103-B. Negative Declaration / Initial Study.pdfCITY OF CUPERTINO
RECOMMENDATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
September 2, 2010
As provided by the Environmental Assessment Procedure, adopted by the City Council
of the City of Cupertino on May 27, 1983, as amended, the following described project
was reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee of the City of Cupertino on
September 2, 2010.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION
Application No.: M-2010-03, EXC-2010-03, TM-2010-03 (EA-2010-04)
Applicant: Jane Vaughan (Cupertino Housing Partners, LLC)
Location: 19501, 19503, 19505, 19507 Stevens Creek Blvd
DISCRETIONARY ACTION REQUEST
Modification to a Use Permit (U-2003-04) to allow general commercial uses at an
existing mixed -use project (Metropolitan at Cupertino);
Exception to the Heart of the City Specific plan to allow non -retail uses to exceed 25
percent of the total building frontage along Stevens Creek Boulevard;
Tentative Map to subdivide an existing ground floor commercial space into 5
commercial condominiums
FINDINGS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
The Environmental Review Committee recommends the granting of a Negative
Declaration finding that the project is consistent with the General Plan and the
cumulative impact of the otherwise CEQA-exempt capital projects is determined to be
insignificant.
arti Shrivastava
Director of Community Development
g/erc/REC EA-2010-04
UPERTIN
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
(408) 777-3308
FAX (408) 777-3333
Community Development Department
Staff Use Only
EA File No. EA-2010-04
Case File No. M-2010-03,
EXC-2010-03 TM-2010-03
Attachments
Project Title: Metropolitan commercial condominiums
Project Location: 19501 19503 19505 & 19507 Stevens Creek Boulevard
Project Description: Tentative Tract Map to subdivide 6,400 square feet of retail space in a
mixed -use (residential/commercial) development into five commercial condominium units;
Modification to a Use Permit to allow for medical offices (non -retail uses); and Exception to the
Heart of the City Specific Plan to allow for more than 25% of the building frontage for non -retail —
uses.,
Environmental Setting:
The project site is a developed mixed -use residential/commercial development
consisting of 107 residential condominium units and 6,400 square feet of retail space in an
existing urbanized area. The site is located on the north side of Stevens Creek Boulevard, east
of Wolfe Road, and west of Finch Avenue, surrounded by a multi -story office complex to the
west a vacant commercial site to the east commercial uses to the south and a mixed use
residential/commercial proiect under construction to the north.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Site Area (ac.) - 3.2 acres Building Coverage — 22% retail coverage Exist. Building — 6,400 s.f. of
retail. Proposed Bldg. - 0 s.f. Zone - P G.P. Designation -
Commercial/Office/Residential
Assessor's Parcel No. - 316- 49- 999
If Residential, Units/Gross Acre - N/A
Total# Rental/Own Bdrms Total s.f. Price
Unit Type #1
Unit Type #2
Unit Type #3
Unit Type #4
Unit Type #5
Applicable Special Area Plans: (Check)
❑ Monta Vista Design Guidelines ❑ S. De Anza Conceptual
❑ N. De Anza Conceptual ❑ S. Sara -Sunny Conceptual
❑ Stevens Crk Blvd. Conceptual ❑ Stevens Creek Blvd. SW & Landscape
X Heart of the City Specific Plan
If Non -Residential, Building Area - 6,400 s.f. FAR - N/A Max.
Employees/Shift - N/A Parking Required 521 spaces (mixed -use) Parking Provided 522 spaces
(mixed -use)
Project Site is Within Cupertino Urban Service Area - YES X NO ❑
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 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
OUTSIDE AGENCIES
County Planning Department
Adjacent Cities' Planning Departments
D. OUTSIDE AGENCIES (Continued)
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
County Parks and Recreation Department
Cupertino Sanitary District
Fremont Union High School District
Cupertino Union School District
Pacific Gas and Electric
Santa Clara County Fire Department
County Sheriff
CALTRANS
County Transportation Agency
Santa Clara Valley Water District
OUTSIDE AGENCY DOCUMENTS
BAAQMD Survey of Contaminant Excesses
FEMA Flood Maps/SCVWD Flood Maps
USDA, "Soils of Santa Clara County"
County Hazardous Waste Management Plan
County Heritage Resources Inventory
Santa Clara Valley Water District Fuel Leak Site
CalEPA Hazardous Waste and Substances Site
OTHER SOURCES
Project Plan Set/Application Materials
Field Reconnaissance
Experience w/project of similar scope/characteristics
ABAG Projection Series
County Departmental of Environmental Health
A. Complete all information requested on the Initial Study Cover page. LEAVE BLANK SPACES
ONLY WHEN A SPECIFIC ITEM IS NOT APPLICABLE.
B. Consult the Initial Study Source List; use the materials listed therein to complete, the checklist
information in Categories A through O.
C. You are encouraged to cite other relevant sources; if such sources are used, job in their title(s) in
the "Source" column next to the question to which they relate.
D. If you check any of the "YES" response to any questions, you must attach a sheet explaining the
potential impact and suggest mitigation if needed.
E. When explaining any yes response, label your answer clearly (Example "N - 3 Historical") Please
try to respond concisely, and place as many explanatory responses as possible on each 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)
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
0
cc =
ISSUES:
2�
o M
�� ao
���
®M
[and Supporting Information Sources]
W
N 3 o
N E
Z E
acn
—yin =
in
I. AESTHETICS -- Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a
❑
❑
❑
121
scenic vista? [5,9,24,41,44]
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,
❑
❑
❑
0
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a
state scenic highway? [5,9,11,24,34,41,44]
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual
❑
❑
❑
0
character or quality of the site and its
surroundings? [1,17,19,44]
d) Create a new source of substantial light or
❑
❑
❑
E,
glare, which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area? [1,16,44]
►�
Aesthetics
The proposed project would not alter the existing visual character of the site and its
surroundings because no physical changes are proposed to the existing site.
Therefore, the proposed project will also not significantly degrade the existing visual
character of the site since no exterior building changes and/or footprint changes are
proposed.
MITIGATION MEASURES: None required.
_........ ....... .... ..........................................._._...._.........................._.................._................................._......._..........................._.............
--.... ..... ............... ....
c
0
c
............
v t
v t�
V V
M
ISSUES:
ao 0)
J in
U)
[and Supporting Information Sources]
E
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
i
project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique
❑
❑
❑
0
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as shown on the
maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program of 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
nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland, to non-agricultural use? [5,7,39]
__............................................................
... ..............................................
........................................................ _.............. .....
................................... __............
.......... _.... _. _.
FINDINGS:
The project site is an existing mixed -use (commercial/residential) development, and is not
located in an area identified as prime farmland. Nor is the site being used for or zoned for
agricultural use. The proposed project does not involve any physical changes to the site, or
construction or exterior modifications to the project site. Therefore, the proposed project will not
result in a significant impact on the City's or Region's agricultural resources.
MITIGATION MEASURES: None Required.
_*,
ca=
co=
as=E
m=3'Q'
ZE
ISSUES:
O .�®
a, y
p
J F =
N=E
0®
J N
[and Supporting Information Sources]
III. AIR QUALITY — Where available, the
significance criteria established by the
applicable air quality management or air
pollution control district may be relied upon to
make the following determinations. Would
the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of
❑
❑
❑
M
the applicable air quality plan? [5,7,42,44]
b) Violate any air quality standard or
❑
❑
❑
0
contribute substantially to an existing or
projected air quality violation? [5,37,42,44]
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net
❑
❑
❑
I]
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
❑
❑
❑
❑x
pollutant concentrations? [4,37,44]
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a
❑
❑
❑
0
substantial number of people? [4,37,44]
f) Generate greenhouse gas emissions,
❑
❑
❑
0
either directly or indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the environment?
g) Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or
❑
❑
❑
0
regulation of an agency adopted for the
purpose of reducing the emissions of
greenhousegases?
FINDINGS:
There are no air quality impacts anticipated with this project.
MITIGATION MEASURES: None Required.
c 0c
v cOC
H v®
'c
N v
'c
O cOC
CL
® 2M —
y 3' g
G� O
N
G) 0).9
Z
E
ISSUES:
a N
J N=
J
[and Supporting Information Sources]
—
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES --Would
the 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?
[5,10, 27,44]
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any
❑
❑
❑
IZI
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional
plans, policies, regulations or by the
California Department of Fish and Game or
US Fish and Wildlife Service? [5,10,27,44]
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on
❑
❑
❑
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
❑
❑
❑
0
ordinances protecting biological resources,
such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance? [11,12,41 ]
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
❑
❑
❑
0
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan? [5,10,26,27]
FINDINGS:
The proposed project does not involve any physical changes to the site, or construction or
exterior modifications to the project site. Additionally, no rare, threatened, endangered or
special status species of flora or fauna are known to inhabit the site.
MITIGATION MEASURES: None Required.
,
o
C
=
c
Oo
.3
(ao
CL
c
CL
d C E
y C 6
N C
Z
ISSUES:
O 2)®
a, C
d O
J N 0
G) 2
J CO[and
Supporting Information Sources]
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES --Would the
project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in
❑
❑
❑
0
the significance of a historical resource as
defined in §15064.5? [5,13,41 ]
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in
❑
❑
❑
0
the significance of an archaeological
resource pursuant to §15064.5? [5,13,41 ]
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
❑
❑
❑
0
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature? [5,13,41 ]
d) Disturb any human remains, including
rXi
those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
[1,5]
FINDINGS:
The project is not anticipated to impact archaeological resources.
MITIGATION MEASURES: None Required.
c
r_ o
C ++
�vc3
«�vca
_
2CE
H��*'i
_ =' O
Nc'3�'0-
~ .®
E
M
ZEi
ISSUES:
o.--
n, C
d,� ®
J Cn _
u)
w.0—
N
[and Supporting Information Sources]
—
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS — Would the
1
project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects, including the risk
of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
❑
❑
❑
0
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or based on
other substantial evidence of a known fault?
Refer to Division of Mines and Geology
Special Publication 42. [2,14,44]
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
❑
❑
❑
[2,5,10,44]
iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including
❑
❑
❑
0
liquefaction? [2,5,10,39,44]
iv) Landslides? [2,5,10,39,44]
❑
❑
❑
0
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the
❑
❑
❑
0
loss of topsoil? [2,5,10,44]
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
❑
❑
❑
[H]
unstable, or that would become unstable as
a result of the project, and potentially result
in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
[2, 5,10, 39]
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined
❑
❑
❑
0
in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code
(197), creating substantial risks to life or
property? [2,5,10]
e) Have soils incapable of adequately
❑
❑
❑
0
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]
FINDINGS:
The proposed project does not involve any physical changes to the site, or construction or
exterior modifications to the project site. Therefore, the project is not anticipated to impact
geology or soils. Additionally, the site is not located within a Geologic Hazard Zone or
Liquefaction zone.
MITIGATION MEASURES: None Required.
c
cc = .0
_
v
ascE
~ o
Nc3*'Q-
H v cva
E
® cva
zE
ISSUES:
IL CO
J � =
U)
J am ®
[and Supporting Information Sources]
—
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS — Would the project:
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined
❑
❑
❑
E
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
❑
❑
❑
Fx1
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]
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or
❑
❑
El
❑
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
❑
❑
❑
El
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
❑
❑
❑
M
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
❑
-------- - .......
❑
._........
❑
0
use plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport
or public use airport, would the project result
in a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area? [ ]
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private
❑
❑
❑
E !
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
❑
❑
❑
0
significant risk of loss, injury or death
involving wildland fires, including where
wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or
where residences are intermixed with
wildlands?[1,2,44]
FINDINGS:
The proposed project does not involve any physical changes to the site, or construction or
exterior modifications to the project site. However, the applicant is requesting to allow typical
medical/dental office uses within the existing retail space which will involve the typical use and
disposal of medical/dental materials. These medical/dental office uses will be required to
comply with State of California requirements for use and disposal of such materials. Therefore,
the risk of creating a significant hazard to the public is considered less than significant.
MITIGATION MEASURES: None Required.
---- — — __ ------------ - --
--
— -- —
--
---—..... ......... --
.............. -- I
c
N v
M 0
s v
Iw
a�
i
'
E
Z
E
ISSUES:
odca'—E
a.
a3
- —
—
[and Supporting Information Sources]
—
Vlll. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
--Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or
❑
❑
❑
rx-1
waste discharge requirements? [20,36,37]
b) Substantially deplete groundwater
❑
❑
❑
0
supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that there would
be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a
lowering of the local groundwater table level
(e.g., the production rate of pre-existing
nearby wells would drop to a level
which would not support existing land uses
or planned uses for which permits have been
granted)? [20,36,42]
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage
❑
❑
❑
I]
pattern of the site or area, including through
the alteration of the course of a stream or
river, in a manner which would result in
substantial erosion of siltation on- or off -site?
[14, 20,36]
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage
❑
❑
❑
0
pattern of the site or area, including through
the alteration of the course of a stream or
river, or substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a manner which
would result in flooding on- or off -site
[20,36,38]
e) Create or contribute runoff water which
❑
❑
❑
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
❑
❑
❑
I]
quality? [20,36,37]
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood
❑
❑
❑
hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood
Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate
Map or other flood hazard delineation map?
[2,38]
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area
❑
❑
"
I]
structures which would impede or redirect
flood flows? [2,38]
i) Expose people or structures to a significant
❑
❑
❑
IZI
risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding,
including flooding as a result of the failure of
a levee or dam? [2,36,38]
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or
❑
❑
❑
mudflow? [2,36,38]
r�I►T171k[e �
The proposed project does not involve any physical changes to the site, or construction or
exterior modifications to the project site. Additionally, based on the FEMA flood insurance
maps for the City of Cupertino, the project site is located in Zone X and is not located within a
100-year floodplain and would therefore have no impact on 100-year flows. The project would
not expose people to flood hazards associated with the 100-year flood. The site is not subject
to seiche or tsunami.
MITIGATION MEASURES: None Required.
c
c 0
r
o
v _ 0
t _ *2 cvc
o cva
_v
ISSUES:
a te—
J U
J Cl)
_
[and Supporting Information Sources]
E
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING -Would
the project:
a) Physically divide an established
❑
❑
❑
1XI
community? [7,12,22,41]
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan,
❑
❑
0
❑
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 [1,7,8,16,17,18,44]
FINDINGS:
The proposed project does not involve any physical changes to the site, or construction or
exterior modifications to the project site. However, the proposed project is requesting a
tentative map to allow for the creation of five retail condominium units, a modification to the Use
Permit to allow for medical/dental office uses in the existing retail spaces and an exception to
the Heart of the City Specific Plan to allow for more than 25% of the store frontage to be
occupied by non -retail uses which does conflict with the Use Permit granted under the existing
zoning of the site, and with the Heart of the City Specific Plan. These` conflicts, however, are
not anticipated to create any environmental impacts, and are therefore, considered less than
significant.
MITIGATION MEASURES: None Required.
r
c
v M
0
b y i p
H v M
o cc
us c E
vNi = 3 'CL
°'
CL
U)i c
Z
ISSUES:
ob—
a COJ�
a'.P o
=
oP—
J U)
—
[and Supporting Information Sources]
X. MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would the
project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known
❑
❑
❑
EI
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
❑
❑
❑
0
locally -important mineral resource recovery
site delineated on a local general plan,
specific plan or other land use plan? [5,10]
FINDINGS:
The proposed project does not involve any physical changes to the site, or construction or
exterior modifications to the project site. Additionally, the project site is outside of the Lehigh
Quarry area, and will therefore not result in a significant impact from the loss of availability of a
known mineral resource.
MITIGATION MEASURES: None Required.
c
c = o
cam-cvc
CL
o
Hen.
oQl
ascE
)=3 CL
N E
ZE
ISSUES:
®•°'
a N
J •tm v
F
) .r—
U)
[and Supporting Information Sources]
_
—
XI. NOISE -- Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to, or generation of,
❑
❑
❑
0
noise levels in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable standards of other
agencies? [8,18,44]
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of
❑
❑
❑
El
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?
[8,18]
❑
❑
❑
0
d) A substantial temporary or periodic
❑
❑
❑
increase in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above levels existing without
the project? [8,18,44]
e) For a project located within an airport land
❑
❑
❑
0
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
❑
❑
❑
0
airstrip, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels? [8,18]
FINDINGS:
The proposed project does not involve any physical changes to the site, or construction or
exterior modifications to the project site. Therefore, no noise impacts are anticipated with the
project.
MITIGATION MEASURES: None Required.
.._._............... ..._..................................................... ........ _.................. _..... __._.................................................................... ___................. _.............. _.
....... _.__................... _......... _..
A
..... _._.__.............. _.......................... _............... ....
c °
......................... ......... ............. ....
_
................. ..................... _..,
0.
asc�
N='3LMC.
U)
ZE
ISSUES:
o.2)—
a U
�,� o
J N C
J
[and Supporting Information Sources]
—
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING --Would
the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an
❑
❑
❑
0
area, either directly (for example, by
proposing new homes and businesses) or
indirectly (for example, through extension of
roads or other infrastructure)? [3,16,47,44]
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing
❑
❑
❑
[H]
housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere? [3,16,44]
c) Displace substantial numbers of people,
❑
❑ ❑ FX-1
necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere? [3,16,44]
FINDINGS:
The proposed project does not involve any physical changes to the site, or construction or
exterior modifications to the project site. No displacement of housing or people is proposed with
the project. Therefore, the project will not have an impact on housing or population.
MITIGATION MEASURES: None Required.
c
ca c 0
c
*M— v cva
H 2=*
H vco
p
d c E
N c 3
N c E
Z
ISSUES:
ao . in —
=
J � —
[and Supporting Information Sources]
—
Xlll. PUBLIC SERVICES
a) Would the project result in substantial
adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, need for new or
physically altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain
acceptable service ratios, response times or
other performance objectives for any of the
public services:
Fire protection? [19,32,44]
❑
❑
❑
rx-1
Police protection? [33,44]
❑
❑
❑
px
Schools? [29,30,44]
❑
❑
!
El
Parks? [,17,19,21,26,27,44]
❑
❑
❑
Other public facilities? [19,20,44]
_ ❑
❑
❑
rX,
FINDINGS:
The proposed project does not involve any physical changes to the site, or construction or
exterior modifications to the project site. Additionally, the project site is currently developed and
located in an urbanized area of Cupertino, and well served by existing Fire, Sheriff, School, Park
and other Public Facilities.
MITIGATION MEASURES: None Required.
ISSUES:
[and Supporting Information Sources]
-c
acE
ao Cn®
2
Mo
ui=32'Q'
J N v
E
-4-
U_E
J N
ocva
ZE
XIV. RECREATION --
a) Would the project increase the use of
❑
❑
❑
El
existing neighborhood and regional parks or
other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the
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
environment? [5,44]
FINDINGS:
The proposed project does not involve any physical changes to the site, or construction or
exterior modifications to the project site. Additionally, the proposal to subdivide the retail space
into five retail condominium units and to allow for medical/dental office uses in existing retail
space will not involve an increase in the use of existing parks and recreational facilities in the
neighborhood or City.
MITIGATION MEASURES: None Required.
.......................................... _.................................. _............................ ..... _..---.................................... --........................... ....................... -- .... - ...... __
...-....... I ................ ---.........
..... ....... .............. _..................... __............... --
_
... ................ ............... ._................
............ ................................
�
O
=
'..�—
N
v cvc
v s®
yc3'?
Imo—' v
o
z
o
uNi=
w —
—
ISSUES:
a y
.�
J N
.0
.J U)
[and Supporting Information Sources]
—
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC --
Would the project:
........... ............................................................... ......................... -...................................................... -.......................... --
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is
❑
❑
❑
0
substantial in relation to the existing traffic
load and capacity of the street system (i.e.,
result in a substantial increase in either the
number of vehicle trips, the volume to
capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at
intersections)? [4,20,35,44]
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively,
❑
❑
❑
❑x
a level of service standard established by the
county congestion management agency for
designated roads or highways? [4,20,44]
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns,
❑
❑
❑
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
dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., farm equipment)? [20,35,44]
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
❑
❑
❑
El
[2,19, 32, 33, 44]
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity?
❑
❑
❑
PX1
[17,44]
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or
❑
❑
❑
E
programs supporting alternative
transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle
racks)? [4,34]
FINDINGS:
The proposed project does not involve any physical changes to the site, or construction or
exterior modifications to the project site. The proposal to allow for medical/dental office uses in
60% of the existing retail space will entail a minor increase in the need for parking (9 additional
spaces) based upon the City's parking regulations; however, because the site as a mixed -use
development was approved for shared parking, the applicant has demonstrated that there are
sufficient additional parking spaces available for use by the retail building within the adjacent
shared parking garage for the mixed -use development. The applicant nas demonstrated that
there are approximately 20 additional parking spaces in the shared parking garage to
accommodate the 9 additional spaces needed for the medical/dental office uses. Therefore, the
project will not result in inadequate parking capacity.
MITIGATION MEASURES: None Required.
[and Supporting Information Sources]
E
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS —
Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment
0
El
0
MR
requirements of the applicable Regional
Water Quality Control Board? [5,22,28,36,44]
new water or wastewater treatment facilities
or expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects? [36,22,28,36]
c) Require or result in the construction of
new storm water drainage facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects? [5,22,28,36,44]
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]
0 Be served by a landfill with sufficient
0
0
0
rX-1
permitted capacity to accommodate the
project's solid waste disposal needs? [?]
I
g) Comply with federal, state, and local
0
0
0
El
statutes and regulations related to solid
FINDINGS:
The proposed project does not involve any physicalchanges hothe site, o[construction o[
exterior modifications bothe project aite./\ddUUono||y.Ulep[opooed projectwould not require
construction of new facilities for wastewater treatment, storm dnainage, water, or waste disposal
because the subject site ialocated within the City ofSan Jose Urban Service Area where such
facilities exist, and have the capacity to serve the proposed project.
MITIGATION MEASURES: None Required.
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS 'OF SIGNIFICANCE
(To be completed by City Staff)
a) Does the project have the potential to ❑ ❑ ❑ E
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 j
animal or eliminate important examples of
the major periods of California history or
prehistory? []
b) Does the project have impacts that are ❑ ❑ ❑ rx-1
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively i
considerable" means that the incremental
effects of a project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other current projects,
and the effects of probable future projects)?
[l
c) Does the project have environmental ❑ ❑ ❑ 0
effects which will cause substantial adverse
effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly? []
FINDINGS:
As discussed in the previous sections, the proposed project would not potentially have
significant environmental effects.
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
❑
Biological Resources
❑
Cultural Resources
❑
Geology /Soils
❑
Hazards & Hazardous
❑
Hydrology / Water
❑
Land Use / Planning
Materials
Quality
❑
Mineral Resources
❑
Noise
❑
Population / Housing
❑
Public Services
❑
Recreation
❑
Transportation/Traffic
❑
Utilities / Service
❑
Mandatory Findings of
Systems
Significance
DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) finds that:
M
The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and
a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
❑
Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have
been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.
❑
The proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
❑
The proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially
significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has
been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal
standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier
analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
❑
Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an
earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b)
have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE
DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the
proposed project, nothing further is required.
Staff Evaluator
ERC Ch irperson
Date
Date