me. Sincerely, EDWARD L. PACK ASSOC.,INC. Jeffrey K. Pack President Attachments: Appendices A, B, and C 1-53 APPENDIX A References (a) Tentative Map (b) City of Cupertino Draft General Plan, Public Health and Safety Element, "Noise Pollution", Chapter 6, 2001 (c) http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/saferesr/trafdata/2008a11/r280405i.htm (d) http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/saferesr/trafdata/1998a11/1998aadt.xls 1-54 APPENDIX B Noise Standards, TerminoloQV, Instrumentation Ventilation Requirements and Building Shell Controls 1. Noise Standards A. Citv of Cunertino "Noise Element" Standards The City of Cupertino Health and Safety Element of the General Plan, prepared in 2001, references the Land Use Compatibility Chart published by the State of California. The Normally Acceptable noise exposures, in term of the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) noise descriptor, are shown below. Land Use Exterior Residences (single-family) 60 Residences (multi-family) 65 Transient Lodging 65 Schools, Hospitals, Nursing Homes, Churches 70 Theaters, Auditoriums, Music Halls 70 Outdoor Sports, Arenas 75 Office Bldgs., Business, Commercial, Professional 70 Playgrounds, Neighborhood Parks 70 Industrial, Manufacturing 75 The Health and Safety Element (Noise), references the sound transmission Control standards of the State of California Code of Regulations, Title 24, which limits interior noise exposures in multi-family residences to 45 dB CNEL. The Noise Element suggests the application of the Title 24 standard to single-family residences as well. B-1 1-55 2. Terminologv A. Statistical Noise Levels Due to the fluctuating character of urban traffic noise, statistical procedures are needed to provide an adequate description of the environment. A series of statistical descriptors have been developed which represent the noise levels exceeded a given percentage of the time. These descriptors are obtained by direct readout of the Community Noise Analyzer. Some of the statistical levels used to describe community noise are defined as follows: L� - A noise level exceeded for 1% of the time. Llo - A noise level exceeded for 10% of the time, considered to be an "intrusive" level. Lso - The noise level exceeded 50% of the time representing an "average" sound level. L90 - The noise level exceeded 90 % of the time, designated as a "background" noise level. L - The continuous equivalent-energy level is that level of a steady-state noise having the same sound energy as a given time-varying noise. The L represents the decibel level of the time-averaged value of sound energy or sound pressure squared and is used to calculate the DNL and CNEL. B-2 1-56 B. Communitv Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) The CNEL is a measure of the cumulative noise exposure over a 24 hour period. The CNEL index divides the 24 hour day into three subperiods, i.e., the daytime (7:00 am to 7:00 pm), the evening period (7:00 pm to 10:00 pm), and the nighttime period (10:00 pm to 7:00 am). Also, weighting factors of 5 and 10 dBA are applied to the evening and nighttime periods, respectively, to account for the greater sensitivity of people to noise during those periods. The CNEL values are calculated from the measured L values in accordance with the following mathematical formula: CNEL =[(Ld+lO logipl2) &(L loglp3) &(L„+lO+lO loglo9)] - lO log�a24 where: Ld = L for the daytime (7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.) L = L for the evening (7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.) L„ = L for the nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) 24 indicates the 24 hour period & denotes decibel addition C. A-Weighted Sound Level The decibel measure of the sound level utilizing the "A" weighted hetwork of a sound level meter is referred to as "dBA". The "A" weighting is the accepted standard weighting system used when noise is measured and recorded for the purpose of determining total noise levels and conducting statistical analyses of the environment so that the output correlates well with the response of the human ear. B-3 1-57 3. Instrumentation The on-site field measurement data were acquired by the use of one or more of the precision acoustical instruments shown below. The acoustical instrumentation provides a direct readout of the L exceedance statistical levels including the equivalent-energy level (L Input to the meters was provided by a microphone extended to a height of 5 ft. above the ground. The meter conforms to ANSI S 1.4 for Type 1 instruments. The "A" weighting network and the "Fast" response setting of the meter were used in conformance with the applicable ISO and IEC standards. All instrumentation was acoustically calibrated before and after field tests to assure accuracy. Bruel & Kjaer 2231 Precision Integrating Sound Level Meter Larson Davis LDL 812 Precision Integrating Sound Level Meter Larson Davis 2900 Real Time Analyzer 4. Ventilation Reauirements Ventilation requirements to be applied when windows are maintained closed for noise control are specified in the Uniform Building Code (UBC), 2001 edition, Section 12.03.3 as follows: "In lieu of required exterior openings for natural ventilation, a mechanical ventilating system may be provided. Such system shall be capable of providing two air changes per hour in guest rooms, dormitories, habitable rooms, and in public corridors with a minimum of 15 cubic feet per minute (7L/s) of outside air per occupant during such time as the building is occupied." Based on our previous experience, a"summer switch" on the furnace fan is normally considered acceptable as a ventilation system by FHA and other agencies. Air- conditioning is also an acceptable system. B-4 1-58 5. Building Shell Controls The following additional precautionary measures are required to assure the greatest potential for exterior-to-interior noise attenuation by the recommended mitigation measures. These measures apply at those units where closed windows are required: � Unshielded entry do�rs having a direct or side orientation toward the primary noise source must be 1-5/8" or 1-3/4" thick, insulated metal or solid-core wood construction with effective weather seals around the full perimeter. Mail slots should not be used in these doors or in the wall of a living space, as a significant noise leakage can occur through them. • If any penetrations in the building shell are required for vents, piping, conduit, etc., sound leakage around these penetrations can be controlled by sealing all cracks and clearance spaces with a non- hardening caulking compound. • Fireplaces should be provided with tight-fitting dampers. B-5 1-59 APPENDIX C Noise Measurement Data and Calculation Tables 1-60 CNEL CALCULATIONS CLIENT: WESTWOOD INVESTORS FI LE: 41-043 PROJECT: NORTH PORTAL AVENUE DATE: 12/8-9/2009 SOURCE: I-280 LOCATION 1 I-280 Property Line Dist. To Source 125 ft. TIME Leq 10^Leq/10 7:00 AM 66.0 3969151.5 8:00 AM 65.9 3914154.4 9:00 AM 65.9 3894206.0 10:00 AM 65.9 3885605.6 11:00 AM 65.5 3515774.7 12:00 PM 65.0 3146935.1 1:00 PM 66.0 3991091.1 2:00 PM 66.5 4488897.4 3:00 PM 67.5 5560879.2 4:00 PM 64.4 2781779.2 5:00 PM 62.9 1929541.8 6:00 PM 64.4 2783279.0 SUM= 43861295.1 7:00 PM 64.9 3077304.5 Ld= 65.6 8:00 PM 63.7 2368370.8 9:00 PM 63.7 2339230.1 SUM= 7784905.4 10:00 PM 62.2 1661535.6 Ld= 64.1 11:00 PM 61.3 1336866.3 12:00 AM 57.3 538167.2 1:00 AM 55.6 361135.0 2:00 AM 55.7 372412.5 3:00 AM 53.9 248258.5 4:00 AM 55.6 362908.3 5:00 AM 60.8 1215506.2 6:00 AM 65.5 3538696.5 SUM= 9635486.1 Ld= 60.3 Daytime Level= 76.4 Evening Level= 73.9 Nighttime Level= 79.8 CNEL= 68 24-Hour Leq= 64.1 1-61 coi�n �ung Attachment 7 From: Jeff Pack [jpack@packassociates.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2010 9:51 AM To: Colin Jung; dick@pnwest.com; 'Marvin Bamburg'; 'parri yoshida' Subject: Gregersen property soundwall Attachments: 41-043 22 ft. barrier.jpg Hi Colin, Please find attached an aerial photo showing where soundwalls would need to go to meet 60 dB CNEL in the rear and side yards of the homes. The barrier along the southwest PL would range from 15 ft. at the lower corner to 22 ft. at the upper corner and continue along the canal at 22 ft. high, then it would need to turn to connect air-tight to the side of the house. A 20 ft. high wail would need to go between the houses and a 15 ft. wall would need to be constructed at the south side of the southerly home. The apartments to the west would just notice an increase in sound - about 3 d6- from reflections. The increase to the north across I-280 would probably not be noticeabie. There wouldn't be any significant effect on residences to the south or east, except at the house with the pool would notice a slight decrease in noise because of the wall. I hope this answers your questions for now. Regards, Jeffrey K. Pack EDWARD L. PACK ASSOCIATES, INC. 1975 Hamilton Avenue Suite 26 San Jose, CA 95125 Tel: (408) 371-1195 Cell: (408) 921-4886 Fax: (408) 371-1196 1 1-62 , � �, � _ . _ , , , w..:...,:......i.....- �.-...A.a-....�.',�,-, . � i � � f I } � `; � � � � ! � a ■ , t � � �l�f�►+� . �_...;,d , . . , ., ._ ,,�n.3� �.. r ' � .. .. ..: ... ; '. �: . . . . . .. . . �, � a : '1`;�s�F' : � � , . � � � _ . . , , .. � ' _- . ... r � � ,S`.. .. . . � . . , � � ..... � � , , ., � . . ��':.� ... . �?'1. . .t-_ -.• ..-, �-_ t.e,..>:5 r•"^�:�-. •' .. .� ,.f ..s.a - .. _.. -� - Ni.'�F�Spi�' _ . �_. . "�' _ _ . , -:.. . . . ._ . ...., � �. _ - �.�.. . ,. . . . _ , -. . . . . ..R . « . . .,. ..✓� ...�- _ ..: .... . -, .... ._. -' . - «tr-.. .. ,.f� { sn�.. - - � � y.�� Y .� �; .. � s� �- . �, -. �._ d t s� ?�� ' � ��f�yz , 1 � �, � � . � . _ s , � � � �� . ' k �'� �:., . ; � _ i �,- ��A �' � .. ':� :� � �� { '. •-,� �.� (, 5 ='�.. ��a.�..�.�. � - .�_._� <,",.,, r . , rr 13� ' ;7 � t'�`' - - t . . . . . � .. . a . . . . � �� . . K }• �� ' ::.5 �► � r - . �. . ' i .j 1 {� A _ f _ . . . jaf'� � . , . . .. / ±�� ` , t ' � ' '. �� '�;., �' � �.� ` . •� _ '-. i� _',-� � G �� ` �} a ��e y u i :F +.M�Y � � � �, f . +. .. a��a, : q� ' �' � `,'� ; f 7 � � T eF � S'`�� 7! I pg`y. �rf � � , � ��l i � � � . -q . � �� .ti, 7 _;_�.c.:. . a'# � - � ! �. _ �.. �R , n�' _ i � .�. r `�. i: 7� . � ; �x' f • � �- �* , , . ,. �y w - • �w� �1� �. sy+w`w -.. �- r. - ..w ... . • � ....., .-.._4� . ..... . . . . . ... �" g.-'�, s,., � : ' .. . . `Fi� " � ��`� ,,� , ... � ..� �,.�• . .� : . . � . . . ._ . ' . ., . . ... . s a . �"-��! . . . � �� yf; a� � � p �"� '� � ' . n ,. iy�.�, . , . ' :� � ' �;. P.' _ . .. �. j . 1 N� �. � �` . _ '� ,`'A' �. �, � " w�_ � � �' ♦ _ ��' S ' c'' .� , . ..- .. . . s _ �.. . . . . . . . '_ _: _ .,�,.�„�,i� � � � , . .. .. . _ . ,. , � . .' . .. _ .. r s,g` .� d- . .a ' . : � . � . :�:: :�,�� . .. . . � . . . � .�.:. . .{M r.,� - - - _ ♦ „ �, . . ,.. �. ,, . . ��,� ...� ... �.,. �.� �-� � � - - - - � _ ��rnr� � c ,� ti� . . . � - . . _ � - �_ _�.�.�._ _ . h •. . i F . ` . . r i . . . . . � . • - �_ . ��F. :M . ...A . � . . . . ' . • � �-`� , . , , > �.. �c,,•, � . � y • � y ; � .. `"� �"� , . i= � �' �� - ,� ,� _ - � -� +. I x� : .,�„��° � � ' � , w ,� ',_ Y � .� �� Yt# � n,n ..,,.. �'.�! . �► r 1 � ' R � - >S ' , v,.�.. a ,t �,�'€',�, + 7�.'+�.r _�� . - � �,1/� . � � � �t�� ..��. i . J.^... � ��'' � � y . �_ . - � ' '� . f � "3'iY �, �' ::- r� � f� �� K 3 ` � r � �: ,�.. - . I/" Vi ' � � � '� � � � }�, . ' r:. �71► � � {�� r * ' - � �. � � � �'� � ..*!��t �. ��' 'it .,:� � � �. . � .), ' !.'-- � y'�_ �+ ; � �, t b t ,� �..+ � Y ,r ^ '!�n. �°�` �, . ' r � . ,� . �.ie��«� y � � .�, 1 r ' � � �}� .. , � . F , � � , .��. �;:. yl - +► , �?;._ �, '4 �, ells�� . , . } .�.e�-� � ..+i� � ri �� ... � � �t' °" ��i "d" s• � *� { : ✓"" t i 1 � ' 'f ` �` � ,.. � � � • � ;F i� . ., . , ' a a '"'�: �� .: � � �"'a ar: �• •• � . . +� ,,, � � . � � � 1► � �s' . . � - , .. y, _ ' M �!" " p'1" �+! � � .sRa� � P 9 . • � • �, ,� 4 � ty . u _ , : 3 � � �#�� i+ � . � ' � �� ,f'' � . � � - � f ; �' � 7� �� ' ,�- , ,. , �: ,. , _ .a ' '� . : . � R � . � ° , , "� � ��. t• , °�► * . �, t. �, R y �, �`= - - �� , ' ' 4 � , � �.� � # � �.; , � r , � , ° e �` . F ' Y � � � �: ` � a . `„ y � � �3° r� �� . , , � �" ;� r,.<' T �` �, � r' � � { ' '�,t ! r - � � �t. �.c� r „ t � . .. �'_� ' � ' , � ..e� � � �� ,� J�� .r . a�� . . ^ ;� � . � . ..t. � ��•«�� 4 . � .. � � `� , � } :�� , `� µ � �� • �. y , ..w� . � . I -':, ,�,, �^�. � S � ♦ . ! . . t . a. �,.� • � � � ' � � A`` ^ � . f � .: , a , .�r�;� • - - . � f k�.,+ . � . '. 1!" � � � • � b. � t �� - � � :: '+S' < ` .'.5+� .� �:... r . : � � , � .�' � a, .t-. ' ' +Y..�. � o .. �' '�l-` � � � .�i� � � • . s � �-:,;,A � M .�� , ': � � 4 t � � �" � �;... .� ,. ,�. � � � � �� •! �� 'ti.a� '�'. � � � � a '" . ` � . e �,' �� p � � L 9 � �� r' . .. �e� 1r . 1 1.t��. • .. .- y � . . , .<',. .'.. �.: ` , f'�, � �' � . i % �k �",� s _` _ : � .. . � � • �'� W� � � .� �i1 , p � .. �, , ;t •. ! .. .� - 11+ � c ' `� � .� �; Y ,_ . p � ' � , ~�. � � f„ j �� " _ 1 � � ��#., Z14 A • � -^. v � ��» . F , . .� ° _# � _ '. �' • 1' "�� "°'dpa �..� . ..s"�' y.,k� % � -� .. � ' � � � , . . �' i �,.; ,'t . A � ��1„� � 1 J �M� � F a� �. ,, k' . Y �'• _. ,3�.�+� � � ' � � � . . � � � . �e, � � � � � J � ` �'�, � � "•. . ' � � � �` f � ``'' ''* � �: . ` � ri�f.� ' , � . t ; + � 3 " „ 's . . �. �y . �ie; � , ' , � i . • r � �a af. � .�� t t �,. �:{rY y�, V� �+. A � ' . . k . � � r . `�.. ,�� ' 1F� . V - �f' z�ti ��( . -. � ' y ° {��A' '�., � f a . i � 1 • c .�,�'� . �. �Y;� }`'�! � s , " � � �� . . ; � � �., ' •e . . �` ' ' � ' .: �- �' �. - .�>.,�� . � � 't��ti�' �" f; �` - ,• ,. . s . _ . ; , , ....- ��, . � . . . .. i. �., ' . . ' � � a Y . .. ` . . � � . : , . � � .� . , �� . . . ' . i ' - . �F ^z S � t . . � , � _ 6 � 3 .str �� . � � : �_ ! ' s `R � , +��' � r �� :��"� y � A y , { "� � t � � �� . � i . - 1+� � . � .. 1 � . ✓ 't , .~ 'yfP�9"r .t'�- I . _ � .. . .p� *�f � 1 T ° ��. r'� � '�� '� 1�7 ' � • � : I I . - ". : � ,�- �} _ f . . . 1 . .� , , . � � . M �' ' '� - � .' �...: _ :�'��31."r' .. �I�;1 '�. '�,, A �-`f �R . . ��. l�p5 , �b , . .a . _ ,. ,' ri� �!' _ _.�.. _.. _. . -��-- -- - --� � --�, _ ..._.._.:. .--,.-'. c_ �._-�=- �'.r � �-' .-.�-. .�_.:_.�� _ ..!��a �. _ _.w..a . ..�.±_.. _� . �.a n:._ _�'�.--- --- ---'--��----� �-�--- � -- --- . . � � _ A Y . � ': �, -. �V.�t .n, __1_ __ ' _ . . --. . '�'•'- _ Colin Jung Aitachment 8 From: Pam Yoshida [pam@mba-architects.net] Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 8:47 AM To: Colin Jung Cc: 'Marvin Bamburg' Subject: FW: Cupertino-North Portal Subdivision From: Mike O'Connor [mailto:moc@mocpa.com] Serut: Monday, April 05, 2010 2:28 AM To: pam yoshida Subject: Cupertino-North Portai Subdivision Dear Ms. Yoshida: I understand that the entire concern on the part of the City's ERC is about particulate matter from the roadway and toxic air containinants (presuinably also froin the roadway) affecting the future residents of the hoines--- and not about any minor impacts that the two residences inight bring about. In three decades of doing this kind of worlc I don't thinlc that I have ever been asked to bid on an air quality analysis of such a sinall project. Presently the SF Bay area is in non-attaininent status with respect to the clean air standards for particulate matter, but the status for carbon monoxide is attaininent. Both of these containinants are given off by vehicles--- or in the case of particulate matter, also by the action of vehicles being driven on roadways which crushes dirt and turns it into fine particles that become "resuspended", as we say. Diesel-powered vehicles also give off particulate inatter in e�aust that is in a fonn that is considered to be particularly toxic (carcinogenic). And automobile e�aust contains 1,3-butadiene and benzene which are also carcinogenic. Unfoi those matters cannot surely be authoritatively dealt with at the present time, not as the BAAQMD would have consultants deal with them, given that the BAAQMD has not completed ongoing revisions to it's CEQA guidelines (as the City's comments state), and given that the City as Lead Agency is not providing standards of its own. The indications are--- see http://www.baaqind.�ov/Divisions/Plannin�-and-Research/CEpA- GUIDELINES.as�x--- that the revised CEQA guidelines inay be finished in June. The latest draft puts forth a potentially involved procedure that starts with a screening analysis step, which would not involve much work if it were to happen that the project site passes the screening test. But then if it flurilcs the test soine detailed inodeling procedures are required (at which I ain practiced). The BAAQNID is in the position of "fishing" rather than "cutting bait". The latter course of action would be to concern oneself with the fact that the screening analysis method is not what anyone would call accurate; nor is the detailed inodeling inethod. In general, the best estimates of concentrations of air quality containinants are accurate within, say, a factor of two. A better approach would be for developers and architects to simply go ahead and provide some mitigation for new homes on sites that are near freeways or inajor arterials. i 1-64 Here are soine of the mitigation measures in the BAAQNID's draft CEQA guidelines of 12/09: 4. Projects that propose sensitive receptors adjacent to sources of diesel PM (e.g., freeways, major roadways, rail lines, and rail yards) shall consider tiered plantings of trees such as redwood, deodar cedar, live oak and oleander to reduce TAC and PM exposure. This recoininendation is based on a laboratory study that ineasured the removal rates of PM passing through leaves and needles of vegetation. Particles were generated in a wind tunnel and a static chainber and passed through vegetative layers at low wind velocities. Redwood, deodar cedar, live oak, and oleander were tested. The results indicate that all forms of vegetation were able to remove 65-85 percent of veiy fine particles at wind velocities below 1.5 meters per second (approximately 3 miles per hour [mph]) with redwood and deodar cedar being the most effective. Even greater removal rates were predicted for ultra-fine PM (i.e., aerodynamic resistance diameter of 0.1 inicrometer or less). 5. Install and maintain air filtration systems of fresh air supply either on an individual unit-by- unit basis, with individual air intake and e�aust ducts ventilating each unit separately, or through a centralized building ventilation systein. The ventilation systein should be certified to achieve a certain effectiveness, for example, to reinove at least 80% of ainbient PM2.5 concentrations from indoor areas. The air intalce for these units should be located away froin areas producing the air pollution (i.e., away froin major roadways and highways). 6. Where appropriate, install passive (drop-in) electrostatic filtering systems, especially those with low air velocities (i.e., 1 mph). Of these, the only one that seems that it might work is the filtration component of 5, or perhaps 6. I don't agree that the landscaping could help that inuch, not at this site--- you would not be able to inalce it dense or high enough to intercept inuch of the air reaching the homes on those particular lots (there could be soine value in that approach in soine other circumstances). In theory, electrostatic filtering systems can be very effective against particulate matter, but some may produce ozone contamination (the manufacturer should be required to provide clear specifications on that point so that you avoid those that produce ozone). Nothing in this einail is to suggest that the City of Cupertino, the Lead Agency and Responsible Agency with respect to this project, is obliged to follow the guidelines of the BAAQNID which is a Corrunenting Agency with respect to this project. -Milce O'Connor MO'C Physics Applied www.inocpa.coin 2 1-65 /+�� +D.1U5T4DLE L1CR LOGIGER ,or,�R AGGREGATE ��. � �or� Gl 2 TENTATIVE MAP ALT .4LTER�1dTE LD. • PWdDfS) Al.11'I AI.U'llNll'I APPIO'�X 4Pf�1�OXlt"IATEIT IyD. r'IAGNINE 90LT ARCW l+RCHITEGT ry.�_ t94LLE.46LE IROW L '�+�E MN I'1tWHOLE I"IFG MAMF�IGTU1�(RJ MlJ. I'7d5pNRT OPENMG DSPL DOGK4PLA9N MAX 11AXIFM'1 gty pE,pn Y'IEG+ t'IEGNANIC.CL 67W BE7U,EEN �'�L• r1ED�CINE CnBiNET 6LKlG) 6LOGKf INGJ HEM6 I"IEP7DR4NE DD DOORD t'IET MET4L B1LL DOTN WG79, DoCK Of W4LK MIN I'71NU'Ad1 �T pOTTOM ��R n�� N O RTH PO RTAL AV E N U E BLDG 9UILDING MISC MISGELLANEOUS �.'�l. DUILDING 9ETpoGK LINE P7TD I"IOUNTED Dl1R BUILT-t1P I�OFING �'�1L 1"tULLION G ,� �� N NORTN CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA o I�LI.G. NOT IN GONTR.OGT ca. ca1cN emw, co�eR eeno KTS. rwT To scn�e � G�KG G.OIILKINCs !NJ NEW GW GEILING NO, • NUI'IBER GEM GEMENT NOP7 NOtIN�AL �.� GTR GENTER N.E.C. NdTION4L ELECTRIC CODE . �APN: � 6 CENTERLINE � �. 31�0 - 32 - 04� _ Q CL. GENTER TO CENTER ODS ODSG�RE � G.T. GER4MIC TILE OFF OFFIGE „�„� ,�� GLR GLEOR OL. ON CENTER ' �� ' CAH. GLEAR ALL NEART OD. OUTSIDE DIMETl810N IOIAJ ,^ GLO GLOSET OA OvER1LL.L • •�• V � GOL GOLUPIN O�I OvE13F1E4D.OVERHANCa �� CANC GONCRETE OPG OPENING ' GOI�PI GOMJECTION pPP pppp5lTE . •�. -J CONStR GON9TRUCTION OZ OWGE CONT GONTtNU0U5 Oi OvER I `•• � CT°X GAJNTER9INC METAL PIPE , ��`• � ? Q PL. PL�f"IDIPG GONTR4CTOR Z CJ. GOLD JDINT, CONTI�OL JOINT p�Q P4�R I O 2 LL' GPT GARPET p.TD. PAPER TOUEL D15PEN5ER GD.TG GLEONOUT TO GRI�DE P.TR PAPER TOWI RECEPT.4CLE • ` � O GI'lil GONGRETE M4SONR7 WIT ••� � a J GLR REGUL012J�CADE OF � JR P C01'7DT�lOnl P.TD. � P.TR I APN: �' �. T Q U C.ONL. COLIFORJIA OFFIGE OF N019E �'� �45TER � 31C�-32-m48 �� PFB. RASTIC FIN19N DOORp I �� y � O G � T �� PL, R PLATE. P120PERT7 LINE � ~ Z PLTWD PL�'LLA70D • • � a - PT POINT � �� DET DET31L POI. POLI6NED �• O �� DIAG DI/YaONOL PRGBT AREG4ST � �� DI4 • DIOFIETER PLE• PU9LIG UTILITr EdSEI"IENT DM7 DIIyEN510N P.TDF. PRE59URE TREOTED ' � Z Z U •� DW D19HWASNER DOUGL49 FIR . � DI9P DI9PEN9ER DISP09ER Q7, p�qpQT TILE DD DITTO p • • DR DPOR R/+D F'LODWS i..�..�..�'y .. .�..�..�..�..�..�..�] �. �..�..�..�..� � DBL DOU6LE I�.l R�NU4TER LE.oDER ` • ;•� N � DF. DOUGLA9 FIR 101A REDUlOOD 2 � a DN DOUN REF REFER£NGE • I � D9. DdW SPOUT I�Cs RERRIGER.otOR ' •` /�((/ I ~ U N DYA2 DR/4LER I�iTR REGI9TER � ' • N DLLCa DR.OWING RLP REhiORCED GONGRETE PIPE I • i�, • U n� DF. DRINKiNG FOWTAIN REIHF REINFORCED(INGJ � ` � • I � W ' D DRTER RS REYlAW� . ' • �T �TaN� � • • !�/ � • � RA RETU12.1 AIR • ` / • EA EAGN �p[�, IQE7U10J AIR GRILLE � �� I — 0 E. EAST IQE91L RESILIEN7 � ELEC ELECTRIG[ALI ! ` � �(/ ' ' = N REO REG7UIRED EJUL. ELEGTRIG YlOTER GOO�ER � R�y� p� WpT • : U • EL ELEVATION R RISER ' ` ' U I . V . s ELEv ELEvATOR O EP'tER Er'IEI�aEMGT �• �� DR.41N � � Q. J � 7 ENCL ENCL09URE �. � SN"IP ' ` I �CI , ��/••'1 Q ..i`��. EO ECiJ.AL EOPT ECi11P�"IENT RG. RWCsN OPENING • • � `. : ' ��°�.�� a (E1EX19T EXISTING ' •'• . + �_ °§ EXP EXP4NSIdJ SND_ �ANIT.oRT NAACIN DISPEN9ER I •�/• ' L� �'� +`�' EJ. EXP4NSIdV JOINT 5NR SdNITORT N.GPKIN FECEP7AGLE `�' • � � � • � � • �' I � a �� EM EM�� E OR �LD. SEdT GOVER D19PENSER ' �� . S 4: o SECT SECTION • EN. EDGENAILMG ` �'1.� ��' I �:o �9. 9ELEGT BTRUGTURAL • 9NT 9NEE IGE SINC i �•• � . .. N NORTH FF. FAGE OF FR�OI'7E, FAGEFR4HE, 9!'1.5. SHEETTIETAL �CREWS • PORTAL ' ��. :� FINISH FLOOR 9N SNELF AvENUE � "'�� " FOL. F�CCE OF CONCRETE S� P 9HELF � POLE I : " - FDF. FACE Of FINI6W SNR SHOIt�R , � FOJ't FCCE OF MC9pNRT 9D.V. SFp1T-OFF VALVE � X f � T f �� ' FDS. FOGE OF STUD 81M 911"IIL4R r f�,�,�_ r �n d ' �.� r�__ ._ , x . _ FIN FINISI�1 BD. 50l�P DISPENSER i � Ffi FIN19�I GR.ODE SL. SOLID GORE S I T� I ••�••�••�••�••�••�••_••� FD. FINI9NED OPENING 5 30UTN FA FIRE �OLAI�"f Sp g(yA� FE. FIRE EXTINGa115NER SF. 90WOli£ FEE7 ' C p FFA FREE FLOW ORE.O 95 STAINLE55 S7EEL I�= 4� �-�� ( �..`.�Cy FPTF FIREPROOF 5TD 9T.ONp4RD / FGL FI G pe,�S�T TREOTED 5TL BTEE L CJ� '� � e � PL05F1 FL45NMIG STO STORAGE �:� L ��+, (� F8. FLOT D4R 6T $TREET ,J i O '+ '�-I F� FLOOR ST� STIeJCTUR4L GENERAL PROJECT INF�RMATION CONSULTANTS LOCATION MAP '�� No. �-4649`°' PD. FLOOR DR.o.IN S1�R 9UPPL7 AIR REGISTER FLUOR FLUORE9CENT 9U9P 9USPENDED � � FTG. FOOTING STI'1 srmeTR�cn� , ._. .. ___ . J+ . REN 09/09 :�� Q FTe' FOOT 9W 9NEAR WALL ... . . :.�. ,_. .. .. _t. �' — ', � �-- �: f' ... .... �\ GLIENT: ASSE50R'S PARGEL NUMBER SURvEY/CIVIL F i F � j•..., Q. FDN FWNDATION 9v SHEET YIN7L FLOORING � .�pvG .. I �� Fnu FORGED oIR UNIT 1. 316-3T-m48 AND 316-3Z-04� p, � , , �, ' � �� 4�' � F �F CA1.�F� FL. FRAt-IING CLIP TEL TELEP�IONE PENINSULA WEST GURRENT ZONING AI-43 LLIESTFALL ENGINEERS, ING. ' r- "� UnW+P+ti, � k ��> >► �I m _ '' FUR FURRMG T.v. TEIEVISION U�STUJDOD INVE5TOR5 14583 BIG BASIN WAY ._ � . - ' § � .. . . ". ' � .� o A �:. FuT FurwxE TER TERRnZiO �� Sp�TH SANTA GRUZ AvENUE •103 PROPOSED ZONINCs RI-l5 SARATOGA, GA 9Smlm � � ' FLD. FLOOR GLEANOUT TNK TWICK LOS GAT05, G4LIFORNIA I' __ �/ `o �� r � � ALL DRAWINGS AND WRITfEN MATERIAL TN TF�9QESNOLD � ' TPD. TOILET P.4PER DIBPEN9ER PH; l408) 86�-0�44 GL6 GLIILAPI BEOP'I T� G TONGUE � GR�OVE pN: C408) 395 E �� E � ~ �� EM _ �- APPEARINC HEREIN ARE THE ORIGINAL AND GAL Gt�t.�dv TL. ToP OF CuR6 pAX: l408) 399-8844 , e " "' x !� t��„ p � UNPUBl15HED WORK Of THE ARCNITECT, GALV GAIV.ONIZED TP. TOP OF PdvEY1ENT � � � �.-< � Gfiw� AND MAY N0T BE COPIED OR USED GJ. G4LvdNIZED IRp� TLl. TOP OF LLiCLL . ¢ . � -.- C .. . E�� WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE GA G4UGE TSD. TOP•SET Ba9E ` �' � # k es y ,�,� q ARCHfTECT. GL GL495 Ta. TOu.EL DdR . - G8. GRAB BAR rRD TRE,up � � ` r � �` �� z COPYRIGHT O�m09 GR GR4DE TTP TTPICAL o ,� �� ""'"°: iS ' _ F� _ GND GROtND 79. TUDULe1R STEEL GrP GrPSUrt T � B TOP � 9ot�on �__ �" � '"`"` '. � • MBA A R C H I T E C T 5 GL18. GTP9ll'1 W4LL804R0 Q. TF� �a� � �°°� .�. r � ' UNF lJ1�M15NED � k � z ; . �. _ . , HG FIANDICAPPEp u�.G. 1AVlfOlv� CuILDIKw GODE � ` ; _� �� SHEET TITLE UN.O. UAN IJNLE98 NOTED OTNEImU19E � ; � '� � 9�^�^'' 4 : Fil2 N.4NDR�OILJ UR URN.f►L y �� - -- . _ �'' � . ,� �� N � A � UPL. UNIFp@1 RUMBING CODE ' w p - �� N �� W'1L. WIFOfd'1 11EGNANIG4L GODE � c .. K � . � f _ � •" ,�� `�. , HDR FFADER v.TR vFNT TNRI ROOF �t.a �� .. 1iw+n+� .,� ,2 � 4 �„, �7 ��NT v.IP. vERIF7 IN FIELD � � , GOVER G.G. FdOLLOW CORE vEar vER'riGn� DESCRIPTION OF uJORK „- -- �••�y, �� . ` NM. F10LLOW I'7ETAL ��. ��T G�'�N l. REZONE PA�EL 316-32-04b FROM 41-43 TO RI-�S. '.� 5� � u j e� �i `� F�ORIZ NORIZONTGL vE5T vEBTIDULE � '• • N9. 4k79E BIDD VAT. VINTL 45BE5Tp5 TILE ;i �� ° '..r y . _. SUBDIVIDE TNIS PARCEL INTO TU1p 5ITE5. a:.•��..u� �� k Nli1 1 WATER NEATER vL7L. vINT� W4LL COvERING � - .= t '��i � . . HR HWR �LP. vITRI0U9 CLaT PIPE PREZONE IFROM GITT OF SUNNTVALE), PARCEL 316 _ , '' +� . � V�G.T. VINTL GOP'1P0�'�ITION TILE FRd"I AI TO PRE RI P � �:,�-�twc•C� �w*+'�+� s� .. '�"�'°��« � GuMrf�io 1.4W M 4GGORpeNCE WTN . ... _ IN. ' INC:N. INGNE9 �yX',�GT W41NSG0T 2 _. .. . .� � �t ,nr r��•� W Squwe ud ID. INSIDE DIr7EN510r� W UJE9T, IW�SNER : � uNlu� ui5u�.oriori Z. P�vIDE GUL AGGE55 EASEMENT TO AGGE55 � > � a P _ SCnLE AS SNOWr WL. WOTER CLOSET , INT INTERIOR Ws WpTERpqppF PARCELS 316 AND 316 THROUCsN EXISTING _; ` 2 � Z CAD FILE 0165.1 t v;n.r,w.�i •c ��; iNV tNVE� WT LLJEIGNT E45EP'IENT THROUGN PARCEL 316-3Z-0S4. - � �.w �aNiTO►z �Dw WTNDOw �' o Jr JOIN7 `�'� j „ DRAWN BY 5H, J5T JDIBT W/O WITNOUT . �� p , � �» G� � -- . . ... _ Ge uL9. wOOD 9GREw9 . _ _ SHEET KIT KI7CNEN �1'�. WOVEN WIRE HE9N � � . � � �J� W!'1F. WOVEN WIRE F4pRIC � . , ..._. _ . t � (/ J ILLI. WROIX�HT IRQJ o ' .. . -. � - .. . -- ' I�� WD. WNDOW DIHENSION �, • C« ... * f � � Fv.q p. . ,� ' r �r;r a.� ;,�, d I OF 7 SHEETS 167. O1 � EXISTING PROPOSED � (� �GliY� D � \ `� C' � \ � \\ � , : ., l � BULDING � i Mj�a e�. �. � , � � t ` ' , • MONUMENT • I i n l I 1 211 ES TI❑N � � � � � \ � � \ � \ � CURB INLET ■ I � O G� � � � � ' 0.03 a e s • 1 ss. �_ � O ° POLE DRAIIv � I ' g /'�N89'42'10'E 67.50' ��:.` � �� \ `� � ,,#, � ' � Q SANITARY SEWER MANH�LE � SCALE: 1"=20� � � o �� • �\ \ \ �O � I � i 18\�186, 14 \ \ \ \ \ �/�L� 4 -.. OO STORM DRAIN MANHOLE Q 6 �� \ � �,` � � �'T" �., • a FIRE HYDRANT « I � � OPOSED . �gg � �fJ � � ��I�/ , . ^�w• � ti rnP OL 51 � �' � ''I y 'A.�, � M ,\ � 1 B5. 94 . � ��'f� \ � \ \ _ . � � WATER VALVE y8� I L d � R � � � � STREET LIGHT �--� ) - - - - - -� o a PARCEL 1 �`,�SS � � \ � EX. FENCE O CLEANOUT �� (� PROPOSED 3,982 sq, ft. gross \� pp. � � �� !�° -- BOUNDARY -�-�--- F iee.00 I n W pAT10 9,376 sq. ft, net �.� � � �� \ �t ; LOT LINE ,n o . 1 B7. 26 �� \\ � � �\ M�:_ �� ' t ¢ d PROPOSED RESIDENCE �� 1 B5. 64 � � � � '� e .;' �` - CENTERLINE - � , d � F.F. tBe.50 � ' �� p� � � \ , ----- LIMIT ❑F EASEMENT ------ �I� a tD PAD 1B5.00 -- GARAGE '\ �Q � � \ � ;• n N 6• \ �.. � i ,�: � � s 6 = � CURB - - - -� - � v ry � . 187. 21 � � T.S. 187.50 �\ ��OS. \ � \ _ _ _ _ _ = CURB AND GUTTER � � ^' Ii . � z 3 � � �\ 5 ��8• � � \ \� � ------ EDGE OF PAVEMENT � z � � � ` � \ � VICINITY MAP � � 1 6 2� � e � J �, \ � \\ . \ --- --- ------- M O I IWI I �� ` � \ I � � � � \ � NTO C�NTOUR a� z J' \ 0�� - - - FENCE - ' - � FLOw LINE � 0-- � u '� ` �' � - � 46 ' ��IBS. 14 � � \ � �p�K LINED D�SSIPATER -ss -ss - SANITARY SEWER -ss-ss- CO � i. al ' � ' �� / ` Y °� ��( ? B 4 ' 8B� � SWALE�(3' WIDE, 60' LONG) a -su-su- STORM DRAIN -a-a- � W � o �n ' o .187.6 . �� / .* ° ` �� \� \\ �.� - E - E - ELECTRICAL � I ° ROPOSED � � \ '` ` 52 'y� � � � �� \ � \ � � - � - � - GAS -� -� -� - z p pp 2 ' pp � . (� �f �� e 184 98 \ � � � � l Va' 4 -� , � l� � - WATER - � `/ F I ` 3 PEACH Q . IBS l6 r\ P . l��J � \ �� \\ I` - - • - CITY LIMIT LINE -¢ - �t� - J �9 I . � � - - - �L �' � INGRES�(�GRE�S, � �'� �� les. oi \ � \ � \ �� BUILDING SETBACK LINE- - (� ' � � ` � STORM DR��N � \ �?8q,� � �� ` (� � �1 1, 7 sqCft. gros SH � � m ao �- sf>ND PUE \ �" 2�� . w PROPOSE 9.348 sq. Ft. net� � � J` 3 795 g f / �,,, \ \ �\ �� \ I PAi10 PROPOSm RESIDENCE � J/ TC 6. 0 80 � e �o� ��5. 9 � l` `� �\ �\ � F.F. iBB.50 �� y$ $$ p \ ?' iBS. . 784. 76 �� o e �\84 52 �. \ \ 18 . 66 PAD 185.00 �+ .� �o / �Ci -•► � `�S � \ \ ------� I m .187.12 • /L._ _ 10' PR 185.2� � 1 � p ` � � � / 1e d I \ i ° � : 184.96r �b•�, \ v `T`r � �� ? t93.� S•�� .6' 41LL❑ � -� K v-�-fv 3? � � 39� � � IB 15 -t � h f >> � ti � o� h `, \ I 1B .2 � AGE� c c a c c ` e J' /a� � u� o �� I T.S. 187.Sp - - � � `L� �. � � - - � � � JP �3.g3�q6- _ u+ _ 173.31' �5' P.C.dcE. ES (203a 0.��2� _ �__� _ __ � 3 �S 5 --.-- _��,4-��._86.98'_ ']B4. 53 -- -- \ 84. 19 � m N 89' 21' 10' E 297, 64' S' P.G.dcE ESM • P �.��'7. a� a�'e2�1 '- - 5' P LM • � ` (2034 O.R. 5) q __ CONC. � V �p 184 17 Owner and Subdi��ider: Westwood Iv�•estoi•s i `°�° a 5 � / ��- ; s� s•4o'ze"w 3.4z' �',, f� O . Richard Gregersen �.�a oe 'I ��--�'' U 200S.SamaCruzAv � APN 316-32-56 ��P� 316-32-55 �� / I _ _ I Los Gatos, CA 950�0 r � �B .3 � Q�PN 316 32 54 � w Tel. 395-5599 - - - - - - J PRASAD � � � �\ \ � LAPPIN � � � GREGERSEN � U � \ � � /''��\ �/lB,�33/ L-- � � � � � � � Engineer: Westfall Engineers, lnc. �� \ �- � � J� �� N W 14583 Big Basin V�'ay \ � `� F �R�SRfSS PROPOSED wATER SERVICES � � � Saratoga, CA 95070 � � ° , p s � . I � � Tel . 867-024-� � � , � , � � 5 _so _ � '� � Fax 8(7-6261 � � � �� z � � � Notes: �',� �/ / � Q PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER 75 Q Sile area 0.94 acres LATERAL WITH CLEANOUTS � D o�,� � � - .pL� � � z Total number of existing parcels - 1 Y}' � ��,,,,�,, � PROPOSED G,4S, ELECTRiC, [� Total number of proposed pai - 2 a�id exception (not a Uuildina site) B6 � � I TELEPHONE & CABLE N � , 4 �TREE I Building area (existing) - 5227 S.F. ' ` j � Existing use - residential � � ��' ��, Q Proposcd usc - residcnlial N �'� 4 REE U � .�.��c Existing zoning - A 1-43 `° ❑' /1 � EwNT. ��, Proposed zonin� - R1-7500 eb'S6 u � General plan desi� iation - residential �_ _�eb s� / 4 � f �$ Assessor's Parcel No. 316-32-047 and 316-32-048 �j �' � \� `g��.► Map References: PM 430-41 ROS 316-32 � � \ � 0 ROS 189-13 � \ Tract 2b60 13b-23 �� \,� ? H PM 310-19 r �1B5. 95 I � PROPOSED WATER METERS PM 248-45 � � I � All storm water runoff from this site will be treated per C.3 requu O �" /��ab. A soils rcpori will bc rcquircd prior �o rccordalion of lhc parccl map. n . � I �/ /� L� W I W I � CONNECT ALL NEW SERVICES ' TO THE EXISTING UTILITIES „ �/ I N N O R T H P O R T A L A V E N U E S � /� r � �� i O N I Z y N0, BY DATE REVISION BY DATE DATE� Februnry 2010 JOB N0. SCALE HoR. �•- zo- WEST�ALL ENG I NEERS, I NC TENTAT I VE MAP SHEET �-� VERT. 009-014 DESIGNED� JC BY� KAREL CYMBAL RCE 34534 CHECKED� KC DATE� 14583 BIG BASIN WAY, SARAT❑GA, CA 95070 <408)867-0244 10642 N❑RTH P�RTAL AVENUE, CUPERTIN� CA � PROJ. ENGR� JC