The URL can be used to link to this page

14. Metropolitan Planning GroupCity of Cupertino . 10300 Torre Avenue ci~r o~ Cupertino, CA 95014 ,(408) 777-3308 Fax: (408) 777-3333 c u P~~-n rv o Community Development Department Summary Agenda Item No. ~ Agenda Date: February 4, 2008 Application: U-2007-02, ASA-2007-04, TM-2007-05, TR-2007-09, EA-2007-03 Applicant: Judie Gilli, Metropolitan Planning Group Owner:. Dollinger-De Anza Associates Location: 1601 S. De Anza Boulevard, APN 366-10-132 Application Summary: USE PERMIT, ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE APPROVAL, TENTATIVE MAP & TREE REMOVAL applications to: • Demolish an existing vacant parking lot. • Develop six, small-lot single-family detached residences with 2-car garages- and 4 bedrooms each, and common open space area. • Subdivide the property into six residential lots and two common area lots for the driveway and private open space. • Remove up to 23 trees that were part of an approved landscaping plan. RECOMMENDATIONS: The Planning Commission recommends denial of: 1. The negative declaration, file number EA-2007-03. 2. The use permit application, file number U-2007-02, in accordance with Resolution No. 6505. 3. The architectural and site approval, file no. ASA-2(?07-04, in accordance with Resolution No. 6506. 4. The tentative map application, file number TM-2007-05, in accordance with Resolution No. 6507. 5. ~ The tree removal permit, file number TR-2007-09, in accordance with Resolution No. 6508. If the City Council is inclined to approve the project, then staff recommends that the applications be remanded back to Commission for review of the revised plans and potential conditions of approval. 14-1 Applications: U-2007-02, ASA-2007-04, TM-2007-05, TR-2007-09, EA-2007-03 1601 S. De Anza Blvd. Page 2 February 4, 2008 Project Data: General Plan Designation: Zoning Designation: Acreage {Net}: Acreage (Gross): Project Density: F.A.R. (sitewide}: Height: Stories: Parking. Required Parking Proposed Parking • Dedicated Spaces • Shared Spaces Commercial /Residential P (Com, Res 5-15} Planned Development (Commercial and Residential, 5-15 du/ gr. ac.} 0.991 acre 1.012 acres (44,068 square feet) 5.93 du/ gr. ac. (Max. is 15 du/ gr. ac.) F.A.R. 60.37°~ 27 feet (Max. is 30 feet) 2 stories 17-36 parking spaces total. (see city staff Comments) 39 24 (2 garage/ 2 driveway per unit) 15 {shared with office building) Project Consistency with; Environmental Assessments General Plan: Yes Zoning: Yes Mitigated Negative Declaration BACKGROUND At its meeting of January 22, 2008, the Planning Commission voted (3-0-1, Rose absent) to recommend denial of the project after offering the applicant a continuance of the hearing until a new planning commissioner was seated {Exhibit A-1). The applicant declined the continuance. DISCUSSION Applicant Comments The applicants were pleased to meet the challenge of developing additional housing for Cupertino on one of the few remaining underutilized sites. The project was reduce in scope to six dwellings to increase setback distances and mitigate impacts .from surrounding commercial uses.. They will use the "Build it Green" Guidelines (Exhibit B- 1) in developing the homes and can cantilever the homes over the redwood tree roots to avoid damaging the westerly landscape strip. The noise consultant indicated that the existing noise environment was not that noisy, and the deletion of the upper floor windows on .Lots #3 and #4 and the increased setback would help reduce noise impacts. Removed trees will be replaced on a 2 to 1 basis. The applicants have submitted an additional letter for Council consideration (Exhibit C-1). Public Comments One resident said all the oak trees on the property should be protected and hoped that the project could be redesigned to accommodate them. She was also concerned about 14-2 Applications: U-2007-02, ASA-2007-04, TM-2~7-05, TR-2007-09, EA-2007-03 1601 S. De Anna Blvd. Page 3 February 4, 2008 what she felt was piecemeal development of the office building land. A Jamestown resident spoke about the importance of protecting the existing, westerly, tree buffer of redwoods and coast live oaks. The owner of the buildings that house Summer Wind Nursery and Granite Rock was very concerned that the existing commercial activities will disturb the new residents who will complain to the City and make it very difficult for these businesses to operate. He recommended that the City require a deed notice for each lot, notifying potential buyers about the existing noise environment and the historic rights. of businesses to operate there. A Granite Rock representative opposed the project due fo land use incompatibility and read his letter into the record (Exhibit D- 1}. An additional letter of support for the project was also received {Exhibit E-1}. Citu Sta Comments Staff recommended that the Commission hear the project, but continue it for 30 days to give the applicant additional time to provide more documentation and revised plans for the development. Staff is particularly concerned that the proposed rear setbacks for the westerly" houses (lots # 4, 5 and 6) do not adequately protect the double row of redwoods and oaks as the foundations of the houses encroach on the "do not disturb" area recommended by the City Arborist. Close proximity of the houses to the trees will also cause the developer to Iimb up the tree canopies to achieve clearance. Adequate clearance from the trees may be possible if the rear setbacks were increased and the house footprints reduced in size.. There are two City parking requirements for single-family residential; both are described here. One for small lot single-family residential is 2.8 stalls per dwelling, which generates a parking requirement of 17 spaces, and the second for R1 single- family residential, which is 4 spaces per dwelling plus an additional 2 spaces per dwelling because of the lack of streetside parking create a parking requirement of 36 stalls. The applicant will meet both standards by providing a total of 39 spaces. There are other issues described in the staff report that the applicant should address. In addition, staff received some late submittals of revised plan sheets that were not reviewed by the Planning Commission, but included in the City Council packet. Planning Commission Comments The commissioners had numerous questions. One Commissioner was uncertain the parking deficit of 10 spaces could be achieved by restripirtg if the developer had to comply with other parking standards, such as bioswales to reduce nonpoint source pollution. Another commissioner questioned how any children living in the development would be protected from the commercial activities on surrounding paxcels. Staff researched answers for two other questions generated by the Commission. One, potential children .from the development would be assigned to Regnart Elementary, Kennedy Middle and Monta Vista High School, unless the schools 14-3 Applications: U-2007-02, ASA-2007-04, TM-2007-05, TR-2007-09, EA-2007-03 1601 S. De Anna Blvd. Page 4 February 4, 2008 were impacted, then the District would bus them to an alternative school. The second question was the term of the lease for Kindercare, which is to year 2024 with two 5-year options. The commissioners felt the houses were too large for their lots and the development had no connectivity to other residential neighborhoods or residential services, such as paxks and schools. The development was a residential island that was likely to have impacts and be impacted by adjacent commercial uses: the office building, daycare center and rock/masonry retailer. One commissioner also felt the proposed development was Likely to lirnit the commercial development potential of the surrounding properties. They voted unanimously to recommend denial of the project. ENCLOSURES Planning Commission Resolutions Nos. 6505, 6506, 6507, 6508 Exhibit A-1: Staff Report to Planning Commission dated January 22, 2008 Exhibit B-1: Build it Green Checklist for the project submitted by Metropolitan Planning Group Exhibit C-1: Letter dated January 30, 2008 from Metropolitan Planning Group Exhibit D-1: Letter dated January 22, 2008 from Granite Rock Exhibit E-1: Letter of Support dated January 16, 2008. Plan Set Prepared by: Colin Jung, Senior Planner Submitted by: Approved by: {° ~~ ~+ Steve Piasec David W. Knapp Director, Co unity Development City Manager G:\Planning\PDREPORT\CC\U-2007-02 CC Repott.doc 14-4 U-2007-02 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. 6505 (DENIAL) OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDING DENIAL FOR .A USE PERMIT FOR A NEW SIX-UNIT SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AT 1601 S. DE ANZA BLVD. SECTION I: FINDINGS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for a Use Permit, as described in Section II of this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given in accordance with the Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held one or more public hearings on this matter; and WHEREAS, the applicant has not met the burden of proof required to support said application; and has not satisfied the following requirements: 1. The proposal, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience, in that the proposed residential land use is incompatible with the surrounding commercial office, daycare and building materials retailer land uses from a noise and pedestrian circulation standpoint and is likely to inhibit the ability of the commercial businesses to operate and thrive at their locations; 2. The proposal is consistent with the purposes.of this chapter and the General Plan. The residential Iand use is isolated from other residential Iand uses and Iacks any type of connectivity with residential serving land uses, such as, parks and schools. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, the application for Use Permit is denied; and That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this resolution are based ,and contained in the public hearing record concerning Application No. U-2007-02 as set forth in.the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of January 22, 2008 and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. 14-5 Resolution No. 6505 U-2007-02 .January 22, 2008 Page 2 SECTION II: PROTECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: U-2007-02 Applicant: Metropolitan Planning Group Property Owner: Dollinger-De Anza Associates Location: 1601 S. De Anna Blvd PASSED AND DENIED this 22ND day of January 2008, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Chairperson Miller, Vice Chair Giefer, Kaneda NOES: COMMISSIONERS: none ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: none ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Rose ATTEST: APPROVED: /s/Steve Piasecki Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development / s /Marty Miller Marty Miller, Chair Cupertino Planning Commission G; ~ Planning ~ PDREPORT~ RES ~ 2007 ~ LI-2007-02 denial.dac 14-6 ASA-2007-04 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. b506 (DENIAL) OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF AN ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE APPROVAL FOR A NEW SDC-UNIT SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AT 1601 S. DE ANZA BLVD. SECTION I: FINDINGS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for an Architecture and Site Approval, as described in Section II of this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given in accordance with the Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held one or more public hearings on this matter; and WHEREAS, the applicant has not met the burden of proof required to support said application; and has not satisfied the following requirements: 1. The proposal, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience, in that the proposed residential land use is incompatible with the surrounding commercial office, daycare and building materials retailer land uses from- a noise and pedestrian circulation standpoint and is likely to inhibit the ability of the commercial businesses to operate and thrive at their locations; 2. The proposal is consistent with the purposes of this chapter and the General Plan. The residential Land use is isolated from other residential land uses and lacks any type of connectivity with residential serving Land uses, such as, parks and schools. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, the application for Architectural and Site Approval is hereby recommended for denial; and That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this resolution are based and contained in the public hearing record concerning Application No. ASA-2007-04 as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of January 22, 2008, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth hexein. 14-7 Resolution No. 6506 ASA-2007-04 January 22, 2008 Page 2 SECTION II: PROTECT DESCRIl'TION Application No.: ASA-2007-04 Applicant: Metropolitan Planning Group Location: 1601 S De Anza Blvd PASSED AND DENIED this 22nd day of January 2008, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Chairperson Miller, Vice Chair Giefer, Kaneda NOES: COMMISSIONERS: none ABSTAIN:. COMMISSIONERS: none ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Rose ATTEST: /s/Steve Piasecki Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development G; ~ Planning ~ PDREPORT~ RES ~ 20071ASA-2007-04 denial.doc APPROVED: /s/ Marty Miller Marty Miller,Chairperson Planning Commission 14-8 TR-2007-09 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION N0.6508 (DENIAL) OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENING DENIAL OF A REQUEST TO REMOVE AND REPLACE APPROXIMATELY 23 TREES AT 1601 S DE ANZA BLVD SECTION I: PROTECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: TR-2007-09 (EA-2007-03) Applicant: Metropolitan Planning Group. Location: 1601 S De Anna Blvd SECTION II: FINDINGS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application to remove and replace approximately 23 trees as part of the residential redevelopment, as described in this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the applicant intends to remove about 23 protected trees as part of a development proposal, but has not formally proposed a replacement plan; and WI~REAS, the tree removal application is part of a larger project that includes a use permit, architectural and site approval and tentative map that would allow a residential development in a commercial area that the Commission has judged to be incompatible with the surrounding commercial uses and has therefore recommended denial of the development applications. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, application for Tree Removal is hereby recommended for denial; and That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this Resolution are based -and contained in the Public Hearing record concerning Application TR-2007-09, as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of January 22, 2008 are incorporated by reference herein. 14-9 Resolution No. b508 TR-2007-09 Page 2 January 22, 2008 PASSED AND DENIED this 22nd day of January 2008, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino by the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Chairperson Miller, Vice-Chair Giefer, Kaneda NOES: COMMISSIONERS: none ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: none ABSENT:' COMMISSIONERS: Rose ATTEST: js/ Steve Piasecki Steve Piaseclci Director of Community Development G:~Planning~PDREPOR71RBS120071TR-2007-09 denial.doc APPROVED: js/ Martty Miller Marty Miller, Chair Cupertino Planning Commission G: ~ Planning ~ PDREPORT~ RES ~ 2007 TR-2007-09 denial res.doc 14 - 10 TM-2(}07-05 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESC7LUTION N0.6507 (DENIAL) OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF A TENTATIVE MAP FORA NEW SIX-UNIT SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, AT 1601 S DE ANZA BLVD SECTION I: FINDINGS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for a Tentative Subdivision Map, as described in Section II of this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given in accordance with the Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held one or more public hearings on this matter; and WHEREAS, the applicant has not met the burden of proof required to support said application; and has not satisfied the following requirements: 1) That the proposed subdivision map is consistent with the City of Cupertino General Plan. The residential land use is isolated from other residential Land uses and lacks any type of connectivity from the development to the public street and Lacks connectivity to residential serving land uses, such as, parks and schools. 2) That the site is physically suitable for the type and intensity of development contemplated under the approved subdivision. The proposed residential land use is incompatible with the surrounding commercial office, daycare and building materials retailer land uses from a noise and pedestrian circulation standpoint and is likely to inhibit the ability of the commercial businesses to operate .and thrive at their locations. The intensity of development is not suitable as it endangers trees the City is trying to protect from disturbance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, the application for Tentative Subdivision Map is hereby denied. That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this resolution are based and contained in the public hearing record concerning Application Nv. TM-2007-05 as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of 14 - 11 Resolution 1Vo. 6507 TM-2007-05 January 22, 2008 Page 2 January 22, 2008, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. SECTION II: PROTECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: TM-2007-05 Applicant: Metropolitan Planning Group Location: 1601 S De Anza Blvd PASSED AND DENIED this 22nd day of January 200$, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Chairperson Miller, Vice Chair Giefer, Kaneda NOES: COMMISSIONERS: none ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: none ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Rose ATTEST: /s/Steve Piasecki Steve Piasecki, Director Community Development •Department APPROVED: / s/ Marty Miller Marty Miller,. Chair Planning Commission G:1PlanninglPDREPORT~RES~200'7~TM-2007-05 denial.doc 14 - 12 Exhibit A ~ 1 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM Application: U-2007-02, ASA-2007-04, TM-2007-05, Agenda Date: January 22, 2008 TR-2007-09, EA-2007-03 Applicant (s): Judie Gilli, Metropolitan Planning Group Owner: Dollinger-De Anza Associates Property Location 1601 S. De Anna Boulevard APPLICATION SUMMARY: Use Permit, Architectural and Site Approval, Tentative Map & Tree Removal applications to: • Demolish an existing vacant parking lot. • Develop six, small-lot single-family detached residences with 2-car garages and 4 bedrooms each, and common open space area. • Subdivide the property into six residential lots and two common area Lots for the driveway and private open space. • Remove up to 23 trees that were part of an approved landscaping plan. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Tlanning Commission discuss the application and continue it for one month to allow the applicant additional time to resolve certain development issues and present more complete plans and documentalaon related to recent site design revisions. Chief among the concerns is the protection of the westerly landscape strip of redwoods and oaks where the housing footprints encroach on areas that are recommended by the City Arborist to not•be disturbed. Project Data: General Plan Designation: Zoning Designation: Acreage (Net): Acreage (Gross): Project Density: F.A.R. (sitewide): Height: Stories: Parking. Required Parking Proposed Parking • Dedicated Spaces • Shared Spaces Project Consistency with: Environmental Assessment: Commercial/Residential P (Com, Res 5-15) Planned Development (Commercial and Residential, 5-15 dwellings per gross acre) 0.991. acre 1.012 acres (44,068 square feet) 5.93 du/ gr. ac. ~ {Max. is 15 du/ gr. ac.) F.A.R. 60.37°~- 27 feet (Max. is 30 feet) 2 stories 17-36 parking spaces total (see Discussion) 39 24 (2 garage/2 driveway per unit} . 15 (shared with office building} General Plan: Yes Zoning: Yes Mitigated Negative Declaration 14 - 13 Use Permit, ASA, Tentat~ Je Map, Tree Removal for 1601 S. De rinza Blvd. U-2007-02, ASA-2007-04, TM-2007-05, TR-2007-09 January 22, 2008 Pa eg 2 of 8 BACKGROUND: SITE DESCRIPTION: This project is Located on a surface parking lot developed as part of a 2-story office building in 1984. The property, shaped like a flag lot has its access off South De Anza Boulevard via a223-feet long, 30-foot wide driveway: The property is surrounded by a variety of land use types: to the west are single-family detached xesidences on 6,000 square-foot lots; to the north is the outdoor display and storage area and a portion of the building for Granite Rock, a retailer of rock products for home and yard improvements, {the site was formerly Minton's Lumber); to the west is the outdoor playground for Kindercare, a day care center; and south is the parking lot for the aforementioned office building. The site is separated from the surrounding lands uses by walls and a fence: an 8-foot tall masonry wall to the west; a b-foot tall masonry wall to the north and a 6-foot tall tubular steel fence to the east. 14 - 14 Use Permit, ASA, Tentative Map, Tree Removal for 1601 S. De Ginza Blvd. U-2007-02, ASA-2007-04, TM-2007-05, TR-2007-09 January 22, 2008 Page 3 of 8 PROJECT DESCRII'TTON: The project consists of a cluster of small-lot, 2-story, single-family detached residences double-fronting an L-shaped 25-foot driveway aisle that widens to 30 feet before it accesses southbound De Anza Boulevard. Parking lot improvements will be modified and property lines adjusted to accommodate: • a 5,138 square foot private open space area at the front of the project; . • driveway connection to the commercial parking lot to facilitate emergency vehicle and garbage truck turnarounds;. • 15 surface parking stalls that front on the access driveway and are proposed to be shared with the office building. The proposed houses are identical in size with the following lot by lot data: House {SF) Garage (SF) Total (SF) Net Lot Area Floor Area Ratio Lot 1 2,553 438 2,991 3,677 81.3% Lot 2 2,553 438 2,991 3,786 79.0°~ Lot 3 2,553 438 2,991 4,211 71.0% Lot 4 2,553 438 2,991 4,860 61.5% Lot 5 2,553 438 2,991 4,007 74.6% Lot 6 2,553 438 2,991 4,047 73.9°~ Common Lot O en S ace 5,138 Total 17,946 29,726 60.4°~ sitewide Note that the common driveway area was excluded from the floor area ratio calculation as is traditionally done and the common private open space lot was added to calculate the sitewide FAR. DISCUSSION: . PARKING: There are currently 372 parking stalls o_ n the whole office property. The 81,000 square foot office building needs 285 spaces and the residential subdivision improvements reduces the office parking supply to 275 spaces. The deficit of ± 10 parking stalls can be made up through restripping of a portion of the parking lot with unisize stalls. AlI non-handicapped stalls are currently full size. 14 - 15 Use Permit, ASA, Tentaie Map, Tree Removal for 1601 S. De r~nza Blvd. U-2007-02, ASA-2007-04, TM-2007-05, TR-2007-09 January 22, 2008 Page 4 of 8 Current Parkin Inventor 372. stalls Number of Stalls Removed by Project & other Im rovements 97 stalls Net Office Parkin Invento 275 stalls Parking Code Regt. For 81,000 sq. ft. off. Bld . 285 stalls Net Office Parking Deficit to be filled throu h lot restri in -10 stalls SUBDIVVISION LOT LINES: Even though the City recorded a merger of the office-use lots in 1984, property title documents still show seven individual Lots for this cohesive office development (See sheet A-0 of the plan set). The tentative map approval is conditioned with the requirement for the applicant to research this inconsistency and eliminate these office lot lines if necessary through a separate lot line adjustment application. In addition, the private open space lot (Lot #7 on the tentative map} is proposed to be widen to 5,138 square feet through anothex required lot Line adjustment. SUBDIVISION EASEMENTS: The proposed project and the existing, abutting uses will share circulation aspects, parking and potentially storm drainage among the office development, residential subdivision and day care center. The tentative map approval should be conditioned to require the recordation of mutual ingress/egress easements for all three uses; a shared parking easement for the 15 parking stalls proposed to be shared between the office and the residential subdivision; and potential storm drainage easements for storm flows that may crisscross property Lines. Recorded covenants are already in place to ensure the participation of all affected property owners. Standard ingress/egress and utility easements should be recorded on the common driveway. A private open space easement should also be recorded on common lot #7 to preclude a potential future conversion to residential use. Conditions will be incorporated in the resolutions. STREET IMPROVEMENTS: The South De Anza Boulevard Conceptual Zoning Plan requires a separated sidewalk/landscaped park strip along S. De Anza Boulevard. The tentative map has been conditioned to require the straightening of about 10-feet of public sidewalk abutting the driveway along S. De Anna Blvd. SITE- DESIGN, ARCHITECTURE AND SETBACKS: The residential development is typical of other small lot single-family developments in Cupertino, in that it has smaller than average size lots with house sizes proportionally 14 - 16 Use Permit, ASA, Tentat~ Je Map, Tree Removal for 1601 S. De r~nza Blvd. U-2007-02, ASA-2007-04, TM-2007-05, TR-2007-09 January 22, 200$ Page 5 of 8 lazger than a conventional neighborhood. Lot widths of 55+ feet mimic 'an R-1 development but with reduced-size front yards and back yards. The lack of private yard area is somewhat compensated for with a common private open space lot that reduces the overall floor-to-area ratio to 60.4%. Three residential design styles are proposed with the frontage architectural detailing, materials and varied roof planes helping to reduce the boxiness of the floor plan. Additional design work is needed, particularly wall articulation to the sides and rears. A material and color board will be available at the hearing. The subdivision is visually detached from the surrounding uses and the street. Tlie applicant had proposed some stand-alone architectural features along the main driveway on the office parcel to visually connect the residences with the street and the abutting buildings, but that work is not reflected in the plan set. Those architectural details should be presented to the Commission at a future hearing. TREES An azborist report was prepared by City Arborist, David Babby, to identify existing trees in proximity to the development, to recommend replacement trees to mitigate those that would be removed, and provide protection measures for trees being retained (Exhibit A). The City Arborist identified 59 trees of five different species in the immediate vicinity of the project. Twenty-three of them are proposed for removal and include: 5 Coast Live Oak trees, measuring 9.5 to 22.5" in diameter 2 Silver Dollar Gums, 17.5 -19" in diameter 7 London Plane Trees, 6.5 - 9" in diameter 9 Coastal Redwood trees, 9 -17.5" in diameter No. Tree Species Size Diameter Status Reasons Tree Value 115 Coast Live Oak 9.5" Remove In drivewa area $1,350 116 Coast Live Oak 15.5 Remove Too close to driveway to save not de icted $3,470 117 Silver-Dollar Gum 17.5 Remove ]n drivewa azea $1,500 153 London Plane Tree 6.5 Remove In house foo rint $ 330 154 London Plane Tree 7 Remove In house foo rint $ 380 155. London Plane Tree 9.5 Remove In house foo Tint $ 670 156 Coast Redwood 17.5 Remove Iri house foo Tint $3;180 160 Coast Redwood 12.5 Remove Tn house foo rint $1,650 162 Coast Redwood 10.5 Remove In house foo rint $1,180 165 Coast Redwood 9 Remove In house foo rint ~ $ 890 14 - 17 Use Permit, ASA, Tentative Map, Tree Removal for 1601 S. De tnza Blvd. U-2007-02, ASA-2007-04, TM-2007-05, TR-2007-09 January 22, 2008 Pale 6 of 8 No. Tree Species Diameter Status Reasons Tree Value 167 Coast Redwood 10 Remove In house foo Tint $1,080 168 Coast Redwood 14 Remove In house foo tint $2,060 170 Coast Redwood 9.5 Remove In house foo tint $ 980 174 Coast Redwood 13.5 Remove Too close to house foo tint $1,920 177 Coast Redwood 13 Remove In house foo tint $1,780 178 Coast Live Oak 11 Remove In house foo tint $1,120 179 Coast Live Oak 22.5 Remove Too close to house foo Tint $9,100 180 Coast Live Oak 15 Remove Too close to house foo tint $2,670 140 London Plane Tree 7 Remove In drivewa area $ 380 189 London Plane Tree 8.5 Remove Too close to drivewa $540 190 Silver-Dollar Gum 19 Remove In drivewa area $1,760 No # London Plane Tree TBD Remove In driveway area near o en s ace ? No # London Plane Tree TBD Remove In driveway area near o en s ace ? The City Arborist recognized the importance of the westerly strip of trees and concluded that since they were planted and grown together, the loss of one or more will expose the other trees to potential uprooting. Trees growing in relatively close proximity have intertwined root systems and become negatively affected when an interdependent tree is Iost. Both rows of trees must be protected to protect them all. The City Arborist concludes that there should be no soil disturbance west of the existing curb for Lots 4, 5 and 6. The plans depict the housing footprints in this area, which will negatively affect the tree roots and cause the canopy of the trees to be limbed up to make room for the house walls. The houses need to be reduced in size to create more setback area. Tree protection covenants should also be recorded for -these lots. Given the density of the tree cover in the rear of .these three lots, the physical usability of the rear yard areas is limited, so reducing the house size and setting them back further will provide larger rear yards. ' If a sound wall is required for the easterly property line next to Kindercare, a pier foundation will be needed to protect the trees on the Kindercare property. Noisy: A noise report was prepared by Edward L. Pack Associates, Inc. dated 4/23/07 (Exhibit B). The major sources of noise in this area are the operations of Kindercare and Granite Rock, which would affect pxxmarily the upper stories of the houses on Lots #3 and #4. According to the consultant, the primary source of noise from Kindercare is the children 14 - 18 Use Permit, ASA, Tentative Map, Tree Removal for 1601 S. De~1-~nza Blvd. U-2007-02, ASA-2007-04, TM-2007-05, TR-2007-09 January 22, 2008 Page 7 of 8_ __._.. at play. Presently the daycare is fully enrolled at 132 preschool children and half of the enrollment is released for play time from 9:15 -1:15 p.m. and from 3:15 - 5:00 p.m. The primary noise source from Granite Rock is the operation of the forklifts used to shuttle rock, stone and masonry construction materials from the outdoor storage yard to customer cars and trucks. Staff assumes the operation is equally as noisy when the rock is brought into the yard or when it is shuffled in the yard. The consultant determined that the measured inside and outside noise levels at the second story of the most impacted residences (Lots #3 and #4) were marginally higher (1dB) than the City standards of 60 dB CNEL for exterior noise and 45 dB CNEL for interior noise. No mitigation was proposed for outdoor noise and the consultant recommended to lower the projected interior noise level by keeping the windows shut and providing some mechanical ventilation for the second story areas. The applicant and city staff have proposed additional noise mitigation. The applicant has widened the side yard abutting Granite Rock from 5' to 11.9' and 16.9' and minimized the 2nd floor window openings facing Granite Rock. Staff is recommending. that masonry walls facing ICindercare and Granite Rock be added or built up to 8 feet tall. This is a standard city improvement requirement when residential uses abut commercial uses. The existing Granite Rock wall is just 6 feet tall and there is no wall facing Kindercare. The Environmental Review Committee recommended that a 8-foot wall requirement facing Kindercare be voided in favor of a 6-foot tall wooden fence. Either option would be acceptable from a noise standpoint; however, staff believes alonger-term view of the situation should be considered. Kindercare is a building tenant and if it ever vacates the site, the rear yard would revert back to a commercial parking lot and would have attendant noise and light impacts on any residential development without the benefit of a buffering wall. Staff is also recommending that if the subdivision is approved, that noise notification covenants be recorded on each for-sale lot, notifying potential buyers of the nature of the noise environment. NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING: The applicants held a neighborhood meeting. Surrounding property owners and the building tenants, ICindercare Learning Center and Granite Rock, were notified of the meeting. In general, Jamestown Drive neighbors abutting the project site were concerned about the preservation of the existing landscaping strip of Coastal Redwood and Coast Live Oak trees that separates their properties from the parking lot. 14-19 Use Permit, ASA, Tenta~ ~e Map, Tree Removal for 1601 S. De r~nza Blvd. U-2007-02, ASA-2007-04, TM-2007-05, TR-2007-09 January 22, 2008 Page 8 of 8 Granite Rock and its building/property owner felt the residential subdivision was an incompatible Land use with ,their business activities and the surrounding commercial properties and there was no mitigation available to lessen that incompatibility. Correspondence from some of the neighbors was received and is_attached (Exhibit C). ENCLOSURES: Initial Study, ERC Minutes, ERC Recommendation Exhibit A: City Arborist report by April 9, 2007 Exhibit B: Noise Report prepared by Edward L. Pack Associates dated April 23, 2007 Exhibit C: Neighborhood letters and emaiIs Plan Set Submitted by: Colin Jung, Senior Planner Approved by: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Developmext~;~r.~-_ 14-20 File No. -26b --~ ase File No. .a2 -2oc~ b~ TR-2oo~ PROJECT DESCRIPTION: ttachments TM 2~~ Project Title: • ~h~~ i +raP_.,c-' 'QCo r•'~e.G ~p ~y 4- `o.~ ~t~1o~o~l~~t~OY\ Project location: 16b~ S,~vTh ~2., ~n~ ~~+d. Project Descrip#ior~: rc ~ ~ S ~ yN~ /~ y'~b~~,~~Isy~- .- ,/~ ' 1 r, 0.n ~ry1~.f 1 r 0. a.w .- `w r. -.~ Tr4O , ~~HnM~ 1~~aP_.b ~ PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Site Area (ac.) - wilding Cov rage - % Exist. Building - O s.f. Propo ed Bldg. - s.f. Zone - Len, _l$ G.P. Designation - Cemnp~4a~~esu Assessor's Parcel No. - ~_- l h - If Residential, UnitslGross Acre - ~~ ~ .~t58 = 6 ~ 2t~ ~u ~ G~• AG . Total# RentallOwn 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 Anna Conceptual ^ N. De Anza Conceptual ,~ S. Sari-Sunny Conceptual ^ Stevens Crk. Blvd. Conceptual ^ Stevens Creek Blvd. SW & Landscape If Non-Residential, Building Area - 1d 11!3 s.f. FAR - Max. Employees-Shtft - Parking Required ~! 7 Parking Provided .,~_ Project Site is Within Cupertino Urban Service Area - YES ~ NO ^ 14-21 City of Cupertino .~ 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3251 ('1 iPFRTII\1!l FAX (408) 777-3333 L.-..L~~.-..-w ~iw~ Cwiiiww. . -I ` I J; ' 1 ~' I~ I -. A. CUPERTINO GENERAL PLAN SOURCES D. OUTSIDE AGENCIES (Continued) 1. Land Use Element 26. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 2. Public Safety Element 27. County Parks and Recreation Department 3. Housing Element 28. Cupertinro Sanitary District . 4. Transportation Element 29. Fremont Unan High School District 5. Environmental Resources 30. Cupertino Union School District 6. Appendix A-Hillside Devebpment 31. Paclfic Gas and Electric 7. Land Use Map 32. Santa Clara County Fire Department 8. Noise Element Amendment 33. County Sheriff 9. City Ridgeline Policy 34. CALTRANS 10. Constraint Maps 35. County Transportation Agency 36. Santa Clara Valley Water District B. :CUPERTINO SOURCE DOCUMENTS E, OUTSIDE AGENCY DOCUMENTS 11. Tree Preservation ordinance 778 12. City Aerlat Photography Maps 37. i3AAQMD Sunray of Contaminant 13..°Cupertino Chronicle" (Califonva History Excesses Center, 1976) 38. FEMA Flood Maps/SCVWD Flood Maps 14. Geological Report {site specific) 38. USDA, "Soils of Santa Ctara County" 15. Parking Ordinance 1277 40. County Hazardous Waste Management 16. Zoning Map Plan 17. i?bning Code/Specific Plan Documents. 41. County Heritage Resources Inventory 18. City Noise Ordinance 42. Santa Clara Valley Water District FueE Leak Site C. .C[TY AGENCIES Site ' ' 43. CaIEPA Hazardous Waste and 19: Community Development Dept. List Substances Site 2(?. Public Works Dept F. OTHER SOURCES 21. Parks & Recreation. Department lication Materials 22. Cupertlno Water Utility A4. Project Plan Set/App 4S. Fleld Reconnaissance D. OUTSIDE AGENCIES 46. Experience wlproject of similar 23. County Planning Department scope/characteristics 24. Adjacent Cities' Planning Departmerrts 47. ABAG Projection Series 25. County Departmental of Environmental _ Health A. Complete all information requested on the Initial Study Cover page. LEAVE BLANK SPACES ONLY WHEN A SPECIFIC ITEM IS NOT APPLICABLE. B. Consult the Initial Study Source List; use the materials listed therein to complete, the checklist• information in Categories A through O. C. You are encouraged to cite other relevant sources; if such sources are used, job in their titie{s) in the °Source" column next to the question to which they relate. D. tf 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 merited (when applicable) 14-22 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: ~ ~ ISSUES: [and Supporting Information Sources] ~ ~ ~~ ~ H ~~~ o a~ 3 m a ~ J H~ ~ .= a ~ E o z a E a rn ~ N y I. AESTHETICS --Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a ^ ~ .^ ^ 0 scenic vista? [5,9,24,41,44] b) Substantially damage scenic resources, ^ ^ ^ ~ including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? (5,9,11,24,34,41,44] c} Substantially degrade the exisflng visual ^ ^ ^ character or quality of the site and its ~ f_. ' surroundings? [1,17,19,44] d) Create a new source of substantial fight or ^ ^ ^ ~ glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? [1,16,44] - II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: !n 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 1 optional mode! 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 Califomia 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 #o their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? [5,7,39] 14-23 ~~v co .cam=~~ s~'~ v ISSUES: [and Supporting Information Sources] .~ ~„ R «~ o rn ~ F- ~ = ~ o w~~~O m m = ~- ~ ~a ~_~ ~ a~ _ o ~ z~ acn o ~y ~ c ~y III. AIR QUALITY -Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a} Conflict with or obstruct implementation of ^ ^ ^ ~ the applicable air quality plan? [5,37,42,44] b) Violate any air quality standard or ^ ^ ^ 0 contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? [5,37,42,44) , c) Result in a cumulatively considerable ne# ^ ^ ^ ~ ~~ 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} F~cpose sensitive receptors to substantial ^ ^ ^ ~ . fa pollutant concentrations? [4,37,44] ~ ~f e) Create objectionable odors affecting a ~ ^ ^ ^ ~^ • substantial number of people? [4,37,44] ~` IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -Would - the project: ' ~' ' ~ • a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either ^ ^ ^ fa directly or through habitat modifications, on • any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special stains speces in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? [5,10,27,44] . b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any ^ ^ ^ ~ riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional 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 includin ,but not limited to, marsh, vernal 14-24 !0 ~ ~ ~~~ ~ o L ~.~ w ` H~_,~o w• ~ ~ v F-c~o z ISSUES: [and Supporting Information Sources] m = c e~ E y ~ 3 ~ e- ~ v~ = ~ . ~+ 'c m m ~ Q- E aN -~W ~ c ~y pool, coastal, etc.) #hrough direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? [20,36,44] d) Interfere substantially with the movement ^ ^ ^ ~ of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? [5,10,12,21,26] e) Conflict with any local policies or ^ ~ ~ ^ - ^ ordinances protecting biological resources, • such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? [11,12,41] " f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted ' • Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural ^ ^ ~ ^ ~ 0 Community Conservation Plan, or other - ~ • • approved local, regional, or state habitat _ • conservation plan? [5,10,26,27] V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -Would the - - project: • • a) Cause a Substantial adverse change in ^ ^ ^ .~® the significance of a historical resource as defned in §95064.5? [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 ^ ^ ^ ~ paleontological resource or site or unique • geologic feature? [5,13,41] d) Disturb any human remains, including O ^ ^ 0 those interred outside of fomlal cemeteries? [1,51 VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involv[ng: i} Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as ^ ^ ^ ~ delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zanin Map issued by the 14-25 ~+~~ ~ =o .cam °~ r~~ ~ ISSUES: [and Supporting Information Sources] ~ ~ ~ a y ~ ~ ~~' m o. J N 3 ~ ~ ~ o. ~ z c. ~ c J ~ State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Speaal Publication 42. [2,14,44] ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ^ ^ ^ ~ [2,5,10,44] iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including O ^ ^ Rt liquefaction? [2,5,10,39,44] iv) Landslides? [2,5,10,39,44] ^ ^ ^ ~ b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the ^ ^ ^ R1 foss of topsoil? [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? [2,5,10,39] d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined ^ D ^ ~ : ~ fa in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code . (1997), creating substantial risks to life or propel [2.5,10] e} Have soils incapable of adequately ^ ^ ^ ~~ (~. supporting the use of septic tanks or ~ . alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are nofi available for the disposal of waste water? [6;9,36,39] VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS --Would the project: . a) Create a significant hazard to the public or O ^ ^ 0 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 ^ ^ ^ jd 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 14-26 ~+ ~ ~ V~ ~ ~ C „~ ~ ~ = V ~ C ++ t v V ~! ISSUES: ~ ~ `~ m E + L H ~ ~ m Q- m 3~ H ~ Q- E z° ~ E [and Supporting information Sources] o m ~ ~ m~ am -~cn c .uw of an existing or proposed school? [2,29,30,40,44] d) Be located on a site which is included on a ^ ^ ^ ID 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? j2,42,40,43] 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 residing or working in the project area? [ ] f) For a project within the vicinity of a private ^ ^ ^ = ~ ~ airstrip, would the project result in a safety ' hazard for people residing or working in the t project area? { ] g) Impair implementation of or physically O ^ ^ m interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation ~ plan? [2,32,33,44] . h) Expose people or structures to a ^ ^ ^ 1~ 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] VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY -- Woufd the project: a}Violate any water quality standards or ^ ^ ^ ~ waste discharge requirements? [20,36,37] b) Substantially deplete groundwater ^ ^ ^ supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a 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}? j20,36,42] 14-27 ~ ~ ~ V ~ c ~ ~ i=0 O o ~ t3 ~T+ L ~ ~ eco ++ .c v ~ ++ V ISSUES: S ~ ~ ~ c ~ ~ ~ ~ = ~ ~ ~ 3 . ~ _ ~ E z ~ E ources] [and Supporting Information ~ ~ ~ ~ m m . dN N c Jtn c) Substantially alter the existing drainage ^ ^ ^ ~ pattem 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 al#er the exis#ing drainage O ^ ^ ~ pattem 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 resul# in flooding on- or off-site (20,36,38] e) Create or contribute runoff water which ^ ^ ^ •. m would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stomiwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? [20,36,42] f) Otherwise substantially degrade water ^ ^ ^ ~ quality? [20,36,37] g} Place housing within a 100-year flood ~ ~ ^ ^ ^ ~ hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? [2,38j - h} Place within a 700-year flood Hazard area ^ ^ ^ '' s#ructures which would impede or redirect flood flows? [2,38] i) Expose people or structures to a significant D ^ O 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 ^ ^ ^ T~ mudflow? [2,36,38] IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project: a) Physiglly divide an established ^ ^ ^ ~ community? [7,12,22,41 ] b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, ^ O ^ ~ policy, or r ulation of an agency with ~a-za ~+ O v R t4 O C *, t! O ~ ~ C = V ~+ . ISSUES: S ++ c ~ c~ E O H ^ a ~ ~ ~ ~. m~ 3= R H ~ Q- ~~ 0 0 z a E ources]. [and Supporting Information ~ ~ ~ d m 4. a~ c N - -~ y jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? [1,7,8,16,17,18,44] c) Conflict with any applicable habitat ^ ^ ^ ~ conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? [1,5,6,9,26] X. MINERAL RESOURCES --Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known ^ ^ ^ ~ ~ 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 ^ ^ ^ m locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? [5,10] XI. NOISE --Would the project result in: a) F~osure of persons to, or generation of, ^ PJ ^ ^ 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)1=xposure of persons to or generation of ^ ~ ^ ^ ~ excessive groundbome vibration or groundbome noise levels? [8,18,44] c) A substantial permanent increase in ^ ^ © ~l ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? [$, 3 8] 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 ^ ^ ^ ~ 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 peo le residin or workin in the 14-29 ?'cam :~ ~ r c -° ~ c ~ H~' o •+ ~ ~~, a H ~.. ~ ISSUES: [and Supporting Irrf`ormation Sources] ~ -.e a ~ m c c rn~ ~ a H ~ '- ~ ~ 3 ~- ~ m m = ~ ~ a- H 'c m~ E o z Q- ~ a as -~ vs ~ _ ~ us project area to excessive noise levels? [8.18~~] f} For a project within the vicinity of a private ^ ^ ^ ~ airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? [8,18] XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING -Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an ^ ^ ^ Td area, ei#her directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses} or indirectly (far example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? [3,16,47,44] b} Displace substantial numbers of existing ^ ^ ^ fa housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? [3,16,44] c) Displace substantial numbers of people, O ^ O ~ necessitating the construcfion of ~ - replacement housing elsewhere? [3,16,44] Xill. PUBLIC SERVICES a)-Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the - . provision of new or physically altered r governmental faalities, need far 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 perfom~ance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? [19,32,44] ^ ^ ^ ~ Police protection? [33,44] ^ ^ ^ ^ Schools? [29,30,44] ^ ^ 0 ^ Parks? [5,17,19,21,26,27,44] ^ ^ ^ 0 Other public facili#ies? [19,20,44] ^ ^ ^ Rl XN. RECREATION -- a) Would the project increase the use of ^ ^ ^ ~ existin nei hbofiood and re Tonal parks or 14-30 ~ v v c -° «~ y s ;, ~ c :.' Z V v V ISSUES: c ~ `° E ~ ~ = m c. 3 ~ ~ a E Z o.. E [and Supporting Information Sources] a N ~ y ~ c ~ y other recreational faclities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be atxelerated? . [5,17,19,21,26,27,44] b) Does the project include recreational ^ ^ ^ ~ facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which • might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? [5,44] XV. TRANSPORTATIONITRAFFIC - Would the project: 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)? [4,20,35,44] b) f=xceed, either individually or cumulatively, ^ ^ ^ ~ a level of service standard established by the E' ~ . 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 tha# results in • - ~ ' substantial safety risks? [4,?] ~ - d) Substantially increase hazards due to a - ^. ^ ^ - ' 1~ design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? [20,35,44] e) Result in inadequate emergency access? ^ ^ ^ ^ [2,19,32,33,44] f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? ^ ^ ^ ~ [17,1 g) Conflict with adopted polices, plans, or ^ ^ ^ ~ programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks}? [4,34] XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS - Would the project: 14-31 g +~ H O ro H R ISSUES: [and Supporting information Sources] +~ e o me c m ~ ~~ ~ a~3ma m m = ~ ~ ycQ- m o~ ~ p z~ ~ a vs --~ rn ~ c ~ N a) Exceed wastewater treatment ^ ^ ^ 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 environmental effects? [36,22,28,36) c) Require or result in the construction of ~ ^ ^ ^ ~' new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? [5,22,28,36,44] e) Result in a determination by the ^ ^ ^ ~ ~ wastewater treatment provider which serves - or may serve the project that it has adequate - capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? [5,22,28,36,44] f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient ^ ^ ^ ; ~ ~ ~ permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? [?] g) Comply with federal, state, and local ^ C3 ^ la' statutes and regulations related to solid .. waste? [?] 14-32 a} Does the project have the potential to ^ Q ^ 1a degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? ~ b) Does the project have impacts that are ^ ^ ^ ~ individually limited, but cumulatively • considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects}? c) Does the project have environmental ^ ^ ^ J~ effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? p [ 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. l hereby acknowledge than any substantial errors dated. within this Initial Study may cause delay or discontinuance of related project review procedures, and hereby agree to hold harmless the City of Cupertino, its staff and authorized agents, from the consequences of such delay or discontinuance. ~~ - Preparer's Signature ~-~~ Print Preparer's Name Co~~~ 14-33 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at {east one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the chedklist on the following pages. O Aesthetics ^ Agriculture Resources O Air Quality $( Biological Resources D Cultural Resources ^ Geology /Soils ^ Hazards & Hazardous Materials ^ Hydrology /Water Quality ^ Land Use /Planning ^ Mineral Resources ~ Noise ^ Population /Housing ^ Public Services ^ Recreation ^ Transportation/Traffic ^ Utilities /Service Systems ~ ^ Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation the Environmental Review Committee (ERC}finds that: ^ The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. )gl, 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. D 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. O 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, incuding revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. ~l~ ~ Staff Eva ER airperson ~~l~b~ Dat~- ~ ~ Z (~ 7 Date 14-34 Environmental Assessment Notes (EA-2007-03) for File Nos. U-2007-02, ASA-2007-04, T'1VI-2007-05, TR-2007-9 Dollinger Properties Residential Subdivision Noise: See Noise Report prepared by Edward L. Pack Associates dated 4230 City exterior noise standard is 60dB CNEL and 45 dB CNEL for interior noise. Existing and future noise of the second floors of the most impacted residences (lots #3 and #4) is 61 dB CNEL outside and 46 dB CNEL from Granite Rock. Existing and future noise from Kindercare on the most impacted yards does not exceed City noise standard. Consultant recommends as mitigation that second story windows within 25 feet of Granite Rock be closed at all times and provide mechanical ventilation for. those interior spaces affected. Staff is further recommending that the homes be redesigned to limit window openings facing Granite Rock (Lots 3 & 4), that 8-foot tall sound walls be added to the Granite Rock and Kindercare property sides, and covenants be recorded, notifying future buyers of the noise environment. Trees: (See Arborist Report prepared by David Babby, Arbor Resources dated 4 9 0 The report identified existing trees in proximity to the development, recommended replacement trees to mitigate those that would be removed, and provide protection measures for trees being retained. The City Arborist identified 59 trees of five different species in the immediate vicinity of the project. Twenty-three of them are proposed for removal and include: 5 Coast Live Oak trees, measuring 9.5 to 22.5" in diameter 2 Silver Dollar Gums, 17.5 -19" in diameter 7 London Plane Trees, 6.5 - 9" in diameter 9 Coastal Redwood trees, 9 -17.5" in diameter No. Tree Species Status Reasons Tree Value Dia eter 115 Coast Live Oak 9.5" Remove In drivewa area $1,350 116 Coast Live Oak 15.5 Remove Too close to driveway to $3,470 save not de icted 14=35 No. Tree S ecies P Size Diameter Status Reasons Tree Value 117 Silver-Dollar Gum 17.5. Remove In drivewa area $1,500 153 London Plane Tree 6.5 Remove In house foo rint $ 330 154 London Plane Tree 7 Remove In house foo rint $ 380 155 London Plane Tree 9.5 Remove Tn house foo rint $ 670 15b Coast Redwood 17.5 Remove In house foo rint $3,180 160 Coast Redwood 12.5 Remove In house foo Tint $1,650 162 Coast Redwood 10.5 Remove In house foo rint $1,180 165 Coast Redwood 9 Remove Tn house foo rint $ 890 167 Coast Redwood 10 Remove In house foo rint $1,080 168 Coast Redwood 14 Remove In house foo rint $2,060 170 Coast Redwood 9.5 Remove In house foo rint $ 980 174 Coast Redwood 13.5 Remove Too close to house foo rint $1,920 177 Coast Redwood 13 Remove In house foo rint $1,780 178 Coast Live Oak 11 Remove In house foo Tint $1,120 179 Coast Live Oak 22.5 Remove Too dose to house foo rint $9,100 180 Coast Live Oak 15 Remove Too close to house foo rint $2,670 140 London Plane Tree 7 Remove In drivewa area $ 380 189 London Plane Tree 8.5 Remove Too close to drivewa $540 190 Silver-Dollar Gum 19 Remove In drivewa area $1,760 No # London Plane Tree TBD Remove In driveway area near o en s ace ? No # London Plane Tree TBD Remove In driveway area near o en s ace ? As mitigation, the applicant should prepare areplacement/mitigation plan for the tree removal. Many could be planted in the open space area or the front yards. School Enrollment: The project has minimal impact on student enrollment. Student generation rates were taken from a report prepared for the Monta Vista Bungalow project. School District Student Generation Rate Student Yield FUHSD 0.21 students er du 6 x 0.21=1.26 students CUSD element 0.36 students er du 6 x 0.36= 2.16 students CUSD middle school 0.18 students er du 6 x 0.18=1.08 students 14-36 CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE December 12, 2007 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 December 12, 2007. PROTECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION Application No.: U-2007-02, ASA-2007-04 (EA-2007-03}, TR-2007-09, TM-2007-05 Applicant: Metropolitan Planning Group Location: 1601 S De Anna Blvd DISCRETIONARY ACTION REQUEST Use Permit and Architectural Site Approval for a new six-unit single family residential development Tentative Map for a new six-unit single family residential development Tree Removal of up to 41 trees FINDINGS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE The Environmental Review Committee recommends the granting of a Mitigated Negative Declaration finding that the project is consistent with the General Plan and has no significant environmental impacts. /s/Steve Piasecki Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development g/ercfREC EA-2007-03 14-37 Community Development-= apartment Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 ACTION MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ENVIIZONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE HELD ON December 12, 2007 Committee Members: Do11y Sandoval Steve Piasecki Lisa Giefer Dave Knapp Committee Members absent: Ralph Qualls Kris Wang Staff present: Colin Jung APPROVAL OF-MINUTES: November 28, 2007 ACTION: Approval of minutes from November 28, 2007 MOTION: Dave Knapp SECOND: Steve Piasecki ABSTAIN: none VOTE: 4-0 NEW ITEMS: 1. Application No.: U-2007-06, ASA-2007-10 (EA-2007-08) Applicant: Brian Replinger (Cupertino Village) Location: Homestead Road & Wolfe Road Use Permit and Architectural Site Approval to construct two one-story retail buildings totaling 24,455 square feet and a one level parking structure This item zvas pulled from the agenda prior to the meeting at the applicant's request. No new meeting dafe has been set 2. Application No.: U-2007-02, ASA-2007-04 (EA-2007-03}, TR-2007-09, TM-2007-05 Applicant: Metropolitan Planning Group Location: 1601 S De Anna Blvd Use Permit and Architectural Site Approval for anew six-unit single family residential development Tentative Map for a new six-unit single family residential development Tree Removal of up to 41 trees 14-38 ^ Noise o The applicant has redesigned the units to comply with the mitigation measures as discussed at the November 14~ meeting o Fence mitigations; 6' redwood fence versus 8' cement wall ^ Trees o The revised landscape plans shows 22 trees are scheduled for removal. These trees lie in the proposed driveways and house foot print areas o The 24 trees replanted as part of a prior (historical) approved landscape plan will be retained as much as possible o Additional Discussion o Minimal student generation impact o They will be incorporating a number of "Build it Green" techniques in construction o Landscaping includes a common open area for the six homes to share Mitigations include; extend the wall along the north property line, re-study unit configuration to save or move the oak trees in the back area, install a 6' or taller redwood fence along the east property line (Kindercare play area) in conjunction with a new noise study to see what type of fencing will work best in that area, produce a replacement trees plan for the 22 trees slated for removal ACTION: Recommendation for a Mitigated Negative Declaration MOTION: Steve Piasecki SECOND: Dave Knapp NOES: none VOTE: 4-0 OLD BUSINESS None Respectfully submitted; /s/Beth Ebben Beth Ebben Administrative Clerk G/pianning/erc/approvedmirat tes 121207 14-39 ARBOR RESOURCES Exhibit A Professional Arhoricultural Consulting & Tree Care A TREE INVENTORY AND REVIEW OF THE PROPOSED EIGHT-LOT SUBDIVISION AT 1601 SOUTH DE ANZA BOULEVARD CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA APPLICANT: Metropolitan Planning Group APN: 336-10-134 Submitted to: Colin Jung Community Development Department City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 Prepared by: David L. Babby, RCA ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #399 ISA Certified Arborist #WE-4001A Apri19, 2007. A.O. Box 25295, San i`lateo, California 94402 • Email: arborresources@comcast.net Rhone: 650.654.3351 • Fax: b50.240.0777 Licensed Contractor #796763 14-40 David L. Babby, Registered ConsultingArborist March 1, 2007 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION TITLE PAGE 1.0 INTRODUCTION ..........................:................................ 1 2.0 TREE COUNT AND COMPOSITION ..................................1 3.0 SUITABILITY FOR TREE PRESERVATION ....................... 3 4.0 OVERVIEW OF TREE IMPACTS ...................................... 3 4.1 Proposed Tree Removals .............................................. 3 4.2 Trees to be Severely Impacted ........................................4 5.0 DISCUSSION OF TREE IlVIl'ACTS .................................... 4 5.1 Trees along the Western Boundary .................................. 4 5.2 Trees along the Eastern Boundary ................................... 5 5.3 Trees along the Proposed Dr;veway ................................. 6 6.0 REPLACEMENT TREES AND VALUES ............................. 5 7.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................... 7 7.1 Design Guidelines .......................................................7 7.2 Protection Measures Before and During Construction ............ 8 EXHIBITS E7~IT TITLE A TREE INVENTORY TABLE B TREE SURVEY i 14-41 David L. Gabby, Registered Consulting.4rborist April 9, 2007 1.0 INTRODUCTION I have been retained by the City of Cupertino Community Development Department to perform the following in connection with the proposed construction of eight new residences at 1601 South De Anza Boulevard, Cupertino: [1] identify the species, size and condition of trees in proximity to the proposed development; [2] recommend replacement trees to mitigate those that. would be removed; and [3] provide protection measures for trees being retained. I visited the site on 3/28/07 and 4/5/07, and this report presents my analysis and recommendations. Trees inventoried for this report are situated either on the subject site or have canopies overhanging the site from neighboring properties. Plans reviewed for this report include emailed copies of [1] Sheets 1 (Tree Survey} and C1 (Grading, Drainage and Utility Plan) by Kier & Wright, dated March 2007, and [2] Sheet A-2 (Landscape Plan) by Bruno Marcelic Architect A.I.A., dated 3/24/07. The trees' locations and assigned numbers are presented on a copy of Sheet 1 in Exhibit B. 2.0 TREE COUNT AND COMPOSITION Fifty-nine trees of five various species were inventoried for this report. Specific data recorded for each tree can be viewed in Exhibit A (Tree Inventory Table), and the following table identifies their name, number and percentage: 1601 South De Anza Boulevard, Cupertino Page 1 of II City of Cupertino Community Development Department 14-42 David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist tlpril 9, 2007 Total 59 100°/a As indicated in the above table, the site is dominated by coast redwood {at 47-percent) and coast live oak (at 20-percent). The tree numbers were derived from the Tree Survey (Sheet 1), and they correspond to the numbers engraved on the racetrack-shaped metal tags affixed (by others) to the trunk of each tree. Note there are periodic gaps between the numbers are the following identifies their sequential order: #103-107, 109-113, 1I5-131, 13-135, 140, 150-15d, 158, 160-162, 165-170, 174-180 and 187-190. Ten of the inventoried trees are defined as "specimen trees" per Section 14.18.020(I) of the Ordinance. They are all coast live oaks over 10 inches in trunk diameter (measured at 54 inches above grade) and include #116, 118-120, 133-135 and 178-180. One tree, #116, is shown on Sheet 1 but is missing on Sheets C1 and A-2. Additionally, the trunk of tree # 104 is not shown on Sheet C 1. Twenty of inventoried trees have trunks situated on neighboring properties and include #103-107, 109-113, 118, 150-152, I55, 161, 166, 169, 175 and 176. Trees #157 and 159 are both short (ten and six feet tall, respectively) fan palms that are identified. on the project plans. However, 1 exclude both from this report because of their small size as palms. 1601 South De Anza Boulevard, Cupertino Page Z of l l City of Cupertino Community Development Department 14-43 David L. Babby, Registered ConsultingArborist Apri19, 2007 3.0 SUITABILITY FOR TREE PRESERVATION Each tree has been assigned either a "high," "moderate" or "low" suitability for preservation rating as a means to cumulatively measure their physiological health, structural integrity, location, size and specie type. These ratings and applicable tree numbers are presented below; note that the "high" category is comprised of 31 trees (or 52-percent}, the "moderate" category 14 trees (or 24-percent}, and the "low" category also 14 trees (or 24-percent}. High: Applies to trees #105, 115, 116, 121-131, 135, 150, 152, 156, 158, 160.162, 165-168, 174, 176, 177, 179 and 180. They appear vigorous, in stable condition, and have a high potential of providing long-term contribution to the site. Moderate: Applies to trees #103, 104, 106, 107, 110, 112, 118-120, 133, 169, 170, 175 and 178. They appear worthy of retention, but their longevity and contribution is less than -those of high suitability and more frequent care is needed during their remaining life span. Low: Applies to trees #109, 111, 113, 117, 134, 140, 151, 153-155 and 187-190. These trees are predisposed to irreparable health problems and/or structural defects that are expected to worsen regardless of measures employed. 4.0 OVERVIEW OF TREE IMPACTS . 4.1 Proposed Tree Removals Based on information identified on Sheet C1, there are 36 trees in direct conflict with the proposed grading, building and driveway design. As such, they would require removal and include #115-117, 122, 124, 126, 128, 130, 135, 140, 152-156, 158, 160- 162,165-170, i74-180,189 and 190. 1601 South De ,4nza Boulevard Cupertino City of Cupertino Community Development Department Page 3 of 11 14-44 e~uvou i. ouuuy, negistrieu ~.y~~~uiun~ nruuna~ runt y~ wvi Of those listed, twenty-three are assigned a high suitability for preservation (#115, llb, 122, 124, 126, 128, 130, 135, 152, 156, 158, 160-162, 165-168, 174, 176, 177, 179 and 180); four a moderate suitability {#I69; 170, 175 and 178); and nine a low suitabili (#117, 140, 153-155, 187-189 and 190). 4.2 Trees to be Severely Impacted Through implementation of the proposed design, 17 trees would be subjected to severe impacts and no assurance of their survival or stability can be provided. They include #103-105,119-121,123,125,127,129,131,133,134,150,151,187 and 188. Of those listed above, eight are assigned a high suitability for preservation (#105, 121, 123, 125, 127, 129, 131 and 150); five a moderate suitability (#103, 104, 119, 120 and 133); and four a Iow suitability (#134, 151, 187 and 188). 5.0 DISCUSSION OF TREE IMPACTS 5.1 Trees Along the Western Boandary The western boundary is comprised two rows of vigorous, healthy and moderately-sized redwoods (#121 thru 131). They form a dense grove and serve as an outstanding and highly effective screening element. As they have grown together since the time they were planted, the loss of one or more will expose other redwoods otherwise planned for retention to potential uprooting, a situation that worsens by implementing the proposed grading and building design. If the westernmost row of redwoods is to remain {as proposed) without the foreseeable risk of decline and uprooting, it is essential that the entire grove is protected. In doing so, I recommend the project design requires no soil disturbance (vertical or horizontal soil cuts, fill or trenching) west of the existing curb, to include any overcut for the new homes. Subsequently, the front row of redwoods could also remain. 1601 South De Anza Boulevard Cupertino City of Cupertino Community Development Department Page 4 of II 14-45 David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist Apri19, 2007 Of those listed, twenty-three are assigned a high suitability for preservation (#115, 116, 122, 124, 126, 128, 130, 135, 152, 156, 158, 160-162, 165-168, 174, 176, 177, 179 and 180); four a moderate suitability (#169, 170, 175 and 178); and nine a low suitabili (#117, 140, 153-155, 187-189 and 190). 4.2 Trees to be Severely Impacted Through implementation of the proposed design, 17 trees would be subjected to severe impacts and no assurance of their survival or stability can be provided. They include #103-105,119-I21, 123, 125,127, 129,131, 133,134,150, 151,187 and i88. Of those listed above, eight are assigned a high suitability for preservation {#105, 121, 123, 125, 127, 129, 131 and 150); five a moderate suitability {#103, 104, 119, 120 and 133); and foar a low suitability (#134, 151, 187 and 188). 5.0 DISCUSSION OF TREE IMPACTS 5.1 Trees Along the Western Boundary The western boundary is comprised two rows of vigorous, healthy' and moderately-sized redwoods (#121 thra 131}. They form a dense grove and serve as an outstanding and highly effective screening element. As they have grown together since the time they were planted, the loss of one or more will expose other redwoods otherwise planned for retention to potential uprooting, a situation that worsens by implementing the proposed grading and building design. If the westernmost row of redwoods is to remain (as proposed) without the foreseeable risk of decline and uprooting, it is essential that the entire grove is protected. In doing so, I recommend the project design requires no soil disturbance (vertical or horizontal soil cuts, fill or trenching) west of the existing curb, to include any overcut for the new homes. Subsequently, the front row of redwoods could also remain. 1601 South De Anza Boulevarr~ Cupertino Page 4 of l l City of Cupertino Community Development Department 14-46 David L. Bobby, Registered Consulting Arborist April 9, 2007 There are five oaks (#119, 120 and 133-135} also situated along or near the western boundary and contribute. towards the screening element. The best of these trees is #135, which has an 1 S-inch trunk diameter, a canopy of approximately 55 feet across, and an estimated height of 35 feet. The others are situated partially beneath the overhead high- voltage- lines and have been adversely pruned over the years to achieve the required line clearance (in most cases, the western half of their canopies has been removed). Consequently, this action has resulted in highly asymmetrical and unbalanced canopies, a situation that will continue throughout their remaining life span. When considering the condition and contribution of the oaks, it may be benefcial to retain the ones that can be adequately protected. However, it is my opinion that the loss of these oaks will insignificantly impact the existing screen when compared to the loss of the redwood grove.. 5.2 Trees along the Eastern Boaadary The eastern boundary is comprised of moderately-sized redwoods and oaks that grow within a wide planter area. All are proposed for removal to achieve the grading design, and serve as a somewhat useful screen between the subject site and adjacent child care center ("KinderCare"}. In my opinion, the screen could be significantly enhanced and become much more dense and effective that what currently exists. Six of the trees proposed for removal are redwoods situated on the neighboring property. They include #152, 158, 161, 166, 169 and 176, and all appear in viable and vigorous condition. If these trees are expected to survive, I recommend [1] the proposed retaining wall and fill are designed to be at least six feet from their trunks, [2] the retaining wall be comprised of a discontinuous footing in which no soil excavation occurs between the posts, and [3] no subexcavation (i.e. rip and scarify) occurs beneath the fill within 12 feet from the trunks. 1601 South De Ama Boulevard Cupertino Page S of 11 City of Cupertino Community Development Department 14-47 Davld L. Babby, Regestered Consulting.4rborist April 9, 2007 5.3 Trees along the Proposed Drivewvay The proposed driveway requires excavation into the existing planter strips. Consequently, trees located within the planters will sustain significant root damage and be adversely impacted. To avoid this occurrence, 1 recommend the driveway is narrowed so that no horizontal soil cuts are necessary north or south of the proposed driveway. Additionally, the future driveway, including curb and gutter, should be established on top of existing soil grade with no more than afour-inch vertical soil cut where within a minimal distance of five times their trunk diameters (e.g. a 12-inch diameter requires five feet); please note that this is not intended to include the area beyond where a utility trench is proposed. 6.0 REPLACEMENT TREES AND VALUES Per City standard, the appraised value (i.e. assigned monetary value} of trees being removed is used as the basis for identifying replacement values. The appraised value of each tree currently proposed for removal is presented within the last column of the table in Exhibit A and has been calculated using the Guide for Plant Appraisal, 9~' Edition, published by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA), 2000. Combined, their appraised value equals $78,960. The size and amounts of trees to install should be roughly equal to the total, appraised value of trees removed. Replacement tree values and sizes are as follows: $375 fora 24- inch box; $1,000 fora 36-inch box size tree; $2,125 fora 48-inch box; $2,650 fora 54- inch box; $3,500 fora 60-inch box size; and $10.000 fora 72-inch box. Replacement trees suitable for planting in relatively confined spaces, I suggest the following are considered: red maple (Ater rtebrum), Chinese hackberry (Celtic sinensis), Chinese pistache (Pistacia chinensis), crape myrtle (Lagerstroemia indica), and flowering pear (Pyres c. `Aristocrat'). For effective screen trees, I recommend Carolina laurel cherry (Prumts c. `Bright `n Tight'). Please note that I do not recommend that the Idaho locust tree, as proposed on Sheet A-2, is planted at the site due to it having aggressive and invasive roots, and being highly prone to branch failure. 1601 South De Arrza Boulevard Cupertino Page 6 of II City of Cupertino Community Development Department 14-48 David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist April 9, 2007 7.0 RECOMMENDATIONS Recommendations presented within this section serve as guidelines for achieving adequate protection of trees that will ~ be retained. They should be carefully followed and incorporated into construction plans. Please note that any or all recommendations are subject to revision upon reviewing any revised plans. 7.1 Design Guidelines 1. The location and assigned number of each inventoried tree should be shown on Sheets 1, C1 and A-2. 2. in the event trees mentioned in Section 5.0 of this report are to be retained and adequately protected, guidelines presented in that section should be followed. 3. On Sheet A-2, the canopy dimensions should be adjusted to reflect those presented on the civil sheets and/or the dimensions presented in Exhibit A of this report. 4. Any revised plans should be reviewed for tree-related impacts prior to approval. 5. This report and any supplemental letters shall be incorporated into the final set of project plans, titled Sheets T-1, T-2, etc. ('f'ree Protection Instructions), and referenced on all site-related plans (i.e. site plans, grading and drainage plan, and landscape plans). 6. The permanent and temporary drainage design for the project should not require water being discharged beneath the trees' canopies. 7. The proposed landscape design should conform to the following guidelines: a. Turf and plant material should be avoided beneath the oak canopies; as an alternative, isuggest afour-inch layer of coarse wood chips {decorative or from a tree company. Plant material and turf installed beneath canopies of all other trees should be limited and planted at least five from their trunks. 1601 South De rlma Boulevard Cupertino City of Cupertino Community Development Department Page 7 of 11 14 - 49 David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist ~ April 9, 2007 b. Irrigation beneath the oak canopies can impose adverse impacts and should be avoided. If applied, it should be low-volume, applied irregularly (such as only once or twice per week), temporary (such as no more than three years), and not strike within five feet of its trunks. Irrigation should not strike within five feet from the trunks of all other trees. c. Trenching for irrigation or lighting should be avoided beneath the canopies. If necessary, they should be routed in a radial direction to the trunks. d. Stones, mulch and fencing should not be placed against the trunks of existing or new trees. Plastic ground cover should also be avoided beneath canopies. e. Tilling beneath canopies should be avoided, including for weed control. f. Bender board or other edging material proposed beneath the canopies should be established on top of existing soil grade (such as by using vertical stakes). 8. To achieve the greatest assurance of proper installation, all new trees shall be installed, including necessary irrigation, by an experienced and knowledgeable state-licensed landscape contractor (or a professional tree company). The work shall be performed to professional industry standards. 7.2 Protection Measures before and during Development 9. Due to the close proximity of activities among trees, a "project arborist"~ should be retained by the applicant or owner to assist in implementing and achieving compliance with all tree protection measures. 10. Prior to any grading, trenching or site clearing work, apre-construction meeting shall be held on-site with the project arborist and contractor to discuss work procedures, protection fencing locations, Limits of grading, staging areas, routes of access, supplemental watering, mulching, locations for equipment washing, and other tree protection measures. The "project arborist" refers to an individual that is certified by the International Society of Arboriculture (1SA) and/or is a member of the American Society of Consulting Arborists (ASCA). 1 G01 South De Anza Boulevart~ Cupertino City of Cupertino Community Development Department Page 8 of 11 14-50 David.L. Babby, Registered Consultingflrborist ~4pril9, 2007 11. Tree protective fencing shall be installed prior to any grading, trenching or site clearing work, and its precise location must be determined and its placement approved by the project arborist prior to the issuance of any grading or construction permit. It shall be comprised of six-foot high chain link mounted on eight-foot tall, two-inch diameter steel posts that are driven 24 inches into the ground and spaced no more than 10 feet apart. Once established, the fencing must remain undisturbed and be maintained throughout construction until final inspection. 12. Unless otherwise approved, all development activities must be conducted outside the fenced areas (even after fencing is removed) and off unpaved areas beneath the canopies of Ordinance-size trees inventoried and not inventoried for this report. These activities include, but are not limited to, the following: demolition, grading, stripping of topsoil, trenching, equipment cleaning, stockpiling/dumping of materials, and equipment/vehicle operation and parking. 13. Any approved digging or trenching beneath a canopy shall be manually performed. In the event roots of two inches and greater are encountered during the process, the project arborist shall be consulted for appropriate action. 14. The section of existing parking lot beneath the trees' canopies should remain intact throughout construction and only removed immediately (e.g. within 24 hours) prior to installing the future driveway. By doing so, a suitable route of access can be utilized while effectively protecting the root zones of retained trees. 15. Removal of the existing parking lot and curb/gutter must be carefully performed to avoid excavating soil and roots during the process. Any tractor used during the process must work remain on hardscape at all times and off exposed soil and roots. In the event significant roots (e.g. two inches and greater in diameter) are found to have exploited base rock beneath the existing asphalt, the roots should be left intact and the base material used for the new driveway. 1601 South De.4nza Boulevard, Cupertino City of Cupertino Community Development Department Page 9 of I1 14-51 David L. Babby Registered Consulting flrborist April 9, 2007 16. Prior to grading or excavating soil beyond a distance of 10 Ytmes the trunk diameters, a one-foot wide trench should be manually dug along the perimeter of a foundation or patio for the entire distance. The trench should be dug to the required depth, and shall occur where excavation will occur closest to the trunk. Any roots encountered during the process should be cleanly severed against the soil cut. Roots with diameters of two inches and greater should be treated according to the project arborist. 17.Overcut should not exceed a distance of 18 to 24 inches from a foundation or utility trench. 18. Prior to construction, Irecommend afour-inch layer of coarse wood chips {1/4- to '/fl- inch in size} is manually spread on unpaved soil beneath the trees' canopies. These chips must not be placed against the trees' trunk, should remain throughout construction, and can be obtained from a tree service company and/or by contacting www.reuserinc.com. 19. Any approved activity required beneath a tree's canopy (within and beyond the designated fenced areas) must be performed under direction of the project arborist. 20. All existing, .unused lines or pipes beneath the canopies of retained trees should be abandoned and cut off at existing soil grade. 21. Each recommendation that is presented within Section 5.1 of this report and . is applicable to the actual development of the site shall be followed. 22. Throughout development, supplemental water should be supplied to the retained trees; the project arborist shall determine the specific trees, intervals, amounts and application methods. 23. The pruning and removal of trees shall be performed per the project arborist's scope of work and under the supervision of an individual certified by the ISA (and not 1601 South De flora Boulevard, Cupertino Page 10 of II City of Cupertino Community Development Department 14-52 David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist .4pri19, 2007 performed by construction personnel}. Any tree stumps being removed beneath or near canopies of retained trees should be ground below grade rather than pulled up with an excavator. All approved tree removals should be marked with paint (such as by an "X"} prior to being removed. 24. All equipment shall be positioned to avoid the trunks and branches of trees. Where a conflict arises, the project arborist must be contacted to help address the situation. 25. The disposal of harmful products (such as chemicals, oil and gasoline) is prohibited beneath canopies or anywhere on site that allows drainage beneath canopies. Herbicides should not be used beneath the trees' canopies; where used on site, they should be labeled for safe use near trees. ~~ ~ A 4 x ~. . ~. ~ ~~. n, 9' C~ '~<1. O't17~1~4~ 1601 South De flnza Boulevard Cupertino Page Il of l l City of Cupertino Community Development Department 14-53 David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist Apri19, 2007 EXHIBIT A: TREE INVENTORY TABLE 1601 South De Ama Boulevard, Cupertino City of Cupertino Community Development Department 14-54 TREE INVENTORY TABLE y ` ~ Da ~ ~ ` im ~ _ - Q~- ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ _ TREE _ A `",," ~ - "~ s~ _l.f-W i6 '(b ~.-W ~~ ~-a~ . • ~ V _,~' ~ ,C. _ .g ~-_ ~`"~ ` ~ ~ ~ - ' ~ - ~"~'o ,~ Q j ~ _ NO ' T)ZEE NAME ~ 3 ~ ~ - ~ ~ , n . _ . _ F+. . > r~..-._ :..t~r~:_ 1~-':~> '.v~ :° _,~ _ : _ cry :,'_ _~„ ' ,a. ~ _ : , ~ . ~;_; > American Sweetgum i03 Li fdambar s act ua 11.5 35 20 100% 75% Good Moderate 1 - X - Comments: American Sweetgum 104 (Li uidambar s root ua) l ] 35 25 100% 75% Good Moderate 1 - X - Comments: London Plane Tree 105 (Platanus aceri olio ] 6.5 45 55 100% 100% Good High i - X - Comments: London Plane Tree 106 (Platanus aceri olio) 7.5 35 25 75% 50% Fair Moderate 3 - X - Comments: London Plane Tree 107 (Platanus acerifolia) 8.5 40 35 75% 5(1% Fair Moderate 4 - X - Conunents: Silver-Dollar Gum 109 {Euca tus 1 nthemos 17.5 35 30 i00% 25% Fav Low 4 - X - Comments: Loans significantly. Trunk divides into six leaders at about seven feet high. Silver-Dollar Gum 110 Eucal tus 1 anlhemos) 24 70 40 75% 75% Good Moderate 4 - X - Comments: Causing significant hardscape damage. Silver-Dollar Gum 111 (Eucal tus 1 nthemos) 22.5 60 40 75% 25% Fair Low 4 - X - Comments: Causing significant hardscape damage. All leaders grow with a close angle of attachment and are at si ificant risk of failin . London Plane Tree 112 (Platanus acerifolia) 10.5 50 40 50% 75% Fair Moderate S - X - Comments: Landon Plane Tree lI3 Platanus aceri olio 7.5 35 35 50% 50% Fair Low 3 - X - Comments: S/te: 1601 S. Deanza Boulevard, Cupertino Prepared for. City of Cupertino Comm. Develop. Depart Prepared by: David L. flabby, RCA 1 of 6 Apra! 9, 2007 14-55 TREE INVENTORY TABLE _ ~. ~ 0 10 ~ ~ - ~ ~~ _ _ - - °~ w . v v _~_ .p~' ~ "e~. U°'~ .C.)`_'~3 ~" x }.. ~o ° TREE - - _ -- .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ " b` ~`~. _~' - _~ fi ' ~ ~ ~ _ aj ~> _ -~ ~ _ ~, ~ D = -; -~ - TREE~NA 1v1E - _ .~ _ ~ c : ° • .- u ~ - , . _ _ ~y. ~ ~ - ~ ;~ ~ ~ _ ~ ~ . _ - ~ _ Q ~ _ _ ~ ~ - - ._.._. , __.. --__.:. E- T ~ ~ _ ~ ~ vs t . , _:.., cn _ ...t c . vi.. r - - 115 Coast Live Oak rcusa r'olia 9.5 25 20 100% 75% Goad Hi h - X $1,350 Comments: 116 Coast Live Oak ercus a i olia) 15.5 20 40 100% 75% Good Hi h - X X $3,470 Comments: 117 Silver-Dollar Gum Eucalyptus l anlhemos) 17.5 45 35 50% 75% Fair Low - X $1,500 Comments: Tree is declining. 118 Coast Live Oak uercus a i olia 15 30 25 ?5% 50% Fair Moderate 4 - X X - Coast Live Oak li9 rcusa riolia 15.5 40 35 50% 50% Fair Moderate i - X - Comments: Partially beneath high-voltage lines and has been significantly pruned. Coast Live Oak 120 (Quercus a i olia) 17 35 35 75% 50% Fav Moderate 1 - X - Comments: Partially beneath high-voltage lines and has been significantly pruned. Coast Redwood 121 (Se oiasem rvirens) 16 45 25 100% 50% Good Hi 2 - - Comments: Near high-voltage lines. Coast Redwood 122 (Sequoia sem rvirens) 15.5 45 25 100% 75% Good Hi h - X $2,510 Continents: Coast Redwood 123 Se oiasem rvlrens 14 45 20 100% 54% Fair Hi h 2 - Comments: Adjacent to high-voltage lines. Coast Redwood 124 Se uoia sem rvirens 15.5 45 25 100% 75% Good Hi h - X $2,510 Comments: Site: 180! S. Deanza Boulevard, Cupertino Prepared for. City of Cupertino Comm. Develop. 8epart. Prepared by: David L. Gabby, RCA 2 of B AprlJ 9, 2007 14-56 TREE INVENTORY TABLE ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' -wit - _ _~ _ ~}+~ l A~G - ._ ~ .` ~ ~ ~ i7. ~ O ~ Q ~ ~ y ~ _. ~~ ~ iii . p ; A Q _ ~ ~ x~ ,~ nS Nb. 7REE NAM) ~ ~ y ~ ~ °~ ~ `s r `' _,.,,, F j b ~ ~ ~ ; ~ ,~ y~, e c . .. ~ .~Q{~. .. FY... ~.. .Srf .~. `! am .~ _ :' ~ , V.e ~ 1-ql )"'~. . ~. RI T~ a Coast Redwood 125 (Se uoia sem rvirens) 14 45 20 100% SO% Good Hi h 1 - Comments: Adjacent to high-voltage lines. . Coast Redwood 126 (Sequoia sem rvirens) 15 45 25 100% 7S% Good Hi h - X $2,350 Comments: Coast Redwood 127 Se uoia sem rvirens) 1 S.5 50 25 100% SO% Good High 2 - Comments: Adjacent to high-voltage lines. Coast Redwood 128 ( uoia sem rvirens) 16.5 SO 35 i00% SO% Good Hi h - X 52,500 Comments: Coast Redwood 129 (Sequoia sempervirens) 18.5 50 25 l OQ% 50% Good Hi 1 - Comments: Coast Redwood 130 Se iasem rvtrens) ]6.5 SO 25 100% 75% Good Hi - X 52,840 Comments: Coast Redwood 13l (Se oiasem rvirens) 17 50 2S 100% SO% Good Hi 2 - - Comments: Coast Live Oak 133 ercus a 'olio 19 35 SO 7S% 25% Fair Moderate 1 - X - Comments: Half of canopy is beneath high-voltage lines and has been removed Coast Live Oak 134 (Quercus agrifolia) 15.5 25 SO SO% 2S% Poor Low 1 - X - Comments: Half of canopy is beneath high-voltage lines and has been removed Coast Live Oak 13S ercus a 'olio 18 35 SS 100% 7S% Good High - X X 54,650 Comments: Heavy limb weight. Branches encroaching into parking lot. Slte: f601 S. Deanza 8ovlevard, Cupertino Prepared for. City of Cupertino Comm. Develop: Depart ' Prepared by: Oavid L. Bobby, RCA 3 of 6 Aprll 9, 2007 14-57 TREE INVENTORY TABLE ` ~- ° - - ~ a ~ - ~ - ~ ~ ~ rt ~ ~ -x - ~- , s,y = w TIiOE ' ~ _ 'o - ~ +f' b: ~ ''~ ~ ~ _ L-L F4~ w( _ - b'l4JT_ _ :t ll\LL~L9LtitY1L' y' L :i 3~~~.-~ s .'~ b ~~.;: _t41 '\~~..6 ~~ _~`.Q ~`t ..V.Y> ~~~ ~c - .r~F~1._C/~: ~e~.. SE m- r~.~.~ _.r~.~v- y. London Plane Tree 140 (Platanus aceri olio 7 30 30 50% 75% Fav Low - X 5380 Coast Redwood I50 (Se is sem rvirens) 25.5 50 25 100% 5(1% Good Hi 1 - X - Coast Redwood 151 (Se iasem rvirens) 15.5 35 20 50% 25% Poor Low 1 - X - Comments: Canopy is very sparse and in decline. Main trunk divides into three tnmks at 3 feet above grade. Coast Redwood 152 Se oia se rvirens lb 35 25 100% 75% Good Hi - X X. 52,570 Comments: London Plar-e Tree 153 (Platanus aceri olio) 6.5 30 25 50% 75% Fair Low - X 5330 Comments: London Plane Tree 154 {Platanus aver' olio 7 30 ZS 50% 75% Fair Low X $380 Comments: London Plane Tree 155 (Platam~s acerifolta 9.5 30 35 50% 75% Fau Low - X X 5570 Comments: Coast Redwood 156 Se oia se rvlrens) 17.5 45 20 ]00% 75% Good Hi - X 53,180 Comments: Coast Redwood 158 (Se is sempervirens 18 45 25 100% 75% Good Hi - X ~S3,360 Comments: Coast Redwood 160 (Se oia se rvirens) 12.5 40 20 i00% 75% Good Hi - X $1,550 Comments: Slte: J60J S. Deanze Bou/evarrl, Cupertino Prepared for. City of Cupertino Comm. Develop. Depart Prepared by: David L. Gabby, RCA 4 of 8 Ap-F! 8, 2007 14-58 TREE INVENTORY TABLE ~ a~i ~ _ jti' ~ a~ ~~~ ~~I ~1z7 U`~ ~~ - _ ~ 'ci - ~ - o _ ~ T "~ ~ i `~ ~ ~ , i o ~ ~~ NO:. _ .._ .... TREE NIIM)~. ~ is _ .. ':._ ._ .. .. .- _ .. _ „ C-._(~': _ ~ _ ~ ~i J~4 CIS. ~f v.~'L~i..\/. +. a~ ..J_ ©_~ ~ _. '. w .:. t _ }F!, -M. ~r . _ ~ _M. ~ _ ~. . CIS.- 4 ~ ,: M._PK i '~..`k a Coast Redwood 161 (Se oiasem rvirens) 17 45 25 100% 75% Good Hi h - X X $3,OI0 Comments: Coast Redwood 162 (Se iasem rvirens) 10.5 30 20 100% 75% Good High - X $1,180 Comments: Coast Redwood 165 Se oia sem rvirens 9 25 20 •100% 75% Good Hi h - X , 5890 Comments: Coast Redwood 166 (Se uoia sem rvirens 19 45 30 ] 00% 75% Good Hi - X X $3,740 Comments: Coast Redwood 167 (Se uoia se rvirens 10 35 20 100% 75% Good Hi h - X $1,080 Comments: Coast Redwood 168 (Se uoia sem rvirens 14 35 20 100% 75% Good Hi - X $2,060 Comments: Coast Redwood 169 (Se uoia sem rvirens 26 50 25 100% 25% Fair Moderate - X X $3,850 Coast Redwood 170 (Se oiasem rvirens) 9.5 30 20 i00% 75% Good Moderate - X $980 Coast Redwood 174 (Sequoiasempervirens 13.5 40 20 100% 75% Good High - X S1,920 Comments: Coast Live Oak 175 ( rcus a i olia b.5 25 20 100% 50% Good Moderate - X X $500 Comments: Grows at an angle away from tree #176. Sfte: 1801 S. Deanza 8oufevard, Cupertino Prepared for: City of Cupertino Comm. Develop. Depart. Prepared by: David L. Sabby, RCA 5 of B Aprlf 8, 2007 14-59 TREE INVENTORY TABLE - - , ~ ; ~. ~ ~ =~ - ~ ~- ~: ~ - ~o - - - ,-., ~ ~g~ Coast Redwood 176 {Sequoia sem rvirens 17 40 25 100% 75% Good Hi h - X X $3,010 Comments: Coast Redwood 177 Se uoiasem rvirens) 13 35 20 100% 75% Good Hi h - X $1,780 Comments: Coast Live Oak 178 (Quercus a i olia) 11 25 25 100% 50% Good Moderate - X X $1,120 Comments: Canopy is suppressed due to its growth beneath tree # 179. Coast Live Oak 179 ( rcus a t olta 22.5 45 50 100% l00% Good Hi - X X $9,100 Comments: North-growing limb within inches of adjacent building. Coast Live Oak 180. rcus a i olia) 15 30 55 100% 50% Good High - X X $2,670 Comments: Asymmetrical canopy due to tree # 179's dominance. Silver-Dollar Gum 187 Euca tus ! nthemos) 20 60 55 75% 25% Fair Low - X $1,620 Comments: Silver-Dollar Gum 188 (Euca! tus 1 anthemos 19.5 45 35 100% 25% Fair Low - X $1,850 Comments: Damaging adjacent curb. London Plane Tree 189 Platanus aceri olio) 8.5 35 35 50% 75% Fair Low - X $540 Silver-Dollar Gum 190 {Eucaly tus ! nthemos 19 b0 25 100% 25% Fair Low - X $1,760 Comments: Slfe: 180! S. Deanza Boulevard, Cupertino Prepared for: City of Cupertino Comm. Develop. Deparf. Prepared by: David L flabby, RCA 8 of 8 Aprl19, 2007 14-60 David L. Gabby, Registered Consulting Arborist April 9, 2007 EXHIBIT B: TREE SURVEY 1601 South De Ama Boulevarr.~ Cupertino City of Cupertino Communtty Development Department 14-61 oavn~nos vzrro as Hlnos io9 ~ ~ ~ x ~...~«.~., r,,,,.,,,o,,., aevn~aiwvmvaa~unosiosi ~ ~ ..:.,..~.....~... -i i' ~ i hH.oirm'orur~rp ~ a s w3nyn 9a~,~rnn ' $3112J3d021d 213JNIllOa ~210~ 1H71aM 8 a31N A3 21 ~ ~ ~ a «~,. A f1S 33211 ~ ~ 8 R R n -~-- ml _ , ,, , .. , , ~ . , , ,, . , . . . , , , , , , , , ,, , , , , , , , ~ f , ~ , , . . , S .~ :r ~ L :y y y ~ Z' b 4 b B i b b IL L - - '- - IO y l~ y y - L ii ~ y y ,7., y y ~y y h ij L V y 3. : r y L y i. ~ y 3. y L b i _ 3'i .~i b S ~ I I E a a oa s - a e -~c _ _ _ - -R : a ~ z ase a a - a m c a - s M s a : a - z . a a s a s :a s e a a a a z ~ ~ e - ~ s a o a , '3 ~ ~~ g~. ~ ~r ~.•: ~- i. ;a -- - _ ...... -- -- '•. _ _ I ~ I ~ f `: u~~~~~~~~~~ i ; j .~ ~_ ii iE ~- . I I ~ ~ ;*- L. I , ~ is ! ;.i I_ F ;1. ' ~ ~ 1s ~~ i ,§ i ~' ~~ ' ,I as it ~ ~ ~~ I~ I~ L_.pm.~-....~ i .q ~~(~ " ~, :~ rl ~ ~ ~~ - 62 ~j,y ``~+, ~c~~ JIVAlti `•I~.: .~~na s oA S t I+ B EDWARD L. PACK ASSOCIATES, INC. 1975 HAMILTON AVENUE .•f r<ntslirir(C-c,r~.crr!lnn~s TEL. 408-371-1 t95 SUITE 26 FAX 40$-371-1 196 SAN JOSE. CA 95125 www.~ackassocsates.com Apri I ? ~. 2(1f)7 1'rctject Ncr. 39.0 i ~) EX~'11~11f B i\~lr. I)a1'~ Dollinger I)ullingtr I'rop~rties ij "I"\vin [)ctlhhin Dri\•e Saito; hitl Red\voc-~ C'itl', t'A t)~1(l65 tiuhjtct: NUlse Assessment Study !i-r the Planned 1±-l,c-t Subtiivisic-n, 16()1 South [)eAnta 13oulc\°41rd. Cupertino l~rar ~~lr, nolling~r: This rcl~c.irt 11re5cnts the reslllis of a naisc asscssmeni study for the i~lanrlyd 8-lc~t subcli\~isiott at 1hQl Sc~ttth I)c~Atlza 13c>ulevarcl in C'uptrtino, as sho\vn on tlte; bite flan. Rol'. (a). The noise expctstlrc~s at the slt4 \ti~ers: c\~alu~lted against the standtrels of the City c>f' Cupertinn Public l~)caltlt and Safety L:Il:nlent (Noise), Rei~. (h). •1'ltt analysis c>1'the cin- site soullcl Ic.\~el ntasurenlents irtdic~~tics that thr existing noise environment i1 due lit•in.ta.r•ily to crperlltiona and acti\~ities at the. adjacent (:;t•aniteRUck Ocsign C:'enter and the KinclerC'.•u'e I'ro-tic:hcxtl Nr-ise ti•c1m I.}~Anz:l C3aulrvard trtll•fie stlurces is Part ol~ tha hacl:grottnd noise enyironrneltt hut. does not significattlly impact thr site.. ~t'he results of the study indicate that noise cxposl:r% excetises \\~ilI Decor in upstairs livilt~; Braces ale-ng the north ((iraniteRclck) rroperty IIr1e Gild 11tlllg<1lIC111 mGaStlrlS 11'111 he required. Sections l and Il cif this rcpclrt ci~ntairl a sunlmury of otlr tindirts~s and reconlmcndatic-ns, r~srccti\~ely. tiut,scyuent sections ec-niain the site, nc-ise se-tn•ce and project dearrihtians. anal\~srs anti c\~ultlatians. Attached heretc- are Appendices i1, 13 and C. \\~hich include t.hc fist c`~I'rcfercnccs. clcscriptions c-f Utt alli?lir.ahlc standards, clelinitions cif the: terminolttby. ventilation rrquimmea~ts, general building shell contre-Is urxl the on-site. nc-ise mcaur•cmcnt data and calculation t<rhlrs. r,.eeeocv arni icr,rni cnnIFTY nF AMERICA NATIONAL COUNCIL OF ACOUSTICAL CONSULTANTS 14-63 -?- 1, ~um:n:~t-y of Findirt~s ~}~he ni~isi: atitit'SSil1ettt r~5t111S prt`Si?ltltd Itl the 1-ndin~5 1Vt:rl; ~~ralualtd against the standards c7f Ihe. City ot'Cuptrtinc, "N~isc' llenti:nt, ~~'hich utilizes the C't3mmunity Noise l~.yui~-altttt },evcl (C`Nf?lr) dc~scri{ttc-r ii~r ri•sidenfiitl exte-ric-r area-s. 'I~hr Nc~isi:- l~lcaiettt titand:-rck spicily a-t exterior limit rf {i(l d13 {.'NEI. li,r single-lamily residtntial c:xteric~r arc<<s, such as rcar yards. A limit oi~~~ dL3 CNT[., is specified lcn' Iltt.c;rior living, s{~~zccs. 'T'he twist txpc>stn•e.s sltr,~~~n btlie~~' are ~~~ithc,ut lht applicatirnt c+f miii~,ation 1111.'.'itStlrtS and re1?rescttt the noise en~~ircntnttnt fc~r existing anti iitt.urt site cnnditiotis. A, r~tcrior Noise I+:xnosures • "['hc existing extericar noise txposurt in the mast impaeled rear and sitEe ~~arcls c~l~ hotttcs e{r-stst to the (;raniteltc-ek }assign Ctntea• is S~ dT3 C'Nll.. lltuler future cc-nditian5, the noise exTtvsure is exTtc~cted tc~ remain a( ~~ cl[3 C:NF:}_. '}'hus, tht. noise cx~ttsures are within iht lituits ctl'the Cite i-f Cu~trtinc~ Nc~isc Ilenttnt siandcn•ds. '1"he existing exterior Hoist tx}x>surt al the mast intpactt~l second lli,or tucadts i~t~ har»ts r.lc~sest to the. GranittRoclc Design Carrier is hl d}3 C'N1-?L. lJnder l-uture ccanditions, the noise exposure is txpectcd to rtnr-iit at 61 dl3 C'NEL. ~1'hc existing cxtrric,r ni,ise txpuscu•t in the ntc,st impacted roar yards i>I' hi,n~cs clasiat to the KindcrCart playground is h(1 dl3 (.'N[:L.. t -itcler li-ture cnnclitiuns, the noise i:xpnsurt iti expected to remain at (~{) dC3 C'NT:I_. "Thus, the itc~ist exposures ure ~i~ithin the limits c,f the C'it1' ol~t.'upertinei Noise l~ai'ment standards. • "I'he existing txttric~r nc,i~i: exposure at die ntc?st impacted Manned l~uilclin~, stthack from the KiniltrC':-rt playground is ~R clli C'N}~1.:. tlncler future conditions, the noise exposure is expected icy remain at ifi dl3 C'NfI.. 14-64 -i- B. interior Nr-isc F~n~surrs • 'l~lt~~ interior noisi. exposure. in the mock irttpacte.d first 11~ror living sp~sres closest. tct the tiranitcRocl< hcsi~n Center «~ill be ;c) di3 C'NL~1_ cuule.r existing and future conditions. `Titus, the. nrcise exposures ~~~ill he within the limits of the ('irti• c)i' C`upe-rtino Noise F,lcment st~utd<trcls. • l'he interior nr-ite exposure. in the mast impacted sc.cand floor living spaces clo5csl ka the GranrteRock llctir~;n Center twill he 46 d13 CNF~I.. under ixisting and futtrrc cc~nditic-ns. 'I~hus, the noise expasuns ~+~ill be up Itt 1 cl>~3 in excess of khc C`it~~ of Cu~tertintt Ni-i:Sr f:lement standards. • 'l'he irtte;ritr nrcise exposure in the most impacted lust tnd tii.~cattcl Iloctr' li~~ing spaces c:lctsest t.a tltc K.indc-rC'are playground ~~-ill be 43 df3 C'Nl~.l_ under existing and future ectnditions. `l"hers, the noise Lxpasur•cs t~-rill he ~~~ithin the limits o!' the City of C'upcrtino N~~ise L:1c~me.rtt strindards. As shc~tvn shove the exterior noise exposures will he ~~~ithin the limits of the' stand.u'ds. Noise expostu'e excesses t~~iil occur in certain interior living, spices that have a viet~~ to the (;n•aniteRock 1'ttcility. 1\~itigatiort measures will he rrquired li>r the noise impacted interior living spaces. 'l~he recotttrnendcd measures arc described in tiection U he ow. 11. Rccununend:rtinns :1. Interior Noise C'e-r:truls io achieve interior nrcise exposures in cunthliance with ~~ dl3 C'NII.. limits itffhc l'it' of C'upertinic Noise [acmrnt standards, the folkc~t~in~; raise control measures will be re~luired. !n addition, general construction measures affecting the huilding shell ~rre also rc:comntc:nded, ati desr.rihed in Appendix f3. 14-65 -=1- ~~lamtaln C1ttSCd itt ,ell times all „•~indc~~~~s and glass chars nt second door living spaces ~+~ithin '_i It. ol~ the nol-tlt propert~~ lino altd ~~-ith a direct or side vie~e~ oi~ the Ciranitcftock facility. ~i`hcsc winclaws and Mass doi,rs Inay have any t~7te of Mass, i.e., thc:rc: is no ntittimtlnt Sound "franstttistiic-n Class (S`IC') rating rtquircmcnt. L'rc,~~ide some: Iype o}•meehanic.al ventilation ii~r these spaces. ~~'hcn ~~~itttlows ~lrc kept rli,seil for ru~ise. control, the} the to be opcr~tblc, ati tltc rrduirentent does nett imply a "lixed" ctnciition. In additiitn, some 1~frm i-(• mechanical v~ntilatian which brings in }'resh stir (i'attt the utUside of the unit must he prcwicJLd. 1~entilation r4yuiretnents sltccilieil in t}te l~ttiform 13uilding Cade are- shown in Appends li. All (1th('.1' 13'{nllU~~'ti al (I1G de\'Clcyp111tatt ~Uld al} hatltl'U(?let G1'Ittdar~'ti may ttse .tTly type O~ gJat-,ing, and Inay he ki°pt i~pcn as dtsir~~cl. All windows oC impacted living tipac:cs must h~tvc high quality, heavy duty Eiuttes toed ntitst pra~~•it}e- ten air-tight seal tc- thi: outside m~irontn~.nt. 'l•'he implt:~meniatii,n of the abavc rccc?ntmcluled ntcasures ~~'ill reduce excess noise exposures t'ctr cinttpliancr. with the interior standards ol'the City' ctf Cuperltrtct hake laemcnt. I11. Sift, Noicc 4nurcr. and I'rni~'ct Dcscriitfions '('hc planni:d prc~jrct silo is litcate.d at l(~til Sc~ttth 1)cAnr:t f;oule~•arJ. fkttti'c~~n lii~h~~~ay $~ anal 1'rc„rcct 12o~u1 in C'ty~ertino, citd is srthack ±~O It. from the ccnterlittc of tiouth I)e:'\na liuul~varil. I'res~_ntly thr silr is a parl;ittg Ic~t and is rclative.ly Ilat and ttt- grade with the adjacent (iranitcRock Dcsi~;n ('enter. 1'he silt is appro~intalely 1 f't. above Ihr ~Irvatiolt oC the playground at the adjacent kindcrC'arc lacilit~-. ~url•~~unding I.ttul Litil:S IItGIUIIC thr (.iruniteRocl; Design C'e-Weer adjac-ent to the north, the Kindt.rC~u•e pre- tichool adjacent to thr cast. a ?-story ol'tice building adjacent to the south and sing,le- larnil~• resid~ntial adjaccltt tc.t the west. "l~he KinclerCare building is interposed hetw~~n ~c,uth D~;1na Iioul%vard and the site. I he ollice building kt the south cimtailts the 13in~~}agcate company attd a Santo Clara C'ntutty Sherill"s (11'licc. 14-66 -~- 1~hc primary source; of noise at the site are operations and activities at the C;r~utittRuck fhsign t'cnter and pla}'grotutd activity al the: KinderC`at•e pre-school. ~l•ltc (~ranit~h.e~ck f)e:si.kn ('en.ter upcratrs from S:Ot) a.m. to ha}tf p.nl. ti~onda}' through l~rida}. 9a)(1 a.m. to ;a)t.) p.m. tiaturday and front c):OU a.tn, to 4ajtl p.m. tiunday. as rrpi~rtce] !~~' (n•anitel:c~ck, Itel'. (ej. f_ir:ulitcltarck is a retail building. tnatcrial facility that rt•imarily sells stone, rock and masonry construction materials. "l~he clesi~rk center huileling is toratcd near the li'ont portic-n of the site and at or nerar the property boundary e:ontiguuus with KinderC'ure anti the prctposcc] project site. The nutt4rials yard is locate.~d ai tht~ rear portion e~f the tarility and abuts the subject pre?jcct site. C.-as powered forklifts shuitle rttaterictts to and Pram the materials yarci to cars ant) trucks at the center of the I~trilit}•. l~orkli('t operation is the primary noise sourc:c~. Aft 5 f-t. high masonry vv~.tll separates the C;rtmiteRctcl` Uesigtt C~~ntcr lactltty ft'c?ttt tltc ~lrclject site. The k.inderC,:are l;acility ctiperates ti'om S:t1{l a.nl. tct ti:Up l?.tlt. Monday through l-'riclay. 't'he pri:-sclluc}I is presently at full enrollment of 132 children. -l"he enrollment is grouped b}~ age ~~vitlt 72 pre-schoolcrs, =1t) ?-year olds and ?{? toddlers. t'laygrct4rntl activity is ft'am ~): I ~ to I :1 a a.n .and front is ! ~ ttt ,i:0[) p.m. Ilppro~intately half of the scltotil goes Deft for play for ths~ first ~5 minutes to 1 hour, Then the second hall' of the ac:hcycr! goe_r• taut liar the stcuttd ~1S minutes to 1 hour, `t'he same scenario is realized lt)r the ai'tcrnoun play pe~riocl, as reported by kinder•{.'are, ltct'. (d). laclt age group has their c~~wn playground aiang the planrred project. t'hildren playing in the playground is the primary source of Hoist' from KitldtrC'are. ~t~hc plutncd prtsjecl InCliiCleS the l:Ul1S.U'UCUhn uf' 8 ttivc~-story single-1`•arnily pontes. Ingres and egress to the development will be by wiry of a drtve~vay off of Suutlt 1)cAnz:r 13oulcvard. ~a-s~ -1~- ~~~', rlnah•sis e-f the Noise Levels t1. L~ititint; Noise l~cvcls 'I'ii dettrrttine the existing noise cnvironmcnt at the situ, cantinucxts recordings of the sound levels ~~`ere ntadc at t~~•ci locatietns. L,ucation 1 -vas at the. north property line of ilte site cotttigu~.nts ~~•ith the CiranitelZork I~tcilit}' atui at a secimd Iloar c14v:rtiun with a direct vie~t~ iwer the prctpcrty line harrier tct the mate-rials yard. "]`his li~catian represents the mast nais~ impacted {zrupert~' lini~ itl'tht site impacted lzy C~raniteltock Uesign Ccntee noise. l..ocation ? vas :t{ctng the c.a5t property lime cti'tht: sit4 at the.:-tpproxim:rie ntidpc~int o[~th~~ hinderCare pl~tygroutuis. 'i'bis location represents the most noise itttpacte~i area ctF t.hl.' ~1tC t'lll5l'St to the KinderC'arc Facility. •1'he nieasurentents were made can March ?S- ~c), ?U{J7 her it cantintunts period ctf?4 Ixtut•s. Thy noise level dtifa ~~jerc recorJi:d :rnd itrocesse.d using 1_:trson-i)avis ~9cx{el t+l? ]'recision integrating Srntnd 1..~.vcl ~1e.ters, ~~Iticlt 1`ield h~' direct readout, a series of descri{ttors ctf iltc sounel levels versus time, inelading, the. 1.t, l..tri, l.;o, anti f.,<,{,, i.e., those lc;vels exceeded I":u, lU%~, 5(}n~;, and ~)U"/`o o[' the time. Also ntcasurcd ti~ere the maxinntm and mtmnuun lwrls tmd the equtvalcnt- cttcrgy levels (1.,~,i), e~~hich are used to calculate the C'Nlsl.. Tits results of shy nll'~lSitl'eltteltts are Sho~~-rt in the. clots t:ih{cs in appendix C'. "I'hc results cti'thc lick{ survey revr':tl that. the t.~.,t's at the north property {ine with a ~~ic~~~ tc, the (;ranitcRoek Design ('enter materials yard ranged front to j 1.9 to (~4.G d1~A dlil'Irl~; the (la1'Ut11L. [rC)ttt J?.1 to ~~. I tIi3A during the: evcming and Iremt 45.5 to Si).2 di3n ar might. {h-ritt~, (.iraniteftctcl:'s olx:rational hours of li:OO a.m. to G:00 p.nt., the L,~,t's ranged grant ~ I .i) to h~4.(i d13n, ~~-ith the highest sound. levels c.~ccurring during the 4:OU p.m. to b:OU p.nt. hours. `I'h~ L«j s at the cast property line elctscst to the KinderCarr playgraurtds ranged 1'ruttt io ~t7.t{ to 67 i de:~ during the daytime, li•am 49.7 t~~ ti ~.(- d(3A during the. evening and li•um X14.7 to .7 d[3;~ at night.. Uurin~, KinderC'ari?.'s i~pcratiunal hr~urs o1' i;:U{) a.m. to ~:OU p.m., the L,y"s ranged Ira171 47.fi to 67.E i1i3A, with the hightrst sound levels ~tiCClrl'l'I17L; during the 1 i):O(1 a.m. to i I :O{) a.m. and 3:Ot) p.m. lei 5;0O p.nt. hours, cc~rrespc,nding tc, the play period times. 14-68 -7- Noise from forklit't operations and children playing dissipates at the mite itf 3 to fi d13 liar each do-uhting vF tlt~ ctistancc from the source. 'fltus, other locations on the site ztt ~rr.iter distances fi•itnt the (;ranitelZock Deyi~n Center i~r the KinderC'arc- playgroutxts will have lo~~~er noise Icvt!Is. ~'. F~~.~lus~tion of rhr Noise I'sxnr-sures r1. r.~lr.riur Noise L Jiosurc Tit eY•aluatc the an-site nitisc exposures agtiinst the C"it}~ cif t'up~'rtino standards, flte C'NI°[,'s tin the starve}~ tacatiitns were alcu[atcd as a decihel average of thc~ t..«t's 4ts t11e1' aitply tit the daily time periods oi'thc C'NEL indix. '['hc~ CNEI_, is a 2~-hoar noise descriptor that usos the measw•ec[ 1..~,~~ values to calcu[aie a ?~-he>ttr iim~-~~~ci~ittod ttvertt~e ni~isL expitsurc with a .~ d[3 penalt}~ adc[cd to nctisr during the boors cat' 7:U() p.m. to [ p:OD p.m. ~utd a 1 U d[3 penah}~ acldcd u~ noise chiring the 1 U:00 p.nt. lt) 7:(?0 a.m. hout•s. `I'Ite Iormula used tit calculate the CNi~:I. i:; descrihe:d in Alzpendix [i. •i•he rusults c>t' thE~ calculations ittdicatc that thG oxtericar nctisi: e:-xposure at measttretnc~nt C.oc~ttion 1, the not•lh propet•t}• line with a view to the ~ircutitc.itock [h:sign Center materials }atrd, is (tl d[3 CNLa.,. NoisL harrier calculations reveal that tlt+r existing pre~prrty tine tic-undwt.tll provides 7 d[3 of materials yard noise reductiim. 'Thus, the noise rxposut•c In the ittOSt 1t11pIiGIC'd side and tear yards of 1.nts =[ and ~ is ?~ iIB C'Nf?i-.. ~'he exterior noise expi~sure is v,•itltin the. 6(1 d[i C'NE~.L, limit oi' the: City i~f Cupertinit Noise [=:Icntent standtu-ds. ' '1'hc exterior noise r.xposure at mcasw•entenl Location ?, the: cost prapert}r line dire.ctl}~ adjacent to thr KiitderC'are playgrounds, is (~C1 dI3 CNi:il:. `t'hus, the noise ~X}~e1y111'e In thl tttl)tit IttlltaCt{:il rCttC Yards uC Lots [~[ is ~~ithin the t'i0 d[3 f`Nlil. limit ot• thr City i~l'C'uptrtinu Noise L;letttent standards. ~•1iti~,ation measures #ttr the extern>r areas of the pt•oject will not he required. 14-69 -t{- !3. InEcrior Noise E~no~urhs 'Go evaluate the interior noise exposures in project livitt~! spaces, a I ~ d13 rcdurtian ~~~as applied to the cxtt:rior noise. exposure to rcpre~ent tltr attcnuatiotl pre}vided h~~ tht:• building shell Undo' c111171f[II-crrerr•rrs;r conditions. The cr~anrrul-at~c~r'crsxcr ronditit?n asstultes that windo~~~s 11avc single-stmn~th 1 ;132") Mass and are kept open up to O'!'~~ itt the time li-r v~att.ilaiidn. ~Ghc irtt~:rior naisc exposures ilt i1tG t11USt. II11p1CtCd I1V111~; spaces clctxest tc- tttt:•. (iraltitcltork Drsi~;n C'i:tlter nlatc:riais y~1rd will he 3~~ clt3 C'N1~1. at first 17oor elevations (l~rhintl the si~Uncl~~~all}, hilt up to X16 ct13 C'N11. Est second [lextr elc~~~stic,ns. "Giros. tltc noise exposctre~s ~~+'ill be Up to ! d13 in excess of the C'i1y t,i' Cupertino Noise I::Ie.ment st;~ndards. ti-9iti~tttic7n nte~xsttres will hr squired liar certain sccot7tJ 11c>or living sp~iees. The rcictmmendcd mititation measures are in descrihird ist Section [f ~tt~this t'epttrt. "this rc~pt~rl pr~s+:alts the results of a netise .sssessntent study I'<ir the planned li-lot suhdivitiion at I GQ l South Ue/1nza 13tnttevard in Cupertino. ']'he study findings asld rccctsrtmendations l~tr 1lresent conditions ,-rc basal on Held sneasltrements and other data and art: corrr:ct tct the hest of our kno~~~lcclgc. ltawe~Fer, significant clt~snges in tits CiranitcRock t)rsi~;n C`ettter or f~inderC"art: aper.stiolts, changes in noise rtc~ulations, c1r c1t111C Ghittti:~ beyilnd OUr Colllrtll May pri~dtlrc lollg-r~lltge: 1101Se results {I1i~trlnt li'C1311 our ~stinlutes. II'vou have an}~ questions or t~~ould [ikt: ztn elaboration int this report, please rail me. tiincerely, l~~l->\l`nltr) l.. I'nC'ti :\tiSOC'.. 1Nt'. . .~-~: .t t:t'li'ev K. Park t'residcnt ;~tticchsttl:nts: :'~t~penCitt:ls A. R, and C' 14-70 AYI'ENDfX A l:rlc~rences tzi) Sits Pltut, iV~~~~ Ilc~mes at 16t)i Sc~-uth !)eAnr.~r 13c~ulc~~ard, by l3runcti Marceiic :~rchiteca. (~~larclt l~,'0{)7 {!~) C'ity' cif' C'tr}tc;rtinu f)raft C.iener~il 1'lun, Yublir H~alt.h and Sirfty l;lcmcnt, "Nc~isc. 1'oilutiorl". C'lta}~ter l~. ?(1{)1 (c) Iitl~rrnation can Ciranil~Rc>ck l~esi~;n ('enter t:)pcr.::tic~nti i'rovidE:cl h_y tltr Grinitehoek t)esi~n C'e»ter by 'felephcme tc~ lchvtu•c! l.. 1'ac.k r~s~aciate.s, litc., (cl) lrliarntat'trtn cnt Kind:rC;t4re C~~-ertrtictrts 1'i•o~riclcd by !\•~ls. Kii7t 1•~sectbc~clct l,y '1'r!e}~ltitne tc~ l;d~~°arcl L. Pacl: Assoeitties, Irtc:., April ?2, ZU~7 14-71 Ai'1'N;NI)IX l3 Nc-isc Standards 'I'~~rmirtafo~*v. Inslrumcntatic-n ~'cralilatit-n 12ccluircmcnts :mid liuitdine Shell Gorttrc-ts !. hvisc Standards ;~. C'ih~ of Cunt~rtirtr- "Nnisc l±.lcmcnt" Standatds `I~hc City ul'C uper•tino 1-tettl{h and Said}1 l;lcr33ent o{'the (~ict34ral flan, ~,rcl3lrecl in ''0(il, t`f'IirC413C3ti the l...md Utic C'c:m3patibility Chad pt-hli4hc~f {~y the State c~l'('aliti~rnia. ~l'he Normally Ar.cc:~stahle ncyise cxpc3sures, in term elf the C'1111t1Rrr11t1' Nc-t~e lquiv~~li:nt l.e~~el (C NET) I1C)ltie desct•rpu-r, arc shcn~•n hclt-~+~. l..u3d i.lse f=:xtc_____;____;rictir t:csidt:nces (sin~k~-family} (i0 (~t;'.Si(te11CE:S {Ill+lltl-td13311y} GS ~i'ransiel3t Lodging t'~ Schc+ols, t intipitals. Nttrsing l (c3mcs, t'11t11'c:Ilcti 7l.) I'hratcrs, /1LIClllt?r'tu111ti, ~~{l+ti1C f falls 7Q ()tltdcxn• tirorts. Ar4lzati 75 C)I•lie.e tild~!s.. 13ustr3ess, ('on3n3rrcial, f'rulessicmal 7(I I'lal~gn+uncls, Ncighhi~rl3iu~d Parkti ~O ltlc{t1S11'l~tl, ~•~.IllUfi]CtUi'Itl~ 7~ The f lealth :uul Safct~• l:~.icm~nt (Nclisc). rel'crenccs the sound tr;u~smissicm ('nntrol standards r1' the titan: t?f• Caliti,rnia Cc-de of Kegulations, 't'itle ?~. ~a~hie33 titi3its intcrit~r nt-ise exPosur~s ill multi-{i~mit~~ resid~nt:es to ~{5 dLi CNCI_. "fh~: Noise Eaemcnt suggests thv a~i{~lieaticm ul'thc ~I'itlc ?~4 standard to sil3gle-tamely residences as well. 13-1 14-72 2. Tcrminolo~' .A. !;t.>ttistical Nc-ise Lc~~cls (hlrr: to the (ltlrtuating character of Llrhan traffic. noise, statistical prc-cedur~s .Ire. needed to f~rovidc an adequate. disra•iptinn. of the environln~nt. A series of statistical descriptors have bi:cn clevelc>pec4 «~hiclr represent the noise levels cxccecleci a ~;ivrn 1}errenta~e o(' the time. 'These descriptors arc obtained by ctircct readout of the (`omlYitmity Noise :'\n~llyzer. Same c-f' the statistical levels used to describe community: noise ttre de.lincd as tt-Ilcr~vs: L.1 - ~ noise level cxrcecle-cl iur 1 °ro cif the time. (-111 - t'~ tl()lse flue! CXCCCd~d for ! 0°in o('the. time, collSidcred to he an "intntsive" level. !_{„ - 'nc~ noise level exceeded SQ°% c.-f'the time represetyting an "~tverl~e" sound level. 1~,,;, - 'l"he noise l4.vc1 exceeded 9O'~~ ul'the time, desi~natecl as a "hack~ri-tuu(" noise level. 1.G,f - "l'h~ continl.u-us equivalent-en+rr~;}' level is that level of a sleadl'-stat+r noise having the same sutlnd cner~y as a ~ivc:n time-varying noise. ~fhe l.~,l 1•cpresents the decibel level of the tinTe-averaged value oi'sound enemy c7r sound pressure siluared and is used to calculate. the t~Nl. and CNla_. 13-? 14-73 I3. C`ommu~ih~ hoice F,guiv:~lent Level {CNEL) 'C'{tic C'Nh.L is rt ttte~lst.ire e>1" the cuntttlati~~c noise expt~surc iwcr a ~'~ hour pcric~d. 1"iu C'NL,I, index dividrs the' hixtr dad- into three subpcriads, i.e., the da~~timr. (7:(}O am ti- 7:OO pot). the e~~ening periiid (7:(}(} pm tip 1(}:OQ pm). and thi: nigltttrmr pc.rtod (1(}:UO hm lu 7:O0 am). ;~lsi~. ~a~cighting Iaetars of~ ~ and 1 ~ il13A are applied to the ercning, and ni~httittu pcrioiis, ri:sprcti~•ely, to account Iar tltc greater s4ns-U~Jtt4~ of people to ni~isc. during thc~sc periods. 'I~Ite C'NII, ~~alues arc calculated Irom the measures! Lcil values in accordance with the tollpwin~; math~tnatical ii~rnutla: (,'NIL. - j(1.~,+1h logial?) ~ (1..~-i~>-~-lU h~gta3) ~~ l1.,„~t•10+1O lr.>gia`~?~ - lb logtn?4 ~~~hcre: L.,i = ~~a 1'or the: d;tytim~ (7:O0 a.m. to 7:0O p.m.} I,~, == I..«, Iar the evening, i 7:()() p.m. to 1()'()() p.m. 1,,, = 1~,.~! it~r the nighttime l t U:UO h.nt, to 7:OO a:m.) ?~ indicates the 24 hi>ur period tS'; llenl)t~5 ilectbel addition ('. A-~t1'riLhted S~~uncl Love! `l'hc d~.cibt l measure c~i' the srnutd Icve! utili-r,ing the "/1" weighted network oi' a sc~tutcl levy! nti;ter is relcrrr.d t<~ us "ill3!1". "I'he "r1" weighting is the ac-eepted ~fiutdard weighting s~~stcnt used ~a~hcn noi.e is measured and rcci~rdcd liar the pur{x~sc of dclermining. total noise levels attci conducting, statistical anal~~ses o1' the envil~ontttent si- that tli4' OUtI?Ut i'(tl'relales ~1'cll with the respontie. ol'th~ human gar. 13-, 14-74 3. It~strumcntatiat 't'he on-site field measttrtntent ciatti ~~rerc acquired by thr use of cline e+r more ol'thc precisicm aCOIiStICaI InSII'Ume'ntti S11C1V4'n helUW. The acoustical in~irutnentsticm pro~lid4s a clirec.t readout o(• the i, cxecedance statistical ievcls including the c.qui`ralettt-ener~!y Ir.vcl t:l.~.y). ]ttput to the nl4tet's was provided by s microphone extended to a height ol• 5 ft. ,hove thr groiutd. The tni-ter cc,tnl`nrttts !o ,~11~~1 ~1.=t tisr'f'ypc 1 instruments. '(•tie. „A~~ wci~hiing ttehvnrk and the "bast" rtaponse setting ol'the meter wort. used in conii~rm~tnce ~~~ith the spplicai~le ISC) rrnd li:C standsrds, All instruntentatiott eras acouslicall)~ calibrated bef~Orc• ~utd ii~tl..l''.C (te~ld ti'st5 t(1 .L'.sure accitrac:_r.•. 13ruel ~~ K;jaer 2231 Precision lnttgrnting Sound 1,evel Meter Larscm T)avis l_:i31r R 1 ? Precision Iitlegrtiting Sound L,evc! Mctct' Lrtrsc,n Dti~ris ?9Q(1 i2i:a) 'i•inte Aniilyrer ~1. Ventit:~tinn Rcc~uiremcnts Ventilation rcyuimments to he ~ippli~d when ~vindu~~-s are maitl[ained elos4d ltr noise control 4irC specified in the tlnilorm Building Code (Lit~C), I~)c)7 edition, Section 12.ft±. ~ as fi?Ilows; "fn lieu of~ ri:elttired extcrinr openings l-r natural venliiatian, a ltll'Chiillll'iil 1rc.ntilating s1'stcm tttay lx' provided. Such systun shall be rapahlc o(' providing t.wi~ sir changes per hour in gttcst rnoins- dormitories, habitable rooms, and in public corridors with a Itlinlmtlltt of 1 ~ rabic Icet per minute (~l.Js? o(' outside air per occupant eluting sorb time ss the building is occtipit:cl." liatied on our previous experience, a "summer switch" on the liirnacc taut is normLdl}' considered ticccptuble as a ventilation system by 1~1-iA snc) other agencies. :1ir- conilitioning, is also an acccptahle system. Ci-=t 14-75 ~, l3uildint; Sftell Cc-ntrols ~'Ite I~~Iknwing ~-aditional prec:autionar~~ ntec~-st-rr.s are rec;uirc:d to a~sur~ tl}e ~;r~::-test potential for extra•iur-tu-interior noise attenuation b~~ the rccommenaea mitigatiim ntea~-tre:r. 'I'hesc measures app}y at Ihose units ~~vhere. closed ~~'indows arc rcc~u.ired: Clnshielded cntr~~ doors hu~~in~ a direcE or sine orientation to~~rard the ;~rittiary noise source must he t-5!R" or }-3/4" tltick, insulated. mctt-1 or solid-core word construction ~~~ith e-i~fecti~~e ~t`cather seals arc-una the: Gull per•intctcr, Mail slots shoulci tx-i he used itt these doors car in the t~~al1 of a living, space, as a si~ttiticant noise leaka~c can occur throu~!h them. • II' ttn~~ penetrations in tl~e litrilaitt~ she11 tiro recltured litr ~~cnts, piping, conduit, etc., sauna leakage ttraunc{ these pettctrationti can be controlled by sr:alin~ till cracks and clearatue spaces ~~~ith a non- It~-rdening cctulkin~ cotttpound. (~ireplaces shoulc! be pro~~iaec! with tight-tittin~ aatnpers. l3-; 14-76 APPI~NDI'~ C" Noise .Mcxsurerocnl Dai:~ and Catculatit-n Tables 14-77 If)o (!, M*= ~ ~~ N tQ O 0, M 0 N (`~ '~ O f~ "lpl ~ ~ ~ J ^ J ^..J ^ fn ~ (n Z U J Q ...I W Z U w U W ^ z Y a W z of an U W Z ~ ~ w z w p ~ ^ _~ a > U ~ oa0 (~ ~ N W US F- Zd'F-ra'jZ JoOm~ J DM~MC7 ~- ItJ U Z ~ u l ~ WwOF-~ Jd~¢O c~liaou~ tD m m tY7 m M 0 .- M O tp r N 01 '~ O a ~' r r r rn O N O th (") r~ N M f71 fD 1"7 th Ql 1D ~ U] r >n to .M-- ~ ~ O~ ~ (O') ~ rmin NcO l0010m ONuN'1~MM~Nrtnr S 47 C ~ (O N N N N Q O O~ G~p h QI 1~ M V q fA M d> M tp N ~' .~.. J ~ Q M Qf Ob R1 t4 lp t0 M N fT bl O t71 !` w 110 M N i7 lD fp tT t r r I>7 (") r r r T O 19 (L ..- O J ~ a fll R~r 1f1 U7 Q O N f70 00 V 1(1 M r- cD O M h -- .- tf) N h N N ~- 1~ ~s ~~~~~~~~~~~,~~~~~~~Q~~a~~~ ~~ Y ran N `- ~o ~~~~¢a~~~~gg~~~aaaz~~~~~ Q,r ¢¢¢ aaa.aaaaaaaappoa¢ ¢¢¢¢ W OOS O N00000 ap~0r;700000 bQg ({~~ to Tc` 000 0000 0 D~N0000 d~c.~ ,J ^ •< M r9 CT7 .- r N M '~f tr} tl7 h CO O/ .- r+~ .- N M 'Sf 11y fD 1'7 Q lD ~ O h CU (R ~ ~ 11 II II y N 01 ~ 11 J J J J ._ If ~.°'~ ~,~~ w= ~,.~z~ ^ w z to N h. M N O O to h m O ~ ~ ~ ' N ti IE 1 ti ~ r ~a -' z~ ~ '' g° ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ pp ~ [{ h- N O M >n N O ham- N h W 01 O Q f7>' 0 QS h M N m u7 Ol -.--ONM/`O ~M C([~~rh aih Q1G Nf70m CiO Q'r7 p N (p m f~ N m O m M V Q) to m N f~ r` lA N 1O 00>Ommr~ mmaoNf~u~, muff hcOOmM t- h O N QQ pD Qf R I~ Q W r+l M h Q M ~r' N~ M MOM M ~- 1A r M M N 1P eU G> N t!] f'- V GO O r, M p0 .- m M th ~~ S 11') N N N 117 Q N 1Ca N M N r ~-' fT M N~ l0 to w h m n J II II y 4. > 11 Y Q u") Q~ ~- OI V r- W N (O t0 M M .- O 11'f lD N N M OD O r M N W N -~ N U W m h ~ [+1 M M h (O t~ N r7 to N OI 0 ID 4'7 tp 4 vl ai ..1 J~ J ~ J ~ ~ lf) 1(1 1[l t(7 IA Ir1 to (O 10 ~ N ~ Il'f 1n V 11'1 Q Q C ~ 1r1 t(1 E °c_'•E n ~ ~ N ~ ~ L W = ~ ~ m> p1Zv ~ ~ ^ W Z U N r~ a ~ g ~ Q Q n. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a a ¢ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ¢I- Q¢pQooo~ppaapap~appnpp.a.aoo ¢¢¢p¢¢¢ O~ ,~ 0 0 0 ~ a N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ a S 0 0 0 0 S O J^ F- tti m OT r r N M Q to O h m O .- r fV M V' ~ CD 14-78 1":::.C~~V~'~ Mr. Colin Jung Senior Planner, City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Ave. Cupertino, California 95014 Calin December 24, 2007 Thank you for spending time with us to explain the status of the new housing development behind our residences, ~~xa o ~ ~no8 Exhibit C Our three residences have been in the area for many years. We still remember the early 19$0's; at the planning committee meeting, the then real estate developer promised to the neighborhood to plant a row of evergreen trees along the border between us and the parking lot of the office buildings. After the office building and parking lots were completed, the row of evergreen trees grew to a respectable green zone for the environment. Now nearly 20 years later, a new development is being praposed to convert the pazking lot to housing development. This row of evergreen trees maybe in dangers of removal. We like to point out the following valuable advantage of these evergreen trees for the environment and for the neighborhood. 1. Sound barrier from the traffic noise of De Anza Ave and Highway 85 for all homes in the neighborhood. 2. These tall evergreens are a rare green zone very important far the environment. 3. A goad separation between the high-density new housings and our existing homes. 4: These trees could also act as good headlight barrier for automobiles coming into the new housing development. 5. Removing the trees will reduce the quality of life and devalue the property value of entire neighborhood homes. 6. Keeping the trees will enhance the attractiveness of new houses. We wish to express our strong position to request the city planning committee to preserve the raw of evergreen trees for the proposed and for any future development. Sincerely John & Helen I~l,ang ~~i~~l'etq~ luda Vu~h & Phuan Dao g 1534 James Town Drive 1522 James Town Drive 1510 James Town Drive Cupertino, Ca 95014 Cupertino, Ca 95014 Cupertino, Ca 95014 Homeowner & Residence Homeowner & Residence Homeowner & Residence Since 1979 Since 1969 Since 1987. 200'7-12-24 Cupertino Colin Jung.doc I 14 - 79 Colin Jung From: Judie Soo Gilli [Judie@mpianninggroup.com] Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2007 12:26 PM To: Colin Jung Subject: Fwd: 1601 S. De Anza Project Please add this to the public record. --- Helen-Chen <helenchen95014@yahoo.com> wrote: > Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2007 11:59:48 -0700 (PDTj > From: Helen Chen <helenchen95014@yahoo.com> > Subject: 1601 S. De Anza Project > To: Judie@mplanninggroup.com > Dear Judie, ' > My name is Helen Chen, the owner of property reside > at 1486 Jamestown Dr, Cupertino, CA 95014. > I got your letter regarding the neighborhood meeting > for the six single-family homes project located at > 1601 S. De Anza Slvd, I may not be able to attend > the meeting,-but I just want to express my opinion > that -- I strongly support this project! If that > area has to build something, some single family > house will be the best option, we welcome more > residential home come into this neighborhood. > For years, this area has residential and commercial > zone conflict problems, now it's time for the City > to consider to have more strict regulation for noise > control from commercial zone, The City need to know > better how noise reflect residential home owner's > quality life. For instance, GraniteRock, it's a very > very noisy commercial place right adjunct to > residential homes, I don't understand how the City > approve this retail place come into the > neighborhood, wasn't there any other commercial > place which is less noisy available? I wish the City > Officer can live into out neighborhood for a week, > and they will know what I mean by "Noisy". > Surely this project will raise the noise problem > again, but I do think some single family homes is > the best interest for the neighborhood. > Sincerely Yours, > Helen Chen > > Do You Yahoo!? > Tired of Spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam > protection around > http://mail.yahoo.com 1 14-80 Single Family GreenPoint Checklist date: The Greerrl'oint Cfredc8st fs based on tNe v~ri~~+ incorporated ~ the bane and is Ore basis br Ore GrearPdM Rated program. A Irotfle carr be cor>ddared green O O tulAls Ore prerequisfles, earns at least 56 pdrds, and meats Ore rNninxarr pdkds per category: Energy {30), Indoor Ak ~traflty! FlealOr {5), Resources (B), and Water (~. Please oonlad Brdd h Green for a Oat of gtuYlfled GreenPbkrt . Balers O you are IMeresled in ptasutng thtd-paAy ver~icaOon. Tire green lxrif~irg {racd~es Iisled below are dosc~ed W fire New Fbme Con~rut~far Green t31r GtddoOrres, ava8aae ~ wwwJwp~tcaeen.oro. EXHIBR B ~- ~, Build ItGrceri ~~~~~ D.~O[lNfik~`I(,~I~ v ~ ..,. ~., .......~,...,..t __. -..-,-.. ....... ~.. ~e ........_.~....... ~ . _~._:. Rotn4s,AVaila~ei~.re-:;:.. - 1. R~lap PorWnd Cement in Convate with R oryded Flyash or Slag ^ a rrerdna.n za% Flyaslr a 51p 0 1 ^ b. lArrVrsart 25% RYaslr a gap 0 1 2 Ufa FroabProledad Sfalbw Pourgation fn ColdAren (CEC. ClknMeYone 18) 0 l ' 3 1. Uaa Radon Resfetanl Conatrudlon (M At-Risk Loatbns Ony) 0 ; ) ~ 6. Desiprl and Build Srudr¢d Peat CoMroh ^ a Install Temite Stdak~ 8 Separate AO Exlerfa Wend-b-Conaele Connac6ane bg Metal a P(asic FastanerslDluidas 0 ! 1 r a M New Rants Have Tnmk, Base, a Slam Loceled At Leash lades tram FauMaliar ,.___.,.. 0 _____.,-__--._ .._----...---__~____-- ' i i ua raraeaapn = n r u ^ a f1o Invasive Spades LHled by Cal-IPC Are Pladed 1 I i 1 ^ h No Rand Sperdes Yu9 Requke Hedeln8 ^ a 75% of Bards Are Drougldaolererd C~arrda NaBvas, Medlarenean, a OUer Appropriak Spades ~ .... 0 .. _ ( V i ~ 3 _ r _..~.;..an.... _.__~.:_ .._,.,... __._._.. 2.UeeRre-SafeLandecepirreTadndquea 0 1 j i ~ 3. hinimiae Turf Areas M 4mkeepe hratNled by BWMa/ ^ a AB Tud W10 Hare a Wela Regriemart Less mar a Equal to Ten feaare ( 0.8 plant factor) ^ b. Turf StsA Nol Be tn~aled on Slopes Exceeding 10% a h Areas Less tlrar 8 feet Wide ^o G Tut ~ 33% a landscaped Area (Idsl 2 pakds) ^ dTurfis f0%afLsdaapedArea(lolal4pdnls) _0 2 2 0 ~ ~ ~~~_~" , ....._._ ~___.....~__......... ; 2 """'_ ""~"' I 2 4. Ram Shade Trees 0 t 3 6. Group Plods by tNeler Nsede (Hydromnirrg) 0 ' 2 & bretall HIBh-ENidarry iripdion Syslam ^ a Syslan Uses ony Low•Farr Drq, Dubbhre, a Low-Ibw spdrddaa ^ to System Flan Smart Corr6oMaa 0 .... ~ __ ..... _..._.~ _.._ ~ 3 . .....~.,.? 7. Meorpaate Two Inrdes of Compost In the Top 8 to 12 Inches al Sob g l 3 ^ 8. IAufoh AR Plsnling Beds b tlN Greater of Z Inches or Loch Water 0rt8rwnca Requkremerrt g I Z 8. Use SO% m Racycled•Cordant Matar4ls for 50%of Non-Rent Landsupa FJamerds p i f ~ 10. Ramrco Ligtd PoBudon M SNsIdMp Fbrtnrea auction Dkacdng Upld Downward 1 1 l I r Tolal Pointe AvaBalde in 1. Apply OpOmel Value Errpineaing ^ a Race Belles end Studs at 24krch On Cada Frarrdrg 0 ^ 4 Sze Door and WtrMow Fiestas la Load ~ ~~ .....1-- . i "' _' »., ^ c. lJse Ordy Jack and GlPge Studs ltegrYed tr Load 0 _ .' I 1 i 2. Uaa Enginssred Lumbv 0 a Beams aM Fkadas 1 1 I ^ b.IrerdetedEngireaedFleadere •...'~ ."`"..~.._......'..`....... ^ c. Wood f-JoNls a Web Trusses fa Fbas 1 i ^ dWood f-Joists for Roof Ratkra _.O.-_:.. .......__.~,...~....., ~.- i ^ e 6relneered a RnBa-Jointed Suds fa Vertk;al ^ L Oriented Brand Goad for SubBoa a ._. _ .._,_-).---~ i -.-~_._,__ ~ ^ a orkoded Stara Board wr way and Boor 0 _ ~~... ._ .__ ~ ._._. ~ _......_.. ._.1..._ 3. Use FSGCatiRed tNood ^ a t)krerelonal Lumba, Suds anti Ttnba: Mirdmum ~0% 0 ~ ~ ~ i ^ b. DYnaatiaral Lrxrdw, Suds arM Tknba: trfirrkraxn 70% 0•-- / .__. _ ~..fr i `" """"('~"" --z -~--....... ^ C. Farrel PfOdIICIS kgllklaarl ~% ^ d Panel Products kNMrrasrr 70% o --~ -- i -..--~ _.~..,_. .."-' 1 ~____... ® 2007 Build It Green SMgM Farrdty GreenPokd ClrerJdisl 2007 Verson 14 - ~ 10(4 :~ , G rwiwntNC : :. . ~. .. - . __:- =_. .::.: ~._..~~ :.> ::..:~ ~_ ._.poiill~Avai~Fet.Mai~?are:.,:-. 1. Dietr6uta Darraatia Hot Watet E13olsrdly (Mudmum 7 Polrrls) a a fnedate l-bI Wale Fipas fralt Wafer Fbafa b lttldta ^ b. IrtsWate AI fld Wakr F9pes 2 _ _...~ .. . ...._,~ i 1 ..:_„i...., f.TM:...l.-. ~, _ , .~Li ^ c the famed Pasld Plping 0 t -. .~ _1 - ._ ^ d. the F~girteaed Pastel Fipinp xilt Derrratd Catboled CJrculalorr Loop ^ s the Strudtaed Pkenbirp w~ Demand Conbolad (Srtadaloar Loop ^ f. lhp Cartel Core __ 0.., . 0 - 0 . ~....... .. __ _ ,. 1 1 . . ._.~.:.' . 1 ... 2 ~1 ... ~ . 2 ^. ^ 2.InstallhtlyHiph TdINa{Dual~Flushor 51.ZBppl) 0 f 4 Trial Painls Awaebk h 1'llataarg = Tda 1Z •:: R HEATING; YLN`t'~1;,~'X'~UJM ~ ~itk'C. l!Ib..::~]NI~+1Cr.,..."= - . - ~.: _: ~ ...:: Z -: :, .. ~6((i~;AVa,I ?~f AltY_d .: _:::- '!. Darn and InsM HVAC System to ACCA Motutal J, D, and 3 ~ 0 4 2lnetaA Salad CombuNbn lbdta ^ a Frrrt D i 2 ^ D. Wafer Haters 0 ~ _ 2 9. Instil Zoned, Hydronic Radford Hatllg wHh Spa Edps Insulsflon 0 1 1 4. Inata3 High EI(kiarcy AkCondiBONnp wSh Emtmmrmrfalfy Responsible RaklgersMa 0 1 ~ 5. Daipn and btefaD FJNetlw Duclraak ^ a Irt~ HVAC Unl end Dudrrnlc aallrh CondNared Space ^~ b. flee Dud MaNc on AI pail Jofrss and Sams 0 w.., + 3 _.r......7 1 ~ _. ..... ... _._._ ^ G lnslal Dudwak urda Aric MeulsYon (elated Dada) _.T ° 1 . ^ a Presst,re ealatce dre Daxi~wdc system ^ e. Prded Ducm during Corrdmdion erM Gan M Duds before tkrxipacy ,. T o .., 7~". .~.,.~._ .. . 1 1 _. ........ _.. ....~._ ~.... j _ _.~ & Instal High Elftciaoy HVAC Flllsr (MFJ2V 8+) 0 1 ^ 7. Don't brstall Flreplaa a InaW Sealsd Gas Fbepiscea srhh Epfdency RaOnp Ref Las Than d0% uahtp CSA Sltndards 0 1 l.broWl EifocOw F~ahawl3ystansln 8adaoams entlKltdras ^ a Ins1a8 ENERGY SEAR Badaoafrl Fats VenMd b the OrA~de 1. , 1 ^ b. Al Bathroan Fans Are on Tfatar a Fbraidlaid 0 ~ 1 ^ c. Instal IOtdtee Rage Fbod Varied b the Uddde 1 - ~~ I 1 _.., S. hufdl Maduniatl VartlRS7bn System torl:oolnp (Maxhtrum 4 PdrM) ^ a Instal F.HgtGY STAR Gallop Farr 8 LIpM IOfs in Liuirg Areas 6 Bedrooms ^ b. Instal While tblse Fat wih Vaktde Spareda ^ G 1' COnh0A8d 17~¢HlBd SyliBin 0 ~0 ~,.0`. ~,,.... .. ~.,.1 1 2 ~ _ _nTM .`. M - i ~ - ^ a Alatarmlcaly Conhofled InleprAed system wgr vadade spas lbMral a 3 T 10. Instal MedrardaJ Fresh Alr Vsrrdhtlon ByHem (Madnart 3 PoleU) ^ aAr~WDatat~e~a~e~rtsy~ernT~tt~etaA3t~AE~.Z ^ b.in~Air-lo-AtHatF.rcharperpmtmeelsASHRAE$22 fl _...~._ ..~. ...i... ? _.Z.__ ..~. I ..~._~r. } . 11. Instep Carbon Monoxide Alatm(s) 0 1 Tofd Pdds Avertable M Ftaretlrap, Ven9alort and Air = 30 ..._ ....._.___r_ .~......». -.._.: r._...._._ _.: - bR.~NEV,QAeI:S~&NEA X'-..._.~ .__~,.~__..~_:;~~._:, r 4 ~1V}>.~IA9t15t1f~..'=-;: ~_... _.. 1. Pre•PYmda for Sa4r Hot Webr Heating 0 ' 4 ' ®2007 Budd It Green Single Fanly GrearPokrt Cltatr~st 2007 Versbat ~ 4 " 8~ 2 a 4 .fi,~UILr?II+~GI',LRY~URI4IAN~~_._.__:_._. .:: : .,:_.._._. .......:.. .......;. ....:...:.:... ;....:.. .....n~~~:;%=:~~: '. Pan(<,AJall~le;F?erFAeasure..;:.:. t. atpnot0a EvduaBom ^ a Haree PasseslNowa DoanpTa~slµ~ ~~y~ b.lioruePessasConibllsBonSafelyBackdraBTed 0 _ 0_ ...~.,u.~.._ 1 •, .. ~ ( 1•••• ~ ••••••••'•••••-•••••• t5x L Desgn eW Buib Nigh Paiomlanca Homa • % stave THIa Z4 • minimum t5x Requked 30 i i 230 a ^ 3. Hwae Obtains ENERGY STAR wNh Imioor Atr Package CeNficeBon • PHat Msasuro (total 45 ponds: rued conerwmf) p S 0 2 rn,x wwemw vnred< rn rnr,r,= v.,x.~~ _ ~a r ~ r IG FINISH .. ,. ._ '- r ' :.... _... _..~ :....._.. `. .:,:., :,°s , PoitilS /1V0(186~9.f?61`~~9N6Uf5 :._ 1. Dedpn Entryways to Rednee Tracked In Cortamfiants 0 1 2 Uae Low•5lDC orZeo•VOC PsiM (Masimum 3 Polls) ^ a Low-vOC Irrtedor WaA(Ceanp Paints {c50 gpl VOCs (ReQ erld <t50laa 1ro(s (~~)) p a zam-voc Inlerlor wamrceanp Pans (<s 9pl voce (Fla4) p .~' s`~ ~.. ~,_ - - 1 ~` . • 3~ ......,~._..._... x u» taw voc, wda•Ba»d wood Flnhhee (<z50 ppl voce) o ~ Z I ~. Use Low•VOC Cwlk and Comtrlrctbn Adh»i»s (<70 ppl YOCe) for NI AdMelwe 0 ~ 2 ^ 5. U» Recyded•ComeM Patrd 0 I 1 i. U» EmlmnmeMapy Preferable Mateide for Interior Fhtbh: A) F8C•CaOaed Wood, B) Reclaimed, C) RepEdty RalewaWg D) Resyrckd-Content orE) Flngabaded ^ a cabinets {5o9c f~Oramrerr} o ; ~.,._ _ ~ L-.. ^ tr Inferior Trim {50x Min6rsm) ^ G $hBIYYIp (50x ktirdlrllall) ^ d Doors (50% klnNem) .~.0 _.. J o ~ ~ ~~ i ..1..........,- 1 ^ e. Counfarops (5016 id ~ 0 ~~'~~ f _ 1 7. Reduce Formddehyde fi Interior Fhdah (CA SeoOon 01350) ^ a sudaor a st~rTreads {sox klrirnun} p h. caunete a {sax klrrhrwm) ^ c kdedaTrim (50x Miinun) 0 ._ o .... 0 .... 1 ._.........y._._.......n..l _ 1 __ _. i ..,., _ L..._.~ _.• _l ._j_ d Shelving (60X MlMrur~ 0 1 ^ 5, After IndaOepon of Ffitahes, Test of fidoorArr Sfavro Famddehyde lard Q7ppb p I } Trial A~a~ Wink F Frixlws v 71 I 3 I 7w..4!i.(?Gt~LN.G ..:.. .: .... .:.- :, ~ ....P~!4>i9.... :PerMe>~ufe'<-. , 1. Use Envtrorsnenhfly Prefarebk Fbodrlp: A) FSGCarafiad Nbod, B) Recldmad a Refinished, C) Repidy Ranswebk, D) Recyckd•Coniaft, E) Erglo»dConaeta FlooArpAdhesfYeslrtutHares50pplY~a. ^ a kirinaan 15x a floaArea ^ h ABrirmer130x of Floc Area 1 1 ; r ~. 1 . 1 ~ .... _ ~.. Q GMIrJrrrunl51N6ofFborArea ..1T ... ._ _~-, 1 . ^ d Mirirtem 75x cl Floa Area 0 3 1 ^ 2. TMrtnd Ma» Fbare Floor Coverfip fMhettun Carpel on 50x a Mon d Concrete Floors 0 ~ 1 l ^ 9. Flooring Meets Section 01350 a CRI Great Lard Plus Requlrernenta {50x Minimum 0 ; 2 ~ 7n4d Amldda Pnink In FGvfrinn = Y I 7 1 :_..__ ., __ _ -,. _.. ..~:POllttsM1vaOablttl'er-ulaa^,cre::.:i,~-: 1. Inddl Yyster and Energy FJficled Diafis»ha ^' a F~RGY STAR (blal 1 paint) ^ b. Dishvrasher lk» No More Ulerr 8.5 l~albnslLyck {trial Z prints} i 0 _,,,._}_. 1--.~.__..___,~....___...r ............. I l 1 2. Ins1e0 ENERGY STAR Cbth» Wwhinp Mechinewfth alder Feelorol8 elaes ^ a Meets Energy Star ant CEE Tier 2 rarpdremwAs (modRed energy facbr Z0, wafer Fir 8.0) (fatal 3 pohds) ^ b. Meets Energy Star and CEE Trey 3 requaanerds (modlied ereryy fecla 2.2. Wafer Fedor 4.5 aleas) 5 is 3 - U - i 1 2 ____ ~ ~ ..~ 2 ~ ~ 3. InaWl ENERGY STAR RetripeMor o a GY SPAR Duetted a < 2s cubic Fed capaap ^ ~ ~ ^ d ENErtGY STAR Qua<illed a < 20 Cubic Feet Capady 0 1 I 4. Indsll Bulfi•In Recydfig Celle 0 ^ a Buil-~~ p ~ z ^ b. Bunt-kf ComposOng Calla 0 ~ 1 Told Av~able Pokds kl Aoolarlcea and Llatl6ne =12 I 5 1 I I I 2. Deveba Fbmaowne Manua d Green f•»hrrealBeneflls 1 3 1 i l i l I ! 1 1 3. careminRy Dnlpn Measures a Lvcd PrbrNiee: Sae Ore Comfaniy Plarairp a Design sedbn al Che)der 4 of tfle Nan home GuMe~lea for rtl»surx. Alarkrrurrr d 20 pa+rds br aupgesled measures. Laval requlremerea may also Ea Idea hero. Pedesbian Aor~ss b Ne~llbahood Seduces Whin U2 Ante ®2007 guild It Green Sine Famiy GteenPolnt ( 2007 Verson ~ 4 ' 8~age 3 of 4 ~ ' ' ~ f J f• • Ii f S~ ~ ~ ~ ; Mdkral coop; venous 4539 n. Trees surround Parcel all ProMde Sheds. ~ 9 ~ 9 a o 4. lnnrrvadon: List Innovative measures that meet the groen twNding objectives of the Guidelines. Enter up toe Build It i i Green Checklists and maximum combined total of ZO ts. See Innovation Checklist fw su sated measures, usin the Ilnk to the ' ht. Gu del nes Innova9an in Cemmu : Ender dasc71p5on here, and ardor Pdnb avatade fa measure h appropdale caleparies b 9eriA~ __ 0~ . ..»0 ~ 0~ 0 ~_ 0 0 Inrgva9as b : Fldar deaalpfwn here, erM order pohds avaaabe far measue In a mlegtxies b 9u right 0 _ 0 _ 0 _ 4 0 0 ^ Innwalbrs In IAQ1HeMth: 6dor desrdiplon tbr0. and erda pdnls ava9ade br measure fn b the tight. " Q- 0 p 0 _ a ___.. O ^ Innrnra0on M Rasourkxs: Enter descdpYm here, ad sober pohda avalahle far rteasure b male b ire right _ 4 "" Q 0. a _. _Q D -- Inrgvabn b 1Nater: Enb~ tletxripion here:and order polls a for measure b appropriate categories b ifa right ..»_ __~.~ _.._.__. 0 0 0 0 0 0 TdalAvafleblePdnlslnOttKr=43 19 Total Available Poinia in Specific Categories' 4+ 96+ 42+ 66+ 43+ Minimum Points Required in Specfc Categories 0 30 5 6 9 ~ •~ •~ Project Kass not yet met the fallowing reeommeruied minlmum requirementca • i~F~%r F` ^f.';:_t~t:i:•!-•i' .~i~;=i?: ~.. r,.:>t: `rV /'C; ~i t: ®2007 Build It Green Skgb Fardly GraeMoNrt Cttedcist 2007 Verson ~ 4 ' 8~ 4 of 4 ... .. .. c'. ._.. .. .'',Y ~~ ... January 30, Zoos Exhibit C ~.1. RE: Proposed Six unit single-family subdivision located at 1601 South De Anxa Boulevard Dear Cupertino City Council: We have worked closely with staff and our neighbors to insure that the proposed infill project is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and consistent with the zoning for this site which is zoned as Mixed Use Planned Development (Commercial, Residential 5-15 dwelling units per acre). The proposed project site is located on an underutilized portion of a parking lot that services a three story office building. The site is surrounded by a combination of mixed use commercial and residential development and also by an area ofsingle-family homes to the west. Attached is an aerial photo that shows the location of a recently approved townhouse project being built just north of the proposed r project site. This housing development has similar commercial uses surrounding it and appears to be a ~: y k r' ri r good example of future mixed-uses in this area. Likewise, we feel that our subdivision proposal i5 consistent with the development pattern for this area and is compatible with the neighborhood. Concerns about the project's compatibility and proximity to the Granite Rock Design Center have been raised. There are currently several homes that have similar setbacks and abut the Granite Rock Design Center. To assess the issue of compatibility, we researched the number of noise complaints that have been filed against Granite Rock over the past twelve months. It appears that there has been only one complaint that occurred on March 7, 2007. Attached is an aerial photograph showing the proximity of the three homes that are closest to Granite Rock, with setbacks similar to the proposed development. Additionally, a professionally prepared Noise Analysis indicates that there will be no noise impacts to the proposed homes from any of the surrounding uses. We have met several times with the surrounding property owners and made significant changes to the plans to address their concerns. Most notably, the unit count has been reduced from eight units to six and increased setbacks designed in order to preserve the existing double row of Redwood trees that borders the property adjacent to the existing homes along Jamestown Drive. Dollinger Properties purchased the entire property in 2004 when it was almost totally vacant and has invested over $2.8 million in improvements. The property is now 96~ leased with mostly long term tenants. The Santa Clara County Sheriff's station lease goes.another seven years with a five year option. Dollinger Properties is the second largest privately held real estate company in Silicon Valley and holds all of their properties for long term appreciation. Please do not hesitate to contact me at 650.799.4380 to discuss any aspect of this project. We look forward to your review and consideration on February 4, 2008. Spincerely, i Whitney McNair, AICP 41)11 wc:s! cwelVn ~ivenui~ swrnyv:~lo c~ililnrtiia J408(i T. 408 730 4106 F. 408 730 5186 14-85 www.ii~pl:nutin{li~rnuli,c~~m M E T R O P O L I T A N P L A M N I N G G R O U P Dellinger 6-Unit Project 1.601 Sonth DeAnza Boulevard -Cupertino. PROJECT FACT SKEET City Policies • Consistent with existing Mixed-Use Planned Development Zoning (S -1 S units per acre). Project density eight dwelling units per acre. • Under Maximum Density: 6 units proposed, up to 11 allowed by existing zoning.. R O U P • Infill site utilizing underutilized parking lot. • Quality Architecture utilizing stone, stucco, wood siding, shingles and numerous. decorative details. Green Development • Green Development scoring 77 points on the Build It Green (BIG) system, where SO is required for certification. • Preserving substantial number of existing trees including six specimen trees (Coast Live Oaks aver 10 inches in diameter) and double row of Redwoods along the western property line. 43 trees total on-site; only 21 removed, 22 preserved plus . many new trees planted. • Creation of on-site private open space of over 5,000 s.f. for resident's enjoyment. Neighborhood Compatibility • No impact to future residents from commercial uses based on Noise Analysis prepared by Edward Pack 8c Associates. • No impact to local schools based on expected school ale children generation of .75 per house = 4.S school age children (Regnart Elementary School, Kennedy Middle School, hUHSD). • No traff c impact. • Walking distance to neighborhood services and public transportation. M-GROUP 400 west evelyn avenue sunnyvale California 94086 T. 408 730 4106 F. 408 730 5186 14-86 www.mplanninggroup.com N ~. O 9 '~ 07 C C cv 0~ '~ Gi C O N "a .... O 00 N a ~, 0 0 i CU f~ V O ~ z ~ ~ +~ ~ Q N ~ -~ ~ ~ ~ 'Q ~ ~ .~ ~ ' ~ ~ - Y O °C }' ~ ~ ~ V woo x ~ ~ ~ c Q ~~ ~~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ cn _ ~~ m Q1 v O ~- ii f- a cn Z C'J O a ~ ~ ao 14-87 1, ~`-~ ~ -- - - ~ ..~ ..• TERRY pL .a, ~, t,~ - ~,,~ ~ .ti _ __ ~; , _ , ,, . __. ,.. / ^J ._ / !• `l ~>. - ~- - _I 9. AY-- -- -- __....... - - -.._) __ r --- _ _._ . _(_~~ (-- Rr Na ..... -- i - .. - .. _ ";. -_. J ~rr p~, ~ - 7 -L-,7_ .~_~ _ _ ~ .~~- , -: _ __ Pines 1 C -T-~.....r....l,_ _.,--r-,--.~~- _-. ---- . ___..... ~_._~_~., _~_., _., , _,__.L~ -- -RaINBOw - - - J~3E BLD66D OR _ H BLOSSD .__.....__._.____.---....__. Dig ......-.. ANDY WILD ~. _.~ ... ~.. ITJ I l ] I - _ _ a --- _-. ~o -,-- vla vlco / ~, I Sgt, ! ~, = QOLDEN DATE ._......~VE f HILL -- •---- ~~~ I __ ~_:: ~~ I _L= t:1:~= ~-= l ll ._...._. ._..__ ~ PHYLLIS 1 I I~_1_I_~_. ~f _ .. _ 8AR ..... _-_ _~ .._.T ._ [ [ ~ l -ICI C- - I [ ~. 11 { f_~LL II .... .~ L. .1~...1._ I. ~.-I__...-. CARONADO _ _ DR O) ~ ---° ~ DALLI CT OALU DR ~, . __. _ _ ~- ~` RAINBOW ~ ...':.. ~u _ !__ _ f -~ (` ~~_ ~ ~. t . Wy itl~IMgQ1t ~~ ~ l rtlI11~U~ ~ ~ 'r'I ZAi :1-: ~: ~rG~~~ ~ .-, ~z. ,~~ ~-. ~. Clly of CupsRlno Zoning Map l ~~ .°~..-~ . - - o~ ..~...,...... ~b -Ona,MrwYy ®d .MtiCriwnY QR •IyMWY~+ QM -~frw~YKMi~ ~ Q• .Iw~Ww~MOM+II~~I ' _ , 1 OVAR .P1n~~11~V1/O~[~ ~ ~ 1 o~..~......,,~.....,...r...~.. ~., ..~,.~~,~..,. - L([I - o.» ...~....~,. o~ ,~,..... 4 W w MM l~Mi~~M~~Y~Yp~.~/~r~ bw ~~ Ytl~Y O ,TMti11rC~wY dwY~WO~w ~wMwwMw nOw Kl,~Y~ a ~ 14-88 U N ..~ O d v O C H ~-+ .~ v ii c_ ~L 0 .~ Z 14-89 v ....., O L N ..~ 3 ~--+ .~ v .~ 0 s np 'a, z 14-90 14-91 Grani~eroc~c. January 22, 2008 VIA Facsimile {408} 777-3333 And US Mail Mr. Colin Jung ,.~~ ,~ Senior Planner - AICP ~,<;~r and `~'' Mr. Steve Piasecki ~~~'~~° Direct r of i ~~~~,,~ ~~~_, r o Commun ty Development City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 ~~~, ~ 3 Exhibit D -~ .~~ and Members of City of Cupertino City Council (Mayor Dolores Sandoval, Vice Mayor Orrin Mahoney, Council Member Kris Wang, Council Member Gilbert Wong) and Members of the City of Cupertino Planning Commission (Chairperson Lisa Giefer, Commissioner Jessica Rose, Commissioner Marty Miller, Commissioner David Kaneda and Commissioner Gilbert Wong) Re: Proposed Residential Development at 1601 South De Anza Blvd., Cupertino, California Dear Mr. Jung, Members of the City Council and Members of the Planning Commission: Thank you for including Graniterock in the recent meetings regarding the proposed residential development at 1601 South De Anza Blvd. in Cupertino. As you are aware, Graniterock operates a Natural Stone and Design Center at 1505 South De Anza Blvd, directly adjacent to the proposed project. We oppose the project on the basis that it is an incompa#ible land use with our operations. Placing more residential homes so close to our boundary invites inevitable additional conflicts with new • Mont¢r¢y County neighbors as we endeavor to successfully operate our business. • son Benito county .San Mat¢a Caanty We have invested substantial resources in our location and new business. The location was found after an exhaustive search of likely locations • Santa Clora County throughout the area. In working with your very helpful City staff, we were • Santa Cruz County assured #hat a) our use was allowed and b) that the City wanted Us to be ~.. • Alameda County • tav ond, county of San Francisco Notarial Supplier/ Engineerlnq Contractor License X22 P.O. Box 50001 Watsonville, CA 95077-15001 (831) 768-2000 Fax (831) 768-2201 www.gronlterock.cam 14 - 92 there and be successful. Based on that sincere expression of support and our allowed use, we commenced our investment. We continue to appreciate the support the City has shown us since our opening and look forward to expanding our business in the City. While we certainly recognize the need in California for housing, we oppose its intensification so close to our operations. We have already willingly modified our operations in order to work cooperatively with existing adjacent neighbors. We assert that adding more residential units next to us, even with commonly practiced deed disclosures and sound mitigations, invites future conflict and will make it more difficult for us to succeed. Through planning choices, the City of Cupertino can advance business success, job grow#h and tax base increases, and encourage housing. For this to happen, the two uses need to be kept distinct in location. We respectfully request that the City of Cupertino consider our position on this important matter. Thank you very much for your time. Sincerely, Graniterock Christopher S. Mann Director of Real Estate Services csm cc: Bruce W. Woolpert, President & CEO Sanjar Chakamian, Vice President Richard M. Shapiro, Thelen, Reid, Brown, Raysman 8~ Steiner 2 14-93 ~~~ 7anuary 16, 2008 Dear Cupertino City Council and Planning Commission: Cupertino City Hall 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3202 I .~eS .~~,~Ei,~.~~ support the proposed Dollinger Properties Six Unit EX~I IBIT E ~ ~. Subdivision located at 1601 South de Anza Blvd:, Cupertino California. I have been informed about this project throughout the process.and hays been given regulaz updates on its progress. I feel that this is a well conceived project that is compatible with my neighborhood and consistent with City goals and policies. Sincerely, r,' C Signature My Address: J ~g ti,.,ri C~~z~ nr¢ ssa ~~ ,4-94 ~ ~~ „. ., January 30, 2008 RE: Proposed Six unit single-family subdivision located at 16015outh De Anza Boulevard Dear Cupertino City Council: We have worked closely with staff and our neighbors to insure that the proposed infill project is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and consistent with the zoning for this site which is zoned as Mixed Use Planned Development (Commercial, Residential 5-15 dwelling units per acre). The proposed project site is located on an underutilized portion of a parking lot that services a three story office building. The site is surrounded by a combination of mixed use commercial and residential ~ development and also by an area ofsingle-family homes to the west. Attached is an aerial photo that shows the location of a recently approved townhouse project being built just north of the proposed project site. This housing development has similar commercial uses surrounding it and appears to be a G R o u P good example of future mixed-uses in this area. Likewise, we feel that our subdivision proposal is consistent with the development pattern for this area and is compatible with the neighborhood. Concerns about the project's compatibility and proximity to the Granite Rock Design Center have been raised. There are currently several homes that have similar setbacks and abut the Granite Rock Design Center. To assess the issue of compatibility, we researched the number of noise complaints that have been filed against Granite Rock over the past twelve months. It appears that there has been only one complaint that occurred on March 7, 2007. Attached is an aerial photograph showing the proximity of the three homes that are closest to Granite Rock, with setbacks similar to the proposed development. Additionally, a professionally prepared Noise Analysis indicates that there will be no noise impacts to the proposed homes from any of the surrounding uses. We have met several times with the surrounding property owners and made significant changes to the plans to address their concerns. Most notably, the unit count has been reduced from eight units to six and increased setbacks designed in order to preserve the existing double row of Redwood trees that borders the property adjacent to the existing homes along Jamestown Drive. Dollinger Properties purchased the entire property in 2004 when it was almost totally vacant and has invested over $2.8 million in improvements. The property is now 96% leased with mostly long term tenants. The Santa Clara County Sheriff s station lease goes another seven years with a five year option. Dollinger Properties is the second largest privately held real estate company in Silicon Valley and holds all of their properties for long term appreciation. Please do not hesitate to contact me at 650.799.4380 to discuss any aspect of this project. We look forward to your review and consideration on February 4, 2008. Sincerely, /71~- Whitney McNair, AICP 400 west evelyn avenue sunnyvale California 94086 T. 408 730 4106 F. 408 730 5186 www.mplanninggroup.com M E T R O P O L I T A N P L A N N 1 N G G R O U P Dollinger 6-Unit Project 1601 South DeAnza Boulevard -Cupertino PROJECT FACT SHEET City Policies • Consistent with existing Mixed-Use Planned Development Zoning (5 - 15 units per acre). Project density eight dwelling units per acre. • Under Maximum Density: 6 units proposed, up to 11 allowed by existing zoning. G R O U P • Infill site utilizing underutilized parking lot. • Quality Architecture utilizing stone, stucco, wood siding, shingles and numerous decorative details. Green Development • Green Development scoring 77 points on the Build It Green (BIG) system, where 50 is required for certification. • Preserving substantial number of existing trees including six specimen trees (Coast Live Oaks over 10 inches in diameter) and double row of Redwoods along the western property line. 43 trees total on-site; only 21 removed, 22 preserved plus many new trees planted. • Creation of on-site private open space of over 5,000 s.f. for resident's enjoyment. Neighborhood Compatibility • No impact to future residents from commercial uses based on Noise Analysis prepared by Edward Pack & Associates. • No impact to local schools based on expected school age children generation of .75 per house = 4.5 school age children (Regnart Elementary School, Kennedy Middle School, FUHSD). • No traffic impact. • Walking distance to neighborhood services and public transportation. M-GROUP ;00 west evelyn avenue sunnyvale California 94086 T. 408 730 4106 F. 408 730 5186 www.mplanninggroup.com C 4! fl. O 9 O G C cv a a~ a~ x a~ c 0 N "~ 3 O m cv N C a 0 s fII i v f~ U 4- O L Q~ ~ ~ z N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ; LL ~ ~ ~ O ~ U 4J 'O ~ ~ ~ .3 ~ ~ ~ (/') i c/1 ~ z V ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ L. a.., ~ U ~ . ~ ~ ~ X ~ ~ N N Q. O ~ ~ ~ ~N ~~ ~ ~ +.+ ~ ~ (~ -v ~ Q ~ ~ `~ ~ rl ~ m ~ •~ m v ~ O ~ • r, r v ~ `~~- ~~ •~ .a ~ ~. ~ ~ ~ ~ ,~~ ~ ~ ,, N ~/r '~ ~ •~ i C 3 ~':, ~ +., v: +~ ~ . -r' ~ ~ ~~ Q~ ~L 0 .~ z 1 ~ Y ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ V'~if ~ ~ ~:; i S ~ ~ ~ ;_ ~tF ~ 7.. w ~ r ~ ~~ -~ ~~~µ ,f.~ ~~~ ~~ t ; '. e~ _ ~`.~~ ~r ~ _~ ~ ~, ii~- } Y ~ ~r{~_ _ .~ k~ ; i ,. ~1~ '~ o- ~. _... ~~ -_ 'iL` U .~ L N 0 ~"' ~--+ .~ N L1.. ~_ ~L .~ z a~ , i I. ~ ~. .. ~,. ~-- F~1~ u~ 7 -~ - :, rt m .., U d bH U j I I ~ YI Y~ ~i ~ mi °: ~ W W -- 40 .v'o .o E E om rnLLn -~ V `1" w J H ~ ¢ ~ i ~' ~'~ ~ ~~~~ ~' l ' ~ n ! I ;_I ~ g G ~' O ' " 1 ~ ~i U o 0 op a~ ~ "u P o e~ ~ ~ o; ~ x I ~ t I ~ ~ ~ I I I . ~ w o 1 Q ~ ~ ~ a W ~ Z ~ ~ d ~ ~, = z ~ Z "'~, ~ ~ ~ IIIIiIK9~l~l~lZ ~~ i ~~:, j i I ... 1 0 1 I ~~ 1 t __.__...--- ---___._......--'-- ___a ;~ ~- i . _~g I ~.----- ----- --~___~o ,J I :~ ' ~ '~ I V 1u IF ~__.__.-- _._.__.._._.. _-----. _-.1_._ I 1 !,, I 1- `_~ I I I I I~~ wZ Zo o> ~m N ~ ~ >~ ~ ~ a= ~_ ~~ ~ I a z ~ Q ~ W ° I~ - --- ~ i ~ I o I 1 ~ ~~ ~ 0 x ~ ~~ZI ~: °~° I z33 ~ l ~ ~ ~_ S r z rn _.._.__ _ --.. --- ~ •OSb) _ '6ri 151 I ~~ e v, o ~ ~ --- - -- -._ .. .... -..- - ---- - o ~zn< s ~ ~ o~~m .~ i ~ ~ v=' ~~~ 8 I ' ! ~ ._ __..-__... --_..., _ (,00'059) ~~o ~' 1 _ _, \ ~ _ G - .o~~~ rvN°C ....___.. _ .............-___ _--. n 3 I ~ Z w m ~tl~ 7 p~ ~ p ~22~2 / N F- z N O U Q `/ i I ~I I I i ,09 --~ °~ ~~~ ~ P ml I i b ~\ I I I ",11 1 ~ ~~ I it I S (55010 OR PUBIIC I~KH9/AYI ' :II '~I I I i I ~. r~_ I I. 11 9 I I ~(:' j y I II II, I d 19~Fi 20.00' SAN 10Sf WATF0. ~ ' II ~ I III WORKS ESMi ~ d 1 , ~. I 11533 OR 291 'r-. I ~. I ~1 J III 1 20.00' WATER PMELINE ET ~ ~ < I y I } III. I ~^i SAN 105E WATER WORKS 1 1 I (1333 OR i2]1 I C~I 1. I I I' 1].00' CSC IUBIK HIG~RV~ ~~~. I.` I IF - I I 11:1 I I I 153B90R6991 1 '. t S I i,l,lll I~ ' ~,~ I I•~ I 1111111. ` ~ I ,li ~ I~. ~ ,I I :11;11. ~ '. i` I'~ I I ~I I I. 11 ~ l 10.00'C51 SfwEAtiSMI ~'~hTll '' I I~~, S` R II~+~~I ii ~~. MseloRZ>Jl , I I 1:. I ~II bl: BUI~0INCCLINE (~3 M 2~ S ~ ~~ I A P, I I II,., 11; I I ~' I I ~ ~ I I I~~I il'. CS[ PUBLIC HICNW t• ~ ~ F 15378 OP SSSI - (I ~ I E ~ tl ~-f}""I" I II;,1~. 10.00' SAN JOSE WM1@I I 1 i I . , , ~ ~ .^ WORKS ESMT ~:! ~, (I SAS 0R 229 ~~i ( ~ f I I I ~F ~ If~. ~' I d I I}~~ffB r k I~ ~ z I ~ IhLI ~. r~ l ~~~ l I ~ fi~~ l,l i ll ~~ I II ' ~r~- I ~I I l,f1II' ;~ ~ I ,I , 115 li ~ ; _-_..r~...._ ~!' YII 1 3ljl } J TI .I~ I I l` ~~(~ 11. .Y I 1'1', I I I I~EJ ~~f -I i ~ .:~ if ,~,_,, ~~;I I // rs ~ ~~>r~l T .~ I ~ .,T„o- v .b _~ r ._. ~•`~ .L M5' I a i~ ~~ !: Y r 1 .- ....l ry ....,y, t-<.... I I ~ .. _.. j ~ - r .; ,y I .. I ~ .. , ~ ,.; I r I ' ~Q V~ T f ~ f ~ 7~£ A~ )' 1~~ ~ ~alyj- 1 Y I": r ___. i .: I .i I ~ IV 8 ~ ~ Y i Y~ ~ ~ I' W_( i i 1r.. ~ I .ly .I l .. I tt uY_ r~ 1 1 V c, V 7 I r.ij I , D i I; ~ _ ~ xsN at~ 1 dS Sl1F,~41 (r A~:j ~ 1 9M~~... ~~~ ~: F. a i. 1 1 1 ::~~ fad .~ v - Z,oO 510ElVAlA FSMi ~ W I .~ nTST3YCnvnmNO E~F » ~ O -- ~ -~ ~ . 51893 UR 52q 7 ~. 1 .. ( ... .. . - ~1 ~l , :; ,r ~~ ~ i t y. ; I I _ s f- _ is T` '. ~ rp-. Ja I I Cltt OF CUPEItlEI 1 m A -~ 1 .. I ~ t. ~ I>7 ., ... ~' PUBLIC ROA 'MT I ~ ~ Y -- •" I (109300.5 • _~ ~~' II f #'00 C515fl9$1 ES ] I ' .' 0 11 { J R k ) __..~- _... -___ t_ 1581 00.2 ) ~ I - ~I i , ~ ~.. .~ Z ,,;' f{ _ ` r x ~ 1 11 R p ~~ 1 f ~ (al 00.101NA1 REEi MGFR -" ~- b 3M23 T ~ } _ -+ ~ 1 I v j _ ---- -r-~-r-- - - ------ ~ ------ - --- ' - ~ ~ y 7 fr 4 ~ ~ ~ A . iG 'i. I .. v .... - f .', i • 0 , r. " - 1I Iq I ~~8, I~ I( I I I d 'iy; - ' ,_ -V t~ A 7 '¢ .. _-_-...._ -~ ~ffl i ~ N I 'I' II,11 I t5 IF. .I J ~ t I ~{ ... ~ 11.. _.. svp IR r l ~ ri I.,, ~([I , ~,~. R I _ - - ~I °- 7{ o0 CU5 I;II ESttic _ _~ ~ ._.. FA -iii I ~ ' o y5 3'. 1 ^n/ f9 - , ' I I .: r;;i - " ~' I LI I ::: s r4b6~- ~NM'eti : .-:- ~ ~.~~ "~, - .. -._-... ---~- :.{ r I :'f' ' l5 53 O 9 :...._ I L o '. ..... I , ,.. • I I I ' _. 1 i III~I~ Slli ,2 3fi. , , ~~ `~b„fy ' ~ ~. 1 94t b» i i li~ i ~- ~ ! ~ i ' #al I.._1 ~ ~ ~ Py4 f k .F _ = Q}Q}Q}ryryry~ SII I I ~ I~~f§ Il I~I~ ,Ij I. Ifi E ~~ ~f~-•~, .. ... .<}I ~]C^` Ik, ..:.. .~ .f__T ~`~.., _ 1 ~ Pr*F' ~ A I .G, `... ~P~O U.I fY ~ I i -- i~:: '. ~..:. 4 II I 1 I I ~ I i i3~~ _.... E _ H 92 ,~ i! ~ -. ~' ~ I , ,III § I I I r ~ xP ~~ ~ ~ ` i~t"] f [ ,.. 'i. r i I I 1 A3 P: In1fE .; 'r ~"I~' z f ~_" s• _. _I s 1 .. ~Y`ri~l ....I -5 ~~.~7,~a ' 41 '. <, I ~ ~.t I I , a.q ..,., ...._5:: X57 . __ ~, - ~ ~ I 41 I I .. ~ .,' a }•t` I I. + F ~ ] _' ~ .. '1._'L . ~` 1 .~ - ~~ I Ry '{+ ice.- 3 II ~I~:1 I ~ I IVPf•{~ q k~hf f ~ V`~ ~~- 1'~. Y '~\. , N~.1 r ~ tt _. . . I i la L I I ~•~7 i .1 -1 I fi ~,1 l /'-"Fr • ~i ~Ye.n9 ~ ~ ,~ _ I ~. ~ .. ! ~I I I I. D A+ ti•' -~' 11X i i ~' '~' ] ' -- - 73J:,::r~ - - --' - - ---- 36 f m Y'' 1 II ',u ,; payl I II I } ~ -_' j `r°I ~I '. ~ 44~' , ~- 1 u I yyyP -C ,: ~'{~i i II, ~ ~ ~ Y i 1 I II f41 _ ~ .._I `' ~ - F ~=1 ~T ~l y .... I I p ~J w ]" - I ~ ~ j~t~11F 4: 1 I I __ _ _.ay: i ;nl .. I _ ~ ~r~ I , Rio `~ fL . ,. ii 'I la 'ter ~ _.J' ,_. ~ _ ~a ' 1~ i III I ~~ I yy I 1 r'! ~~ li ~-I~ ,.~ ~ ~ ' ? 1. ~: I.' S '. era. - .. I ~'~ ~4 __ 1 3 ..._. v .~ I w ~ .J~ : 1` 1 [^ '~., , , ~ 1 .-_ - ~-'I '~ f I 1. .I .~ ~ I .:T a I I~, 1 ~J v E , r` 1, B._. sh 5~ ~ ~ I ~ .I Y ~~ .. I i o2 ~~ $ q'o i~ ~ ~ o ~~ 5 O I i I Iill ac i. ~ r~ n, m v I 1 I 1 f .. I I ', I , ^ I o ~ n ,~ z 0 .~ ~~_ ~=~~~R~~~~~~~~g~~~Qg~~~Q~~~~8~~4~~§~~~ D R ~ ~ ~' ~ 1 ,- I ~fo I ~~~ I 1 I ~ 0 G ,z V C m ~I~ a I- s _. ~ ti- _ _ j'. .. ~ f ~ _. i ° s ~m~n ~do~~ a5n I° s l./1 " 0 W N ~ L ~ t '~•11 V ~Yry ~ - ~ ~ h ~~5~ ~fJ 24 p • ~ Y ~ ~~11 ~8 4~~_w 3:~ a ^ ^ y -IYE•' 2~:1~ ~eg~ 3 ~ p o ~ ~* 11icJ P~ ~ ~ ~ Z P ~~ Y s u p, 9 _ ~ ,~yj ry¢1j ~ ~ M ; yy[ L5 N~ A Tit. ~.j P Pii ~. :S ~ ~~ ~ S ~ T o ~ ~ ~ ~ b ~ a~ r i I I ~ ~ z 1 O r ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~a~0~ ° ~ C O R~3 / ~ O ,~` ~O I--3 y a~o~ -~-, .nnQ"' ~zxn ~ ~~°~ R°NwC '~ "'~~C7 ~ ~ ~ C V] F'D O d ~ O W •P R o s ~ - =rnswx alvlsaN ___ 5 ~ ~ ~ TENTATIVE MAP KIER & WRIGHT _ -- - T ~ CIV - . r. IES t FOR: DOLLINGER PROPER IL ENGINEERS & SURVEYORS, INC. 3350 sFOn eomRYam evnem zz MBeI n] 6865 - - ~ 1 527, 1581, 1601 6 1633 SOUTH DE ANZA BOULEVARD , 9 sama Clara, UNornb 95053 13oe1 ]z] 5631 --- -- - ~ °j y, I CUPERTINO CALIFORNIA U9E ti<I•otl x.l •soss nw.•nm •...o.ns 5999 iLi 190.1 it wlpON'p~.x+lx•91I•.i OS[E '~NI 'SNOA3A1lf1S'8 S1133N17N3 1IA17 1H7121/V1'9 213J~ 5311213dObd 213~NIllOa ~b( ONVA3lf108 VZNV 30 H1f10S 1091 VINNOi1lYJ 'ONIlN3df1~ S3WOH 213~NI~lOa Nt/ld ~1111i1f1 '8 3~b~Nlb'21a i7NIatR1~ - --- a2id/131f10&b~Nb 3d _, , .. x.. -, . - ~... ... ~,~.:, 1 _...._ /': I h . +, _ .. , ... :..:. J. ... .. ..... .. __--._- -- .-.... A .. As.. 1 ,. 1 I 6> Y Q ------ e~: j 3 ___._. _. ---!--i N@W~7N07 NI .~- 1 .. ._ ,... ~ - 8 ~ i >i ~ T ~ ~' lJ ~ 0 7 q S r U = ~ I W 01 a~ _ o ~ o ~ o Q a ~ I III ^I Jj I cl ~ I "vl 3 k .~J ~ • •O ryI I I I I I _~ ~~ ~ 12 2 ~ s ~ ~ ~ 3 o S ~ ~ ~ 3 ~ ~ o O s _ ~ p ~ x e3 g m 'sg~W~~a~o~~~co~oosf> °_i o .'-~ i ~ o ae ~ ~ vii vl ' ' i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 3 3 3 x i u~ f end v,z~~~ x~a'Sc aa ~~~''',,, a Z ~~-j Q a5 p yy~~ ~~uu m m¢Q aa Z .~ O O Y¢~ D~ O Z O W~~ Q ~QQn Q ~~ adUUUU UOOww W wLLU. W u~i..u pp I L~ <~m~~GUly000o~u°i .°u T.~ W LL ~_. i LL~.u 1, I ~ I o :: 14 I ...-.. (xb Iii;; ~ ~ °v ~ ~Ir:, t ~ ry I ,ti i I. ~ . f ._ ! 9 y t~ A 7 • i ~ ~ r '7_ I ~,r n a~ µ~ i I i m~ S ~I M o I I -~ 1 a p P.I_ __ O: h ' ~: ~ o! ;' p ,... ~. Iffi. ~:i-.._ n ~ 1 I ~ L_ ]ry ~ ~ '• IN ~ ~ ~ U d, R ; ~::, £ I s' ~ Z If 4I:. ~;e- I O ~~ li U w ~lic _ , N _. u ~- ~~ _ _ ..: E j N =£ry ~ ~ i-==~ ~ . '-.I o o ~ ~ a. #I p i, ~ ~, p M ~ ; ~"~ o w - mo ~ °i Z \ I„ M i ~ Jple _ x ~ ~ ' ~Oa, ~ ~ u I b ~ w i + Il ~ I ..I, .~yl ~ ~ I ~ N I L/1 z Y~ r~ T ~A I I r, , I ~ I ~ ~ I' I ~ ~ i. r ~ + > ' i f m° °m m° ~ I = ~ is ~ ~ °s ,+ ~ .,• t. 3 I ~ yr ~, ml ~ _ ~ ~ ~ ! I 0 0 0 o S a '~ .o a _ ~, M ~ rv ~~ ~~Z _._..__ - ~ i o > ti~ ~i 'z o ~O ,~ _~ l I : w _.. -~ ~ w. -_ ~, _. ~ ~ Q Ip t U ~ > ~ ~, I I I ~ z W I ~ o dl m° ~°.~ m m °m n I i ~ j I le~' I c ~; >~ s f 11J R.~ ..,1.~ 1 \ I ./ r ~. , a, ~ .,...1. ~1 ,d. 1 ,7'•.- 197 ^1 S :. •.1 -- , i , II ~. ' L. ~ ~:. ___ _ .._ .._. ~ I '. r I~ i.. ..... 1 ~ :: - I .~1. .,N I . ....._.... I -. 7~ I _ 0 :. / I ~. -~ x ~ J z F + ~ '~ .; 1 `, ~, js , ~ II e , ~ I~ i .. - , v R ~ w~l ! ;, ~~ o , c '..n :_.~..._ - _ 1-.._.__._ ' w EI l' y _. iii. ~, iI ~I - o _ ,I ' ~I ~_, ~; _c.. I~ ': I _ ~ 11 9,i I ` _ 1 .... ~ ,.. 11, ry - l I; ;. q ,.. : .. .._....x.11 1~1 .._ .-i . !..ii .._-.. .... . - . ~ .~ ,_ :~ .__r ~I ~ ._:._~ , u I ~ C_ ~ ~ gill.. d: ` N a3 ~, ' 7 .~, .. .. :.JI7 :. ~ :. -1. - ~ ...-....~.m~aa>.~ _ _. f - - . __ V '1 o < ~~` ., 4 ~., `i .. I ' fir} ~.. ~ II , ..i ( / ( ~ I : ~. I ~'o-r 11 al ` i ~ V ;p-) %. 299. ""V} I 1 1! ~ ~ l I f., ~ ~_.._ i i ~' i 1 . m 7,..... .'i.a .. ... _ ~~5... ~_._... J-_~_ i _. L _ s.oo' T U _ ~......~ ~1 ' ru ~ ~ ~ ~ t 11.91' m _ ' y r m0 riT y NI 1 . ,~ , v- : .. u, 3,, 1 f." ~ .- ..... .... Y7'.~. ' s (rr~ . Vy a5.00' ,. f : 17.7]' _ r .. 4 ~t '. ~0 ;( '. S., .x:1 N ~ _ .,, .> •. ,: - .r ...tzi . : - •, 2 1 W - 17 y ~ 7r I .... q L k- it 11 )'.~ n I J., . ~~ _ ~ ,t7 ~:._,. _~_..., ~' ...•, ....:. 1 r ., ' ' I ~ ,;. ._ ' I i I p.'_. ,w--30' P.U.E. (E 2B6 OR 262) I I Tip. i1:1V1JCn?I:1 _~ ~ -~,m.-._n..L , ~a; .~u ~,. - ~ ~ 1G~A3 I I i I I I I i ~~ i .. !~ 1. 9p!9p!9p!!!! ~ ...,- ..~,..-~.,. _ ~ I ~ ~ 03 U1'n _- ____ ) ~F 1':l i "r'.FLO t~NE.D. f _= sy: ~'t~ ~/ , •, 1 • r` .1 ~ II mot, ~ 'rj /d f ~; J _._ _ . r r - ,_r i+w ,...~..~ .r. .. ..... ...:: -... ...r,...a-a .. - _- - - - ~ ..- .~._~ ,_.. ,. .r.-,.,. _ . __ , - - IF, _._ .. ,,,III t~~ ~4 ' n 0 1 - - - _: N o ..._..._..._.. .-_.. ,~ - +~ J ti '-' \. s Y - ,e s oo" r ;; a; i(I ' ,= ' i I I I i _.___ ~.. ~ '1 i } ..,, i I --- -- -- - - --- - - --... I T -~ I .! .l. i J ~. I'~ I I i ,., ' ~1 I % .. : ' s ,' I :-: ' _._. ... ....., .591!' 1. ' SS 19'. M1 ~~~~ 6fi Bt'' . • Nt1RTN - ! ...... .,wr : (jG110 ..-._._;.. ~-. .. 7,Ml~Yinm.a~ae - w.uwwwwnnw..~:~w y- ` - - _ . n '~ R117~ > yt!gA4 + r ~ g(zo ~-- -a 4gi zl,~ I I ~ .><a , ~ +~ l ',~ ux ~~9._ns ~nUr a . ~!+- e' 122 ~a ~{' ~~~, ~. I ~.~'> :~ •?i~ i°1 ' ! ~ ( [ c ~~ i% .~ r fi i - '< . ~; ~ zfl z i,..R ~ I I .. ~ I I I I : ..: _ . , as.oo'-s.oo• ~ s.oo• .~! ±s o ) l., + ~ I~ t x P E SEVE~f ~ fi.OB' $ ,...,~ Q 1) I NCL'FS ?'r F I!°"r ;~° iS .ucvLn `nO „° _-N it / " ~ . FND BRA55 ROO W/PUNCH IN CONC MON _,- - - D~ I ~~ D 0 A 0 ~~. _,_ -- ~- v r' ~;_.; S. DE ANZA BOULEVARD ,_..~ ,.R.~ ,, .. : , `..~ I _.-- --- - 1 ---- -" - ~ $ ~ z s ~ DOLLINGER HOMES "° REV161ON BY A ; KIER & WRIGHT n o ~ ~ R SITE PLAN ~ CIVIL ENGINEERS & SURVEYORS INC = N i !'+ CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA 1601 SO , . ssso scar mul«..e. rolwlny x: laoel n>eses SanuCln~ 411(a b95e3a n rm~ m 3 ~` s " ~ Z 0 UTH DE ANZA BOULEVARD ~ , n . noel n7 sen FOR: DOLLINGE OPERTIES 00 01 0 v 0 Q 5311213d021d 213JNIllOa ~2lOd 8 Y x . ~n iwsausosi•a soscnwq~Fj~wq~.ws OliVA3lf108 VZNV 30 H1f10S 1091 ~ f ~ rn ru 5999 [il fY0.1 Lt 6ul%~nY'W.n.l~l.w150{~f VINNO~IIVJ 'ONIlZ13df1J ~ ~ ,°. M = 'JNI~S~IOA3Aaf1595ti33NIJN3lIAD Nb~"Id 1N3W3~b~Nt/W ° ~ ~ ~ a U 1H~IbM'8 21311 '" ~o NOISN3tl oN S3WOH b3~NlllOa 2131b'M W?JOlS a g ~ ~ ~ ~ 'w (JJ ~---- m I n I O z v I I I r O ' O ~ ' L 9'-10' 22,_a. I u i b i 36'-O" ,1 /vI '1 d O O a o c~ ~ a ~ x w ~ 'T1 ~ ~, r Z~ ~ O ~ m c ~ O ~ ~ ~ 0 ^T 8 y p m~ ~~n 8 v CD L R T ? ~ ~9 m ~~ p ~ ~ ~~ 41 '~I N 71 (A T Ul 41 T T u d ~u- d ~ OVEN - ~ -~ I~~ ; -~~ 1 N dor x< ~ ~ ~ o dig x Z I °~ ~~ ~L _ W G7 c I ~? G7 W ~ I I I x n 2 wm I^ i i Z ~ ~_._. ~ a ~ -- --- ~ --- I _ m i ` ~ 9 .~ , _ ._ - . .._ D ° f O i i ~ ~ z cZ x O . _ - - _ ~ ~ __ _._ ~ ~ O N b~ ~~ x D ,r j ~ ° ~ ° : ~ o .~ ~y ~ ~ ~~ y~ b THE DOLLINGER HOMES g 1601 DE ANZA BOULEVARD VINaOdi"IV~ 'ONIld3dfl~ b r aavna~noe vzNV as ~os~ 4 ,~; S3WOH ~i3JNl~~Oa 3H1 g ? ~w ° -Q ~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ °~ ~ THE DOLLINGER HOMES ~ N ~ 1601 DE ANZA BOULEVARD CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA m t/INdOdI~VO 'ONIla3df10 ~ M 4dVA31f108 VZNt/ 30 L091 ~ :, S3WOH ~13JN1~~0a ~Hl 8 ~~ ~W ~° ~Q ~~l 2 -~-a~ T H E L E N ` 101 Second Street Suite i 800 San Francisco, CA 94105 ~ I Phone: 415 371 12W Fax: 915 371 1211 www.theien.car. Richard M. Shapiro ~ - 415.369.7117 Dired Dial ' '.1 ,y~~; 415.369.8720 Direct Fax rshapiro~thelen.com ~ u = ~ ~ Fcbruary 4, 2008 VIA E-MAIL BY HAND DELIVERY City of Cupertino City Council 10300 '1'orre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 Re: 1601 South De Anza Boulevard: U-2007-02, ASA-2007-04, TM-2007-05, TR- 2007-09, FA-ZOQ7-03 Dear Council Membcrs: This is written on behalf of Granite Rock Company, which operates a retail facility directly adjacent to the project proposed under the application numbers listed above. This letter is intended to be included in the record before you and to provide additional bases for the denial of the applications for action under the above-referenccd file numbers. Yarking Requircment: The Staff Report indicates that for the purposes of calculating required parking, the proposed development is considered an Rl single-family use, for which 36 total parking spaces are required. '1'he proposed project includes 24 spaces. 'I~here is reference to "shared parking" with adjacent property providing an additional 15 spaces, but there is no information before you confirming the availability of such spaces. As you know, the project does not qualify for shared parking under Section 19.100.040 because, among other things the land affected will not be owned or managed by a single entity. There is a referencc in the Staff Report to a reduced requirement of 17 spaces based upon P zoning and a small lot, single family use, but even if this project is properly characteri•r.ed as small lot, thc required parking would be 17 spaces plus two additional oiT street spaces per lot l 9.100.040K) because no on-street parking is available, giving a total requirement of 29 spaces. The proposed project does not, thcrefore, appear to comply with zoning requiremcnts. Mitigated Negative lleclaration: Until earlier today when Granite Rock received a fax of documents labeled "Mitigated Negative Declaration" and "mitigation Monitoring & Reporiing Program," no draft oi'a proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration has been made available for ~ ~r~,r-.~( _ =J ~~~s~~ ;.s-~ _-~r; L_~ t;.__=. ~-i,~~,~~H~ ._~r~ ~`_:~IJ . . - il: f- ,J THELEN ~ _a.:., . N . ~ _ s:: ;:e,-:., February 4, 2008 Page 2 public review and comment and neither Granite Rock, nor its landlord, as owner of the adjacent property, had received notice of availability of this document. Under Public Resources Code §21092, the City must provide a noticc of intent to adopt a negative declaration and provide a time period for the receipt of comments. To our knowledge, the procedure required by law has not been followed. Biological Impacts: The finding thai the proposed miti~ation measure relating io the loss of up to 23 trees will mitigate that impact is not supporied by substantial evidence that such rcptacement will occur. The developer should not be permitied to remove the trees without first providing financial security for its obligation to replace them within a defined time period. Sincercl ~ J~i ~ ~ ~ ~ - lfl ~ ' ichard M. Shapiro RMS/ cc: Director of Community Development c/o Colin Jung, colinj@cupertina.org Christopher S. Mann, Granite Rock Company O1/31/2008 15:43 FA% 831 768 2203 GRANITEROCK 1~002 ~ c C~i~ranifierocka ~ f ~ ' ~ ~Y. k ~ January 31, 2008 ~ ' VIA Facsimile (408) 777-3333 And US Mail Mr. Colin Jung Senior Planner AfCP Na~ional and A~ty Mr. Steve Piasecki i~z Director of Comrnunity Development City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 and Members of City of Cupertino City Council (Mayor polores Sandovai, Vice Mayor Orrin Mahoney, Council Member Kris Wang, Council Member Gilbert Wong) Re: City of Cupertino Planning Commission Recommendation of Denial for Proposed Residential Development at 1601 South De Anza Blvd., Cupertino, California Dear Council Members: Thank you for allowing Graniterock to convey our opposition to the Proposed Residential Development at 1601 South De Anza Blvd. As detailed in our letter of January 22, 2008, we strongly feel that the proposed project is incompatible with surrounding commercial uses, including our own and wili invite inevitable conflicts between business and residences. We support the Planning Commission recommendation that the project be denied. The commission correctly stated that placing residential development in the middle of this commercial area is not the kind of planning that fosters business growth and success. We respect~ully request your denial of this project as we endeavor to continue our success in this valuable location in the City of Cupertino. Thank you very much for your time. Sincerely, Graniterock _G~-= ~ ~ Christopher S. Mann Director of Real Estate Services • Son 6en~to County CSfI'1 • San Mcteo Counly cc: Bruce W. Woolpert, President & CEO • Sonta ~~a~o ~o~~~y Sanjar Ghakamian, Vice President Richard M. Shapiro, Thelen, Reid, Brown, Raysman & Steiner . • Sonto Cruz counly • Alamedo [aunty • ci~y and County or son Frnnctsco MateN~l Supplfer/ Enqineerinq Contractor Llcense #22 P.O. Box 50001 Walsonville, CA 95077-5001 (631) 768-2D00 Fux (831) 768-2201 www.gran~terock.com ~ ~ ~ 2 CITY OF CUPERTINO MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION -~l~ As provided by the Environmental Assessment Procedure adopted by the City Council of the City of Cupertino on May 27,1973, and amended on March 4,1974, January 17 1977, May 1,1978, and July 7,1980, the following described project was granted a Mitigated Negative Declaration by the City Council of the City of Cu ertin o f February 4, 2008. ; ~ f ~ T ~ ~ ~.~a~ PROTECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION Application No.: U-2007-02, ASA-2007-04 (EA-2007-03), TR-2007-09, TM-2007-05 Applicant: Metropolitan Planning Group Location: 1601 S De Anza Blvd DISCRETIONARY ACTION REQUEST Use Permit and Architectural Site Approval for a new six-unit single family residential development Tentative Map for a new six-unit single family residential development Tree Removal of up to 23 trees FINDINGS OF DECISIONMAKING BODY The City Council granted a Mitigated Negative Declaration mitigating Noise and Tree Removal Impacts. The mitigation measures are outlined in the attached City Council's conditions of approval. Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development CERTIFICATE OF THE CITY CLERK This is to certify that the above Mitigated Negative Declaration was filed in the Office of the City Clerk of the City of Cupertino on City Clerk g/erc/negEA200703 Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program PROTECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION Application No.: U-2007-02, ASA-2007-04 (EA-2007-03), TR-2007-09, TM-2007-05 Applicant: Metropolitan Planning Group Location: 1601 S De Anza Blvd Noise Impacts: The second floors of houses on Lots #3 and #4 will be exposed to noise levels of 61 dB CNEL (exterior) and 46 dB CNEL (interior) from the north, which exceeds City noise standards by 1 dB. Noise Miti at~ ions: To mitigate excessive noise: 1) windows in those second floors should remain closed and mechanical ventilation provided to those affected interior spaces. 2) Widen side setbacks and limited window openings facing north. 3) Increase sound wall height to 8-feet as needed to the north. To the east, where the noise exposure is less than significant, a wooden fence may be an acceptable solution. 4j Require the recordation of noise notification covenants on each property to notify future buyers of the noise environment. Mitigations #1- #3 will be implemented by Community Development staff at the time of building permit review. Mitigation #4 will be implemented by Community Development and Public Works staff at the time of final subdivision map approval. Biological Impacts: The project is expected to cause the removal of up to 23 trees that were approved as part of the landscaping plan for the existing office building. The trees include 5 Coast Live Oaks, 2 Silver pollar Gums, 7 London Plane Trees and 9 Coastal Redwood trees. The trees are within the proposed driveway areas or within or very close to the building footprints. Biolo~ical Miti ag tions: To mitigate the loss of the trees, a tree replacement plan will be incorporated into a landscape plan for the subdivision. The replacement plan will be required by the Community Development statt as a condition of building permit approval. FROM : FAX N0. : 408-730-5186 Jan. 29 2008 05:08PM P2 Cc ~-1 .Tanuary 9, 2008 ~ l Dear Czipertino City Council and. Ylani~i.ng Cummission: C'upertino City Ha11 ~ f 10300 Torre Avenue ~ Cupertino, C!~ 95014-3202 e~ ~ I~Pi~P~n , support the proposed Aollinger Properties Six Unit Subdivision located at 16~1 South de Anza Blvd., Cupertino California. Y have been informed about this project throughout the process and have been given regular updAtes an its ~rogress. I feel that this is a wcll conceived project thAt is aompatible with my ne~ghborhood and consistent witkz Gzty goals and policies. Sincerely, ~ _ 5ignature My 1~ddress: 1~f S 6~"amP~S~w» 17 r Ci~'P~''.~'i~o GLj 9~o/lf - , _ _ T~-~ . . , : . . _ . . . -