The URL can be used to link to this page

22. TM-2010-01, 10642 Portal Ave,.9 OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE - CUPERTINO, CA 95014 -3255 (408) 777 -3308 - FAX (408) 777 -3333 - RlaiulingCcupertino.org CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. Agenda Date: May 4, 2010 Application: TM- 2010 -02, V- 2010 -01, Z- 2010 -01, EA- 2010 -01 Applicant: Pam Yoshida (for Richard Gregersen) Location: 10642 North Portal Avenue, APN's 316 -25 -047, -048, -054 APPLICATION SUMMARY Prezoning and Rezoning 0.028 acre from the City of Sunnyvale to pre- R1.7.5, and 0.590 acre to R1 -7.5 Tentative Map to subdivide 0.618 acre into two single - family residential lots of approximately 11,737 and 13,982 gross square feet with an exception area of 1,211 square feet in the City of Sunnyvale; Variance to allows a lot width of 55 feet in an R -1 zoning district where 60 feet is required. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommends approval of the following applications to the City Council: 1. The Mitigated Negative Declaration, EA 2010 -01 (Attachment A); 2. Prezoning and Rezoning, Z- 2010 -01, per Resolution No. 6593 (Attachment B). 3. The Tentative Parcel Map, TM- 2010 -02 per Resolution No. 6591 (Attachment C); 4. The Variance, V- 2010 -01, per Resolution No. 6592 (Attachment D) Staff is requesting a further modification of the tentative parcel map conditions of approval to require a stormwater detention/ retention easement on Parcel l as discussed under the Staff Comments section of this report. PROJECT DATA General Plan Designation: Low Density (1 -5 Dwelling Units /Gross Acre) Existing Zoning Designation: Al -43 (Agriculture - Residential - 43,000 square feet minimum) and City of Sunnyvale 22 -1 TM- 2010 -02, V- 2010 -01, Pain Yoshida (10642 1 Portal Ave) '-N1aN 4, 2010 Z- 2010 -01, EA- 2010 -01 Page 2 Proposed Zoning Designation: R1 -7.5 and pre- R1 -7.5 (Single - Family Residential -- 7,500 square feet minimum) Total Gross Lot Area: 26,930 square feet (0.618 acre) Proposed Lot Areas: Gross Area Net Area Parcel 1: 13,982 sq. ft. 9,376 sq. ft. Parcel 2: 11,737 sq. ft. 9,348 sq. ft. Exception Area: 1,211 sq. ft. 1,211 sq. ft. Existing Land Use: Proposed Land Use: Proposed Density: Project Consistency with General Plan: Zoning: Environmental Review: Vacant Single - family residential 3.24 dwellings /gross acre Yes Yes Mitigated Negative Declaration BACKGROUND The applicant, Pam Yoshida of MBA Architects, representing landowner Westivood Investments, is seeking the above captioned entitlements to subdivide a vacant lot into tivo single - family residential lots. The fenced lot is located at the terminus of North Portal Ave. and is accessed via a 20 -foot ingress- egress easement located on the left side of 10642 North Portal Ave. The lot is surrounded on the north and east by a Santa Clara Valley Water District drainage channel and Highway 280, to the south by single - family dwellings, and to the west by 2 -story apartment buildings. In Figure 1, the light blue lines mark the project property boundaries. The red triangle is the lot exception area that is located in the City of Surmyvale, and the hatched rectangular area depicts the existing access easement to the lot. The lot currently has some accessory structures, fencing and landscaping, where neighbors Figure 1 have extended their yards into the property. 22 -2 TM- 2010 -02, V- 2010 -01, Pam Yoshida (10642 N Portal Ave) May 4, 2010 Z- 2010 -01, EA- 2010 -01 Page 3 DISCUSSION Project Descrip The project consists of a prezoning and rezoning to R1 -7.5 to facilitate the subdivision of a vacant parcel into two single- family lots. The lots are designed with a new cul -de -sac that is tied into the public street via an existvlg ingress - egress easement on 10642 North Portal Avenue. The subdivision will be consistent with the proposed zoning if a variance is granted to allow a lot of width of 55 feet where 60 feet is required. See Attachment E for additional details. Planning Commission Meeting On April 13, 2010, the Planning Commission recommended with a 3 -0 vote (Commissioners Giefer and Kaneda absent) to approve the project (Attachment E). The Commission was supportive of the project but suggested that there should be a condition requiring disclosure to future property owners of potential noise concerns with the exterior noise level of the project given its proximity to the freeway. A disclosure condition (Condition #4, Attachm C) has been added to the resolution. Public Comments Public comments expressed at the hearing are as follows (staff responses are provided in italics): • The overhead electrical utilities along the southern property line hang low and need to be undergrounded to allow a fire truck to pass into the proposed cul -de -sac. Staff response: Undergrounding of overhead utaities is a standard Public Works Department condition of approval and is required as part of the development approval. • Future, new residential development: should be required to plant privacy landscaping. Staff response: Property is proposed to be rezoned R1- single family residential zoning. R1 has zoning requirements for privacy landscaping for new two story residences. • Future, new residential development should avoid interference with onsite utility easements. Staff response: Existing utilihi easements are depicted on the parcel map. The potential building footprint is also shown. Lots are large enough to build a house without encroaching into the easement areas. • Parking should not be allowed on the ingress/ egress easement. Staff response: 77w 20 foot wide easement is not wide enough �`.o allow parking. Parking would be prohibited. The affected lot is large enough and developed with sufficient parking spaces outside of the easement area. Staff Comments A portion of the proposed Parcel 1 (on the east side of the cul -de -sac) is needed for facilitating the required storm water retention system of the development. A condition 22 -3 TM- 2010 -02, V- 2010 -01, Pam Yoshida (10642 N Portal Ave) Z- 2010 -01, EA- 2010 -01 May 4, 2010 Pa -ae 4 has been added requiring the recordation of a storm water detention/ retention easement on Parcel 1. Prepared by: Colin Jung, Senior Planner Reviewed by: Gary Chao, City Plannev4 - Reviewed by: //? - i 9� /7L� Aarti Shrivastava Community Development Director ATTACHMENTS Attachment A Attachment B Attachment C Attachment D Attachment E Attachment F Attachment G Attachment H Attachment I Attachment J Attachment K Approved by: David W. Knapp City Manager Initial Study, ERC Recommendation and Negative Declaration Resolution No. 6593 for Z 2010 -01 Resolution No. 6591 for TM- 2010 -02 Resolution No. 6592 for V- 2010 -01 Planning Commission Staff Report dated 4/13/10 Assessor Parcel Map depicting lots with widths less than 60 feet Noise Assessment Study for the Planned 2 -Lot Subdivision, dated December 18, 2009 Noise Study Addendum dated March 23, 2010 Air Quality - Mike O'Connor, M'OC Physics, dated April 5, 2010 Zoning Ordinance Plan set G: � Planning � PDREPORT � CC � 2010 \ TM- 2010 -02 V- 2010 -01 Z- 2010 -01_CC 05 -04 -10 .doc 4 22 -4 Attachment A City of Cupertino / 10300 Torre Avenue L Cupertino, CA 95014 CITY of (408) 777 -3251 CUPERTINO FAX (408) 777 -3333 Community Development Department INITIAL STUDY - ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION CHECKLIST Staff Use Only EA File No. EA-201 0-01 Case File No. TM-2010-02,V-2010-01,Z- 2010-01 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Attachments Noise Report, Phase 1 report Project Title: Subdivision & Rezoning: Land :3 of Westwood Investors Project Location: No address, behind 10642 North Portal Avenue (APN316 -25 -047, - 048 -054) Project Description: Subdivide 0.618 acre i two residential lots of about 11,737 & 13,982 sq. ft. with an exception area of 1,211 sq. ft. in Sunnyvale. Variance to allow lot width of 55 ft. where 60 ft. is the minimum. Prezone 0.028 ac from Sunnyvale to pre -R1- 7.5 and 0.59 ac from Al -43 to _R1 -7.5 Environmental Setting: Vacant land surrounded by single - family detached land uses to the east and south, apartments to the west and US Highway 28C to the north PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Site Area (ac.) — 0.618 Building Coverage - _ /A % Exist. Building - 0 s.f. Proposed Bldg. - N/A s.f. Zone - - Al-43 G.P. Designation — Low Density Res. (1 -5 du /qr. Ac.) Assessor's Parcel No. 316 - 25 - 047. -048, -0 54 If Residential, Units /Gross Acre - 3.24 du /qr. A Unit Type #1 Unit Type #2 Unit Type #3 Unit Type #4 Unit Type #5 Total# Rental /Own Bdrms Total s.f. Price Applicable Special Area Plans: (Check) ❑ Monta Vista Design Guidelines ❑ N. De Anza Conceptual ❑ Stevens Crk Blvd. Conceptual If Non - Residential, Building Area -. ❑ S. De Anza Conceptual ❑ S. Sara -Sunny Conceptual O Stevens Creek Blvd. SW & Landscape s.f. FAR - Max. 22 -5 Employees /Shift - Parking Required 6 /lot Parking Provided 6 /lot INITIAL STUDY SOURCE LIST Project Site is Within Cupertino Urban Service Area — YES 0 NO ❑ 2 22 -6 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 B. CUPERTINO SOURCE DOCUMENTS 11. Tree Preservation ordinance 778 12. City Aerial Photography Maps 13. "Cupertino Chronicle" (California History G. 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 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 E. OUTSIDE AGENCY DOCUMENTS 37. BAAQMD Survey of Contaminant Excesses F. FEMA Flood Maps /SCVWD Flood Maps G. USDA, "Soils of Santa Clara County" H. County Hazardous Waste Management Plan I. County Heritage Resources Inventory J. Santa Clara Valley Water District Fuel Leak Site K. CalEPA Hazardous Waste and Substances Site L. OTHER SOURCES 44. Project Plan Set/Application Materials M. Field Reconnaissance N. Experience w /project of similar scope /characteristics O. ABAG Projection Series INSTRUCTIONS A. Complete all information requested on the Initial Study Cover page. LEAVE BLANK SPACES ONLY WHEN A SPECIFIC ITEM IS NOT APPLICABLE. B. Consult the Initial Study Source List; use the materials listed therein to complete, the checklist information in Categories A through O. C. You are encouraged to cite other relevant sources; if such sources are used, job in their title(s) in the "Source" column next to the question to which they relate. D. If you check any of the "YES" response to any questions, you must attach a sheet explaining the potential impact and suggest mitigation if needed. E. When explaining any yes response, label your answer clearly (Example "N - 3 Historical ") Please try to respond concisely, and place as many Explanatory responses as possible on each 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 applicable) 22 -7 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: ISSUES: [and Supporting Information Sources] I. AESTHETICS -- Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? [5,9,24,41 b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a st ate scenic highway? [5,9,11,24, c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? [1,17, d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? [1, II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique 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 agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? [5,7,23] c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or natur could result in conversion of ❑ ❑ ❑ o. a O c4 j c4 v 0 4 Co co v " v d a a 0 t-- M �= Q. C 0 ca Z Q. E N 4, N E E 4. fn -J fA C -J N ❑ j ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ i o ❑ ❑ ❑ D b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? [5,7,23] c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or natur could result in conversion of ❑ ❑ ❑ El ❑ ❑ O ❑ ❑ O i ❑ ❑ r ❑ b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? [5,7,23] c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or natur could result in conversion of ❑ ❑ ❑ El ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 5 22 -8 III. AIR QUALITY — Where available, the significance criteria established by the O 0 r *' i pollution control district may be relied upon j CU U (� °�- V ~ V i a ISSUES: a Q-i y a, = CL z [and Supporting Information Sources] a, Ei projected air quality violation? [5,37,4 U c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net ❑ O ❑ D increase of any criteria pollutant for which o CL J .E' fn C -J C Farmland, to non - agricultural use? [5,7,39] which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? [4,37,44] 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 to make the following determinations. Would the proj a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of ❑ ❑ ❑ the applicable air quality plan? [5,37,42,44] b) Violate any air quality standard or ❑ ❑ ❑ Z contribute substantially to an existing or I projected air quality violation? [5,37,4 c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net ❑ O ❑ D 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ pollut concentrations? [4,37,44] e) Create objectionable odors affecting a ❑ ❑ ❑ CD substantial n umber of people? [ 4, 37, 44] IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES --Would t he project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? [5,1 b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any ❑ ❑ ❑ ll riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communitv identified in local or regionai 6 22 -9 ! _:, 0 �(5 °� . ca ISSUES: ; r- :L- a N '= r a, a. ~' .2 a. z C- [and Supporting Information Sources] j o M- 0 J j a cn J U) � cn plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Servi [5,10,27, c) Have a substantial adverse effect on ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? [20,36,44] d) Interfere substantially with the movement ❑ ❑ ❑ El of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? [5,10,12,21,26] e) Conflict with any local policies or ❑ ❑ ❑ El ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? [11,12 j IVe) Site survey by staff shows only two Willow trees (Salix sp.), two incense cedars and several fruit trees (apricot and orange) present on the property. There are no protected trees on the property as identified in the City's protected tree ordinance, CIVIC Section 14.18. I f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural p ❑ ❑ p Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? [5,10,26 j I V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would the ! project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in ' ❑ ❑ ❑ the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? [5,13, ] b) Cause a substantial adverse change in ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 the significance of an archaeological resource pursu to §1 5064.5? [5,13,41] 7 22 -10, ISSUES: [and Supporting Information Sources] I c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? [5,13,41 ] d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? [ VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS — Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, inj or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist - Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Public 42 [ 2, 1 4,44] ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? [2,5,10,44] iii) Seismic - related ground failure, including liquefaction? [2,5, iv) Landslides? [2, 5,10,39,44] b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of t opsoil? [2,5,10,44] 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 i d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18 -1 -B of the Uniform Building Code (1997), creating substantial risks to life or property [ 2,5,10] e) Have soils incapable of adequately v V O M CL O cC Z CL O d N d U) V''i C J CA i ❑ ❑ ❑ o ❑ ❑ ❑ a ❑ ❑ ❑ a ❑ ❑ I E ❑ i i ❑ ! ❑ ❑ D ❑ ❑ I i I ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 22 -11 VI. A review of the City's Geological Hazards Map indicates that the subject property and surrounding area are not subject to inundation, liquefaction or other soil issues that may occur in proximity to a drainage channel. Property will have access to sanitary sewerage and will not rely on septic systems. Property, as are all properties in the San Francisco Bay Area, are affected by seismic activity along the earthquake faults. Property is not in an Alquist - Priolo fault zone nor is the property near a potentially active fault line. Compliance with current building and seismic codes will be adequate to protect lives and property from seismic activity. VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS — Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? [32,40,42,43,44] b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? [32,40,42,43,44] c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one - quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? [2,29,30,40,44] d) Be located on a site which is included on a ' list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? [2,42,40,43] ° i ❑ ca CZ ca o o c ; CU CU ISSUES: c Q� .c N a, CL F ) ' 0- Z C [and Supporting Information Sources] °� a, E a� 2 :E o !: N a, E E cn supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? [6,9,36,39] VI. A review of the City's Geological Hazards Map indicates that the subject property and surrounding area are not subject to inundation, liquefaction or other soil issues that may occur in proximity to a drainage channel. Property will have access to sanitary sewerage and will not rely on septic systems. Property, as are all properties in the San Francisco Bay Area, are affected by seismic activity along the earthquake faults. Property is not in an Alquist - Priolo fault zone nor is the property near a potentially active fault line. Compliance with current building and seismic codes will be adequate to protect lives and property from seismic activity. VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS — Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? [32,40,42,43,44] b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? [32,40,42,43,44] c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one - quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? [2,29,30,40,44] d) Be located on a site which is included on a ' list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? [2,42,40,43] 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 result in a safety hazard for people residinq or 0 ° ❑ ❑ ! ❑ I i I ❑ ❑ ' i ❑ El ❑ ❑ ❑ 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 result in a safety hazard for people residinq or 0 22 -12 i ❑ ❑ I i ❑ D 22 -12 g) Impair implementation of or physically ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? [2,32,33,44] h) Expose people or structures to a ❑ ❑ ❑ IZI significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands ?[1,2,4 VII. A Phase 1 environmental assessment indicates no prior land uses that would cause a hazardous waste contamination issue, other than the orchard use which was common throughout Cupertino. There are no local agency records indicating use, storage or spills of hazardous materials on the property. A physical inspection of the property also showed no evidence of use, storage or contamination by hazardous materials. VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY -- Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 waste discharge requirements? [20 b) Substantially deplete groundwater ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre - existing i nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been grant ed)? [2 c) Substantially alter the existing drainage ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or j river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion of siltation on- or off -site? 10 22 -13 c O a; c cc UU �� = off; �= o � � �UL U ~ �. a. ISSUES: Su Information Sources] *= C o a, E N "_ a, "= Z a, [and a fn Ln C J U1 working in the project ar ea? [ ] f) For a project within the vicinity of a private ❑ ❑ ❑ O 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 interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? [2,32,33,44] h) Expose people or structures to a ❑ ❑ ❑ IZI significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands ?[1,2,4 VII. A Phase 1 environmental assessment indicates no prior land uses that would cause a hazardous waste contamination issue, other than the orchard use which was common throughout Cupertino. There are no local agency records indicating use, storage or spills of hazardous materials on the property. A physical inspection of the property also showed no evidence of use, storage or contamination by hazardous materials. VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY -- Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 waste discharge requirements? [20 b) Substantially deplete groundwater ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre - existing i nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been grant ed)? [2 c) Substantially alter the existing drainage ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or j river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion of siltation on- or off -site? 10 22 -13 [ 14, 20,36) d) Substantially alter the existing drainage ❑ ❑ ❑ pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off -site [20,36,38] e) Create or contribute runoff water which ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? [20,36,42] f) Otherwise substantially degrade water ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ quality? [20,36,37] g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood ❑ ❑ ❑ O hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? [2,38] i h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area 1 ❑ I ❑ ❑ 0 structures which would impede or redirect I j flood flows? [2,38] i) Expose people or structures to a significant ❑ ❑ ❑ D 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 ' ❑ ❑ ❑ O mudflow? [2,36,38] VIII. The amount of physical development of the property triggers requirements to retain storm flows onsite. Land has been reserved in the subdivision (eastern side) to accommodate C3 requirements. Improvements will be designed at the improvement plan stage of the final map approval. IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the pr IZI a) Physically divide an established ❑ ❑ ❑ community? [7,12,22 ] 11 22 -14 CU a c +,: - C i tc V V j V .0 O '- i F+ .0 V U U ISSUES: ? �' CL, = cc p a� a E— a ; o Z n. [and Supporting Information Sources] o f a, 0 rn E E CL (n fn r J to [ 14, 20,36) d) Substantially alter the existing drainage ❑ ❑ ❑ pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off -site [20,36,38] e) Create or contribute runoff water which ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? [20,36,42] f) Otherwise substantially degrade water ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ quality? [20,36,37] g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood ❑ ❑ ❑ O hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? [2,38] i h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area 1 ❑ I ❑ ❑ 0 structures which would impede or redirect I j flood flows? [2,38] i) Expose people or structures to a significant ❑ ❑ ❑ D 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 ' ❑ ❑ ❑ O mudflow? [2,36,38] VIII. The amount of physical development of the property triggers requirements to retain storm flows onsite. Land has been reserved in the subdivision (eastern side) to accommodate C3 requirements. Improvements will be designed at the improvement plan stage of the final map approval. IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the pr IZI a) Physically divide an established ❑ ❑ ❑ community? [7,12,22 ] 11 22 -14 ISSUES: [and Supporting Information Sources] b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? [1,7,8,16,17,18,44] c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community con se r vatio n p [1, 5,6,9,26 ] X. MINERAL RESOURCES --Would the proj a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? [5,10] b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally - important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specif p or oth l and us plan? [5,10] XI. N O I SE -- Would th p roject result in: a) Exposure of persons to, or generation of, noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agenci [8,18,44] b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? [ 8,18,44] c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? [ d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the proj vicinity above levels existing without v� ca u 4� � E' Q_ fn i a' M o Mi � � p1 CD J V) C i cc v N � E J fn v 1= ❑ ❑ ❑ o El ❑ El 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ (] ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ i IZI ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ a ❑ j) 22 -15 f) For a project within the vicinity of a private ❑ ❑ El 0 airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive nois l [8, XI. A noise assessment for the project was prepared by Edward L. Pack Associates dated December 18, 2009. Measurements indicate that ground floor noise level will be 68 dB CNEL and second floor will be 76 dB CNEL. Both levels exceed the "normally acceptable" General Plan noise exposure level for low density single - family land uses. The more important measure is the ground level measurement as this is the noise level of the yard areas (There is an existing 12 -foot tall sound wall that was erected by CALTRANS). The higher ground floor noise level is in the "conditionally acceptable" range if detailed noise analysis is completed and noise reduction features are incorporated in the design of the dwellings. Interior noise levels in the most impacted rooms (facing the freeway) are estimated to be 53 dB CNEL for the first floor and 61 dB CNEL for the most impacted second floor spaces. The maximum interior noise requirement is 45 dBA. According to the consultant, this level can be achieved if all glass windows and doors facing the freeway remain close. The first floor windows must have a minimum STC rating of 28 and second floor windows (facing the freeway) must have a minimum STC rating of 36. All impacted windows must have high quality, durable frames and air -tight seals to be effective. Mechanical ventilation for living spaces that have a closed window condition, should also be required. As these mitigations apply to residential development of the properties and not the subdivision. A notification should be placed on the final map and covenants recorded on each lot, notifying future property owners of the availability of the noise report and building requirements needed to achieve conditionally acceptable City noise standards. 13 22 -16 fti M ++ fC CU F- 2 �-+ cc M 0 �+ ++ P 4= cu 0 CU ISSUES: EI a� o N z 0. L [and Supporting Information Sources] i o 0 �• 0 J cn i cn c Y) the project? [8,18, j e) For a project located within an airport land ❑ I ❑ ❑ 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 ❑ ❑ El 0 airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive nois l [8, XI. A noise assessment for the project was prepared by Edward L. Pack Associates dated December 18, 2009. Measurements indicate that ground floor noise level will be 68 dB CNEL and second floor will be 76 dB CNEL. Both levels exceed the "normally acceptable" General Plan noise exposure level for low density single - family land uses. The more important measure is the ground level measurement as this is the noise level of the yard areas (There is an existing 12 -foot tall sound wall that was erected by CALTRANS). The higher ground floor noise level is in the "conditionally acceptable" range if detailed noise analysis is completed and noise reduction features are incorporated in the design of the dwellings. Interior noise levels in the most impacted rooms (facing the freeway) are estimated to be 53 dB CNEL for the first floor and 61 dB CNEL for the most impacted second floor spaces. The maximum interior noise requirement is 45 dBA. According to the consultant, this level can be achieved if all glass windows and doors facing the freeway remain close. The first floor windows must have a minimum STC rating of 28 and second floor windows (facing the freeway) must have a minimum STC rating of 36. All impacted windows must have high quality, durable frames and air -tight seals to be effective. Mechanical ventilation for living spaces that have a closed window condition, should also be required. As these mitigations apply to residential development of the properties and not the subdivision. A notification should be placed on the final map and covenants recorded on each lot, notifying future property owners of the availability of the noise report and building requirements needed to achieve conditionally acceptable City noise standards. 13 22 -16 - I _ O , proposing new homes and businesses) or c:�=a.� yCL O i s M v y"=�.I v ZC ISSUES: a� a� *= r eplacement housing elsewhere? [3,16, [and Supporting Information Sources] o ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 O r eplacement housing elsewhere? [3,16,44] a. a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant I environmental impacts, in order to maintain XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING -- Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an ❑ ❑ ❑ area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastr [3,16,47.44] b) Displace substantial numbers of existing ❑ ❑ I ❑ F housing, necessitating the construction of r eplacement housing elsewhere? [3,16, Displace substantial numbers of people c) p p p ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 necessitating the construction of r eplacement housing elsewhere? [3,16,44] XIII. PUBLIC SER a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant I environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the pub lic servi Fire protection? [19, ❑ ❑ ❑ 191 Police protection? [33,44] ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 Schools? [29,30,44] ❑ ❑ ❑ FX Pa (5,17,19,21 ,26 ❑ ❑ ❑ Other pub fac ilities? [19,20, ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 XIV. RECREATION -- a) Would the project increase the use of ❑ ❑ ❑ existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physic deterioration of the 114 22 -17 � ++ .yam of � b) Does the project include recreational ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 CU M M M o � i t� U v ISSUES: Ica! N�� 2)C.I XV. TRANS PORTATION/TRAFFIC -- = z CL [and Supporting Information Sources] EI Cl) a, o ( N 0 _ ! 1= _ o I a cn i -� cn c { --� (n capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at facility would occur or be accelerated? [5,17,19,21,26,27,44] b) Does the project include recreational ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the en v i ronment? [5,44] XV. TRANS PORTATION/TRAFFIC -- Woul the p rojec t a) Cause an increase in traffic which is ❑ ❑ ❑ substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? [4, b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, ❑ ❑ ❑ a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for j designate roads or hig [4,2 0,44] ; I c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? [4, ?] d) Substantially increase hazards due to a ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 design feature (e.g., sharp curves or i I dangerous intersections) or incompatible. j uses (e.g., farm equipment)? [20,35,44] i I e) Result in inadequate emergency access? ❑ ❑ ❑ [2 f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? ❑ ! ❑ ❑ 0 [17.44] g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or ❑ ❑ ❑ Z programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? [4,34] 15 22 -18 e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? [5,22,28,36,44] f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid w a s te disposal nee ds? [ ?] g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? [ ?] 0 ' M 0 i ISSUES: ++ V V V ++ y o [and Supporting Information Sources] o _i Q J acn U) c - I XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS — Would the pr a) Exceed wastewater treatment i ❑ ❑ requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? [5,22,28,36,44] b) Require or result in the construction of ❑ ❑ new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environment effects? [ c) Require or result in the construction of ❑ ❑ new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? [5,22,28,36,44] e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? [5,22,28,36,44] f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid w a s te disposal nee ds? [ ?] g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? [ ?] ■ ©, ❑ a ❑ ❑ ❑ a I ❑ I ❑ � O CU a Q J U) j ■ ©, ❑ a ❑ ❑ ❑ a I ❑ I ❑ ❑ o 16 22 -19 XVIL MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE (To be completed by City Staff) i I a) Does the project have the potential to i ❑ ❑ ❑ o degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? [] b) Does the project have impacts that are ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ( "Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental ❑ D ❑ ❑ effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? [) i PREPARER'S AFFIDAVIT I hereby certify that the information provided in this Initial Study is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief; I certify that I have used proper diligence in responding accurately to all questions herein, and have consulted appropriate source references when necessary to ensure full and complete disclosure of relevant environmental data. I hereby acknowledge than any substantial errors dated within this Initial Study may cause delay or discontinuance of related project review procedures, and hereby agree to hold harmless the City of Cupertino, its staff and authorized agents, from t e consequences of such delay or discontinuance. I Preparer's Signature Print Preparer's Name 17 22-20 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (To be Completed by City Staff) 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. ❑ Aesthetics ❑ Agriculture Resources ❑ Air Quality IXI Biological Resources ❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Geology /Soils 0 Hazards & Hazardous Materials IK Hydrology / Water Quality ❑ Land Use / Planning O Mineral Resources Noise ❑ Population / Housing ❑ Public Ser ❑ Recreation ❑ Trans portation/Traffic ❑ Utilities / Service Systems ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significa - ice DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) finds that: ❑ The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. 0 Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ The proposed project MAY have a signFicant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ❑ The proposed project MAY have a " potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on t 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 effect: (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. 13 22 -21 a - q:1�4 -'.. -- - - Staff Evaluator 0 c ERC Chairperson 2/17/10 Date 2/18/10 Date 19 22-22 CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE February 18, 2010 As provided by the Envirorunental Assessment Procedure, adopted by the City Council of the City of Cupertino on May 27, 1983, as amended, the following described project N^Tas reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee of the City of Cupertino on February 18, 2010. PROTECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATIO Application No.: TM- 2010 -02, V- 2010 -01, Z- 2010 -01 (EA- 2010 -01) Applicant: Pam Yoshida (Westhvood Investments, LLC) Location: 10642 N Portal Avenue DISCRETIONARY ACTION REQUEST Tentative Map to subdivide 0.618 acres into two single family residential lots of approximately 11,737 and 13,982 gross sq -.are feet with an exception area of 1,211 square feet in the City of Suiulyvale; A Variance to allow a lot width of 55 feet in an R -1 zoning district where 60 feet is required; Pre -Zone and Re -Zone 0.028 acres from the City of Sunriyvale to pre- R1 -7.5 and 0.590 acres from Al -43 to R1 -7.5 FINDINGS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL F:EVIEW COMMITTEE The Environmental Review Corrunittee recormnends the granting of a Mitigated Negative Declaration finding that the project is consistent with the General Plan and has no significant environmental impacts, provided that the following mitigations are incorporated in the project: 1) Interior Noise Impact Add notification to Final Map and record covenants on each residential lot, notifying builder that STC -rated glass window assemblies, high quality window frames and mechanical ventilation are required for living spaces with windows that face freeway per the acoustical report. 2) Exterior Noise Impact Evaluate extent of sound wall needed to protect exterior rear yard areas from excessive noise levels generated by freeway traffic. Ascertain if higher sounds , \7all will cause reflected noise impact on adjacent, residential properties. 22-23 3) Air Quality Impacts Provide high quality air filters on mechanical ventilation to reduce potential toxic air contaminants. Provide landscaping screen along soundIA7all to control fugitive dust impacts. i F xi Aarti Shrivastava Director of Community Development g/ercIREC EA- 2010 -01 22-24 CITY OF CUPERTINO MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION As provided by the Environmental Assessment Procedure adopted by the City Council of the City of Cupertino on May 27,1973, and amended on March 4, 1974, January 171977, May 1, 1978, and July 7,1980, the following described project was granted a Mitigated Negative Declaration by the City Council of the City of Cupertino on 2010 PROTECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION Application No.: TM- 2010 -02, V- 2010 -01, Z- 2010 -01 (EA- 2010 -01) Applicant: Pam Yoshida ff estivood .h LLC) Location: Property northerly and abutting 10642 N. Portal Ave DISCRETIONARY ACTION REQUEST Tentative Map to subdivide 0.618 acres into two single family residential lots of approximately 11,737 and 13,982 gross square feet with an exception area of 1,211 square feet in the City of Surulyvale; A Variance to allow a lot width of 55 feet in an r -1 zoning district where 60 feet is required; Pre -Zone and Re -Zone 0.028 acres from the City of SuzuZwwale to pre-RI-7.5 and 0.590 acres from Al -43 to R1 -7.5 FINDINGS OF DECISIONMAKING BODY The City Council granted a Mitigated Negative Declaration since the project is consistent with the General Plan and there are no significant environmental impacts. The applicant shall adhere to all of the conditions required by the City Council on 2010 including but not limited to: 1) Mitigation efforts to address issues of indoor air quality 2) Mitigation efforts to address noise impacts from construction and the freeway 3) Landscaping improvements to allow for visual screen of the freeway soundwall(s) Aarti Shrivastava Director of Conununity Development CERTIFICATE OF THE CITY CLERK This is to certify that the above Mitigated Negative Declaration was filed in the Office of the City Clerk of the City of Cupertino on City Clerk 22-25 91e 07egEA20100I Attachment B Z- 2010 -01 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. 6593 OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDING THE PRE - ZONING AND RE- ZONING OF ONE LOT OF 0.618 ACRE, CONSISTING OF A PRE - ZONING OF 0.028 ACRE FROM THE CITY OF SUNNYVALE TO PRE- R1 -7.5 (SINGLE- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, 7,500 SQUARE FEET MINIMUM LOT SIZE) AND A RE- ZONING OF 0.59 ACRE FROM A1-43 TO R1 -7.5 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED NORTH AND ABUTTING TO 10642 NORTH PORTAL AVENUE. SECTION I: PROTECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: Z- 2010 -01 (EA- 2010 -01) Applicant: City of Cupertino Location: Northerly and abutting to 10642 North Portal Avenue (APN's 316- 32 -047, -048) SECTION II: FINDINGS FOR REZONING WHEREAS, the Plaiuiing Corrunission of the City of Cupertino received an application for the prezoning and rezoning 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 Plaiuling Commission has held one or more public hearings on this matter; and LD WHEREAS, the Plaiuling Commission finds that the subject prezoning & rezoning meet the following requirements: 1) That the prezoning & rezoning are in conformance with the General Plan of the City of Cupertino. 2) That the property involved is adequate in size and shape to conform to the new zoning designation. 3) That the new zoning encourages the most appropriate use of land. 22-26 Resolution No. 6593 Z- 2010 -01 April 13, 2010 Pag 2 4) That the proposed prezoiung & rezordnc are 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 prezoning & rezoning promotes the orderly development of the city. NOON, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, application no. Z- 2010 -01 is hereby recommended for approval; and That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this Resolution are based and contained ir. the Public Hearing record concerning Application Z- 2010 -01, as set forth in the Minutes of the Plaruling Commission Meeting of April I'D, 2010 and are incorporated by r&Lerence herein. SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 1. APPROVED EXHIBITS The recommendation of approval is eased on Exhibits Al and A2: Zoning Plot Maps, and Exhibit B1 & 132: Legal Descriptions. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 13 11, day of April 2010, at a Regular Meeting of the Plaruling Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Chair Brophy, Vice Chair Lee, Miller NOES: COMMISSIONERS: none ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: none ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Giefer, Kaneda ATTEST: APPROVED: s Aarti Shrivastava Aarti Shrivastava, Director Community Development Department / s / Paul Brophy Paul Brophy, Chair Planning Commission G: \Plaiuung \PDREPORT \RES \2010 \Z - 2010 -01 res.doc 22-27 Attachment C Th4 -20i 0 -Q2 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, Califoriva 95014 RESOLUTION NO. 6591 OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP TO SUBDIVIDE ONE PARCEL INTO TWO SINGLE- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS OF APPROXIMATELY 11,737 AND 13,982 GROSS SQUARE FEET WITH AN EXCEPTION AREA OF 1,211 SQUARE FEET IN THE CITY OF SUNNYVALE LOCATED NORTHERLY AND ABUTTING TO 10642 NORTH PORTAL AVE. SECTION I: FINDINGS 1� the Plaruli.ng Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for a Tentative Parcel Map, as described in Section II of this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given in accordance J 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 applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application; and has satisfied the folloNving requirements: 1) That the proposed subdivision map is consistent with the City of Cupertino General Plan. 2) That the design and improvements of the proposed subdivision are consistent with the General Plan. 3) That the site is physically suitable for the type and 'intensity of development contemplated under the approved subdivision. 4) That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage and /or substantial and unavoidable injury to fish and wildlife or their habitat. 5) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements associated there with is not likely to cause serious public health problems. 6) That the design of the subdivision and its associated improvements will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property Ngithin the proposed subdivision. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of reaps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, the application for Tentative Parcel Map, file no. TM- 2010 -02, is hereby approved, subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution begir iris on Page 2 thereof; and That the subconclusions upon ia7hich the findings and conditions specified in this resolution are based and contained in the public hearing record concerning Application No. TM- 2010 -02 as set forth in the Minutes of the Plaruning Conunission Meeting of April 13, 2010 and are 22-28 Resolution No. 6591 TM- 2010 -02 April 13, 2010 Page 2 incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. SECTION 11: PROTECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: TM- 2010 -02 Applicant: Pam Yoshida (for Westwood Investors/ Richard Gregersen) Location: Property northerly and abutting to 10642 North Portal Ave. SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED 13Y THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 1. APPROVED EXHIBITS Approval is based on Exhibits titled: " TWO LOT/ RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION/ NORTH PORTAL AVENUE /CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA " prepared by MBA ARCHITECTS dated January 21, 2010 and consisting of tN , \ To sheets labeled GO and C -1 prepared by Westfall Engineers, Inc. dated February 2010, except as may be amended by the conditions contained in this resolution. 2. NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees, dedication requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(d) (1), these Conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations, and other exactions. You are hereby further notified that the 90 -day approval period in which you may protest these fees, dedications, reservations, and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a), has begun. If you fail to fi'.e a protest within this 90 -day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such exactions. 3. DEMOLITION OF STRUCTURES Prior to recordation of the final map, the applicant shall demolish and remove all structures on the property. 4. RECORDING OF NOISE COVENANTS ON FINAL 112AP Notication shall be placed on the Final Parcel Map and covenants recorded on each lot, notifying future purchasers of the highway noise and the requirement for interior noise mitigation for residential development. Map notes and covenants are subject to approval of the City Attorney. 5. AIR QUALITY MITIGATION Notication shall be placed on the Final Parcel Map and covenants recorded on each lot, notifying future purchasers of the air quality mitigation requirements listed in the tentative map approval, file no. TM- 2010 -02 on file with the City of Cupertino. Map notes and covenants are subject to approval of the City Attorney. SECTION IV: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 6. STREET WIDENING Street widening and dedications shall be provided in accordance with City Standards and specifications and as required by the City Engineer. 22 -29 Resolution No. 6591 TM- 2010 -02 April 13, 2010 Page 3 7. CURB AND GUTTER IMPROVEMENTS Curbs and gutters, sidewalks and related structures shall be installed u1 accordance with grades and standards as specified by the City Engineer. 8. STREET LIGHTING INSTALLATION Street lighting shall be installed and shall be as approved by the City Engineer. Lighting fixtures shall be positioned so as to preclude glare and other forms of visual interference to adjoining properties, and shall be no higher than the maximum height permitted b3= the zone in which the site is located. 9. FIRE HYDRANT Fire hydrants shall be located as required by the City and Santa Clara County Fire Department as needed. 10. FIRE PROTECTION Fire sprinklers shall be installed in any new. construction to the approval of the City. 11. GRADING Grading shall be as approved and required by the City Engineer in accordance with Chapter 16.08 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. 401 Certifications and 404 permits maybe required. Please contact Army Corp of Engineers and /or Regional Water Quality Control Board as appropriate. 12. DRAINAGE Drainage shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Pre- and post - development calculations must be provided to indicate whether additional storm water control measures are to be installed. 13. UNDERGROUND UTILITIES The developer shall comply with the requirements of the Underground Utilities Ordinance No. 331 and other related Ordinances and regulations of the City of Cupertino, and shall coordinate with, affected utility providers for installation of underground utility devices. The developer shall submit detailed plans showing utility underground provisions. Said plans shall be subject to prior approval of the affected Utility provider and the City Engineer. 14. IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT The project developer shall enter into a development agreement with the City of Cupertino providing for payment of fees, including but not limited to checking and inspection fees, storm drain fees, park dedication fees and fees for under grounding of utilities. Said agreement shall be executed prior to issuance of construction permits. Fees: a. Checking & hnspection Fees: b. Grading Permit: c. Development Maintenance Deposit: d. Stone Drainage Fee: e. Power Cost: f. Map Checking Fees: $ 5% of Off -Site Improvement Cost or $2,468.00 minimum $ 6% of Site Improvement Cost or $2,217.00 nnunumum $ 2,000.00 Per Acreage $7,S17.00 22-30 Resolution No. 6591 TM- 2010 -02 April 13, 2010 Page 4 g. Park Fees: per ordinance h. Street Trees By Developer Based on the latest effective PG &E rate Schedule approved by the PUC Bonds: a. Faithful Performance Bond: 100% of Off -site and On -site Improvements b. Labor & Material Bond: 100 °0 of Of: -site and On -site Improvement C. On -site Grading Bond: 100% of site improvements. -The fees described above are imposed ' ;Dased upon the current fee schedule adopted by the City Council. HoNvever, the fees imposed herein may be modified at the time of recordation of a final map or issuance oi' a building permit u1 the event of said change or changes, the fees changed at that time will reflect the then current fee schedule. 15. TRANSFORMERS Electrical transformers, telephone vaults zmd similar above ground equipment enclosures shall be screened with fencing and landscaping or located urnderb ound such that said equipment is not visible from public street areas. The transformer shall not be located in the front or side building setback area. 16. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES Utilize Best Management Practices (BI\4I's), as required by the State Water Resources Control Board, for construction activity, which disturbs soil. BMP plans shall be included m grading and street improvement plans. 17. NPDES CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PERMIT The applicant must obtain a Notice of Intent (NOI) from the State Water Resources Control Board, which encompasses preparation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), use of construction Best Management Practices (BMPs) to control storm nvater runoff quality, and BMP inspection and maintenance. 18. C.3 REQUIREMENTS The developer shall reserve a minimum of 4% of developable surface area for the placement of storm water treatment facilities on the tentative map, unless an alternative storm water treatment plan to satisfy c.3 requirements is approved by the City Engineer. The applicant must include the use and maintenance of site design, source control and storm water treatment BMP's, which must be designed per approved numeric sizing criteria. A Storm Water Management Plan, Storm Water Facilities Easement Agreement, Storm Neater Facilities Operation and Maintenance Agreement, and certification of ongoing operation and maiintenance of treatment BMP's are required. The Storm Water Management Plan will be required to obtain approval from an approved third party reviewer, at the expense of the developer. 19. SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT CLEARANCE Provide Santa Clara Valley J^Tater District approval before recordation of the final map. The developer shall pay for and obtains Water District permit for activities or modifications within the District easement or fee right- of -ivay or affectiung District facilities. 22 -31 Resolution No. 6591 TM- 2010 -02 April 13, 2010 Page 5 20. CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE COMPANY CLEARANCE Provide California Water Service Company approval before recordation of the final map. 21. EROSION CONTROL PLAN The developer must provide an approved erosion control plan by a Registered Civil Engineer. This plan should include all erosion control measures used to retain materials on site. Erosion control notes shall be stated on the plans. 22. TRAFFIC SIGNS Traffic control signs shall be placed at locations specified by the City. 23. TRASH ENCLOSURES The trash enclosure plan must be designed to the satisfaction of the Envi•onirnental Programs Manager. 24, REFUSE TRUCK ACCESS The developer must obtain clearance from the Environmental Programs Manager in regards to refuse truck access for the proposed development. 25. SANITARY DISTRICT A letter of clearance for the project shall be obtained from the Cupertino Sanitary District prior to issuance of building permits. 26. SANTA CLARA COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT A letter of clearance for the project shall be obtained from the Santa Clara County Fire Department prior to issuance of building permits. 27. UTILITY EASEMENTS Clearance approvals from the agencies with easements on the property ( including PG&E, PacBell, and California Water Company, and /or equivalent agencies) will be required prior to issuance of building permits. 28. WORK SCHEDULE A work schedule shall be provided to the City to show the timetable necessary for completion of on and off -site improvements. CITY ENGINEER'S CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE OF ENGINEERING/ SURVEYING CONDITIONS (Section 66474.18 of the California Goverrunent Code) I hereby certify that the engineering and surveying conditions specified in Section IV. Of this resolution conform to generally accepted engineering practices /s/ Ralph Qualls Ralph Qualls, Director of Public Works City Engineer CA License 22046 22-32 Resolution No. 6591 TNl- 2010 -02 April 13, 2010 Page 6 PASSED AND ADOPTED this 13th day of April 2010, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Conunission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Chair Brophy, Vice Chair Lee, Miller NOES: COMMISSIONERS: none ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: none ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Giefer, KanEda ATTEST: /s /Aarti Shrivastava Aarti Shrivastava, Director Cominunit)7 Development Department G: � Ptmrning `PDReport \ Res � 2010 � TA4- 2010 -02 res.doc APPROVED: /s/ Paul Brophy Paul Brophy, Chair Planning Commission 22-33 Attachment D CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. 6592 V- 2010 -01 OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A LOT WIDTH OF 55 FEET IN AN R1 -7.5 ZONING DISTRICT WHERE 60 FEET IS REQUIRED AT PROPERTY NORTHERLY AND ABUTTING 10642 NORTH PORTAL AVENUE (APN'S 316 -25 -047 AND -048) SECTION I: PROTECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: V- 2010 -01 Applicant: Pam Yoshida (for Westwood Investors/ Richard Gregersen) Location: Property northerly and abutting 10642 North Portal Avenue SECTION II: FINDINGS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for a Variance, as described on Section I. of tlus Resolution; and WHEREAS, the necessary notices have been given in accordance with the Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Plaiuling Commission has held one or more Public Hearings on this matter; and WHEREAS, the Planuung Corrunission finds that the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support this application, and has met the following findings in order to grant the variance: 1) There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved that do not apply generally to property in the same district in that the lot is oversized (compared to the neighborhood) and triangular in shape. The most logical subdivision design is a cul -de -sac style which is consistent with the general plan residential land use density and the observed lot width of other interior cul -de -sac lots in the area. 2) The granting of the application is necessary, for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardsl The project site is three times the size of adjacent single- family residential lots. Given its irregular shape and the need for vehicular access, a subdivision into tN lots with widths comparable to other interior cul -de -sac lots is a reasonable use. 3) The granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and twill not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and general welfare, or convenience, and to secure the purpose of the title. The property is proposed to be developed in accordance with the City's General Plan and development standards. Potentially negative effects of living next to a highivay are mitigated to the extent feasible. 22-34 Resolution No. 6592 V- 2010 -01 April 13, 2010 Page 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, the application for variance is hereby recommended for approval by the Plannh Commission of the City of Cupertino. That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this Resolution are based and contained in the Public Hearing record concerning Application V- 2010 -01 as set forth in the Minutes of the Plaruling Commission Meeting of April 13, 2010 and are incorporated by reference though fully set forth herein. SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 1. APPROVED EXHIBITS Approval is based on Exhibits titled: " TWO LOT /RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION/ NORTH PORTAL AVENUE /CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA " prepared by MBA ARCHITECTS dated January 21, 2010 and consisting of two sheets labeled GO and C -1 prepared by Westfall Engineers, Inc. dated_ February 2010, except as may be amended by the conditions contained in this resolution. 2. NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESEI:VATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees, dedication requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(d) (1), these Conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations, and other exactions. You are hereby further notified that the 90 -day approval period in which you may protest these fees, dedications, reservations, and other exactions, pursuant to Goverrunent Code Section 66020(a), has begun. If you fail to file a protest within this 90- day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such exactions. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 13th day of A_Dril 2010, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Comnssion of the City of Cupertino by the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Chair Bropl Vice Chair Lee, Miller NOES: COMMISSIONERS: none ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: none ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Giefer, Kaneda ATTEST: /s /Aarti Shrivastava Aarti Shrivastava, Director Community Development Department APPROVED: /s /Paul Brophy Paul Brophy, Chair Planning Conunission 22-35 g /planning /pdreport/ res/ 2010/\7- 2010 -01 Attachment E OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014 -3255 (408) 777 -3308 • FAX (403) 777 -3333 • planni-lig@cupertino.org PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. 2 Agenda Date: April 13, 2010 Application: TM- 2010 -02, V- 2010 -01, Z- 2010 -01, EA- 2010 -01 Applicant: Pam Yoshida for West"ATood Investments, LLC /Richard Gregersen Location: Property northerly and abutting 10642 North Portal Avenue, APN 316 -25- 047, -048, -054 APPLICATION SUMMARY Tentative Map to subdivide 0.618 acre into two single - family residential lots of approximately 11, 737 and 13,982 gross square feet with an exception area of 1,211 square feet in the City of Sunnyvale; Variance to allow a lot width of 55 feet in an R -1 zoning district where 60 feet is required. Prezoning and Rezoning 0.028 acre from the City of Sunnyvale to pre- R1.7.5, and 0.590 acre from and to R1 -7.5 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission reconunend approval of the following applications to the City Council: 1. The Negative Declaration, EA 2010 -01 (Attaclunnent 1) 2. The Tentative Parcel Map, TM- 2010 -02 per the Model Resolution (Attaclunent 2) 3. Variance, V- 2010 -01 per the Model Resolution (Attachment 3) 4. Prezoning and Rezoning, Z- 2010 -01 (Attaclunent 4). PROJECT DATA General Plan Designation: Existing Zoning Designation: Proposed Zoning Designation: Total Gross Lot Area: Low Density (1 -5 Dwelling Units /Gross Acre) Al -43 (Agriculture - Residential - 43,000 square feet minimum) and City of Sunnyvale R1 -7.5 and pre- R1 -7.5 (Single - Family Residential -- 7,500 square feet minimum) 26,930 square feet (0.618 acre) 22-36 T 2010 -02, V- 2010 -01, Z- 2010 -01, EA- 2010 -01 N. Proposed Lot Areas: Gross Area Parcel 1: 13,982 sq. ft. Parcel 2: 11,737 sq. ft. Exception Area: 1,211 sq. ft. Portal Avenue Subdivision April 13, 2010 Page 2 Net Area 9,376 sq. ft. 9,348 sq. ft. 1,211 sq. ft. Existing Land Use: Vacant Proposed Land Use: Single- family residential Proposed Density: 3.24 dwellings/ gross acre Project Consistency with General Plan: Yes Zoni::lg: Yes Environmental Review: Mitigated Negative Declaration BACKGROUND The applicant, Pam Yoshida of MBA Architects, representing landowner Westwood Investments, is seeking the above captioned entitlements to subdivide a vacant lot into two single - family residential lots. The fenced lot is located at the terminus of North Portal Ave. and is accessed via a 20 -foot ingress- egress easement located on the left side of 10642 North Portal Ave. The lot is surrounded on the north and east by a Santa Clara Valley Water District draivnlage channel and Highway 280, to the south by single- family dwellings, and to the west by 2 -story apartment buildings. In Figure 1, the light blue lines mark the project property boundaries. The red triangle is the lot exception area that is located in the City of Sunnyvale, and the hatched rectangular area depicts the existing access easement to the lot. The lot is improved with accessory structures, fencing and landscaping, where neighbors have extended their yards into the property. Figure 1 DISCUSSION Subdivision Design The applicant proposes two pie - shaped lots accessed by an existing easement across 10642 North Portal Avenue and an on -site cul -de -sac bulb (see attached Plan set). For 22-37 TM- 2010 -02, V- 2010 -01, Z- 2010 -01, EA- 2010 -01 N. Portal Avenue Subdivision April 13, 2010 PaL 3 subdivision purposes, the lot exception area in the City of Surmyvale (northwest corner of property) must be treated as if it were a separate parcel. Since Cupertino does not have land use jurisdiction, the exception area caiuzot be counted toward the lot area or the setbacks of the proposed subdivision. Even though no residential development is proposed at this time, both proposed lots are of sufficient size and dimensions to accommodate R1 building setbacks and minimum lot size requirements of the proposed R1 -7.5 zoning district. The conceptual building footprints on Sheet C -1 of the plan set depict six on -site parking stalls for each lot, which is the minimum city requirement when no street parking is provided. The Parcel 1 wedge on the opposite side (easterly side) of the cul -de -sac will be needed to accorrunodate improvements for storm water retention for both lots, a requirement of federal and state law. A condition has been added to the model resolution. 4 1 6f r� i - J 4 t _ r, !r Net Lot Size: 10642 North Portal Avenue The existing access easement, granted in 2009, reduces the net lot size of 10642 North Portal Avenue for development purposes by 2,510 square feet, according to the R1 zoning ordinance. The lot, however, is oversized for the area at 14,275 square feet so its" reduction in net lot size to 11,765 square feet only increases the existing floor area ratio to (FAR) to 27.5 %, JI\Thich is below the City R1 maximum FAR of 45 %. 22-38 TM- 2010 -02, V- 2010 -01, Z- 2010 -01, EA- 2010 -01 N. Portal Avenue Subdivision April 13, 2010 Paae 4 Lot Width Variance Request To facilitate the subdivision process, the applicant is requesting a variance to reduce the lot width to 55 feet where 60 feet is required. It should be noted that except for the lack of adequate lot width, the lots are larger than typical lots in the R1 -7.5 zoning district. Smaller lot widths are typical of interior cul -de -sac lots as shown on the survey (Attaclunent5). All of the highlighted lots on N. Portal Avenue, Drake Court and Auburn Court have lot widths between 50 and 55 feet. Staff supports the project and believes that the folloll,7ing findings for granting the variance for reduced lot width can be made (staff notes in italics): 1) There are exceptional or extra ordirLary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved that do not apply generally to property in the same district; Staff response: The exceptional M'cu7nsta7ices are the oversized, h'i071gula7• shape of the p7•oject lot. The 7nost logical subdivisio7z design is a cul -de -sac style u7hich is consistent u7ith the general plan residential land use density and the observed lot zaidth of other interior cul -de -sac lots. 2) The b anting of the application is necessary, for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship; Staff response: The project site is t7uee times the size of adjacent single fa7771ly residential lots. Given its irregular shape and the need for vehicular access, a subdivlslo7l into tuvo lots with widths comparable to other interior cul -de -sac lots is reasonable. 3) The granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and. will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and general welfare, or convenience, and to secure the purpose of the title. Staff response: Property is proposed to be developed in accordance with the City's requirements for single family ho777es. The site location is similar to othe7 R1 parcels in the neighborhood. Potentially negative of Fects of living next to a highzoay mill be mitigated to the extent possible, Rezoning & Prezoning The applicant proposes to rezone the majority of the property from "A1 -43" to "R1 -7.5" and the small exception area from "City of Sunnyvale" to "Pre- R1 -7.5." The R1 -7.5 zoning designation is consistent with the zoning of the surrounding single- family residential areas. The exception area can be used for landscaping, but not for building until such time the property owner seeks a realignment of Cupertino /Suruzyvale municipal boundaries and annexation to Cupertino. Trees An arborist report Nvas not warranted for the property. A site inspection of the lot showed only fruit trees, willows and incense cedars (labeled pine on the plan set), tvlich are not considered protected trees by the Protected Tree Ordinance. 22-39 TM- 2010 -02, V- 2010 -01, Z- 2010 -01, EA- 2010 -01 N. Portal Avenue Subdivision April 13, 2010 Page 5 Hazardous Materials A Phase 1 environmental analysis was con by the property owner to identify historic and present uses / conditions of the property and adjacent lands may be indicative of releases of hazardous substances, such as, petroleum. The survey spanned 70 years of human activity and included historic aerial photographs, interviews with the property owner and neighbors, search of govenunent agency databases that regulate hazardous materials, visual inspection of the property, etc. The assessment concluded there were negative findings for a hazardous materials release on the property. Noise The north and east portions of the lot are separated from U.S. Highiway 280 by a Santa Clara Valley Water District drainage charmel and a 12 -foot tall freeiway sound wall. The applicant conrunissioned the preparation of an acoustical study by Edward L. Pack Associates, Inc. to assess existing and future noise levels and compare them to City noise standards. Project mitigation is proposed to alleviate noise levels in excess of City standards (Attaclu 6). * W07 - Sf Case Noise To achieve the mitigated interior noise levels, Sound Transmission Class (STC) rated glass must be installed in all first and second story living areas that have any highway orientation: STC 28 windows on the first floor and STC 36 windows on the second floor. A notification covenant requirement has been added to the tentative map conditions of approval that will be recorded on each lot, informing potential purchasers of the noisy environment and requirement of interior noise mitigation. To achieve mitigated exterior noise levels, the side and rear yards must be enclosed with 15 to 22 foot tall sound walls along the periineter and a sound Nwall between the two lots (See Attaclunent 7). The apartments to the west would experience a noise increase of 3 dB from reflections. Staff is not recorrunending this mitigation. Air Quality The Enviroiunental Review Conunittee expressed concerns with potential air quality impacts at the project site. The applicant enlisted the consultation of air quality 22-40 Noise Existing Future Mitigated Standard Noise Level Noise Level Noise Level (CNEL) (CNEL)" (CNEL) (CNEL) Interior 45 dB 53 dB 53 dB 45 dB 1St Floor Interior 45 dB 61 dB 61 dB 45 dB 2nd Floor Exterior 60 dB 68 dB 68 dB 60 dB 1St Floor Exterior 60 dB 76 dB 76 dB N/A 2nd Floor * W07 - Sf Case Noise To achieve the mitigated interior noise levels, Sound Transmission Class (STC) rated glass must be installed in all first and second story living areas that have any highway orientation: STC 28 windows on the first floor and STC 36 windows on the second floor. A notification covenant requirement has been added to the tentative map conditions of approval that will be recorded on each lot, informing potential purchasers of the noisy environment and requirement of interior noise mitigation. To achieve mitigated exterior noise levels, the side and rear yards must be enclosed with 15 to 22 foot tall sound walls along the periineter and a sound Nwall between the two lots (See Attaclunent 7). The apartments to the west would experience a noise increase of 3 dB from reflections. Staff is not recorrunending this mitigation. Air Quality The Enviroiunental Review Conunittee expressed concerns with potential air quality impacts at the project site. The applicant enlisted the consultation of air quality 22-40 TM- 2010 -02, V- 2010 -01, Z- 2010-01 N. Portal Avenue Subdivision April 13, 2010 Paee 7 Even though there are no Ordinance requirements to require any mitigation measures to address air quality impacts, a condition of approval for the project requires planting of additional trees along its highway boundary and the installation of an air filtration System. Prepared by: Colin Jung, Senior Planner Reviewed by: y Chao City Plarmer Approved by: Aarti Shrivastava Community Development Director ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1: Initial Study, ERC Recommendation and Negative Declaration Attaclunent 2: Model Resolution for TM- 2010 -02 Attaclunent 3: Model Resolution for V- 2010 -01 Attachment 4: Model Resolution for Z 2010 -01 Attachment 5: Assessor Parcel Map depicting lots with widths less than 60 feet Attachment 6: "Noise Assessment Study for the Planned 2 -Lot Subdivision, 10642 North Portal Avenue, Cupertino" prepared by Edward L. Pack Associates, Inc. dated December 18, 2009 Attachment 7: Noise Study Addendum: Jeff Pack, Edward L. Pack Associates dated 3/23/10 Attacl 8: Air Quality - Mike O'Connor, M'OC Physics, dated April 5, 2010 Attachment 9: Plan set G:PLANNIIvG /PDREPORT /PC TA7 REPORTS/ 2010TMREPORTS /TM- 2010 -02, V- 2010 -01, Z -2010- 01.DOC 22 -41 PAGE - OFFICE O F COUNTY ASSESSOR SANTA C L A R A COUNTY , CALIFORNIA " F 13001 316_]L 32 54 _Nq E 46 WATER tf, I)- CAUE T7 4 s PCL-13 AA AfAr-14DEO anae to6 3 1l rck..I) : PCL. 9 — ----- T_ 625 S.F. 57 2121 13, fan 2 LJo 1 '222 PLAN. 100' go , 12'23 1 !!�- 2r24 . I I 3S 1 - MAP Z48- w �4 Z7 34 PnaceL > 40 3.9 ', �? 1 - < 7 - I 1 33 4 yr;, 1 32 RAKE Z- �o A? Ul a I - I X_ 1 4 2t 19 1203 1 204 1 100 �/ 29 6 tge "L, , " �;- - _j — 196 lgl 0_ 70- .17 C) "Oe "Os F e8 P 24 -ins 23 .0 194 21 '209 27 211 I 20 ir 7e 1 O ' L . �!. .:. 'I Q09 10 1 191 190 1 o aj f 7- 2 26 9 10 14 y 7 6 D D 1"I - -9 193 19 e141 11 Q-11 19:`5 - TR. M9 2960 (JW Ni? 'Z mm A UBUR N IDLEWILD GREENS D (3D5 (AWRFNcF r :rop* A!,'F!;5OQ Cm,piled mdpt R. A I Cixte, See. 371 Efr-11- Rell Y.- 2008 -2010 Attachment G EDWARD L. PACK ASSOCIATES, INC. 1975 HAMILTON AVENUE SUITE 26 SAN JOSE, CA 95125 Acoustical Consultants TEL: 408 -371 -1195 FAX: 408 - 371 -1196 www.packassociates.com December 18, 2009 Proiect No, 41 -043 Mr. Richard Gregersen Westwood Investors 200 South Santa Cruz Avenue Suite 103 Los Gatos, CA 95030 Subject: Noise Assessment Study for the Planned 2 -Lot Subdivision, 10642 North Portal Avenue, Cupertino Dear Mr. Gregersen: This report presents the results of a noise assessment study for the planned 2 -lot subdivision at 10642 North Portal Avenue in Cupertino, as shown on the Tentative Map, Ref. (a). The noise exposures at the site were evaluated against the standards of the City of Cupertino Public Health and Safety Element (Noise), Ref. (b). The analysis of the on- site sound level measurements indicates that the existing noise environment is due primarily to traffic sources on Interstate 280. The results of the study indicate that noise exposure excesses occur and mitigation measures will be required. Sections I and H of this report contain a summary of our findings and recommendations, respectively. Subsequent sections contain the site, traffic and project descriptions, analyses and evaluations. Attached Hereto are Appendices A, B and C, which include the list of references, descriptions of the applicable standards, definitions of the terminology, ventilation requirements, general building shell controls and the on -site noise measurement data and calculation tables. 22-43 MEMBER: ACOUSTICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA NATIONAL COUNCIL OF ACOUSTICAL CONSULTANTS -2- I. Summary of Findings The noise assessment results presented in the findings were evaluated against the standards of the City of Cupertino "Noise" Element, which utilizes the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) descriptor for residential exterior areas. The Noise Element standards specify a limit of 60 dB CNEL for single - family residential exterior areas, such as rear yards. A limit of 45 dB CNEL is specified for interior living spaces. The noise exposures shown below are without the application of mitigation measures and represent the noise environment for existing and future site conditions. A. Exterior Noise Exposures • The existing exterior noise exposure in the most impacted rear and side yards of homes closest to I -280, 125 ft. from the centerline of the road, is 68 dB CNEL. Under future conditions, the noise exposure is expected to remain at 68 dB CNEL. Thus, the noise exposures are up to 8 dB in excess of the City of Cupertino Noise Element standards. • The existing exterior noise exposure at the most impacted planned building setback at the first floors. 133 ft. from the centerline of the road, is 68 dB CNEL. Under future conditions, the noise exposure is expected to remain at 68 dB CNEL. • The existing exterior noise exposure at the most impacted planned building setback at the second floor is 76 dB CNEL. Under future conditions, the noise exposure is expected to remain at 76 dB CNEL. The site is presently shielded by a 12 ft, high soundwall that was erected by CalTrans. The CalTrans criterion for noise abatement is 67 dBA L eq( h ) , i.e., the peak -hour hourly average. The peak hour L eq at the site is presently 67.5 dBA. As the peak hour L eq at this site is just slightly less than 1 decibel below the CNEL, the CalTrans standard can be viewed as 68 dB CNEL. 22-44 Because of the incompatibility of the CalTrans criterion with local jurisdictional standards, reducing I -280 traffic noise to the City of Cupertino standard of 60 dB CNEL would require a 22 ft. high soundwall along the site property line contiguous with the flood control channel. This measure does nct appear to be feasible and there are no other available noise mitigation measures for the exterior areas. Note that the existing residential uses in the area are subjected to the same noise exposures. B. Interior Noise Exposures • The interior noise exposure in the most impacted first floor living spaces closest to I -280 will ':)e 53 dB CNTEL under existing and future traffic conditions. The interior noise exposure in the most impacted second floor living spaces closest I -280 will be 61 dB CNEL under existing and future conditions. Thus, the noise exposures will be up to 16 d:B in excess of the City of Cupertino Noise Element standards. • The interior noise exposure in the first and second floor living spaces that do not have a view to I -280 will be 45 and 53 dB CNEL, respectively, under existing and future traffic conditions. Thus, the noise exposures will be within the limits of the City of Cupertino Noise Element standards at the first floors, but will be up to 8 dB in excess of the standards at the second floors. As shown above the exterior noise exposures will exceed the limits of the City of Cupertino Noise Element standards. However, the noise mitigation measures for compliance with the exterior noise standards are not feasible. Noise exposure excesses will occur in interior living spaces and nutigation measures will be required. The recommended measures are described in Section H below. 22-45 M II. Recommendations A. Interior Noise Controls To achieve interior noise exposures in compliance with the 45 dB CNEL limit of the City of Cupertino Noise Element standards, the following noise control measures will be required. In addition, general construction measures affecting the building shell are also recommended, as described in Appendix B. • Maintain closed at all times all windows and glass doors of all second floor living spaces of the project and all first floor living spaces that have an orientation (direct or side view) toward I -280. Install windows rated minimum Sound Transmission Class (STC) 36 at the second floor living spaces with an orientation toward the freeway. Install windows rated minimum STC 28 at all first floor living spaces with an orientation toward the freeway and at all second floor living spaces that do not have an orientation toward the freeway. The first floor living spaces that do not have an orientation toward the freeway do not require noise controls. • Provide some type of mechanical ventilation for living spaces with a closed window condition. When windows are kept closed for noise control, they are to be operable, as the requirement does not imply a "fixed" condition. In addition, some form of mechanical ventilation which brings in fresh air from the outside of the home must be provided. Ventilation requirements specified in the Uniform Building Code are shown in Appendix B. All other windows of the development and all bathroom windows may use any type of glazing and may be kept open as desired. All windows of impacted living spaces must have high quality, heavy duty frames and must provide an air -tight seal to the outside environment. All fonns of ventilation shall not compromise the acoustical integrity of the building shell. 22-46 -5- The implementation of the above recommended measures will reduce excess noise exposures for compliance with the interior standards of the City of Cupertino Noise Element. III. Site, Noise Source and Project Descriptions The planned project site is located at 10642 North Portal Avenue in Cupertino. The site is presently a vacant parcel that is flat and at -grade with the surrounding properties and I -280. A flood control channel that is 35 ft. wide is interposed between the site and I -280. A 12 ft. high masonry soundwall is situated along the property line between the flood control channel and the freeway. Surrounding land uses include sinc-le- fatnily residential adjacent to the south and east, multi- family residential adjacent to the west and single - family residential across I -2,30 to the north. The primary source of noise at the site is traffic on I -280, which carries an Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volume of 158,000 vehicles, as reported by CalTrans, Ref. (c). The planned project includes the subdivision of the parcel into two parcels and the construction of two 2 -story single - family homes. Ingress and egress to the site will be by way of a private driveway off of North Portal Avenue. 22-47 IM, IV. Analysis of the Noise Levels A. Existing Noise Levels To determine the existing noise environment at the site, continuous recordings of the sound levels were made at a location along the property boundary contiguous with the floor control channel. This location represents the most noise impacted property line of the site. Please see the aerial photograph on the following page. The measurements were made on December 8-9, 2009 for a continuous period of 24 hours. The noise level data were recorded and processed using a Larson -Davis Model 012 Precision Integrating Sound Level Meter, which yields by direct readout, a series of descriptors of the sound levels versus time, including the L L L and L 90 , i.e., those levels exceeded 1 %, 10 %, 50% and 90% of the time. Also measured were the maximum and irdiumum levels and the equivalent- energy levels (L eq ), which are used to calculate the CNEL. The results of the measurements are shown in the data tables in Appendix C. The results of the field survey reveal that the L at the most impacted property line ranged from to 62.9 to 67.5 dBA during the daytime, from 63.7 to 64.9 dBA during the evening and from 53.9 to 65.5 dBA at night. Traffic noise diminishes at the rate of 3 to 6 dB for each doubling of the distance from the source to the receiver. Other locations on the site at greater distances from I -280 will have lower noise level. However, because of the presence of the CalTrans soundwall, the noise environment on the site is relatively uniform. Vehicular traffic noise contains a wide spectrum of frequency components (from 100 to 10,000 Hertz), which are associated with engines, tires, drive- trains, exhaust and other sources. The frequency components are centered primarily in the 500 and 1,000 Hz octave bands and were used in dete the noise control measures recommended for tlhi s project. 22-48 t f ,.` ,:...... �. .. u• .: . �� AMM ",iil'. >`r� y'� , r.. . A. :,: � to IS 'r t �. 2.� t WI'ty •n „�.,�t e is ;t i, ;, o b � + �. ,.,, <'� 'rt . , ri :. '., M .. n :i *.. ..,. .,. +�.,°' +..,. �.�` `W ^.�, af- 'Y' "� ��,° ,r Ir +. � a `a y. ,.. �"t_ r4` s'ta'y. raj w,a. .rkpa .a'� `,.. e k >x,. q sSsa4` +: j�k�o fir, ak 1n J� Y viT v4i.^ %�j %�.' t r > �Ilr r � g �h �F v. ..,,..,,....... ..,, . gWy •'::, ..'.,.: ,, .,..., ., d ,,. b i;;q%.,,,ro ,�, ,. ,,h,} s .it•! `x � i .. ^.: rs ,� „.!., . rvt , t p., t t .r ! : , e • "' ..q PrF. t.,,,iv . ,' %` **^ a , � + ` + ':.U',r€ .� .19.1, . ,7 .» ,.:� � +' ~a + ��{M .., t:�v'Q'. A,. „r/.aw .+ lK' SFYtYnN%' �mrtt: +o-1;ns.wwre,lM„yM5t4:'fiayOYfr/ v ,,, RliCi4VhM9 "l�i� ?IM .. Y �,• $ d � T T ��t, n'<v �. fkrti:., � a � �,�Mn1�Mw +�'�� " ��g6.ri 7 � '..� , • " . e �� a �`�'^'? .� 4 ,t '.k c •, .l �R?�!+�N'A4Nr..n�y�ydri ,� �'Fam�'",R,,;: WMM �.,Measureme'nl Location der 4 , wr, • , % .° €? v ` 7 .% .. �Yi 1'1: � i lM' � ivtk ;a` J d9 7 «,`.t 1 ' ? °:tff fy `4 t� >�Kt�� =i JS 1; •ti,1 %w{I �a "� .. �r.,. .,' !�',, ` � � 4 s;'i�r �� X tai, i:Rh �s"i •�� 'iB � � . �. s r •� t d4 r r 3,v t }r.71 e r i t �j � '� � 'v "��• , � ti:. .� " y' . A/" ' .8' 5: � q .a'" .t � .. � ♦ 4 � �q � y !!l1 � yid �k' ^ To IC . I t 2009 Google max. `200J. aneiy ga ,,JUI 2007 ,, - 37',19'57.93” N 122 01'09:88' W elev189 Its„ i �f Eyo all 5B3 fl _(,', -7- B. Future Noise Levels The future noise exposures at the site were determined from future traffic volume projections for Interstate 280. Precise future traffic data are not available from CalTrans. Therefore, an average annual traffic volume groivth rate was calculated from historical data. The existing (most recent) 2008 traffic volume for I -280 was reported to be 158,000 vehicles ADT. The 1998 traffic volume was 156,000 ADT, as reported by CalTrans, Ref. (d). The average annual growth rate from 1998 to 2008 was calculated to be 0.13% per year. By applying this same growth rate to the future 20 years, the 2028 traffic volume was calculated to be 162,077 vehicles ADT. This increase in traffic volume yields a 0.1 dB increase in the traffic noise levels, which is insignificant. Therefore, the future traffic noise levels are expected to remain similar to present levels. V. Evaluation of the Noise Exposures A. Exterior Noise Exposure To evaluate the on -site noise exposures against the City of Cupertino standards, the CNEL for the survey location was calculated as a decibel average of the L as they apply to the daily time periods of the CNEL index. The CNEL is a 24 -hour noise descriptor that uses the measured L eq values to calculate a 24 -hour time - weighted average noise exposure with a 5 dB penalty added to noise during the hours of 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. and a 10 dB penalty added to noise during the 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. hours. The formula used to calculate the CNEL is described in Appendix B. The results of the calculations indicate that the exterior noise exposure at the measurement location, 125 ft. from the centerline of I -280, is 68 dB CNEL. Noise barrier calculations reveal that the existing property line soundwall provides 13 dB of traffic noise reduction for first floors and 5 dB of traffic noise reduction for the second floors. Thus, the noise exposures at the planned building setback were calculated to be 68 dB CNEL at the first floor elevation and 76 dB CNEL at the second floor elevation. The exterior noise exposure in the exterior living areas of the project will be up to 8 dB in excess of the 60 dB CNEL limit of the City of Cupertino Noise Element standards. 22-50 B. Interior Noise Exposures To evaluate the interior noise exposures in project living spaces, a 15 dB reduction was applied to the exterior noise exposure to represent the attenuation provided by the building shell under annual - average conditions. The annual- al condition assumes that windows have single- strength 1 ;3/32 ") glass and are kept open up to 50 %.of the time for ventilation. The interior noise exposures in the most impacted living spaces closest to I -280 will be 53 dB CNEL at first floor elevations and up to 61 dB CNEL at second floor elevations that have an orientation toward :1-280. For living spaces that do not have a view toward the freeway, the buildings will provide 8 decibels of noise attenuation. The interior noise exposures in project living spaces that do not have a view toward the freeway will be up to 45 and 53 dB CNTEL at first and second floor elevations, respectively. The noise exposures in project living; spaces will be up to 16 dB in excess of the 45 dB CNEL limit of the City of Cupertino Noise Element standards. Mitigation measures will be required all second floor Lving spaces and first floor living spaces that have a view toward the freeway. The recommended mitigation measures are in described in Section H of this report. This report presents the results of a noise assessment study for the planned 2 -lot subdivision at 10642 North Portal Avenue in Cupertino. The study findings for present conditions are based on field measurements and other data, and are correct to the best of our knowledge. Future noise levels were based on estimates made by Edward L. Pack Associates, Inc. from information provided by CalTrans. Significant deviations in the predicted traffic volumes, speed limits, motor vehicle technology, or other future changes beyond our control may produce long -range ::noise results different from our estimates. 22 -51 If you have any questions or would like an elaboration on this report, please call me. Sincerely, EDWARD L. PACK ASSOC., INC. Jeffrey K. Pack President Attachments: Appendices A, B, and C 22-52 APPENDIX A References (a) Tentative Map (b) City of Cupertino Draft General Plan Public Health and Safety Element, "Noise Pollution ", Chapter 6, 2001 (c) http: / /wwiv. dot. ca. gov /hq/ traffops / saferesr /trafdata/2008alUr280405i.litm (d) llttp : //NN7NvA7.dot.ca.gov /hq / traffops/ saferesr /trafdata/1998all/1998aadt.xls 22-53 APPENDIX B Noise Standards, TerminoIou, Instrumentation Ventilation Requirements and Building Shell Controls 1. Noise Standards A. City of Cupertino "Noise Element" Standards The City of Cupertino Health and Safety Element of the General Plan, prepared in 2001, references the Land Use Compatibility Chart published by the State of California. The Normally Acceptable noise exposures, in tern of the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) noise descriptor, are shown below. Land Use Exterior Residences (single - family) 60 Residences (multi- fainily) 65 Transient Lodging 65 Schools, Hospitals, Nursing Homes, Churches 70 Theaters, Auditoriums, Music Halls 70 Outdoor Sports, Arenas 75 Office Bldgs., Business, Commercial, Professional 70 Playgrounds, Neighborhood Parks 70 Industrial, Manufacturing 75 The Health and Safety Element (Noise), references the sound transmission Control standards of the State of California Code of Regulations, Title 24, which limits interior noise exposures in multi - family residences to 45 dB CNEL. The Noise Element suggests the application of the Title 24 standard to single - family residences as well. B -1 22-54 2. Terminolou A. Statistical Noise Levels Due to the fluctuating character of urban traffic noise, statistical procedures are needed to provide an adequate description of the environment. A series of statistical descriptors have been developed which represent the noise levels exceeded a given percentage of the time. These descriptors are obtained by direct readout of the Community Noise Analyzer. Some of the statistical levels used to describe commuilif5y noise are defined as follows: Ll - A noise level exceeded for 1% of the time. Llo - A noise level exceeded for 10% of the time, considered to be an "intrusive" level. Lso - The noise level exceeded 50% of the time representing an "average" sound level. Lso - The noise level exceeded 90 % of the time.. designated as a "background" noise level. Leq - The continuou equivalent- energy level is that level of a steady -state noise having the same sound energy as a given time - varying noise. The Leg represents the decibel level of the tune - averaged value of sound energy or sound pressure squared and is used to calculate the DNL and CNEL. B -2 22-55 B. Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) The CNEL is a measure of the cumulative noise exposure over a 24 hour period. The CNEL index divides the 24 hour day into three subperiods, i.e., the daytime (7:00 am to 7:00 pm), the evening period (7:00 pm to 10:00 pm), and the nighttime period (10:00 pm to 7:00 am). Also, weighting factors of 5 and 10 dBA are applied to the evening and nighttime periods, respectively, to account for the greater sensitivity of people to noise during those periods. The CNEL values are calculated from the measured L values in accordance with the following mathematical formula: CNEL = [(Ld +10 loglol2) & (L +5 +10 log & (L +10 +10 log,09)] - 10 log where: L = L eq for the daytime (7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.) L = L eq for the evening (7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.) L = L eq for the nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) 24 indicates the 24 hour period & denotes decibel addition C. A- Weighted Sound Level The decibel measure of the sound level utilizing the "A" weighted network of a sound level meter is referred to as "dBA ". The "A" weighting is the accepted standard weighting system used when noise is measured and recorded for the purpose of determining total noise levels and conducting statistical analyses of the environment so that the output correlates well with the response of the human ear. B -3 22-56 3. Instrumentation The on -site field measurement data were acquired by the use of one or more of the precision acoustical instruments shown below. The acoustical instrumentation provides a direct readout of the L exceedance statistical levels including the equivalent- energy level (L Input to the meters was provided by a microphone extended to a height of 5 ft. above the ground. The meter conforms to %NSI S1.4 for Type 1 instruments. The "A" weighting network and the "Fast" response setting of the meter were used in conformance with the applicable ISO and IEC standards. All instrumentation was acoustically calibrated before and after field tests to assure accuracy. Bruel & Kjaer 2231 Precision Integrating Sound Level Meter Larson Davis LDL 812 Precision Integrating Sound Level Meter Larson Davis 2900 Real Time Analyzer 4. Ventilation Requirements Ventilation requirements to be applied when windows are maintained closed for noise control are specified in the Uniform 3uilding Code (UBC), 2001 edition, Section 12.03.3 as follows: "In lieu of required exterior- openings for natural ventilation, a mechanical ventilating system may be provided. Such system shall be capable of providing two air changes per hour in guest rooms, dormitories, habitable roo1171s, and in public corridors with a minimum of 15 cubic feet per minute (7L /s) of outside air per occupant during such time as the building is occupied." Based on our previous experience, a "summer switch" on the furnace fan is normally considered acceptable as a ventilation system by FHA and other agencies. Air - conditioning is also an acceptable system. B -4 22-57 5. Building Shell Controls The following additional precautionary measures are required to assure the greatest potential for exterior -to- interior noise attenuation by the recommended mitigation measures. These measures apply at those units where closed windows are required: • Unshielded entry doors having a direct or side orientation toward the primary noise source must be 1 -5/8" or 1 -3/4" thick, insulated metal or solid -core wood construction with effective weather seals around theIull perimeter. Mail slots should not be used in these doors or in the wall of a living space, as a significant noise leakage can occur through them. • If any penetrations in the building shell are required for vents, piping, conduit, etc., sound leakage around these penetrations can be controlled by sealing all cracks and clearance spaces with a non - hardening caulking compound. • Fireplaces should be provided with tight -fitting dampers. B -5 22-58 APPEPMIX C Noise Measurement Data and Calculation Tables 22-59 CNEL CALCULATIONS CLIENT: WESTWOOD INVESTORS FILE: 41 -043 PROJECT: NORTH PORTAL AVENUE DATE: 12/8- 9/2009 SOURCE: 1 -280 LOCATION 1 Dist. To Source TIME 1 -280 Property Line 125 ft. Leq 10 "Leq /10 7:00 AM 66.0 3969151.5 8:00 AM 65.9 3914154.4 9:00 AM 65.9 3894206.0 10:00 AM 65.9 3885605.6 11:00 AM 65.5 3515774.7 12:00 PM 65.0 3146935.1 1:00 PM 66.0 3991091.1 2:00 PM 66.5 4488897.4 3:00 PM 67.5 5560879.2 4:00 PM 64.4 2781779.2 5:00 PM 62.9 1929541.8 6:00 PM 64.4 2783279.0 SUM= 43861295.1 7:00 PM 64.9 3077304.5 Ld= 65.6 8:00 PM 63.7 2368370.8 9:00 PM 63.7 2339230.1 SUM= 7784905.4 10:00 PM 62.2 1661535.6 Ld= 64.1 11:00 PM 61.3 1336866.3 12:00 AM 57.3 538167.2 1:00 AM 55.6 361135.0 2:00 AM 55.7 372412.5 3:00 AM 53.9 248258.5 4:00 AM 55.6 362908.3 5:00 AM 60.8 1215506.2 6:00 AM 65.5 3538696.5 SUM= 9635486.1 Ld= 60.3 Daytime Level= 76.4 Evening Level= 73.9 Nighttime Level= 79.8 CNEL= 68 24 -Hour Leq= 64.1 22-60 Colin Jung From: Jeff Pack Upack @packassociates.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2010 9:51 ANN To: Colin Jung; dick @pnwest.com; 'Marvin Bamburg'; 'pam yoshida' Subject: Gregersen property soundwall Attachments: 41 -043 22 ft. barrier.jpg Attachment H Hi Colin, Please find attached an aerial photo showing where sounJwalls would need to go to meet 60 dB CNEL in the rear and side yards of the homes. The barrier along the southwest PL would range from 15 ft. at the lower corner to 22 ft. at the upper corner and continue along the canal at 22 ft. high, then it would need to turn to connect air -tight to the side of the house. A 20 ft. high wall would need to go betNeen the houses and a 15 ft. wall would need to be constructed at the south side of the southerly home. The apartments to the west would just notice an increase in sound - about 3 dB- from reflections. The increase to the north across 1 -280 would probably not be noticeable. There wouldn't be any significant effect on residences to the south or east, except at the house with the pool would notice a slight decrease in noise because of the wall. I hope this answers your questions for now. Regards, Jeffrey K. Pack EDWARD L. PACK ASSOCIATES, INC. 1975 Hamilton Avenue Suite 26 San Jose, CA 95125 Tel: (408) 371 7 1195 Cell: (408) 921 -4886 Fax: (408) 371 -1196 22 -61 y, c, ' h. 1 ', �� " 1 ��.�� '�'� a �H� ?k ►! �� 1 , ' °,i? � � .. � • fit, S ��} i �l� �� . � � r '��p� t i `� w 1�.1` aur.v ada "��f "$•��b�',.Ri { �,� yj x�, 1• ..e r. �"+'ppt'n"�"r.rr «qy •,�1,rtgn ��..!h � ^."°"'""p"" r ' ^" i �.!� „ � a ,`: ,, a ,�d`0 i � A '; -, •rn * ' +q t . I rr `� �k� l i M ,. � � ' A 9 , Sa'+i �a �jF �.. ry.�»wr+�,W.A ,n� fir•. rlr ��'' 4 (Si 1�'� i B ;," Z,�:�'.":5 t ., ��,xx�tkf� -� - �x u,{�," ".. k{ yl• ,t,, �..� d ",� ! 1 - o ' e :.r� , 4 .,,1 J •.Y' 9r.�w '... n � / 8 m ..: nt Lue dflOfl) �J �� P '� J �� .n, ,.r f.... "r b.. K,:K .e. y �i., , ,�..� M .\ .1.. .,n d�nl I�,nN� p. ., g A ��,:.; ¢ �M1��, t;.F�,,.�p�: •�� ;. ;: �; : r,�, _ �aM ..��•g a a �, .i..: � ' : h � �' � 4 .i`% b{ A�'% tp�l�ttrr .Ra.'•' •��...s y .'rf "1 ��+ �i ' A . �e �' , �.� , r " ", Y +t•�� { �;' a a `,� r �d P,��a� �' �il�s, L r'� i �'h�,�;p �, �� f�' F,� r °�, a[ i� _. � ISM'- � � •! � � ,� ` � ��. � ,. � '�„�• � �. �". s � <h °' .•, �,., r li . t � � i � { A i h��1 Yd�D' �f'� wr ♦ t of r,... ;eft q'v M a 'y�� •. , f 2p08GOppld � . � u 135 11 Rwst 7lQf� .. ImaONIY. <7d1u JUl 2007 »r, w . a , a�:a lw . , °ea! x710'67,93 N 1 At {Q9.dG.W I,uv! 1061E Colin Jung From: Pam Yoshida [pam @mba- archite(:ts.net] Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 8:47 AM To: Colin Jung Cc: 'Marvin Bamburg' Subject: FW: Cupertino -North Portal Subdivision From: Mike O'Connor [ma i Ito: moc @mocpa.com] Serit: Monday, April 05, 2010 2:28 AM To: pam yoshida Subject: Cupertino -North Portal Subdivision Attachment 1 Dear Ms. Yoshida: I understand that the entire concern on the part of the City's ERC is about particulate matter from the roadway and toxic air contaminants (presumably also from the roadway) affecting the future residents of the homes - -- and not about any minor impacts that the two residences might bring about. In three decades of doing this kind of work I don't think that I have ever been asked to bid on an air quality analysis of such a small project. Presently the SF Bay area is in non - attainment status with respect to the clean air standards for particulate matter, but the status for carbon monoxide is attainment. Both of these contaminants are given off by vehicles - -- or in the case of particulate matter, also by the action of vehicles being driven on roadways which crushes dirt and turns it into fine pal that become "resuspended ", as we say. Diesel - powered vehicles also give off particulate matter in exhaust that is in a form that is considered to be particularly toxic (carcinogenic). And automobile exhaust contains 1,3- butadiene and benzene which are also carcinogenic. Unfortunately those matters cannot surely be authoritatively dealt with at the present time, not as the BAAQMD would have consultants deal with faem, given that the BAAQMD has not completed ongoing revisions to it's CEQA guidelines (as the City's comments state), and given that the City as Lead Agency is not providing standards of its own.. The indications are - -- see http: / /\vw`v.baagmd.gov/ Divisions /Planniing- and- Research/CEQA- GUIDELMS.aspx - -- that the revised CEQA guidelines may be finished in June. The latest draft puts forth a potentially involved procedure that starts with a screening analysis step, which would not involve much work if it were to happen that the project site passes the screening test. But then if it flunks the test some detailed modeling procedures are required (at which I am practiced). The BAAQMD is in the position of "fishing" rather than "cutting bait ". The latter course of action would be to concern oneself with the fact that the Screening analysis method is not what anyone would call accurate; nor is the detailed modeling method. In general, the best estimates of concentrations of air quality contaminants are accurate within, say, a factor of two. A better approach would be for developers and architects to simply go ahead and provide some mitigation for new homes on sites that are near freeways or major arterials.- 22 -63 Here are some of the mitigation measures in the BAAQMD's draft CEQA guidelines of 12/09: 4. Projects that propose sensitive receptors adjacent to sources of diesel PM (e.g., freeways, major roadways, rail lines, and rail yards) shall consider tiered plantings of trees such as redwood, deodar cedar, live oak and oleander to reduce TAC and PM exposure. This recommendation is based on a laboratory study that measured the removal rates of PM passing through leaves and needles of vegetation. Particles were generated in a wind tunnel and a static chamber and passed through vegetative layers at low wind velocities. Redwood, deodar cedar, live oak, and oleander were tested. The results indicate that all forms of vegetation were able to remove 65 -85 percent of very file particles at wind velocities below 1.5 meters per second (approximately 3 miles per hour [mph]) with redwood and deodar cedar being the most effective. Even greater removal rates were predicted for ultra -fine PM (i.e., aerodynamic resistance diameter of 0.1 micrometer or less). 5. Install and maintain air filtration systems of fresh air supply either on an individual unit -by- unit basis, with individual air intake and exhaust ducts ventilating each unit separately, or through a centralized building ventilation system. The ventilation system should be certified to achieve a certain effectiveness, for example, to remove at least 80% of ambient PM2.5 concentrations from indoor areas. The air intake for these units should be located away from areas producing the air pollution (i.e., away from major roadways and highways). 6. NVInere appropriate, install passive (drop -in) electrostatic filtering systems, especially those with low air velocities (i.e., 1 mph). Of these, the only one that seems that it might work is the filtration component of 5, or perhaps 6. I don't agree that the landscaping could help that much, not at this site - -- you would not be able to make it dense or high enough to intercept much of the air reaching the homes on those particular lots (there could be some value in that approach in some other circumstances). In theory, electrostatic filtering systems can be very effective against particulate matter, but some may produce ozone contamination (the manufacturer should be required to provide clear specifications on that point so that you avoid those that produce ozone). Nothing in this email is to suggest that the City of Cupertino, the Lead Agency and Responsible Agency with respect to this project, is obliged to follow the guidelines of the BAAQMD which is a Conu Agency with respect to this project. -Mike O'Connor MO'C Physics Applied NArw mo cpa. com 22-64 Attachment J ORDINANCE NO. 10 -2059 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL PREZONING & REZONING A PARCFL OF 0.618 GROSS ACRE LOCATED NORTHERLY AND ABUTTING TO 10642 NORTH PORTAL AVENUE, CONSISTING OF A PREZONING OF 0.028 ACRE FROM CITY OF SUNNYVALE TO PRE- R1 -7.5 (SINGLE- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL), AND A REZONING OF 0.59 ACRE FROM Al -43 TO R1 -: WHEREAS, an application was received'by the City (Application no. Z- 2010 -01) for the prezoning and rezoning of a prbperty to Pre-RI-7.5 and R1 -7.5 (Single Family Residential); 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 prezoning and rezoning be granted; and i WHEREAS, the property is presently zoned Cit - y of Sunnyvale and A1-43; and WHEREAS, maps of the subject property are attached hereto as Exhibits Al & A2, 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 Exhibits Al, B1, A2 & B2 are hereby prezoned or rezoned to: Pre- R1 -7.5 (Single Family Residential) and R1 -7.5; and that Exhibits Al & A2 attached hereto are 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 regular adjourned meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino the 4th day of May, 2010 and ENACTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City i of Cupertino the day of 2010, by the following vote: Vote: Members of the City Council: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: City Clerk G:, Planning � PDReport � ORD � Z- 2010 -01 ord.doc APPROVED: Mayor, City of Cupertino 22-66 Ve- : REZONE FROM AI -43 TO RI -15 \ RCN ING F LAT 1141 SGALE: I' =30' ASSESSOR'S ` \ PARCEL NUMBER: \ REZONE. N 89 °42'iO" E fo I.:;) VI) FROM a� m amev.a m o mom m. oma ie m I I °• I I � I I 0' IRRIGATION EASEMENT I I PROPOSED Pill T I I �" " , PARCEL 6 , TI I I '°'`�. BOUNDARY 4� 8 aWi �v I I E `•8/ � I I ` I I A I I 6 ® �L L---- - - - - -- ------ - - - - -- — - -- � - -- _ f m m mom+ m m mssm� . v s 5. + G $ E I- A 1 1 IQ N N 89 °21'10" E 29 - 1.64' rn `� I \ � 310-32-040 0.59 AC AI -43 RI -15 PROPOSED INGRESS, EGRESS AND PUE 4 4 \ Iwo / / �� 8.98' PORTION OF THE PARCEL. TO BE REZONED FROM Al -43 TO R1 -7.5 All that real property located in the City of Cupertino, County of Santa Clara, State of California, described as follows: A portion of the parcels of land conveyed to the State of California by Deeds numbers 13842 and 29598, recorded June 12, 1962 in Volume 5606 page 537 and 5604 page 513 of Official Records of -Santa Clara County described as follows: Beginning at the Southwesterly comer of said parcel recorded in Volume 5606, Page 537 Official Records; thence along the city limit line between City of Sunnyvale and City of Cupertino North 89 Degrees 42 Minutes 10 Seconds East a length of 67.50 feet to the Southwesterly line of the parcel conveyed as parcel 2 to Santa Clara County Flood Control District; thence 267.78 feet along said Southwesterly line and non - tangent curve to the right, said curve having a radius of 3356.00 feet, a delta 4 Degrees 34 Minutes 18 Seconds and radial bearing South 28 Degrees 08 Minutes 32 Seconds West to the Northeasterly comer of Parcel B as shown on the Parcel Map recorded in Book 248 of Maps, at Page 45, Santa Clara County Records; thence along said Northerly line South 89 Degrees 21 Minutes 10 Seconds West a length of 297.64 feet to the Westerly parcel recorded in Volume 5606, Page 537 Official Records; thence along said Westerly line North 0 Degrees 17 Minutes 50 Seconds West a length of 138.60 to the point of beginning. Containing 0.590 acres more or less. 22-68 FY )ii 1 9)T A'2 ,oil L 6 W—A I i5e PREZONE FROM CITY OF SUNNYVALE TO PRE- RI -1.5 Z ONING F1_.-.4T I' N N (O ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER: 31(o -32 -041 PRE-ZONE: 0.03 AC -F-R6M- 43- a I . TO- r 1 10' IRRIGATION ? d I EASEMENT °� Q I �5'PG4E EASEMENT . on r � I I I ° � I I 1 °� �ae�aw�wnwawr�ww�aroa��rwow_ I �ww�roorwwsiw�rww�sra�wa�wswa�wwww `° N 59 °4210" E ro - 1.50' , N N (O � =\ i . .62- PORTION OF THE PARCEL TO BE PREZONED FROM SUNNWALE TO PRE- RI -7.5 All that real property located in the City of Sunnyvale, County of Santa Clara, State of California, described as follows: A portion of the parcels of land conveyed to the State of California by Deeds numbers 13 842 and 29598, recorded June 12, 1962 in Volume 5606 page 537 and 5604 page 513 of Official Records of Santa Clara County described as follows: Beginning at the Southwesterly comer of said parcel recorded in Volume 5606, Page 537 Official Records; thence along the Westerly boundary of said parcel North 0 Degrees 17 Minutes 50 Seconds West a length of 35.57 feet to the Southwesterly line of the parcel conveyed as parcel 2 to Santa Clara County Flood Control District; thence 76.31 feet along said Southwesterly line and non - tangent curve to the right, said curve having a radius of 3356.00 feet, a delta 1 Degree 18 Minutes 10 Seconds and radial bearing South 26 Degrees 50 Minutes 22 Seconds West: thence leaving said Southwesterly line along the city limit line between City of Sunnyvale and City of Cupertino South 89 Degrees 42 Minutes 10 Seconds West a length of 67.50 feet to the point of beginning. Containing 0.028 acres more or less. 22-70 =a asgqoaaaaaaa n �:g zz bx� i �nh�b bh < DDOWIDDOOR ~ z �r 11f OD� 717 ��A" rxt f ;4Z g S i x i g D Il R A w n 0 z" AAwn1.A�mAA.A pogo�vs�go� =gR xa`i ° f Z r 11 3 � � < r tln ° E ° R � e Ammm " Aww nwnAwm '°!" 11111 o °R 9A s D �1 z . D o °onhho° $ �1 €nh•n lhhhhn 9�g gn ne F� g hb� CD i x 4�4A b m a a° " a" 4 >D "O lO" '0111 Y ` O 4 R x z x g Cn . o uu °z °z° a AA �A$A A A p 1 V h. 8� > tl „ nys�c�`)inn Otl u „8 b a p p or DO <��~ �br oYR �iba b. loot ti)1b _ z A fe �AAAAf4 4 i Aiw�� A iCRIiR $$ AAAAAA AAAA TToo >T s H I M - k 1 EE EE Gc pp pp p py nonoouo I� p {[Ypf� YY 7y� R P � � q � Q RgQp zp �1 j 3 ��n pQ < R�7r{ h�� -S^� s Da "" ass 5H (] �= W IN h, RA Vfi ZZ v 7 hny" FpiifT g Sr � ~iO 7 �, h e A A ~E AAA " iR�" �>e °Ar p a a�RBMs ~r ~�n ° ~ mpg � o a DD tY age ~_. gr =� x or " z. - AAA p FoAA yA A A '11, ' �► ' fi a n o �" �{ o r a A 122 3 jc a" � bRo k z ~ H Z42 R, R r(� g uE LG) X J�mN m ( ya D9� I z N D �+ (1)rn A W 0 R1 U, m DD 7 p T p� p mt �S`O O � ♦I ♦ ♦, ♦ ! � D : � � .N 3m5 lN L i . ♦�' i = 0 w(1 W B DW g � — 1> - 0 Z °R If z M I O Q V JV yp r III • 0 D q ,� I r i TI ; D C O m W J ! , - ' x� v Om rp 4f zz • c 0 to m : C T Nj� W T C C s elm z O z c m � 8 in !r y ar A v Mar �i� S i ° SO s x _yX .. a. e r �;'> % g u SIV1T1 " "n CI w (� w ,n st i o � NOW14 FlOW44L St�D�V�$�i..�. O o n u 0) X NORTN PORTAL AVENUE CUPERTINO. CALIFORNIA m O 1 ,m L hl L - s' w a 3 m m # �.,. Pa.A ,w 7 aan €a .. oaa Z c m � 8 in !r y A R C H I T E C T S MB N. 1176 Lincoln Awanu *. Son JoSe. CA PA.(.OL) 297 -02ee r..(4W) 297 -0784 95125 F 'V A v Mar �i� S i ° SO s x _yX .. a. e r �;'> % g u SIV1T1 " "n CI w (� w ,n st i A R C H I T E C T S MB N. 1176 Lincoln Awanu *. Son JoSe. CA PA.(.OL) 297 -02ee r..(4W) 297 -0784 95125 z o � NOW14 FlOW44L St�D�V�$�i..�. O o n u 0) NORTN PORTAL AVENUE CUPERTINO. CALIFORNIA 1