Loading...
28. Rezoning Sterling BarnhartCOMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY HALL 10300 TORP.E AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 (4Q$) 777-3303 • FAX (40S) 777-3333 CUPERTINO SUM:'.YIARY Agenda Item Na. ~.8 Agenda Date: November 30, 2009 Application: Z-2009-03, EA-2009-08 Applicant: City of Cupertino Property Location: East side of Sterling Blvd. at the easterly texminus of Barnhart Avenue (no address number} APPLICATION SUMMARY: REZONING of property from Single Famii:y Residential (R1-7.5) to Park and Recreation (PR) for a proposed neighborhood park. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommended ~~n a 4-0-1 vote {Giefer absent) that the City Council: 1. Approve a Negative Declaration {EA -2009-0$} for the project; and 2. Approve the Rezoning (Z-2009-03) in accordance with the model resolution (see Attaclunent A). BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission reviewed the rezoning project on October 27, 2009. Please refer to the Planning Commission staff report for the detailed project data and background information (see Attachment B). DISCUSSION: Planning Commission Consideration: The Planning Commission supports the proposed rezoning of the property. The Commission discussions focused on future park activities, noise cox~.siderations and the public outreach /noticing for the project. Staff clarified that the neighborhood has been 28-1 City of Cupertino Z-2009-03 November 30, 2009 Page 2 involved in the design of the park over several months and that the zoning hearing was noticed to a 300-foot radius. The Commission was satisfied with the level of review and recommended approval of the rezoning project. Public Input: Two residents spoke on the item. One resident was pleased with the City's diligezue in developing the Saratoga Creek Trail and now the paxk. One neighbor inquired about nighttime lighting and suggested providing on-site parkuzg for the park. Staff clarified that no nighttime lighting was plaruled. The park will close at dusk like other city parks. No on-site parking is provided. The park is too small to attract users from outside the area and will likely be used by only neighborhood residents. Enclosures: Ordinance No. 0~-~DS~ Attachment A: Planning Commission Resolution No. 6573 Attachment B: Planning Commission Staff Report dated October 27, 2009 Attachment C: Planning Commission October 27, 2009 meeting minutes Attachment D: Initial Study, ERC Recommendation, Negative Declaration Prepared by: Colu1 Jung, AICP, Senior Plaruzer Reviewed by: Gary Chao, City Planner Submitted by: Approved by: Aarti Shrivastava David W. Knapp Director of Community Development City Manager G: } Pta~zning } PDREPORT} CC } 2009 } Z_2009_03 CC.doc 2a-z ORDINANCE N0.09-2051 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CLfPERTINO CITY COUNCIL REZONING TWO PARCELS OF 0.6 GROSS ACRE LOCATED AT THE EASTERLY SIDE OF STERLING BLVD. AT THE EASTERLY TERMINUS OF BARNHART AVENUE FROM Rl-'7.5 {SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTL~L) TO PR {PARK & RECREATION) WHEREAS, an application was received by the City (Application no. Z-2009-03) for the rezoning of a property to Park and Recreation, PR; and WHEREAS, the rezoning will be consistent with the City's General Plan land use map, proposed uses and surrounding uses; and WHEREAS, upon due notice and after one public hearing the Planning Commission recommended to the City Council that the rezoning be granted; and WHEREAS, the property is presently zoned R1-7.5; and WHEREAS, a map of the subject property is attached hereto as Exhibit A, as a proposed amendment to the Master Zoning Map of the City of Cupertino. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the property described in attached Exhibit A & B is hereby rezoned to Park and Recreation, PR; and that Exhibit A :attached hereto is made part of the Master Zoning Map of the City of Cupertino; and Section 2. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days after its passage. INTRODUCED at a special meeting of the Cupertino City Council on the 30th day of November, 2009 and ENACTED at a regular meeting of the Cit}~ Council of the City of Cupertino the day of 2009, by the following vote: Vote: Members of the City Council: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: ,APPROVED: City Clerk 1vlayor, City of Cupertino 28-3 ~t ~` 1 H 1 FM+1 F+~ HM F~ W ;~ ,er ml ~'.O ~1~ y V • M m ~ B / s ~y;~ • ~ • R1 ~ ~ ~ ~~ ,~ .LOT 278 / ;. TtIdCT' 1783 r' 4q-Y-ri 3p' ~ ~. SS' W1~ 1 ._...~~ ~ ~ ~~ TRUE PotNT / 44,76' of St=GINNINCZ ,~ PARCEL Y i ~ , ~t 1 ~ ,~/ X5'03'43'14 ( ,~ / / 72.56' .. ~ f o (i / ( o / C7 0 ,~w/ l--~r-.y; m ~ $" PARCEL 2 hw~l j ~ ~~w IL ~~ 1 y,~ / u~ $ ~ ~ / _ ~ t~oc lse63zs lam! ~ ( w g ______ ~ / (~I ~~' Sss•_ 2°~~•W .._ Ca_w.t_r. Herr39'a3-w u3.m' _ ^ ~ I _ ! _ ______~, , r ~ • 6ARNI-;qRT_ Rt~ AVENUE ~ NB~~ hj R ~/ s~ i ~ / ~ N~Q •.. ~.SeB739~E (2:32' for ,27s 2'Jtacr 1133 ~~-u-~ ( ( ( I r 1~ ~Q ~q N.T,S, ZON 11~1G N PLA`f . NSAf fZEZoNE UP~rox. ©•5a~ ac. F-rorv. R-1 -~o ~'R EXHIBIT B Legal Description For Zoning Parcels at Sterling and Barnhart APN: 375-23-046• and 375-23-047 All that certain land situated in the State of C,~lifornia, County of Santa Clara, City of Cupertino, more particularly described as follows: Commencing at a point in the centerline of D~~yle Road, distant thereon North 0° 44' S 1" West 2,224.51 feet from the point of intersection thereof with the centerline of Bollinger Road; said point of commencement being also that point of intersection of the said centerline of Doyle Road with the Southerly line of the lands of Tantau; thence from said point of commencement, leaving said center line of Doyle Road North 87° 39' S3" West along said Southerly line of the lands of Tantau, 135.00 feet to the true point of begiruung of this description; thence from said true point of beginning continuing along said Southerly line of the lands of Tantau North 8'r° 39' S3" West 202.24 feet to a point in the centerline of Sterling Boulevard; thence along; said centerline of Sterling Boulevard South 1-8° 50' 00" West 130.38 feet; thence South 87°39' S3" East 212.32 feet; thence North 14° 30' 00" East 127.88 feet to the true point of beginning. Containing 26,010 square feet or 0.597 acres, more or less. 28-5 Attachment A Z-2009-03 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. 6573 OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDING THE RE-ZONING OF TWO PROPERTIES COMPRISING 0.6 ACRES FROM R1-7.5, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, TO PR, PARK & RECREATION, LOCATED ON THE EASTERLY SIDE OF STERLING BLVD. AT THE EASTERLY TERMINUS OF BARNHART AVE. SECTION I: PROTECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: Z-2009-03 (EA-2009-08) Applicant: City of Cupertino Location: Easterly side of Sterling Blvd. at the eastexly terminus of Barnhart Ave. (APN's 375-23-046, -047) SECTION II: FINDINGS FOR REZONING WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for the rezoning of properties, 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 Plaruzing Commission has held one or more public hearings on this matter; and WHEREAS, the Planning Coinn-ission finds that the subject rezoning meets the following requirements: 1) That the rezoning is in conformance with the General Plan of t11e 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. 4) That the proposed rezoning is otherwise not detrimental to the 1lealth, safety, peace, morals and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of subject parcels. 5} Tl1at the rezoning promotes the orderly development of the city. 28-6 Resolution No. 6573 Z-2009-03 October 27, 2009 Page 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, application no. Z-2009-03 is hereby recommended for approval; and That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this Resolution are based and contained it ~ the Public Hearing record concerning Application Z-2009-03, as set forth u1 the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of October 27, 2009 and are incorporated by reference herein. SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADM[NISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 1. APPROVED EXHIBITS The recorrunendation of approval is based on Exhibits A: Zoning Plot Map, and Exhibit B: L1ega1 Description. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 27~~ day of October 2009, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Kaneda, L,ee, Miller, Vice-Chair Brophy NOES: COMMISSIONERS: none ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: none ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Chairperson Giefer ATTEST: /s/Aarti Shrivastava Aarti Shrivastava, Director Community Development Department G:\Plaruunu g\PDREPORT\RES\2008\Z-2009-03 res.doc APPROVED: _ ~f Paul Brophy Paul Brophy, Vice-Chair Planrullg COmmiSSI0I1 28-7 Attachment B COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE ~ CUPERTlNO, CA 95014-3255 (408) 777-3308 • FAX (408) 777-3333 CUPERT[NO Agenda Item No. 4 Application: Z-2009-03, EA-2009-08 Applicant: City of Cupertino Agenda Date: October 27, 2009 Property Location: East side of Sterling BIvd. at the easterly terminus of Barnhaxt Avenue (no address number} Application Summary: REZONING of property from Single Family Residential (R1-7.5) to Park and Recreation (PR) for a proposed neighborhood park. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council: 1. Approve a Negative Declaration for the project; and 2. Approve the Rezoning, Z-2009-03, ~in accordance with the model resolution. Projec# Data: General Plan Designation: Existing Zoning Designation: Proposed Zoning Designation: Acreage (Gross} for rezoning: Existing Land Use: Consistency with General Plan: Environmental Assessment: Parks and Open Space R1-7.5 (Single Family Residential) PR {Park & Recreation) 0.6 acre, two paxcels {APN's 375-23-046/047) Vacant Iand & trail head for Saratoga Creek Trail Yes Negative Declaration BACKGROUND: The proposed rezoning project site consists of two vacant properties and an 18-foot wide trail coruzection (between Sterling Blvd. and the east bank of Saratoga Creek) SUMMARY 28-8 City of Cupertino Z-2CQ9-03 October 27, 2Q09 Page 2 along the southerly boundary. The properties Iie at the ,intersection of Sterling Boulevard and Barnl~-t Avenue in the R~~rtcho Rinconada neighborhood, which was subdivided and developed in Santa .Clara County in the 1950's and annexed into Cupertino in 1998. The project property served as a water pumping station for San Jose Water Company (SJV1~ until it was subdivided into two residential parcels u12002 and later sold to the City of Cupertino. Th~~ parcels are surrounded by single-family residential uses to the south, west and north, and are bounded by Saratoga Creek and Lawrence Expressway to the east. Sterling Barnhart Park Development: According to General Plan Policy 2-74, "the City shall provide three acres of parklands for each 1,000 residents." In addition, General Plan Policy 2-83 states, "additional parklands are identified and shall be acquirE~d or dedicated in the Rancho Ruzconda area." The Rancho Rinconada area currentl~r has approximately one-tenth of the General Plan park acreage standard. Therefore, the City acquired the project parcels in November 2008 with the uztention to develop a small neighborhood park. 28-9 City of Cupertino Z-2009-03 OctoUer 27, 2009 Page 3 In April, May & June 2007, the City held a park design workshop with Rancho residents to gather neighborhood input on the design of the park. Suggested design features included: • Half court basketball court • Play structures • Park benches • Lawn areas ' • California native plant garden Prelim;r,ary park designs have been developed {see Attaclunents 1 & 2) with park features sited in the westerly portion of the properties in order protect the existing riparian vegetation along Saratoga Creek. Next month the City Council will make final park design changes and award the low bid for park construction. The park is projected to be complete by mid-April 2010. DISCUSSION: Rezoning Application The PR rezoning i.s consistent with the general plan land use designation, "Parks and Open Space," and the existing and proposed improvements to the property. Environmental Reviez~l Corarnzittee On October I, 2009, the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) reviewed the project. Two areas of environmental concern were identified. . 1) The potential for increased storm runoff and associated pollutants into Saratoga Creek from new impervious surfaces in the park (i.e. sport court and wallways) and landscaped areas. 2) Noise impacts on adjacent residences from the use of the basketball court. A noise analysis was prepared and the consultant determined that the average, projected noise level of 63 dBA was below the City noise standard of 65 dBA (see Attachment 3). The ERC noted that the average, projected noise level is under the General Plan noise standard; though there may be occasional noise spikes from outdoor play similar to those in other small parks. ERC recommended a negative declaration for the project {see Attachment 4}, and noted that consideration should be given to minimizing storm drainage toward Saratoga Creek. Possible design measures include: • Pervious pavement in the walkways and basketball court • Draitzing impervious areas to landscape features 28-10 City of Cupertino Z-2009-03 October 27, 2009 Page 4 • Limiting the amount of lawn area thereby reducing the level of fertilizers and pesticides that may enter the creek cl~u~el Project Architect Terry Greene has informed staff that design features and materials have already been incozporated into the project to minimize storm drainage to the extent feasible. Next Steps: Nov. 11, 2009 City Council reviews and acts on rezoning project. Nov. 17, 2009 City Council makes final park design changes and awards the low bid for park construction. Nov. 19, 2009 Break ground on park: site. Mid-April 2010 Complete park construction. ENCLOSURES Model Resolution Attachment 1: Draft Park Design 1 Attaclunent 2: Draft Park Design 2 Attachment 3: Basketball Court NoisE~ Study prepared by Charles Salter Associates, Inc. Dated ~~eptember 4, 2009 Attaclunent 4: Initial Study, ERC Recommendation & meeting mnzutes 10/1/09 Prepared by: Colin Jung, Senior Plaruzer Reviewed by: Gary Chao City Plaruler Approved by: Aarti Shrivastava Director of Community Development G: ~ PIanni~zg ~ PDREPORTt pcZreports ~ Z_2009_03, doc 28-11 Cupertino Planning Commission 1 S October 27, 2009 Said he agreed with Com. Miller; I could see that privacy planting wil already required anyway when we ai•e doing these types of projects. I A,itachment Ci t condition anything because the Planning Department is going mo 'fication I could see making since the developer is amenable to it, is to increase the setbac on the north side an additional 5 feet. Com. Lee: Staff said tha one of the conditions that could be done is have more of a second floor side setback or just z crease the side yard setback. It appears that Mr. Hoffman is more concerned with the garage, n the second floor. Said that she suppo d the tentative map as proposed. It is a unique situation, because if it is vertical towa~•ds Ainsw h side or Varian Way, then it is going to be horizontal and strange looking from Amelia Cou It is going to be 90 degrees if you change it, it will be strange on one side. I think it is better t be more in line with Amelia Court as proposed by staff. Vice Chair Brophy: Said he concurred with the Commis 'oners; only issue is there a preference to raise the setback on the north side of the parcel from 10 15 feet. Com. Miller: • Said another alternative might be to give th applicant a choice of either 15 feet there or meeting the rear yard setback formula which wo ld mean that you could have a small portion as close as 10 feet, but that the overall average had be 20 as written u~ the ordinance. Gary Chao: • Said staff would like the Planning Commission to con 'der the second floor as well as discussing the ground floor because depending on your fina ecision on what you like to call that, whether side yard or rear yard, the rear yard setback fors and floor is 25 feet; typically for ground floor it is 20 feet, second floor is 5 feet more. As it c entiy exists, that northerly boundary is considered a side yard, ground floor is minimum 10, s cond floor minimum we would Iike it to be 15, but if you are going to bump it out, you might resider second floor to be also appropriately and proportionally added, Vice Chair Brophy: There is consensus that a 15 foot setback on the north side is acceptable. Motion: Motion by Com. Miller, second by Com. Kaneda, and unanimously carne (4-0, Chair Giefer absent} to approve Application TM-2004-03 per the mod resolution, with the addition that the side yard setback on Lot 2 on the north ' be a minimum of IS feet; the overall side setbacks would be a total of 20 feet. 4. Z-2004-03 (EA-2009-08) Rezone property from Single Family Residential (R1-7.5) to City of Cupertino Parks & Recreation (PR) for a proposed neighborhood park. Sterling & Barnhart Tentative City Council Dale: November 17, 2009 Colin Jung, Senior Planner, presented the staff report: • Reviewed the application for city-initiated rezoning of property from Single Family 28-12 Cupertino Plamting Commission 1 ~ October 27, 2009 • Residential to Park and Recreation for a proj~osed neighborhood park as outlined in the staff report. • The neighborhood park is located in Rancho Rinconada on property previously serving as a water pumping station for the City of San Jose until it was subdivided and sold to the City of Cupertino in 2002. Preliminary park designs have been developed and the City Council will make final design changes and award the bid for park construction; with the completion date scheduled for mid-April 2010. • The ERC has reviewed the project and has two concerns: (1) Potential for increased storm water runoff and associated pollutants into Saratoga Creek from new impervious surfaces iu the park and Iandscapes areas; and (2) Noise impacts on adjacent residents from the use of the basketball court. The projected noise level off" 63dBA is below the City noise standards of 65 dBA. However, there is a concern that the noise level may have occasional noise spikes fi•om outdoor play similar to those at other parks. ;SRC recommended a negative declaration for the project and noted that consideration be given to minimizing stone drainage toward Saratoga Creek. • Staff reconunends the negative declaration ors the rezoning and recommending approval of the rezoning application. Mark Linder, Director of Cupertino Parks and. Recreation: • Said that the Rancho Rinconada neighborhood is deficient in parks, the new park is .6 acre; although some of the area of the park is unusable as a park. • He reported that there was extensive community input on the design of the pat•k and a community sign-off. " Vice Chair Brophy opened the public hearing. Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident: • Said she appreciated the amount of work Mark Linder had done on the project. She also thanked staff and the City of Cupertino; and recognized Pat Bustamonte's efforts in spearheading the project which began in 1990. She said that the Rancho Rinconada neighborhood has not had a park and the residents are excited and grateful to have a paxk. Rancho Rinconada community has about 1,SC~0 homes; 5,000 people of mixed ethnicity. Motion: Motion by Com. second by Com. and unanimously carried 4-0, Chair Giefer absen#, #o approve App[icatiou Z-2009-03 (EA-2009-08) per the model resolution. OLD BUSINESS• None NEW BUSINESS: None REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Environmental Review Committee:. No meeting. Housing Commission: No meeting. Mayor's Monthly Meeting with Commissionet•,i: No meeting. Economic Develoament Committee: No meeti~ag. 28-13 Attachment D ~"~ ~,~~y of ~uperuno 10300 Torre Avenue ~1 `~` ,.e Cupertino, CA 95014 CITY of {408) 777-3251 CUPE~T~NO FAX {408) 777-3333 Community Development Department INITIAL STUDY -ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION CHECKLIST' PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Staff Use Only EA File No.EA-2009-08 ase File No.Z-2009-03 ttachments Project Title: Sterling/Barnhart Park Rezoning & Construction Project Location: East side of Sterling Boulevard at the easterly terminus of Barnhart Avenue Project Description: Rezone two abutting lots (APN's 375-23-046, -047) from Singie- Family Residential (R1-7 5) to Park and Recreation (PR) & build a proposed park Environmental Setting: The subject lots comprising 0 6 acre extend from the centerline of Sterling Blvd. to the centerline of Saratoga Creek on the eastside. The lots have a lave! grade with a slight easterly slope to the creek Vegetation is ruderal except for the easterly 45 feet which is riparian in character The north -south running creek has been semi-channelized with the creek bank reinforced with concrete-hoed sacks. Part of the street frontage has been improved with a concrete driveway. The southern portion of the property is an 18-foot wide trail head connecting Sterling Blvd. with the Saratoga/San Tomas Aquino Creek Trail segment PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Site Area (ac.) -_0.597 Building Coverage -_N~A % Exist. Building -_s.f. Proposed Bldg. - s.f. Zone - R1-7.5 G.P. Designation -Parks & Open Space Assessor's Parcel No. - 375 - 23 - -046, -047 If Residential, I.initslGross Acre - Unit Type #1 Unit Type #2 Unit Type #3 Unit Type #4 Unit Type #5 Total# RentallOwn Bdrms Total s.f. Price Applicable Special Area Plans: (Check) None ^ Monta Vsta Design Guidelines ^ S, De Anza Conceptual ^ N. De Anza Conceptual ^ S. Sara-Sunny Conceptual ^ Heart of the City Specific Plan ^ Stevens Creek Blvd. SW & Landscape2s - ~a _ ~ [f Non-Residential, Building Area - NIA s.f. FAR - Max. EmpioyeeslShift - Parking Required Parking Provided Project Site is Within Cupertino Urban Services Area - YES L7 NO D :? 28-15 INITIAL STUDY SOURCE LIST A. CUPERTINO GENERAL PLAN SOURCES 1. Land Use Element 2. Public Safety Element 3. Housing Element 4. Transportation Element 5. Environmental Resources 6. Appendix A- Hillside Development 7. Land Use Map 8. Noise Element Amendment 9. City Ridgeline Policy 10. Constraint Maps D. OUTSIDE AGENCIES {Continued) 26. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 27. County Parks and Recreation Department 28. Cupertino Sanitary District 29. Fremont Union High School District 30. Cupertino Union School District 31. Pacific Gas and Electric 32. Santa Clara County Fire Department 33. County Sheriff 34. CALTRANS 35. County Transportation Agency 36. Santa Clara Valley Water District B. CUPERTiNO SOURCE DOCUMENTS 11. Tree Preservation ordinance 778 12. CityAeriai Photography Maps 13. "Cupertino Chronicle" {California Nistory Center, 1976) 14. Geological Report {site specific) 15. Parking Ordinance 1277 16. Zoning Map 17. Zoning Code/Specific Plan Documents . 18. City Noise Ordinance C. CITY AGENCIES Site 19. Community Development Dept. List 20. Public Works Dept. 21, Parks & Recreation Department 22. Cupertino Water Utility D. OUTSIDE AGENCIES 23. County Planning Department 24. Adjacent Cities' Planning Departments 25. County Departmental of Environmental Health E. OUTSIDE AGENCY DOCUMENTS 37. BAAQMD Survey of Contaminant Excesses 38. FEMA Flood MapsISCVWD Flood Maps 39. USDA; "Soils of Santa CIara County" 40. County Hazardous Waste Management Plan 41. County•Heritage Resources Inventory 42. Santa Clara Valley Water District Fuei Leak Site 43. CaIEPA Hazardous Waste and Substances Site F. OTHER SOURCES 44. Project Plan SetlApplication Materials 45, Field Reconnaissance 46. Experience wlproject of similar scopelcharacteristics 47. ABAG Projection Series "[NSTRUCTlONS 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 fisted 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 page. 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 applicabie) 28-16 3 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: ~ = o c~ ~ ~ ISSUES: [and Supporting Information Sources] c ._ o m ~ N ._ o, a ~ rn ~' ~ N ._ a ~ m ~ Z a 1= ~ , I. AESTHETICS -- Woutd the project: I a} Have a substantial adverse effect on a ^ ^ ^ ~ ;scenic vista? [5,9,24,41,44] i b) Substantially damage scenic resources, ^ ^ ^ O including, but not limited to, trees, rocEc j outcroppings; and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? [5,9;11,24,34,41,44] i c) Substantially degrade the existing visual ^ ^ ^ D i character or quality of the site and its surroundings? [1,17,19,44] d) Create a new source of substantial Eight ar ^ ^ ^ >] j glare, which would adversely affect day or ~ nighttime views in the area? [1,16,44] I i.Project site was formerly a San Jose Water Co. pumping station with only ruderal vegetation. Relandscaping of the barren portion of the property will enhance its visual a earance. I I1. 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 Caiifomia Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique ^ ^ ^ ~ ~ !Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide ;Importance {Farmland), as shown on the ~ ~ j maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland i Mapping and Monitoring Program of the I t California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? [5,7,39] b) Conflict with existing zoning for ^ ^ O ~ agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? [5,7,23] ~! c) Involve other changes in the existing ^ ^ ^ C7 environment which, due to their location or 28-17 C •- ' ISSUES: c ~ ~ a ~ ~ v r . ~ o . ~ ~ ~ o o a [anti Supporting Information Sources] ~.~ o o, ~ 3 ~` y.E ~ ~ o ~ . N.E N a, ~ Z ~ . d fn . y J N ~ C ~ .... - -J U) ` `' I nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? [5,7,39] Il. Project site was formerly a water pumping station surrounded by single-family residential uses. Redevelopment of the prope rty to park uses will not di minish agricultural { lanrlc I III. AIR QUALITY -Where available, the T I significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air i pollution control district may be relied upon to make the folEowing determinations. Would th t i e projec : a} Conflict with or obstruct implementation of ^ ^ ^ ~ ~ the applicable air quality plan? [5,37,42,44] -- b) Violate any air quality standard or ^ ^ ^ , L7 contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? [5,37,42,44] c} Result in a cumulatively considerable net ^ ^ ^ ~ j 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? [4,37,44] e) Create objectionable odors affecting a ^ ^ ^ ~ ~ substantial number of people? [4,37,44] I11. The,park is designed for neighborhood use. At'/z acre in size, it is not large enough to attract many destination vehicle trips from outside,of the neighborhood, and would not cnntrih~atP ~innificantiv to air noilutants from VehICIe emISSiOnS. 1V. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES --Would the project: ( I a} Have a substantial adverse effect, either ^ ^ ^ ~ directly or through habitat modifications, on ~ any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special s#atus species in local or ~ regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by ; j i ~ the Califamia Department of Fish and Game i or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? i ; ~ [5,10,27,44] ~ I __ ~. 5 28-18 . of ~ V U ~ ~ ~ V~ ;~ s~ w ~ ~ v V ~ U ISSUES: c :~ c. ~' ~. ±~ `~ ~ 3 ~- :E- c. ° n`°. j z ' [and Supporting Information Sources] o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I I ~ y ~~ ~ c J y b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any ^ ^ ^ ~ riparian habitat or other sensitive natural j community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or I US Fish and Wildlife Service? [5,10,27,44] -I __~_._____- ~ ~ c) Have a substantial adverse effect on ^ ^ ^ I Cx7 ~ 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, 1 filling, hydrological interruption, or other j ~ ;means? [20,36,44] t d) Interfere substantially with the movement: ^ ^ ^ D '• of any native resident or migratory fish or i wildlife species or with established native f resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or (impede the use of native wildlife nursery j sites? [5,10,12,21,26] ' I e) Conflict with any local policies or ^ ^ O ~ I i ordinances protecting biological resources, ~ such as a tree preservation policy or , ordinance? j11,12,41] f) 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) IV. The ultimate project, a neighborhood p~rrk, would not remove any trees nor any riparian vegetation, which is on the property, but oui:side of the park development area. flans for a "native plant° garden would enhance the riparian area V. CULTURAL RESOURCES --Would they i I project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in ^ ^ ^ ~ the significance of a historical resource as ~ defined in §15064.5? [5,13,41] ; b) Cause a substantial adverse change in j ical f a a j th i if h l ^ ^ ~ ~ L7 , og e s gn icance o rc n aeo . resource pursuant to §15064.5? [5,13,49] ~ c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique __ ___ __ _ _ ^ _ ___ ___ _ .1 ^ ______ _ _ _ .. _-1 ^ ~ ___ _ __ ~ . ~ 28-19 Ei i T ~~ ~~ acs ~ ° ro~'"E ~ c t, I ISSUES: [and Srapporting information Sources] c~dJ ~ ~ ~ =~ c. ~ ~ ~ ~ 4` -c. ~ ~ m °a1 z E , n. cn ~ v~ c . -~ v~ paleontological resource or site or unique ~ geologic feature? [5,13,41] i d) Disturb any human remains, including ^ ^ ^ ~ i ~ those interred outside of formal cemeteries? I [1,5] II V. There are no known cultural, archaeological or paleontological resources on this former f water pumping substation. ' i f --- ~ VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -Would the project: j a) Expose people or structures to potential ~ j ~ 3 :substantial adverse effects, including the risk I 1 of loss, injury, or death involving: j i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as ^ ^ ^ [~ delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fauft Zoning Map issued by the 1 State Geologist for the area or based on ~ other substantial evidence of a known fault? ~ Refer to Division of Mines and Geology ~ j i Special Publication 42. [2,14,44] ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? I ^ ^ ^ D [2, 5,10,44] J iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including ^ ^ ^ >xl 1 liquefaction? [2,5,10,39,44] iv) Landslides? [2,5,10,39,44] ^ ^ ^ CX7 b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the ^ ^ ^ I i ~ I loss of topsoil? [2,5,10,44] i c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is ^ ^ ~ ^ 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] ____ i d) 13e located on expansive soil, as defined ^ ( ^ I ^ ~ L7 in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Buildin Code g ~ + + I I (1997), creating substantial risks to life or ~ ~ 1 ! property? [2,5,10] ~ I I `..~~__-L._---- --- _ I e) Have soils incapable of adequately ^ ~ 1 ^ I ^ ~ ~ ~ supporting the use of septic tanks or ~ _ _____ ____ ___________ 28 - 20 (~ V V .C ++ L .C v V V ISSUES: +~ ccl t- [and Supporting lnforma#ion Sources] o ~ El ~ ~ 3 ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ i ~~_ J~ ~ ~~ ~~ . alternative waste water disposal systems i where sewers are not available for the ~ ~ ~ t disposal of waste water? [6,9,36,39] _ I I VI. The easterly third of the property appears on the City's Geologic Hazards Map and is ' susceptible to inundation and ground liquef~~ction effects. The impacts are considered ~ Insignificant because the site is not being dE;signed with significant improvements nor . permanent human occupancy. VI1. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS ~ MATERIALS -Would the projec#: ~ ' a) Create a significant hazard to the public or~ 0 ~ ^ ^ t ~ the environment through the routine ~ transport, use, or disposal of hazardous I ~ materials? [32,40,42,43,44] j ~ I b) Create a significant hazard to the public ar ^ ^ ^ ~ ~ ~ the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions I ~ involving the release of hazardous material: ~ into the environment? [32,40,42,43,44] I ~ - ~_ c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle ~ ^ ^ ^ ~ ~ hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, i j 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 ^ ^ ^ ~ j list of hazardous materials sites compiled ~ ~ pursuant to Government Code Section 165962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the ' environment? [2,42,40,43] - ----- - i e) For a project located within an airport land ^ ^ O ~ 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 I in a safety hazard for people residing or ' ~ working in the project area? [ ] I - ~- - f) For a project within the vicinity of a privatE~ ~ ^ ~ ^ ^ ~ D airstrip, would the project result in a safety ~ ~ ;hazard for people residing or working in the ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ i project area? [ ] ~ I g) Impair implementation of or physically ~ ^ ^ j ^ l7 ~ tnterfere with an adopted emergency JJ ~ I_re~onse plan or emergency evacuation ____ I _ _v ~ ~ _ _ ~ ~„e ,,,~ -[ - - - - LV ~ L 1 `) r I - ,~,,, R V VI C .i.. ~ O ~Q I -C v r ~ .F, ! i ~ U V --- - - - V ISSUES: c`- a! ~ N4= = ~Q. 3 + y~' a I Z Q. [and Supporting Information Sources] o o, E~ ~ a, = ° ~ rn ~ E ~ + a cn I , u ~ cn ~ c _ -1 to I ~ , ;plan? [2,32,33,44] i ~ 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 i ~ 'where residences are intermixed with i wildlands?[1,2,44] I ~, VII. There are no hazardous materials on this vacant lot, nor are any contemplated for use ': in developing this neighborhood park. a VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY -- Wouid the project: ~ i a) Violate any water quality standards or ^ ^ ^ ~ j I waste discharge requirements? [20,36,37] b} Substantially deplete groundwater ^ ^ ~ ^ ~ supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a ! i 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 I granted)? [20,36,42] e) Create or contribute runoff water which ^ ^ ^ ~ ! ~ o existin or ,would exceed the capacity f g ;planned stormwater drainage systems or [ ~ provide substantial additional sources of , `, ! polluted runoff? [20,36,42] f} Otherwise substantially degrade water ^ ^ ^ ~ quality? [20,36,37] ' ~ g) Place housing within a 100-year flood ^ ^ ^ ~ O j hazard area as mapped on a federal 1=1ood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate ; Map or other flood hazard delineation map? ! [2, 38] ~ _ _.J h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area ^ ! ^ ~ ^ [ ~ structures which would impede or redirect I + i flood flows? [2,38] I ~ j ~ _~ i} Expose people or structures to a significant ^ ^ ~ ^ CO risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of __ _-- - -.._-- - ----_.-------1 ----- --_l .__ zs=22 • 1 ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ! L ~ I V ;ISSUES: ~ C:'= c:~ ~ y~"J v~n.i 3 ~ ~~ o.~ Z a [and Supporting Information Sources] c ~ ~i ~ • ~ ~ ~ m ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 - ~ a levee or dam? [2,36,38] ~ __! j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or ^ ^ ^ ~ mudflow? [2,36,38] I Vlll. The project would remove the existing mpervious driveway and pad and replace it '• with landscape areas. A proposed optional, sportcourt would add back the impervious " surface area, but stormwater runoff will be handled by existing vegetated areas and the I stormwater drainage system. The site is outside of the 100-year flood zone, except for the 1 I c+rc~m rh~nnal ~a>-hir}z is not !'f11'1tRITln~atP('I f~~r C~P_VLIODI'r1El'lt. 1 ~ ~ ~ IK. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would ! I the project: ~ ` I a) Physically divide an established ^ ^ - ^ 0 ~ community? [7,12,22,41] ~ ~ I b Conflict with any applicable land use plan, O ^ i ^ ~ i 1 policy, or regulation of an agency with I jurisdiction over the project. {including, but ;not limited to the genera] plan, specific plan, i ~ local coastal program, or zoning ordinance} j i adopted for the purpose of avoiding or I I I mitigating an environmental effect? ~ i [1,7,8,16,17,18,44] ~ I c) Conflict with anyapplicable habitat conservation plan or natural community ^ ^ ~ ! . ^ ~ ;conservation plan? [1,5,6,9,26] ~ { i !X. The PR rezoning proposal is consistent with the City General PEan designation of i ~ "Parks and Open Space". The planned park; development would create a neighborhood ; focal point and join the neighborhood together. The rezoning and park development will also be consistent with the San Tomas/Saratoga Creek Trail Master Plan. j I X. MINERAL RESOURCES --Would the i project: ~ a) Result in the loss. of availability of a known O ^ ^ 1 I D mineral resource that would be of value to ~ `the region and the residents of the state? 1 ~ ~ [5,10] _~.~ ___ ~` ~----- - --.____-- .__ --_ ~ b) Result in the foss of availability of a I ^ ^ ; ^ ~ ~ locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? [5,10] - ~ ------ j X. The project site has no known mineral resource of significance. XI. NOISE -Would the project result in: .... . 1 ... ... _... .~ .. .. J... _ _ .. _ 1 _ 28 - 23 10 ~~~~ O ~ c ~~~~L; ~ c ~~~j ~ --; u~ ISSUES: [and Supporting Information Sources] aci c °"~ o ~ ~~ ~' C ~ Ca? ~ ~, :E N G °' ~ ~ ~ Z c' ' ~ I a v~ I ~ -~ u~ ~ c -~ to j II a) Exposure of persons to, or generation of, ^ ^ ~ ^ ~ noise levels in excess of standards ~ 1 ~ 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 groundbome vibration or groundborne noise levels? [8,18,44] c} A substantial permanent increase in ^ ^ ~ ^ I ambient noise levels in the project vicinity I ~ above levels existing without the project? I I [8,'18] - t ----~ d) A substantial temporary or periodic ^ ^ ~ ~ ^ increase in ambient noise levels in the l project vicinity above levels existing without the project? [8,18,44] ~ I 1 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] ` f) For a project within the vicinity of a private ^ °^ ^ ~ ~ ~ ,airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? [8,18] ~ XI. An acoustical study was commissioned to evaluate the noise levels of a proposed, optional, half-court basketball court on the north side of the property next to an existing single-family residence. Noise measurement data from an existing basketball court with a ' similar play surface indicated that the average noise level would be 63 dBA, which is below the City noise standard of 65 dBA. No mitigation is required; however, the basketball playing noise could be considered a nuisance by abutting residers#s, even if the average noise level is below Citv standards. __ } ; X11. POPULATION AND HOUSING --Would ---- ~ j the project: € a) Induce substantial population growth in an ^ ~ ^ ^ J C7 j 1 area, either directly (for example, 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 - ^ ~ . --_ _._ ^ .. _- ----- ---....-- ^ ----- -- -_ ~ C7 ~A~d_. 11 f ,., ~ •-~ ~ ~ C °i i -- - - ~-T--~ ~ C I ISSUES: 1 ~ V V~ c~c. ~ V~~LI ~~*==`~c. z~~' ~ N~c.i Za` ~ [and Supporting Information Sources] a~ ~ a J N 3 ~° ~' E E _ i , to , c - J I u~ ~ ;housing, necessitating the construction of ~ replacement housing elsewhere? [3,16,44] c} Displace substantial numbers of people, O ( ^ i ^ i lD necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? [3,16,44] _ 1 ~_ ,- XI11. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial I adverse physical impacts associated with tree ~ ~ provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or ' • ;physically altered governmental facilities, the I~ construction of which could cause significant ! environmental impacts, in order to maintain , i acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the ~ i pub[ic services: j - i Fire protection? [19,32,44] ^ ^ ^ ~ ~ ~ Police protection? [33,44] ^ ^ ^ ~ ~ Schools? j29,30,44] ~ ^ ^ ^ ~ Parks? [5,17,19,21,26,27,44] ^ ^ ^ O Other public facilities? [19,20,44] i ^ ^ ^ ~ XII. No housing will be displaced by this project. Population growth will not be induced as the neighborhood is already built out. j XIII. Project does not induce population growth thafi might have an impact on public ~ services. Project adds parkland to a neight~orhood that currently has 1/10 of the City { standard of 3 acres per 1,000 population. ~ rXIV, RECREATION -- a) Would the project increase the use of ^ ~ . ^ ^ L7 existing neighborhood and regional parks or I other recreational facilities such that i substantial physical deterioration of the ~ facility would occur or be accelerated? 1 i [5,17,19,21,26,27,44] ~ ~ __ b) Does the project include recreational ^ ^ ^ I LD facilities or require the constnaction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the :environment? 5,44 [ ] l 12 28 - 25 ISSUES: [and Supporting Information Sources] i ~ ~ ~ C O_ = "+ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 ~~ ~ s~ o L ~+ t4 t `° ~~ ~+ ~ ~ ~ '~ = Z ~ .d+ N ~ G E N 1= I XIV. The creation of a small neighborhood park on a vacant [ot that does not remove trees ~ I nr affacf +ha ah~ iitinn riparian venetation will not have a adverse environmental impact. XV. TRANSPORTATIONITRAFFIC -- i Would the project: ~ ~ ~ I _..___h -_-I i a) Cause an increase in traffic which is ~ _ ^ ^ ~ ^ ~ ~ 4 ~ substantial in relation to the existing traffic (load and capacity of the street system (i.e:, i. result in a substantial increase in either the I 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 __ ^ ! _r ^ _____ ^ _ ~ ~ 'county congestion management agency for ~ designated roads or highways? [4,20,44] ~ j c} Result in a change in air traffic patterns, ^ ^ ^ ~ including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in ~ substantial safety risks? [4,?] ~ d) Substantially increase hazards due to a I design feature (e.g., sharp curves or ^ ^ ^ ff I 0 dangerous intersections) or incompatible ~ i uses (e.g., farm equipment)? [20,35,44] - ~ . - ' e) Result in inadequate emergency access? ^ ^ ; ^ ~ i [2,19,32,33,44] 1 _ f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? ^ ^ 0 ~ ^ [17,44] I g} Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or ^ ^ ^ ~ 0 i programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? [4,34] _ _ - -J _ I ~ _~_~_ ~_- XV. The proposed park is too small to be attractive to residents living outside of the I neighborhood and is not expected to generate traffic from outside of the nearby area. Park usage will generate some additional parking demand that can be absorbed by the abutting I street. Sterling Blvd., which allows parking on both sides. XVI, UTIl.ITlES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS - Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater #reatment ^ ~ ^ s ^ I ~ !requirements of the applicable Regional ~ I i ~ I ;Water Quality Control Board? [5,22,28,36,44] ; ~ ~._... -..-._-_-~----~-~------~.~-----~.._..~.------..1- -------- -- ~---~____...__.' .i.. 28=2Fi' 13 ~ I ~ ~ ' ~ I ISSUES: ~ ~ f• ~~~ ~ ~ Q I c ~ ~ o s . ~~ ~~~ ~ 4= ~ ~° Q c cc ~ +r r~~ ~ ~= Q ~. i ~ ° a ~ [and Supporting Information Sources] . °~' ~, ~ y ~ 3 ~ `o , N ~ E . Z ~ ' I b) Require or result in the construction of ^ ~ ^ ^ ~ ;new water or wastewater treatment facilitie:~ or expansion of existing facilities, the f`f construction of which could cause significant ~ I environmental effects? (36,22,28,36] c) Require or result in the construction of ^ ^ ^ ~ 1 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 ~ ^ ~ ^ ~ ^ ~ CD wastewater treatment provider which server ~ or may serve the project that it has adequai:e capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider`s existin~3 commitments? (5,22,28,36,44] `f} Be served by a landfill with sufficient I ^ ^ ^ Cx7 ! ermitted ca acit to accommodate the I p P Y ~ ' project s solid waste disposal needs? (?] ~ g) Corriply with federal, state, and Socal ^ ^ -, ^ I ----- 0 statutes and regulations related to solid i i waste? j?] _ ___ i XVi. The planned park will have no restrooms and one, optional drinking fountain. No expansion of was#ewater facilities or storm grater drainage facilities is contemplated. za - 2~ 14 ~ ------- i X1/ll. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE (To be completed by City Staff) a) Does the project have the potential to ^ ^ ^ ~ Cl degrade the quality of the environment, j ~ substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife ~ population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to elimina#e a giant or animal I I 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 j prehistory? j] ~ ~ i 1 b) Does eth project have impacts that are ^ I ^ ' ~ ~ ~ I individually limited, but cumulatively ~~ ('considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental 1 effects of a project are considerable when j viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? ~ __~ _ _____ ___. 1 c) Does the project have environmental I ^ I ^ ~ ^ LD , effects which will cause substantial adverse ~ ;effects on human beings, either directly or ~ I ; ': indirectly? j] _- --- I i ____i PREPARER'S AFFIDAVIT I hereby certify that the information provided in this Initial Study is true and con-ect to the best of my knowledge and belief; E certify that 1 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 ' Print Preparer's Name Colin ung G:1PlanninglMISCELL1Templatellnitial Study Checklist.doc 2s-28 15 ENVIRONMENTAL E~/ALUAI"ION {To be Completed by City Staff) ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at [east one impact that-is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ^ Aesthetics ^ Agriculture Resources ^ Air Quality ^ Biological Resources ^ CultGral Resources ^ Geology /Soils O Hazards & Hazardous Materials - ^ Hydr~~logy /Water Quality ^ Land Use /Planning ^ Mineral Resources C7 Noisf~ ^ Population /Housing ^ Public Services ^ Recreation ^ Transportation/Traffic ^ Utilities /Service Systems ^ Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation the Environmental Review Committee {ERC} finds that: Cl The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will bE: prepared. I ^ i Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect ire 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 REPOI~T is required. ^ The proposed project MAY have a "I~otentially 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 pur:~uant to that earlier ElR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Date 9126/09 10/01 /09 Date 28 - 29 CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE October 1, 2009 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 October 1, 2009. PROTECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION Application No.: Z-2009-03 (EA-2009-08) Applicant: City of Cupertino Location: Sterling Blvd Q Barnhart Ave (APN 375-23-046, -047) DISCRETIONARY ACTION REQUEST Re-Zone two properties from Single Family Residential (R1-7.5) to Park & Recreation (PR) and construct a neighborhood park. 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 significant environmental impacts. The Committee also finds that decisionxnakers should minimize project storm drainage toward Saratoga Creek. Possible park design measures include: • Pezvious pavement in the walkways and basketball court, • Draining impervious areas to landscape features, and • Limiting the amount of Lawn area, because of the associated use of fertilizers and pesticides, which could enter the creek channel. Aaxti Shrivastava Director of Commuxuty Development g/erc/REC EA-2009-OS 28 - 30 CITY OF CTTPERTINO NEGATIVE DF,CLARATION As provided by the Environmental Assessment Procedure adopted by the City Council of the City of Cupertino on May 27,1973, and amended on March 4,1974, January 17 1977, May 1,1978, and July 7,1.984, the follo~n~ing described project was granted a Negative Declaration by the City Council of the City of Cupertino on November 30, 2449 PROTECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION Application No:: Z-2009-03 (EA-2009-08) Applicant: City of Cupertino Location: Sterling Blvd Q Banlhart Ave DISCRETIONARY ACTION REQUEST Re-Zone a property consisting of two lots frt~m Single Family Residential (R1-7.5) to Park & Recreation (PR) for a proposed neighborhood park FINDINGS OF DECISIONMAKING BODY The City Council granted a Negative Declaration since the project is consistent with the General Plan and there are no significant environrrtental impacts. Aarti Shrivastava Director of Community Development CERTIFICATE OF THE CITY CLERK This is to certify that the above Negative Declaration was filed in the Office of the City Clerk of the City of Cupertino on - City Clerk ~~-~~~~g~z~osos 28-31 EXHIBITS BEGIN HERE ..~ ~,. ;, ~j ~.,~ ~. C~ Environmental Consideratior~s • Noise: Acoustical study indicates average noise level of basketball activities will be 63 dBA, which is below City residential noise standard of 65 dBA • Storm Drainage: Minimize drainage to creek with pervious surfaces, landscaping, etc. The City Council should ap~~rove: • The negative declaration (EA-2009-09) on the rezoning; and • The rezoning request (Z-2009-03) per the model resolution -~ ~~" 2 City-initiated rezoning of two lots from Single-Family Residential (R1-7.5) to Park and Recreation (PR) for a proposed neighborhood park.