.02 Z-2006-04 City of Cupertino
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM
Application: Z-2006-04 (EA-2006-10) Agenda Date: February 13, 2007
Applicant: City of Cupertino
Owners: County of Santa Clara
Location: Lands easterly of Saratoga Creek to the Centerline of Lawrence
Expressway from Highway 280 to Chelmsford Drive/Bollinger Road
Application Summary:
City-initiated Pre-Zoning of a total of 13.5 acres: 7.7 of those acres to Pre-PR (Public
Park or Recreational Zoning District) and 5.8 acres to Pre-T (Transportation Zoning
District) .
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of:
1. The negative declaration, file number EA-2006-10;
2. The rezoning application, file number Z-2006-04, in accordance with the model
resolution.
Project Data:
General Plan Designation: Parks & Open Space
Existing Zoning Designation: None
Proposed Zoning Designations: Pre- PR, Pre- T
Acreage: 13.5 acres
Project Consistency with General Plan: Yes
Environmental Assessment: Negative Declaration
BACKGROUND:
The City is proposing to pre-zone two County-owned lots (7.7 acres) on the east side of
Saratoga Creek between Highway 280 and Chelmsford Drive to Pre-PR (Public Park or
Recreational Zoning District) and pre-zone the abutting Lawrence Expressway half-
street (5.8 acres) between Highway 280 and Bollinger Road to Pre-T (Transportation
Zoning District).
This project is a necessary prelude to future actions the City must take, with the consent
and approval of the City of San Jose and Santa Clara Local Agency Formation
Commission (LAFCO), to bring the properties under the jurisdictional control of the
City. Presently, the properties are in the Sphere of Influence and Urban Service Area of
the City of San Jose.
d. -I
Application: Z-2006-04
Page 2
February 13, 2007
Cupertino needs jurisdiction of these lands in order to complete Reach #5 of the
Saratoga Creek Trail between Bollinger Road and Lawrence Expressway. The trail
segment is part of the County-prepared San Tomas/Saratoga Creek Trail Master Plan
adopted by the City in 1999. A portion of the trail, between Barnhart Avenue and
Bollinger Road, has already been completed by the City.
DISCUSSION:
There are two County-owned lots. Land south of Barnhart Avenue was leased to the
City for the purpose of trail construction. Land north of Barnhart Avenue is used by the
County Roads and Airports Department for the storage of asphalt grindings and other
construction-related materials. The City hopes to negotiate with the County to move
this storage to another location and reuse the land for a public trail and park.
To this end the City adopted a general plan land use designation of "Parks and Open
Space" for the two lots during the last major General Plan update. A prezoning of Pre-
2
J-d
Application: Z-2006-04
Page 3
February 13,2007
PR would be consistent with this land use designation and a necessary step toward its
eventual annexation.
LAFCO Street Annexation Policies require the middle of the street to be the boundary
line between two cities. In this case the boundary between San Jose and Cupertino is
Lawrence Expressway, so LAFCO policy dictates annexation to the centerline of
Lawrence Expressway. Staff is recommending that the Lawrence Expressway half-
street be pre-zoned Pre-T (Transportation Zoning District). The general plan update
did not include Lawrence Expressway in the Land Use Diagram, so the City will be
initiating a general plan amendment for this land area in the near future. Staff feels
there is no general plan/ zoning inconsistency as the pre-zoning has no legal effect until
annexation occurs.
Enclosures:
Model Resolution for Z-2006-04
ERe Recommendation, Initial Study
Submitted by: Colin Jung, Senior Planner ~ ~
Approved by: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Developme~
G: \ Planning\ PDREPORT\pcZreports \ 2006zreports\ Z-2006-04.doc
3
:2'3
Z-2006-04
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
RESOLUTION No.
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
RECOMMENDING THE PRE-ZONING OF 13.5 ACRES TO PRE-PR (PUBLIC PARK
OR RECREATIONAL ZONING DISTRICT) AND PRE- T (TRANSPORT A TION
ZONING DISTRICT) FOR LANDS EASTERLY OF SARA TOGA CREEK TO THE
CENTERLINE OF LAWRENCE EXPRESSWAY FROM HIGHWAY 280 TO
CHELMSFORD DRIVE/BOLLINGER ROAD
SECTION I: PROTECT DESCRIPTION
Application No.:
Applicant:
Location:
Z-2006-04
City of Cupertino
Lands easterly of Saratoga Creek to the centerline of Lawrence
Expressway from Highway 280 to Chelmsford Drive/Bollinger Rd.
SECTION II: FINDINGS FOR REZONING
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application
for the prezoning of property, as described on this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given in accordance with the
Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held
one or more public hearings on this matter; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the subject prezomng meets the
following requirements:
1) That the prezoning is and will be 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
prezoning designation.
3) That the new prezoning encourages the most appropriate use of land.
4) That the proposed prezoning is otherwise not detrimental to the health, safety,
peace, morals and general welfare of persons residing or working in the
neighborhood of subject parcels.
5) That the pre zoning promotes the orderly development of the city.
6) That the prezoning is a prerequisite of annexation to the city.
J ~t-I
Resolution No.
Page 2
2-2006-04
February 13, 2007
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence
submitted in this matter, application no. Z-2006-04 is hereby recommended for
approval; and
That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this
Resolution are based and contained in the Public Hearing record concerning
Application Z-2006-04, as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting
of February 13, 2007 and are incorporated by reference herein.
SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT DEPT.
1. APPROVED EXHIBITS
The recommendation of approval is based on Exhibits A and A-I: Zoning Plat
Maps, and Exhibits B and B-1: Property Legal Descriptions, except as may be
amended by the Conditions contained in this Resolution.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 13th day of February 2007, at a Regular Meeting of the.
Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll
call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
ATTEST:
APPROVED:
Steve Piasecki
Director of Community Development
Lisa Giefer, Chair
Cupertino Planning Commission
G:Planning/PDREPORT /Res/2006/ 2-2006-04
~-5
-9
\
~
SHEET 1 OF 1
L11~E TABLE --
LINE LENGTH BEARING
1 282.38 Non8'10"E
2 177.77 S20'09' 45"E
3 125.69 S04'04' 45"W
4 214.50 529'51 '15"W
5 116.81 506'13' 45"E
-- 6 109.24 S19'26' 45"W
7 228.20 S14'30'00"W
8 191.71 N03"22' 45"W
9 151.30 ~~19'29' 45"W
10 189.35 N2/'45'15"W
11 14/.02 N03"17'15"W
12 121.65 N50':,1' 45"W
13 107.74 N12'27' 45"W
14 61.00 N25'06'15"E
15 113.84 N66'02'15"E
'16 194.78 N39'42'00"E
17 85.91 N15'14'00"E
18 138.43 N10'16'15"W
19 103.33 N01'S1'30"E
20 119.95 i'J,26'18'45"E
21 2856 SOUTHERLY
22 193.00:1: 1~43'00'40"W
E)(HitjlT A
PLAT FOP PREZONING
ZONE: [:;IRE -PR
CITY OF CUP:::::RTINO 2007-
BEING A PORTION THE QUITO RANCHO
CUPERTINO CITY LIMITS
r ANNEXATION RANCHO
RINCON ADA 98-09
~OB 1"=
~:.-~
(2) @)r \ ->
@. .-=_~ W / ,~
@ ~ ~ ~~ ~
~ '/"'"-----1-- '... f4\ ~" PARCEL 1 ....,(7;;)
~' PARC:::L :2 ,-'-;i--...@ fa' // BI<.6065. PG 241 ~.;
-' BI< 6065. PG 241 ""'--..._....Q2 7 ~l........- ',,- 76 \7 18
/,;;..~--------- f---"'~ ....~----l-- L___________ -~1=--~::;_::_----- A~~y-~=-~-~-?~~-----~@=-~=:::t /
,___' _________ ___~- L ,---@--------1::A-W-RE-N-CE-E--XPW+:-i:---j-1-----7L-
/ SAN JOSE CITY L11v1iTS ;
ANI"EXA TION DOYLE NO 4 /
WESTERLY BOUNDARY OF I ()
LAP~~: 375--22--001 LAWRENCE EXPRESSWAY SAN JOSE CITY LIMITS /~
ANNEXA TION DOYLE NO. 4 I
~--+~
I
I
I.
I
I
200'
CUPERTINO CITY LIMITS
ANNEXATION RANCHO
RINCON ADA 98-09
- / ~.
.JAI~UARY '15. 2007 I
l=._~~~_~~_,~~._~-~~-~.=..~.-...-.._._-_.~-------~----._~~- --- ---~.~--~~~--~ . ..
EXHIBIT B
PREZONING LEGAL DESCRIPTION
ZONE: PRE-PR
CITY OF CUPERTINO 2007-
All of that real property situate in the City of San Jose, County of Santa Clara, State of
California, being a portion of the Quito Rancho, described as follows:
BEGINNING at the Southeasterly corner of Lot 293 as shown on that certain Map of
Tract 1183, recorded in Book 44 of Maps, at Pages 11-13, Santa Clara County records
said point also lying in the Westerly line of the City limits of Cupertino as annexed by
Rancho Rinconada No. 98-09, and the Easterly line of the City limits of San Jose as
established by Annexation Doyle No.4;
Course 1: thence proceeding along the Easterly line of said lot and said Westerly City
limits of Cupertino and said Easterly City limits of San Jose N20009' 45"W 177.77 feet
more or less; thence continuing along said City limits lines and Westerly Boundary of
said Annexation Rancho Rinconada No. 98-09, the following courses and distances:
Course 2: N04004'45"E, 125.69 feet
Course 3: N29051'15"E, 214.50 feet
Course 4: N06013'45"W, 116.81 feet
Course 5: N19026'45"E, 1 09.24 feet
Course 6: N14030'OO"E, 228.20 feet
Course 7: N03022'45"W, 191.71 feet
Course 8: N19029'45"W, 151.30 feet
Course 9: N27045'15"W, 189.35 feet
Course 10: N03017'15"W, 147.02 feet
Course 11: N50051'45''W, 121.65 feet
Course 12: N12027'45"W, 107.74 feet
Course 13: N25006'15"E, 61.00 feet
Course 14: N66002'15"E, 113.84 feet
Course 15: N39042'OO"E, 194.78 feet
Course 16: N15014'OO"E, 85.91 feet
Course 17: N10016'15''W, 138.43 feet
Course 18: N01051'30"E, 103.33 feet
Course 19: N26018'45"E, 119.95 feet more or less to a point on the Westerly boundary
line of Lawrence Expressway (previously named Doyle Road), as it now exists;
Course 20: thence leaving aforementioned annexation Rancho Rinconada No. 98-09
and aforementioned annexation Doyle NO.4 and proceeding along said boundary line of
Lawrence Expressway Southerly 2856 feet more or less to a point on the Westerly
boundary of aforementioned annexation Rancho Rinconada No. 98-09 and the Easterly
boundary of aforementioned annexation Doyle No.4;
Course 21: thence continuing along said annexation boundaries N43000'40"W, 193 feet
more or less;
d- -,]
<S""
\
~
EXHi
PLAT FOR
ZONE:
CITY OF CUFJ
BEING A PORTION
r A-1-
PREZONING
PRE-T
TING 2007-
THE QUITO RANCHO
SHEET
OF 2
N
[CUPERT J) CITY LllvllTS -~~~~ PO 87
ANNEXA T O~I RANCHO ------y
RINCOH!,[IA 98-09 1" = 200'
(WESTERLY BOUNDARY /------'''\, CUPERTINO CITY LIMITS / ;/
_____ -~--________ , LAWRENCE EXPRESSWAY __~' '\ ANNEXATION RAI'>ICHO '
',,_ ,,~, RINCONADA 98-091 ~o ,~,'
PARCEL 2 I"~--_________ ,,/ '"" '" /1 '
81<.6065, PG. 241 ~ '____ _-~ 18 PARCEL I" ~ : /
-------------- /!-------1--____:~-=::.:==------1----~~~~=-:~...:;~------~-=~-1~~=:::~@ / l~
/ APN, 375-2~001 . I
- ----ooF~---------------- oo~________ -----------------..,.---------- ---- ..,.--z--------~---;...-
------,--- --- L-~ ';
::e/iN JOSE CITY LlMI TS /
':0 -7 AI'J 1'>1 EX A TIOI'>l DOYLE NO. 4- ~ ~ ADJOINING AI'>INEXAITONS ~ 2 /
/ i SAN JOSE CiTY LIMITS SAI, JOSE CITY LIMITS
L' ANNEXA TIOi\, MORELAND ANNEXA TION MORELAND
NO. 22 LAWRENCE EXPWY. NO.3 /
SAN JOSE CITY LIMITS / (lj
ANNEXATION MORELAND 0'
~,IO, 27 A SAN JOSE CITY LIMITS SAI, JOSE CITY LIMITS / 'V
ANNEXATION MORELAND ANNEXATION MORELAND SAN JOSE CITY LIMITS
NO. 29 NO, 20 ANNEXA TION DOYLE 1,0, 4-
I-
W
W
:r:
(I]
w
w
(I]
JANUARY 2007
!
,I
.=~"'.="'~.".......-"""""'..".",..="~~'-.~->>...,,..........-=~'''''''..-'''..=<_.~.
'-"='-"'.,"'.,..--"'~~..~~=,~.""""'~'"':,"'_=_~~.'_.....-_.".._.=,..............".,.,"'__<==_',.=...~ .._,._-.=""..."'-....-. .,....>..-..o,"'-~,.....,.=~="""'====~=~,-..'_",.._~,=_=_.,.",.,=.,_.",""... "-......, =.",-=--..=...~~~~,
Q.
\
~
E)(H!
PLAT FOR
ZONE:
CITY OF CUP Tlf\lO 2007-
BEING A PORTION OF THE QUITO RANCHO
T A-~
PREZONING
F'RE - T
SHEET 2 OF 2
LINE TABLE
LINE LEI~GTH ciEARING
1 243:1: eASTERLY
2 453.28::1:: SOUTHERLY
3 465.03:1: SOUTHERLY
4 842.43 SOUTHERLY
5 911.66 :;OUTHERLY
6 667.72 ",OUTHERLY
7 552.42 ~;OUTHERL 'I
8 141.00 SOUTHERLY
9 218.52:1: !'182'59'21 "w
10 31.88 1\131'20'20"W
11 40.67 [.135'OO'OO"W
COURSE 12 SEE CURVE TABLE
131 281.69 NI5'12'26"E
COURSE 14. SEE CURVE TABLE
15 121.87 NOO'44'lO"W
16 73.50 NI6'45'10"E
17 33.23 :;i 3 '00' 40"W
18 2856:1: I'-IORTHERLY
19 152.42 1\100'44' 45"W
COURSE 20 SEE CURVE TABLE
21 181. 25 ['!56'51 '06"W
,~
IJr
1" = 200'
If)
o
z
o
CL
(/)0
~lo...
"5'"
=u
....J<(
>-....J
,_ 0)
Uz
wS2
(f) I-
0<(
--, ><
w
zz
<(z
(/)<(
I
I CUPERTII~O CITY LIMITS
, r ANNEXATION RANCHO
I SAN JOSE CITY LIMITS RINCOI~ADA 98-09
~ pAN"''''ON DOm NO , ~_____ --~--J
~;;;t: ,..~ @'/18T
~ i~/1--1----------[~\~~--t-'-----1~ ~
(/<;;, LA WRENCE EXPWY. I !ii
~ Z- ~------~-~~:--~; 5~;2 =~~~
SAN JOSE CITY LIMITS
ANNEXATION BLACI<FORD NO. 6
-t
-t
o
CO
EXPWY.
LAWRENCE
SAN JOSE CITY LIMITS
ANNEXA~ON MORELAND
NO. 27 A
SAN JOSE CITY LIMITS
ANI\IEXA TION DOYI_E NO. 4
CURVE TABLE
COURSE LENGTH RADIUS DELTA
12 39.35 43.00 52'25'56"
14 307.07 2433.00 07'13'53"
20 19.58 20.00 56'05'33"
1
I ,JANUARY 2007
~..~.."..~_.~_~_.o<~~.-~.~._._-~.._......
~
-~-----,..;...~~~--_._~._.~._--~~~~~~-~-_.._...__._!
EXHIBIT B - i
PREZONING LEGAL DESCRIPTION
ZONE: PRE-T
CITY OF CUPERTINO 2007-
All of that real property situate in the City of San Jose, County of Santa Clara, State of
California, being a portion of the Quito Rancho, described as follows:
Beginning at the Northeasterly corner of Lot 242 as shown on that certain Map of Tract
1183, recorded in Book 44 of Maps, at Pages 11-13, Santa Clara County records;
thence proceeding along the Northerly line of said lot, N89039'45"E 41.35 feet more or
less to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING, said point also lying in the Westerly line of the
City limits of Cupertino as annexed by Rancho Rinconada No. 98-09, and the Easterly
line of the City limits of San Jose as established by Annexation Doyle No.4;
Course 1: thence proceeding along the Easterly prolongation of the Northerly line of said
Lot 242 East 243.00 feet more or less to the center line of Lawrence Expressway
(previously named Doyle Road), as it now exists said point also being on the westerly
boundary of the annexation to the City of San Jose entitled Moreland No.3;
Course 2: thence leaving aforementioned annexation Rancho Rinconada No. 98-09 and
proceeding along the said center line of said Lawrence Expressway as it now exists, and
said annexation Moreland NO.3 South 453.28 feet more or less to a point on the
westerly boundary of the annexation to the City of San Jose entitled Moreland No. 20;
Course 3: thence leaving aforementioned annexation Moreland NO.3 and proceeding
along the said center line of said Lawrence Expressway as it now exists, and said
annexation Moreland No. 20 South 465.03 feet more or less to a point on the westerly
boundary of the annexation to the City of San Jose entitled Moreland No. 29;
Course 4: thence leaving aforementioned annexation Moreland No. 20 and proceeding
along the said center line of said Lawrence Expressway as it now exists, and said
annexation Moreland No. 29 South 842.43 feet more or less to a point on the westerly
boundary of the annexation to the City of San Jose entitled Moreland No. 22;
Course 5: thence leaving aforementioned annexation Moreland No. 29 and proceeding
along the said center line of said Lawrence Expressway as it now exists, and said
annexation Moreland No. 22 South 911.66 feet more or less to a point on the westerly
boundary of the annexation to the City of San Jose entitled Moreland No. 27 A;
Course 6: thence leaving aforementioned annexation Moreland No. 22 and proceeding
along the said center line of said Lawrence Expressway as it now exists, and said
annexation Moreland No. 27A South 667.72 feet more or less to a point on the westerly
boundary of the annexation to the City of San Jose entitled Blackford No.6;
Course 7: thence leaving aforementioned annexation Moreland No. 27 A and proceeding
along the said center line of said Lawrence Expressway as it now exists, and said
annexation Blackford NO.6 South 552.42 feet more or less to a point on the westerly
boundary of the annexation to the City of San Jose entitled Blackford No.5;
d- -II
Course 8: thence leaving aforementioned annexation Blackford NO.6 and proceeding
along the said center line of said Lawrence Expressway as it now exists, and said
annexation Blackford NO.5 South 141.00 feet more or less to a point on the northerly
boundary of Bollinger Road;
Course 9: thence leaving said center line of Lawrence Expressway as it now exists and
proceeding along the northerly boundary of Bollinger Road and aforementioned
annexation Blackford NO.5 N82059'21"W 218.52 feet more or less to a point on the
easterly boundary of the City of Cupertino as established by the annexation entitled
Rancho Rinconada No. 98-09 said point also being on the Westerly boundary of said
Lawrence Expressway;
Course 10: thence leaving said northerly line of Bollinger Road and aforementioned
annexation Blackford No. 5 and proceeding along aforementioned boundary of the City
of Cupertino per annexation Rinconada No. 98-09 and Westerly boundary of said
Lawrence Expressway N31020'20"W 31.88 feet,
Course 11: thence N35000'OO"W 40.67 feet to a point of non-tangency;
Course 12: thence along a non-tangential curve, counter clock-wise to the left, with a
radial bearing of S22021'22"E, a radius of 43.00 feet, a delta of 52025'56", an arc length
of 39.35 feet to a point of tangency;
Course 13: thence proceeding tangent to the last curve N15012'26"E, 281.69 feet, to a
point of non-tangency;
Course 14: thence along a non;..tangential curve, counter clock-wise to the left, with a
radial bearing of S83030'17"E, a radius of 2433.00 feet, a delta of 07013'53", an arc
length of 307.07 feet to a point of tangency;
Course 15: thence proceeding tangent to the last curve NOo044'1 O"W, 121.87 feet;
Course 16:, thence continuing along said Westerly Boundary of said Annexation Rancho
Rinconada No. 98-09 N16045'10"E, 73.50 feet;
Course 17: thence N43000'40"W, 33.23 feet more or less;
Course 18: thence leaving said Westerly Boundary of said' Annexation Rancho
Rinconada No. 98-09 and continuing along said Westerly boundary of Lawrence
Expressway Northerly 2856 feet more or less to a point on aforementioned Westerly
Boundary of said Annexation Rancho Rinconada No. 98-09;
Course 19: thence proceeding along said Westerly Boundary of Annexation Rancho
Rinconada No. 98-09 and along said Westerly boundary of Lawrence Expressway
NOo044'45"W, 152.42 feet to a point of tangency;
:L--/~
CITY OF CUPERTINO
RECOMMENDATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
May 10, 2006
As provided by the Environmental Assessment Procedure, adopted by the City Council
of the City of Cupertino on May 27, 1983, as amended, the following described project
was reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee of the City of Cupertino on
May 10, 2006.
PROTECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION
Application No.:
Applicant:
Location:
Z-2006-04 (EA-2006-10)
City of Cupertino
Lands easterly of Saratoga Creek to the centerline of Lawrence
Expressway from Highway 280 to Chelmsford Drive/Bollinger
Road
DISCRETIONARY ACTION REQUEST
Pre-Zoning of 13.5 acres to PR (Public Park or Recreational Zoning District) and Pre- T
(Transportation)
FINDINGS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
The Environmental Review Committee recommends the granting of a Negative
Declaration finding that the project is consistent with the General Plan and has no
significa envi ntal impacts.
~
Steve Piasecki
Director of Community Development
g/ercjREC EA-2006~1O
;2 -I tf
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
(408) 777-3251
FAX (408) 777-3333
Community Development Department
C F
CUPERJINO
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
.':)N l\... ow r (.
A \ tit> lA.-.o of lUI\ ( D J ~ ~ t" LS. W ll.i
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Site Area (ac.) - 7. R3 Building Coverage - 0 % Exist. Building -~sJ. Proposed
Bldg. - sJ. Zone - SeAV'.::r 0 ~..G.P. Designation - PrvcKs ~ 0 ~'"'- Sfl\.C.2..>
Assessor's Parcel No. - ~- ~- 6 ql) '3 7S ~ 2.."2..,- OCY.'L
If Residential, Units/Gross Acre -
Unit Type #1
Unit Type #2
Unit Type #3
Total# Rental/Own Bdrms Total sJ. Price
ecial Area Plans: Check I c +- ~ \o:.J\f.!$
_, ~,(j F1-ov;r'~ C('~_~..k. t'\ct&~er ~\V.l'\
-'nvr~. -,t'..J I
o S. De Anza Conceptual
Unit Type #4
Unit Type #5
Applicable Sp
o Monta Vista Design Guidelines
o
N. De Anza Conceptual
o
S. Sara-Sunny Conceptual
o
Stevens Crk Blvd. Conceptual
o
Stevens Creek Blvd. SW & Landscape
If Non-Residential, Building Area - 0 sJ. FAR - ~ Max.
Employees/Shift - _Parking Required Parking Provided
Project Site is Within Cupertino Urban Service Area - YES 0 NO ]ia..
J..~/5
A. CUPERTINO GENERAL PLAN SOURCES D. OUTSIDE AGENCIES (Continued)
1. Land Use Element 26. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
2. Public Safety Element 27. County Parks and Recreation Department
3. Housing Element 28. Cupertino Sanitary District
4. Transportation Element 29. Fremont Union High School District
5. Environmental Resources 30. Cupertino Union School District
6. Appendix A- Hillside Development 31. Pacific Gas and Electric
7. Land Use Map 32. Santa Clara County Fire Department
8. Noise Element Amendment 33. County Sheriff
9. City Ridgeline Policy 34. CALTRANS
10. Constraint Maps 35. County Transportation Agency
36. Santa Clara Valley Water District
B. CUPERTINO SOURCE DOCUMENTS
11. Tree Preservation ordinance 778 E. OUTSIDE AGENCY DOCUMENTS
12. City Aerial Photography Maps 37. BAAQMD Survey of Contaminant
13. "Cupertino Chronicle" (California History Excesses
Center, 1976) 38. FEMA Flood Maps/SCVWD Flood Maps
14. Geological Report (site specific) 39. USDA, "Soils of Santa Clara County"
15. Parking Ordinance 1277 40. County Hazardous Waste Management
16. Zoning Map Plan
17. Zoning Code/Specific Plan Documents 41. County Heritage Resources Inventory
18. City Noise Ordinance 42. Santa Clara Valley Water District Fuel
Leak Site
C. CITY AGENCIES Site 43. CalEPA Hazardous Waste and
19. Community Development Dept. List Substances Site
20. Public Works Dept.
21. Parks & Recreation Department F. OTHER SOURCES
22. Cupertino Water Utility 44. Project Plan Set/Application Materials
45. Field Reconnaissance
D. OUTSIDE AGENCIES 46. Experience w/project of similar
23. County Planning Department scope/characteristics
24. Adjacent Cities' Planning Departments 47. ABAG Projection Series
25. County Departmental of Environmental
Health
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 paqe.
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)
J -Ito
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
I 0 I
>>- C C C~ C-
I _ C C
-ns- ns ns 0 ns nsns- U
I ISSUES: .! u u .cu.c'-~ .cuu
-.- a I- .- _ 1ii 0 1-'- ns o ns
C~ III ~ 'i C) c.. III ~ c.. zc..
I [and Supporting Information Sources] Q) C E IIlC ._~ IIlcE E
'0.2'- Q)C) ~o Q) .2'-
I ..J .- ~ u
D..U) U) C ..JU)
I
i I. AESTHETICS -- Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a 0 0 0 ;&1, I
I
I
scenic vista? [5,9,24,41,44) I
I I
I b) Substantially damage scenic resources, 0 0 0 )it
I including, but not limited to, trees, rock
I outcroppings, and historic buildings within a
, state scenic highway? [5,9,11,24,34,41,44] ,
!
I c) Substantially degrade the existing visual 0 0 0 ..~ I
I character or quality of the site and its
i surroundings? [1,17,19,44] I
d) Create a new source of substantial light or 0 0 0 .Bl I
I
glare, which would adversely affect day or I
nighttime views in the area? [1,16,44]
III. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In .-
I determining whether impacts to agricultural
I resources are significant environmental
I effects, lead agencies may refer to the
I California Agricultural Land Evaluation and
,
i Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by
I the California Dept. of Conservation as an
! optional model to use in assessing impacts
Ion agriculture and farmland. Would the
I project:
!
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique 0 0 0 Pl
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as shown on the
maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non-
agricultural use? [5,7,39]
b) Conflict with existing zoning for 0 0 0 $I.
agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
contract? [5,7,23]
c) Involve other changes in the existing 0 0 0 j1
environment which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland, to non-agricultural use? [5,7,39]
i
;2 -I 7
>-- 0 C1:
-C C1: C;:
-ClS- CIS CIS 0 CIS CIS CIS- -
.!!! (.) (.) J: (.) J: .- ~ J:(.)(') (.)
ISSUES: _._ CIS 1-.-_10 0 I- .- CIS o CIS
C ~ g. en ~ .3: en Q. en ~ Q. zQ.
[and Supporting Information Sources] G) C E enC ._~ encE E
'0.2'- G)en ~o G) .2'-
..J .- :a: (.)
o..CJ> CJ> C ..JCJ>
-
III. AIR QUALITY - Where available, the
significance criteria established by the
applicable air quality management or air
I pollution control district may be relied upon I
I to make the following determinations. Would
I the project:
! I
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of 0 0 0 ~
the applicable air quality plan? [5,37,42,44]
I b) Violate any air quality standard or 0 0 0 R(
I contribute substantially to an existing or
i projected air quality violation? [5,37,42,44] , ' I
I I
I
I c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net 0 0 0 A
; increase of any criteria pollutant for which
the project region is non-attainment under an
applicable federal or state ambient air quality
I standard (including releasing emissions
I which exceed quantitative thresholds for
ozone precursors)? [4,37,44] i
I ~ i
I d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial 0 0 0 I
!
I pollutant concentrations? [4,37,44] I
Ie) Create objectionable odors affecting a 0 0 0 ~ I
substantial number of people? [4,37,44] I
!
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -- Would I
I
I the project: I
!
I
I a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either 0 0 0 ~
I directly or through habitat modifications, on
I any species identified as a candidate,
I sensitive, or special status species in local or
I regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by
i the California Department of Fish and Game
I or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
1[5,10,27,44]
!
I b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any 0 0 0 JS'J.
I riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional
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 0 0 0 ft(
federally protected wetlands as defined by
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal
() -/'6
i I
i >-- 0 Cc
I -C Cc C; I
i -ns- ns ns 0 ns nsns- -
i .! u u "c U "c .- I- "cUU U
I -.- a 1-q::_1GO I- .- ns o ns
I ISSUES: c:t: lI) .- .i 0) c. lI) :t: C. zc.
I [and Supporting Information Sources] Q) c E lI) C .- l- ll) C E E
o.~- Q)O) ~o Q) .~-
..J .- :E U
I D..(/) (/) C ..J(/)
I pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal,
I filling. hydrological interruption, or other
means? [20,36,44]
d) Interfere substantially with the movement 0 0 0 )l-
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]
I e) Conflict with any local policies or 0 0 0 ~
I ordinances protecting biological resources,
I such as a tree preservation policy or
I ordinance? [11,12,41]
I
I f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural 0 0 0 ~
I Community Conservation Plan, or other
I approved local, regional, or state habitat
I conservation plan? [5,10,26,27]
I V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would the
I
i project:
I
I a) Cause a substantial adverse change in 0 0 0 ~
I the significance of a historical resource as
i defined in 915064.5? [5,13,41] I
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in 0 0 0 )if I
I
the significance of an archaeological I
resource pursuant to 915064.5? [5,13,41] i
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique 0 0 0 Jil
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature? [5,13,41]
d) Disturb any human remains, including 0 0 0 .3l
those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
[1,5]
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Would the I
project: I
I
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 0 0 0 )(
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the
:;2 /1 q
j 0
I >.- Cc C;:: C-
I -C C
jISSUES: -CI:I- CI:I CI:I 0 CI:I CI:ICI:I- -
.!!! (,) (,) .t:. (,) .-... .t:.(,)(') (,)
-lj:~ ~ .- :5 1U 0 ~.- CI:I o CI:I
C ._ en ~.i 0) c. en ~ c. zc.
I [and Supporting Information Sources] (l)cE en C .-... encE E
o.~- (1)0) ~o (I) .~-
...I .- :2: (,)
D..en en C ...I en
I -
I
I State Geologist for the area or based on
i other substantial evidence of a known fault?
I Refer to Division of Mines and Geology
I Special Publication 42. [2,14,44]
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? 0 0 0 ~
[2,5,10,44] I
i
I iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including 0 0 ]a 0 I
I liquefaction? [2,5,10,39,44]
I
! iv) Landslides? [2,5.10.39,44] 0 0 0 Et
I b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the 0 0 0 .:a
i loss of topsoil? [2,5.10.44]
J
I c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is 0 0 ~ 0
I unstable, or that would become unstable as I
I a result of the project, and potentially result
I in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, I
I subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
I [2,5,10.39]
!
I d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined 0 0 0 II
in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code I
(1997), creating substantial risks to life or
property? [2,5.10]
e) Have soils incapable of adequately 0 0 0 Ia..
supporting the use of septic tanks or I
alternative waste water disposal systems I
I
where sewers are not available for the I
disposal of waste water? [6.9.36,39] I
I
I
I
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS I
I
MATERIALS - Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or 0 0 0 $l.
the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials? [32,40,42,43,44]
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or 0 0 0 JiJ
the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident conditions I
involving the release of hazardous materials
into the environment? [32,40,42,43,44] I
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle 0 0 0 Jq I
hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, I
I
substances, or waste within one-quarter mile I
J. -dO
0 i
>.- C~ C;; C- I
-c c
-ns- nsns ons nsns_ -
.!!! C.) C.) .s::. C.) .s::. .- ... .s::.C.)C.) C.) I
ISSUES: -lj:! .... .- _ 1G 0 .....- ns o ns
c ._ en := .i C) 0- en := 0- ZO-
[and Supporting Information Sources] Q) C E en C .-... encE E
cL2' - Q) C) :t:: 0 Q) .2'-
...J .- :2 C.) -
0. en en C ...Jen
-
I of an existing or proposed school?
[2,29,30,40,44]
r d) Be located on a site which is included on a 0 JZl 0 0
list of hazardous materials sites compiled
I pursuant to Government Code Section
16596205 and, as a result, would it create a
significant hazard to the public or the
I environment? [2,42,40,43]
I
Ie) For a project located within an airport land 0 0 0 "'-
use plan or, where such a plan has not been
I adopted, within two miles of a public airport
I or public use airport, would the project result
I in a safety hazard for people residing or
i working in the project area? [ ]
I
I
, f) For a project within the vicinity of a private 0 0 0 -)'l
airstrip, would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the
project area? [ ]
g) Impair implementation of or physically 0 0 0 ~
interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan? [2,32,33,44]
I
h) Expose people or structures to a 0 0 0 ~
significant risk of loss, injury or death
I involving wildland fires, including where
wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or
I where residences are intermixed with
I wildlands?[1 ,2,44]
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
-- Would the project:
I a) Violate any water quality standards or 0 0 0 ~
I waste discharge requirements? [20,36,37]
I b) Substantially deplete groundwater 0 0 0 ft
I supplies or interfere substantially with
I groundwater recharge such that there would
I be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a
I lowering of the local groundwater table level
I (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing
I nearby wells would drop to a level
I which would not support existing land uses
i or planned uses for which permits have been
i granted)? [20,36,42]
J. -:2/
I c _ 0 ul
>>- c1:
-c c c..
-ClS- CIS CIS 0 CIS CIS CIS-
.! (J (J .c (J .c'- '- .c(J(J
ISSUES: -~S 1-~_llSo I-~CIS o CIS I
c ._ U)'-'- I:J)Co U)'- Co zCo
[and Supporting Information Sources] Cl)cE U) c 3:.- '- U) c E E
().~ - CI) I:J) :t::: 0 CI) .~- -
..J .- ~ (J
D..f/) f/) c ..JU)
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage 0 0 0 ~
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?
I
i [14,20.36]
I
i ~
I d) Substantially alter the existing drainage 0 0 0
. pattern of the site or area, including through
I the alteration of the course of a stream or
river, or substantially increase the rate or ,
amount of surface runoff in a manner which
I would result in flooding on- or off-site
, [20,36,38]
I
Ie) Create or contribute runoff water which 0 0 0 .R I
I would exceed the capacity of existing or
I planned stormwater drainage systems or
i provide substantial additional sources of
i polluted runoff? [20,36,42]
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water 0 0 0 JSl..
quality? [20,36,37]
g) Place housing within a 1 OO-year flood 0 0 0 ~
hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood
Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate
Map or other flood hazard delineation map?
[2,38]
h) Place within a 1 OO-year flood hazard area 0 0 0 .;s,
structures which would impede or redirect
flood flows? [2,38]
i) Expose people or structures to a significant 0 0 0 8:
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 0 0 0 a I
mudflow? [2,36,38]
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would I
the project:
I
a) Physically divide an established 0 0 0 M. I
community? [7,12,22,41] i
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, 0 ~l!;{ 0 0
policy, or regulation of an agency with
(l-c1;(
>.- 0 Cc
- C Cc C:;::
-ns- nsns ons nsns- -
.! u u .c u .- ~ .cuu u
ISSUES: -.- ~ I- .- :5 1U 0 I- .- ns o ns
c:t: en :t: .i C) c. en :t: c. zc.
[and Supporting Information Sources] Q) C E en C .- ~ encE E
'O.!?- Q)C) ~o Q) .!?-
I a..cn ..J .- :E u ..JU)
I U) C
I jurisdiction over the project (including, but
I not limited to the general plan, specific plan,
I local coastal program, or zoning ordinance)
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
. mitigating an environmental effect?
1[1,7,8,16,17,18,44]
I c) Conflict with any applicable habitat 0 0 0 ~
I conservation plan or natural community
I conservation plan? [1,5,6,9,26]
I i
I X. MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would the I
I project: I
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known 0 0 0 ~
mineral resource that would be of value to
the region and the residents of the state?
[5,10]
I b) Result in the loss of availability of a 0 0 0 ~
I locally-important mineral resource recovery
I site delineated on a local general plan,
I specific plan or other land use plan? [5,10]
I
I XI. NOISE -- Would the project result in:
I
la) Exposure of persons to, or generation of, 0 ~ 0 0
I noise levels in excess of standards
I established in the local general plan or noise
I ordinance, or applicable standards of other
i agencies? [8,18,44]
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of 0 0 0 )Sl
excessive ground borne vibration or
groundborne noise levels? [8,18,44]
c) A substantial permanent increase in 0 0 0 ~
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing without the project?
[8,18]
d) A substantial temporary or periodic 0 0 0 ~
increase in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above levels existing without
the project? [8,18,44]
e) For a project located within an airport land 0 0 0 )'t
use plan or, where such a plan has not been t
I
adopted, within two miles of a public airport I
i
or public use airport, would the project I
I
expose people residing or working in the I
I
-i
;l ~<-:2 3
~- c _ 0 Cc
-C C C;;
-C'lS- C'lS C'lS 0 C'lS C'lSC'lS- t)
.! u u .cU.c._~ .cuU
ISSUES: _.- C'lS I-.__~ 0 1-.- C'lS o C'lS
c~ ~ rn ~ .i en ~ rn ~ ~ z~
[and Supporting Information Sources] G) C E rn C .- ~ rn C E E
o.~- G)en ~o G) .~-
..J .- ~ u
n.en en C ..Jen
-
project area to excessive noise levels?
[8.18,44]
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private D D D ~
airstrip, would the project expose people
! residing or working in the project area to
I
I excessive noise levels? [8.18] I
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING -- Would
the project:
I a) Induce substantial population growth in an D D D JKl
area, either directly (for example, by I
proposing new homes and businesses) or I
indirectly (for example, through extension of
roads or other infrastructure)? [3,16,47.44]
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing D D D ~
housing. necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere? [3.16,44] I
J
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, D D D ~.
necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere? [3.16,44]
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES .- - I
.
a) Would the project result in substantial \
adverse physical impacts associated with the
I provision of new or physically altered i
I governmental facilities, need for new or I
I physically altered governmental facilities. the i
I construction of which could cause significant I
I environmental impacts. in order to maintain I
acceptable service ratios, response times or I
\ other performance objectives for any of the I
!
public services: i
I
!
I Fire protection? [19.32,44] D D D J8\
I
Police protection? [33,44] D D D )Q I
Schools? [29.30,44] D Jq I
D D I
I I
r Parks? [5,17,19.21,26,27,44] D D D .RJ:
i
I Other public facilities? [19,20,44] D ;q. D D
XIV. RECREATION -- I
i
, a) Would the project increase the use of D D 0 J?J 1
existing neighborhood and regional parks or I
J'~4
~- 0 Cc
-C Cc C;:
-C'lS- C'lS C'lS 0 C'lS C'lSC'lS- -
_!!! u u ..c: u ..c: -- ~ ..c:uU u
ISSUES: c~ ~ t- -- _ n; 0 t- -- C'lS o C'lS
In :t:: -i C) c. In:t:: C. zc.
[and Supporting Information Sources] (l)cE InC --~ In C E E
cL~- (l)C) :=:0 (I) _~-
..J-- ~u
D..t/) t/) C ..Jt/)
-
other recreational facilities such that !
substantial physical deterioration of the i
I facility would occur or be accelerated? I
1[5,17,19,21,26,27,44]
b) Does the project include recreational 0 0 0 J&l
facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment? [5,44]
i I
I XV_ TRANSPORTATIONITRAFFIC-- I
I Would the project: I
I
i
I a) Cause an increase in traffic which is 0 0 0 ~
I substantial in relation. to the existing traffic
I load and capacity of the street system (Le.,
! result in a substantial increase in either the
j number of vehicle trips, the volume to
i capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at
intersections)? [4,20,35,44]
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, 0 0 0 pC i
I
a level of service standard established by the "1
county congestion management agency for
i designated roads or highways? [4,20,.f4] . I
!
I c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, 0 0 0 .~
I including either an increase in traffic levels or
I a change in location that results in
I substantial safety risks? [4,?]
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a 0 0 0 .)St
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? 0 0 0 %
[2,19,32,33,44]
a !
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? 0 0 0 I
[17,44]
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or 0 0 0 ~
programs supporting alternative
transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle
racks)? [4,34]
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS -
Would the project:
J- -;,;2 5
I >.- 0 C'C: I
- C C'C: C;O i
-lIS- lIS lIS 0 lIS lIS lIS- '0 I
.! u u .c u .c .- &.. .cUU
I ISSUES: -;;:a t-;;:_1UO t- .- lIS o lIS
C._ II)'-'i C)Q. II) ~ Q. zQ.
i [and Supporting Information Sources] Q) C E II) C .- &.. II)cE E
'O.!?- Q)C) ~o Q) .!?- -
ll.CIJ -I .- :E U -ICIJ
CIJ C
-
a) Exceed wastewater treatment 0 0 0 JX:
I requirements of the applicable Regional
Water Quality Control Board? [5,22,28,36,44]
b) Require or result in the construction of 0 0 0 J&(
new water or wastewater treatment facilities
I or expansion of existing facilities, the
I construction of which could cause significant
i environmental effects? [36,22,28,36]
I c) Require or result in the construction of 0 0 0 tJ.
I 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 0 0 0 ..iJ
wastewater treatment provider which serves
or may serve the project that it has adequate
I capacity to serve the project's projected
\ demand in addition to the provider's existing
i commitments? [5,22,28,36,44]
r f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient 0 0 0 ~
I permitted capacity to accommodate the
I project's solid waste disposal needs? [?]
\ g) Comply with federal, state, and local 0 0 0 ~
I statutes and regulations related to solid
I waste? [?]
d--'e2to
I a) Does the project have the potential to 0 0 0
I 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
I community, reduce the number or restrict the
: range of a rare or endangered plant or
I animal or eliminate important examples of
I the major periods of California history or
I prehistory? 0
b) Does the project have impacts that are 0 0 0 ~
I individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively
I considerable" means that the incremental
! effects of a project are considerable when
I viewed in connection with the effects of past
I projects, the effects of other current projects,
I and the effects of probable future projects)?
lD
c) Does the project have environmental 0 ~ 0 0
effects which will cause substantial adverse
effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly? 0
',....,-,' ,
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 the consequences of
such delay or discontinuance.
Preparer's Signature
U:-~
I ()-:su
Print Preparer's Name
d-.-/J 7
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would 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.
0 Aesthetics 0 Agriculture Resources 0 Air Quality
0 Biological Resources 0 Cultural Resources 0 Geology ISoils
~ Hazards & Hazardous 0 Hydrology I Water ~ Land Use I Planning
Materials Quality
0 Mineral Resources l;( Noise 0 Population I Housing
)K Public Services 0 Recreation 0 TransportationlTraffic
0 Utilities I Service 0 Mandatory Findings of
Systems Significance
DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) finds that:
0 The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and
a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
~ 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.
0 The proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
0 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.
0 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.
S/IDID~
Date I
-101.' r;
Date (
~-;20
Environmental Analysis & Discussion for
File No. Z-2006-04, Cupertino-Ol Annexation
Geology and Soils
Portions of the property may be subject to seismically-induced inundation and soil
liquefaction as are all lands abutting a creek. Since the land is proposed for a trail and
park, there will be no resident population, no habitable structures, or expensive
improvements. Given the potential geologic hazard and proposed land use activity, the
level of risk is considered acceptable and the environmental impact less than significant.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
The site is currently used by the Roads and Airport Division of Santa Clara County as a
storage yard for construction materials and asphalt grindings. The presence of onsite
hazardous materials is unknown at this time. Should such materials exist on the site or in
the soil, redevelopment of the property for recreational and park purposes will expose
park visitors to such potential hazards. Soils testing to assess the levels of any hazardous
materials in the County storage yard shall be conducted prior to any final decision to
improve the land for park and recreational purposes.
Land Use and Planning
The County-owned lands are presently within the Urban Service Area and Sphere of
Influence ofthe City of San Jose. San Jose City Council Policy 6-15: "City Boundary
Changes in Existing Urbanized Areas" declares that boundary agreement lines between
cities should be maintained, and that the City of San Jose is satisfied with existing
boundary agreements and will only consider modifications that include equal exchanges
of like territory, population or tax base.
The subject properties are owned by the County and have no improvements or
population. According to San Jose Planning staff, these property transfers would have no
detrimental effect on provision of municipal services in San Jose and would be neutral
from a fiscal standpoint, and therefore would be consistent with the intent of San Jose
Council Policy. Cupertino staff is pursuing a San Jose Council resolution that will
confirm this position. Such a resolution is a prerequisite of LAFCO approval of the
boundary realignment. Any potential land use policy conflict would be mitigated by the
required San Jose City Council resolution.
Noise
Redevelopment of the lands for park and recreational uses will expose park users to
vehicular noise from Lawrence Expressway. Generated noise levels may exceed General
Plan noise standards of 67 Ldn for playgrounds, neighborhood parks, which is considered
a normally unacceptable level of noise. Park design shall include a noise analysis to
identify noise levels and recommend mitigation measures to bring any significant noise to
an acceptable level.
1
C2 -;2 0;