Loading...
107-6 - Mitigated Negative Declaration (EA-2014-01) with Initial Study.pdf10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project Initial Study File No. DP-2014-02, Z-2014-01, ASA-2014-02, TM-2014-01, and TR-2014-08 Prepared by: In Consultation with: March 2014 DRAFT CITY OF CUPERTINO MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION As provided by the Environmental Assessment Procedure adopted by the City Council of the City of Cupertino on May 27, 1973, and amended on March 4, 1974, January 17 1977, May 1, 1978, and July 7, 1980, the City of Cupertino Planning Commission and City Council have reviewed the proposed project described below to determine whether it could have a significant effect on the environment as a result of project implementation. “Significant effect on the environment” means a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affect by the project including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic significance (CEQA Guidelines Section 15382). PROJECT INFORMATION AND LOCATION Project Name: 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project Application No.: EA-2014-01, DP-2014-02, ASA-2014-02, TM-2014-01, TR-2014-08, Z-2014-01 Applicant: Tate Development (Foothill Auto Service & Detail, Inc.) Location: 10121 North Foothill Boulevard, Cupertino PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project proposes to rezone the 0.87-gross acre project site from Planned Development General Commercial – P(CG) to Planned Development General Commercial/Residential – P(CG, Res) to allow the demolition of an abandoned automobile service station and construction of six single-family dwelling units, five of which would include a detached workspace intended for live/work, along with associated site and off-site improvements. DISCRETIONARY ACTION REQUEST • Rezoning of a .87 gross acre parcel from Planned Development General Commercial - P(CG) to Planned Development General Commercial and Residential - P(CG, Res). • Tentative Map to subdivide a .66 net acre parcel into six residential lots and one common area lot; • Development Permit to allow the demolition of an abandoned automobile service station and construct six residential units, including five live-work units with detached workspaces, along with associated site and off-site improvements; and • Architectural and Site Approval to allow the demolition of an abandoned automobile service station and construct six residential units, including five live-work units with detached workspaces, along with associated site and off-site improvements; • Tree Removal Permit to allow the removal and replacement of five Monterey Pine trees. 1 FINDINGS OF DECISIONMAKING BODY The Planning Commission and City Council finds the project described is consistent with the General Plan and will not have a significant effect on the environment based on the analysis completed in the attached Initial Study. The applicant, before the public release of this draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND), has agreed to make project revisions that mitigate the project’s effects to a less than significant level. The applicant agrees to implement the mitigation measures identified in the attached Initial Study and summarized below: Biological Resources: Impact BIO-1: The development of the proposed project could result in direct impacts to nesting birds, if present on the site at the time of construction. Mitigation Measure BIO-1.1: Removal of trees on the project site should be scheduled between September and December (inclusive) to avoid the nesting season for birds and no additional surveys would be required. Mitigation Measure BIO-1.2: If removal of the trees on-site is planned to take place between January and August (inclusive), a pre-construction survey for nesting birds shall be conducted by a qualified ornithologist to identify active nesting raptor or other bird nests that may be disturbed during project implementation. Between January and April (inclusive) pre-construction surveys shall be conducted no more than 14 days prior to the initiation of construction activities or tree relocation or removal. Between May and August (inclusive), pre-construction surveys shall be conducted no more than thirty (30) days prior to the initiation of these activities. The surveying ornithologist shall inspect all trees in and immediately adjacent to the construction area for nests. If an active raptor nest is found in or close enough to the construction area to be disturbed by these activities, the ornithologist shall, in consultation with the State of California, Department of Fish & Wildlife (CDFW), designate a construction-free buffer zone around the nest until the end of the nesting activity. Buffers for other birds shall be determined by the ornithologist. Mitigation Measure BIO-1.3: A report summarizing the results of the pre-construction survey and any designated buffer zones or protection measures for tree nesting birds shall be submitted to the Community Development Director prior to the start of grading or tree removal. Cultural Resources: Impact CUL-1: Development of the proposed project could result in significant impacts to buried cultural resources, if encountered. Mitigation Measure CUL-1.1: In the event of the discovery of prehistoric or historic archaeological deposits or paleontological deposits, work shall be halted within 50 feet of the discovery and a qualified professional archaeologist (or paleontologist, as applicable) shall examine the find and make appropriate recommendations regarding the significance of the find and the appropriate mitigation. The recommendation shall be implemented and could include collection, recordation, and analysis of any significant cultural materials. 2 Mitigation Measure CUL-1.2: In the event that human remains are found, all project-related construction shall cease within a 50-foot radius of the find in order to proceed with the testing and mitigation measures required. Pursuant to Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code and Section 5097.94 of the Public Resources Code of the State of California: • In the event of the discovery of human remains during construction, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains. The Santa Clara County Coroner shall be notified and shall make a determination as to whether the remains are Native American. If the Coroner determines that the remains are not subject to his authority, he shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission who shall attempt to identify descendants of the deceased Native American. If no satisfactory agreement can be reached as to the disposition of the remains pursuant to this State law, then the land owner shall re-inter the human remains and items associated with Native American burials on the property in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance. Mitigation Measure CUL-1.3: A final report summarizing the discovery of cultural materials shall be submitted to the Director of Community Development prior to issuance of building permits. This report shall contain a description of the mitigation program that was implemented and its results, including a description of the monitoring and testing program, a list of the resources found, a summary of the resources analysis methodology and conclusion, and a description of the disposition/curation of the resources. The report shall verify completion of the mitigation program to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning. Hazards and Hazardous Materials: Impact HAZ-1: Construction workers and future residences could be exposed to contaminated soils and health risks associated with soil vapor on-site. Mitigation Measure HAZ-1.1: The project shall conduct soil sampling and analysis of the extent of TPH and VOC contamination in soil, soil vapor, and/or groundwater in accordance with the Work Plan approved by the Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health (SCCDEH) on November 5, 2013. The approved Work Plan describes sample methodology, sample locations, the quality assurance/quality control plan, reporting, and schedule. The Work Plan shall be implemented by the project and the results of the sampling shall be submitted to the SCCDEH. If additional investigation is required to sufficiently delineate the contaminants of concern, additional sampling or mitigation measures shall be proposed and be reviewed and approved by the SCCDEH. The Work Plan shall be completed to the satisfaction of the SCCDEH prior to issuance of grading permits for project construction. Mitigation Measure HAZ-1.2: A Site Remediation Plan shall be prepared based on the documented soil conditions and approved by the SCCDEH. The Site Remediation Plan shall include the design of a remedy that has the goal of mitigating ongoing threats to water quality and to conditions of unacceptable risk for residential land use. The Site Remediation Plan shall include implementation and monitoring schedules. Upon approval of the Site Remediation Plan, the approved remediation design shall be implemented at the project site, prior to issuance of grading permits for project construction. 3 Based on the current understanding of site conditions, soil vapor extraction (SVE) is considered an appropriate remedy to mitigate the soil vapor levels to an acceptable level for residential use. An SVE system would consist of a series of soil vapor extraction wells connected to a vacuum pump. The depth and number of wells would be determined based on results of the additional sampling. Vapors collected via the extraction system would be treated either through absorption onto activated carbon or destroyed using an on-site combustion system. The operation of the mitigation system would be tuned for optimal performance during the early operations period. Mitigation of soil vapors to levels acceptable for residential land use is expected to take approximately three months. System operation shall comply with City noise ordinances and necessary permits (e.g., Bay Area Air Quality Management District) shall be obtained prior to operation of the system. In addition, required permits for well installation shall be obtained from the Santa Clara Valley Water District. If vapor mitigation through SVE is the only remedy implemented, confirmation of its effectiveness shall be documented by four quarters of soil vapor monitoring (multi-depth vapor wells installed to five and 10 feet at each proposed residence) performed after the termination of the remediation system. If a different remedy is approved, the Site Remediation Plan shall include an applicable implementation plan, schedule, monitoring, and confirmation program. Other feasible remedies could include soil excavation with or without above-ground treatment, passive sub-slab vapor barriers, active sub-slab vapor management systems, or a combination of these components. Mitigation Measure HAZ-1.3: In addition to the sampling described above, soils at the site shall be assessed for impact from other potential contaminant sources. These sources shall be sampled and analyzed as follows: • Soil samples shall be collected near the location of the former hydraulic hoists and analyzed for PCBs. Samples shall be collected at locations dictated by visual evidence of discoloration and analyzed using EPA SW 846 methodology (e.g., 8081 or 8082). If no discoloration is evident, one soil sample shall be collected at each hoist. • Three soil samples shall be collected from the site at a maximum depth of 0.5 feet below the native soil surface and analyzed for organochlorine pesticides and arsenic. Additional samples may be required based on the results of this analysis. • The soil sampling results shall be compared to appropriate risk-based screening levels and submitted to SCCDEH and the Director of Community Development prior to construction grading on the site. If additional investigation is required to sufficiently delineate the contaminants of concern, additional sampling or mitigation measures shall be proposed and reviewed and approved by the SCCDEH prior to construction grading. Mitigation Measure HAZ-1.4: Soil containing pesticides, PCB, and/or petroleum hydrocarbons shall be removed by properly trained and licensed personnel and contractors, prior to construction workers entering the site to begin earthwork. Contaminated soil shall be handled by trained personnel using appropriate protective equipment and engineering controls, in accordance with local, state, and federal laws. Contaminated soil shall be transported separate from other soil excavated at the site, and disposed at an appropriate offsite facility in accordance with its characteristics or, if mitigated by an alternative method, with approval from SCCDEH, or other appropriate regulatory agency. 4 Mitigation Measure HAZ-1.5: Upon completion of remediation activities and confirmation that the resulting conditions are adequately protective of residential development, a Closure Report shall be prepared and submitted to the City and SCCDEH for review and approval. The report shall summarize: • Past investigations, analytical reports, and current site conditions; • Implemented mitigation measures and soil management activities; • Off-site transport and disposal of excavated soil, and • Excavation backfill materials and procedures. Once the mitigation measures described have achieved thresholds established for residential use, the report shall include a request regulatory closure for the property. Final approval that the site is suitable for residential land uses shall be issued by SCCDEH and copied to the City of Cupertino prior to issuance of grading or demolition permits for project construction. Mitigation Measure HAZ-1.6: A site-specific Health and Safety Plan (HASP) shall be prepared prior to issuance of grading permits for project construction to address potential health and safety hazards associated with implementation of the Work Plan and proposed redevelopment activities (e.g., site preparation, demolition, grading and construction). The HASP shall govern activities of all personnel present during field activities. A job hazard analysis (JHA) shall be prepared for each task prior to performing said task. The JHAs shall include, at a minimum, identification of likely hazards associated with the task, requirements and procedures for employee protection, and required mitigation measures. Any contractor performing a task not covered in the HASP shall be required to develop a JHA specific to that task prior to performing the task. Mitigation Measure HAZ-1.7: A Site Management Plan (SMP) shall be developed to establish management practices for handling contaminated soil or other materials encountered during construction activities. The SMP shall identify potential health, safety, and environmental exposure considerations associated with redevelopment activities and shall identify appropriate mitigation measures. The SMP shall be submitted to the City and SCCDEH for approval prior to commencing construction activities. The SMP will include the following: • Proper mitigation as needed and demolition of the existing structure; • Proper handling and disposal of waste oil below the building; • Management of stockpiles, including sampling, disposal, and dust and runoff control including implementation of a stormwater pollution prevention program; • Management of underground structures encountered, including utilities and/or underground storage tanks; • Procedures to follow if evidence of an unknown historic release of hazardous materials (e.g., underground storage tanks, buried debris, contamination) is discovered during excavation or demolition activities; • Traffic control during site improvements; • Noise, work hours, and other relevant City regulations; • Mitigation of soil vapors; and • Monitoring, reporting, and regulatory oversight arrangements. 5 Noise: Impact NOI-1: Proposed Homes 1-5 could have interior noise levels exceeding the City’s standard of 45 dBA CNEL. Mitigation Measure NOI-1.1: Provide a suitable form of forced-air mechanical ventilation, as determined by the City of Cupertino Building Official, for all the units so that windows could be kept closed at the occupant’s discretion to control noise and achieve the 45 dBA CNEL interior noise standard. Mitigation Measure NOI-1.2: Provide sound rated windows and doors for Homes 1-5 to maintain interior noise levels at acceptable levels. Preliminary calculations made based on the data contained in the conceptual design plans indicate that sound-rated windows and doors with a sound transmission class rating of STC 30 to 35 would be sufficient to control noise and achieve the 45 dBA CNEL interior noise standard. Mitigation Measure NOI-1.3: Confirm the final specifications for noise insulation treatments during final design of the project. Results of the analysis, including the description of the necessary noise control treatments, shall be submitted to the City along with the building plans and approved prior to issuance of building permits. Impact NOI-2: Construction of the proposed project would result in a significant temporary noise impact. Mitigation Measure NOI-2.1: Avoid the unnecessary idling of equipment and stage construction equipment as far as reasonable from residences adjacent to the site. Mitigation Measure NOI-2.2: Prepare a detailed construction plan identifying the schedule for major noise-generating construction activities. Mitigation Measure NOI-2.3: Notify adjacent residents to the project site of the construction schedule. Mitigation Measure NOI-2.3: Locate stationary noise generating equipment such as air compressors or portable power generators as far as possible from sensitive receptors. Mitigation Measure NOI-2.4: Construct temporary noise barriers to screen stationary noise generating equipment when located near adjoining sensitive land uses. Mitigation Measure NOI-2.5: Utilize “quiet” air compressors and other stationary noise sources where technology exists. Mitigation Measure NOI-2.6: Control noise from construction workers’ radios to a point that they are not audible at existing residences bordering the project site. Mitigation Measure NOI-2.8: Designate a “noise disturbance coordinator” who would be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. The disturbance coordinator would 6 determine the cause of the noise complaints (e.g., starting too early, bad muffler, etc.) and would require that reasonable measures warranted to correct the problem be implemented. Conspicuously post a telephone number for the disturbance coordinator at the construction site and include it in the notice sent to neighbors regarding the construction schedule. PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD The 30-day public circulation period for the Initial Study and draft MND is from March 27, 2014 to April 28, 2014. Before 5:00 pm on April 28, 2014, any person may: • Review the Initial Study/draft MND; and/or • Submit written comments regarding the information, analysis, and mitigation measures in the Initial Study/draft MND. Before the MND is adopted, Planning Staff will prepare written responses to any comments, and revise the draft MND, if necessary, to reflect any concerns raised during the public review period. /s/Aarti Shrivastava Aarti Shrivastava Director of Community Development g/erc/negEA201401 7 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 1 1.1 PURPOSE OF THE INITIAL STUDY ................................................................................. 1 1.2 PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD ................................................................................................. 1 1.3 CONSIDERATION OF THE INITIAL STUDY AND PROJECT....................................... 1 1.4 NOTICE OF DETERMINATION ........................................................................................ 1 SECTION 2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION ....................................................................................... 2 2.1 PROJECT TITLE .................................................................................................................. 2 2.2 PROJECT LOCATION ......................................................................................................... 2 2.3 LEAD AGENCY CONTACT ............................................................................................... 2 2.4 PROPERTY OWNER/PROJECT PROPONENT ................................................................. 2 2.5 ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NUMBER...................................................................................... 2 2.6 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION AND ZONING DISTRICT ........................................ 2 SECTION 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ......................................................................................... 6 3.1 BACKGROUND INFORMATION ...................................................................................... 6 3.2 PROPOSED PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONING ........................................................ 6 3.3 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................ 6 SECTION 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, CHECKLIST, AND DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS 9 4.1 AESTHETICS ....................................................................................................................... 9 4.2 AGRICULTURAL AND FOREST RESOURCES ............................................................. 16 4.3 AIR QUALITY .................................................................................................................... 18 4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ............................................................................................. 25 4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES ................................................................................................ 31 4.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS .................................................................................................... 35 4.7 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS .................................................................................... 39 4.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ............................................................... 46 4.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ........................................................................ 55 4.10 LAND USE .......................................................................................................................... 63 4.11 MINERAL RESOURCES ................................................................................................... 67 4.12 NOISE ................................................................................................................................. 68 4.13 POPULATION AND HOUSING........................................................................................ 77 4.14 PUBLIC SERVICES ........................................................................................................... 79 4.15 RECREATION .................................................................................................................... 83 4.16 TRANSPORTATION.......................................................................................................... 85 4.17 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ............................................................................ 89 TABLE OF CONTENTS 4.18 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE ............................................................. 93 SECTION 5.0 REFERENCES .......................................................................................................... 97 SECTION 6.0 LEAD AGENCY AND CONSULTANTS ............................................................. 100 6.1 LEAD AGENCY ............................................................................................................... 100 6.2 CONSULTANTS .............................................................................................................. 100 Figures Figure 2.2-1: Regional Map .................................................................................................................. 3 Figure 2.2-2: Vicinity Map ................................................................................................................... 4 Figure 2.2-3: Aerial Photograph and Surrounding Land Uses .............................................................. 5 Figure 3.0-1: Conceptual Site Plan ....................................................................................................... 8 Figure 4.1-1: Conceptual Building Elevations from Public View Points ........................................... 15 Figure 4.10-1: Conceptual Building Elevations (South and West Views) ......................................... 66 Tables Table 4.3-1: Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan Applicable Control Measures ....................................... 21 Table 4.7-1: Climate Change Scoping Plan – Applicable Recommended Actions Compared to Project Features .................................................................................................................................... 44 Table 4.12-1: Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment ................................................. 74 Photos Photos 1 and 2 ...................................................................................................................................... 10 Photos 3 and 4 ...................................................................................................................................... 11 Photos 5 and 6 ...................................................................................................................................... 12 Appendices Appendix A Air Quality Toxic Air Contaminants Screening Tables Appendix B Arborist Report Appendix C Geotechnical Investigation Appendix D Hazardous Materials Reports Appendix E Environmental Noise Assessment Appendix F Transportation Memorandum SECTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 PURPOSE OF THE INITIAL STUDY This Initial Study of environmental impacts has been prepared to conform to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations 15000 et. seq.), and the regulations and policies of the City of Cupertino. The City of Cupertino is the Lead Agency under CEQA and has prepared this Initial Study to address the impacts of implementing the proposed 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work project. The project proposes to rezone a 0.87-acre site located at 10121 North Foothill Boulevard to allow for the construction of six single-family dwelling units, five of which would have detached workspaces. 1.2 PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD Publication of this Initial Study marks the beginning of a 30-day public review and comment period. During this period, the Initial Study will be available to local, state, and federal agencies and to interested organizations and individuals for review. Written comments concerning the environmental review contained in this Initial Study during the 30-day public review period should be sent to: George Schroeder, Associate Planner City of Cupertino Community Development Department 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 GeorgeS@cupertino.org 1.3 CONSIDERATION OF THE INITIAL STUDY AND PROJECT Following the conclusion of the public review period, the City will consider the adoption of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the project at a regularly scheduled meeting. The City shall consider the Initial Study/MND together with any comments received during the public review process. Upon adoption of the MND, the City may proceed with project approval actions. 1.4 NOTICE OF DETERMINATION If the project is approved, the City will file a Notice of Determination (NOD), which will be available for public inspection and posted within 24 hours of receipt at the County Clerk’s Office for 30 days. The filing of the NOD starts a 30-day statute of limitations on court challenges to the approval under CEQA (CEQA Guidelines Section 15075(g)). City of Cupertino 1 Initial Study 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project March 2014 SECTION 2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION 2.1 PROJECT TITLE 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project 2.2 PROJECT LOCATION The 0.87-acre project site is located at 10121 North Foothill Boulevard in the City of Cupertino. Regional and vicinity maps of the project site are shown in Figures 2.2-1 and 2.2-2, respectively. The project site is bounded by Silver Oak Way to the north, North Foothill Boulevard to the east, and residences to the south and west. An aerial photograph showing the project site and surrounding land uses is shown on Figure 2.2-3. 2.3 LEAD AGENCY CONTACT George Schroeder, Associate Planner City of Cupertino Community Development Department 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-7601 2.4 PROPERTY OWNER/PROJECT PROPONENT Ron Tate, President Tate Diversified Development, Inc. 22 South Santa Cruz Avenue, Second Floor Los Gatos, CA 95030 (408) 399-4950 2.5 ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NUMBER 342-32-070 2.6 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION AND ZONING DISTRICT General Plan Land Use Designation: Commercial/Residential Zoning District: Planned Development General Commercial – P(CG) City of Cupertino 2 Initial Study 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project March 2014 REGIONAL MAP FIGURE 2.2-1 3 MountainViewMountainView Santa ClaraSanta Clara San JoseSan Jose CampbellCampbell CupertinoCupertino SaratogaSaratoga Los GatosLos Gatos Palo AltoPalo Alto East Palo AltoEast Palo Alto Los AltosLos Altos Redwood CityRedwood City MilpitasMilpitas NewarkNewark FremontFremont Morgan HillMorgan Hill Santa CruzSanta Cruz 101 101 280 880 880 680 680 85 17 9 35 84 84 237 236 87 Project Site San Francisco Bay Pacific Ocean VI C I N I T Y M A P FIGURE 2.2-2 4 Stevens Creek Bo ule v ar d North Foothill Boulevard Alpine Driv e Sa l e m A v e . Ainsworth Dr. Si l v e r O a k W a y English Oak Way Camino Vista Drive Prado Vista Avenue Lockwood Drive Lebanon Drive Wo o d r i d g e C o u r t Me d i n a L a n e Palo Vista Road Mira Vista Raod Rancho Ventura St. Ja n i c e A v e n u e Carmen Road Hillcrest Road Vista K n o l l B o u l e v a r d Ba h l S t r e e t Va r i a n W a y Creston DriveStonydale Dr. Canyon O a k W a y Cu p e r t i n o R o a d Project Site 0250500750 Feet AE R I A L P H O T O G R A P H A N D S U R R O U N D I N G L A N D U S E S FIGURE 2.2-3 5 Stevens Creek Boulevard Ste vens Cr eek Boulevard Stevens Creek Boulevard St e ve ns Cr eek Boulevard North Foothill Boulevard North Foothill Boulevard North Foothill Boulevard North Foothill Boulevard Cu p e rt in o Road Cu p er t in o R oad Silver O a k Way Silver O a k Way Re s i d e n t i a l Re s i d e n t i a l Re s i d e n t i a l Of f i c e Co m m e r c i a l Fi r e S t a t i o n Re s i d e n t i a l Qu a s i - P u b l i c / I n s t i t u t i o n a l Re s i d e n t i a l Pr o j e c t B o u n d a r y Sc a l e : 1 " = ± 1 8 5 ' Ph o t o D a t e : O c t . 2 0 1 1 SECTION 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3.1 BACKGROUND INFORMATION The project proposes live/work units. The City of Cupertino acknowledges that changes in technology and composition of the work force, among other factors, have contributed to a growing interest on the part of Cupertino citizens to live and work in their homes. The City also finds that home business enterprises can help reduce commuter-traffic impacts, reduce or eliminate child care expenses for people with young families, and provide the opportunity to test creative business ventures with greatly reduced startup costs. The home occupation section of the City’s Municipal Code (Chapter 19.120) regulates home-based businesses. To operate a conforming home occupation, a business license must be issued. As part of the license application, the Planning Division reviews the application and nature of the business, considering the impact it would have on the neighborhood. Certain conditions such as noise, traffic (pedestrian and vehicular), signs, and exterior storage are all considered when the application is being reviewed. Certain occupations are specifically prohibited and include beauty parlors, medical offices, private schools, and auto repair. The proposed workspaces will be regulated in accordance with Chapter 19.120 of the City’s Municipal Code to ensure neighborhood compatibility. 3.2 PROPOSED PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONING The project proposes to rezone the 0.87-gross acre project site from Planned Development General Commercial – P(CG) to Planned Development General Commercial/Residential – P(CG, Res) to allow the demolition of an abandoned automobile service station and construction of six single- family dwelling units, five of which would include a detached workspace intended for live/work, along with associated site and off-site improvements. In addition to a rezoning, the project requires a tentative map approval, development permit, architectural and site approval, and tree removal permits. 3.3 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT The project proposes to demolish the existing automobile service station and construct six single- family dwelling units. Five of the six dwelling units are proposed to have detached workspaces intended for live/work. A conceptual site plan is shown on Figure 3.0-1. The detached workspaces would front North Foothill Boulevard with the associated residences located behind the workspaces. The detached workspaces would be one-story (up to 14 feet) tall and either approximately 452 or 411 square feet each (see Figure 3.0-1). The residences would be two- stories (up to 30 feet) tall and approximately 2,668 square feet each (including attached two-car garages). City of Cupertino 6 Initial Study 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project March 2014 Section 3.0 – Project Description The sixth residence would not have a detached workspace. This dwelling unit would be located at the rear of the property. The sixth residence would be two-stories (up to 30 feet) tall and approximately 2,690 square feet (including an attached two-car garage). All six residences would have an attached two-car garage. A total of 10 guest parking spaces would be provided on-site (refer to Figure 3.0-1). There are five parking spaces on Silver Oak Way along the project site frontage that can also be utilized by residents, guests, or customers. Parking in one of these spaces would be restricted on trash pick-up days. New landscaping, including trees and shrubs, would be planted as part of the project. Public sidewalk, curb, and parkway improvements would be provided by the project. Vehicular access to the project site would be provided via a driveway on Silver Oak Way (refer to Figure 3.0-1). It is anticipated that construction of the project would take approximately nine months to complete and require excavation and removal of on-site soil due to geotechnical unsuitability, contamination, or other reasons. Excavated soil would be hauled off-site and disposed of appropriately. City of Cupertino 7 Initial Study 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project March 2014 CO N C E P T U A L S I T E P L A N FIGURE 3.0-1 8 2A1 9 1A1 9 UP UP UP UP UP UP DN DN DN DN DN DN DN DN DN 21'-1" 8'-0" 3A1 9 (E) T R E E S T O BE R E M O V E D (E) T R E E S T O BE R E M O V E D AR E A D E S I G N A T E D F O R TR A S H C O L L E C T I O N . NO P A R K I N G O N P I C K - U P DA Y S AR E A D E S I G N A T E D F O R TR A S H C O L L E C T I O N . NO P A R K I N G O N P I C K - U P DA Y S 1.1 . 5 3.2 . 3 3.2 . 3 3.2 . 3 3.2 . 3 1.1 . 7 1.1 . 7 2.4 . 5 2.2 0 . 1 2.2 5 . 1 2.4 . 1 2.4 . 1 2.4 . 1 2.4 . 1 2.4 . 1 2.4 . 1 2.2 0 . 1 2.2 5 . 1 2.2 0 . 1 2.2 5 . 1 2.2 0 . 1 2.2 5 . 1 2.3 4 . 4 2.3 4 . 4 1.1 . 2 1.1 . 2 1.1 . 2 1.1 . 2 1.1 . 2 1.1 . 2 1.1 . 2 1.1 . 2 1.1 . 2 1.1 . 2 1.1 . 2 1.1 . 2 1.1 . 2 1.1 . 2 1.1 . 2SI L V E R O A K W A Y SETBACK FOOTHILL BLVD DN DN WA T E R FEA T U R E BA C K - U P SPA C E BA C K - U P SP A C E BA C K - U P SP A C E BA C K - U P SPA C E BA C K - U P SP A C E SIDEWALKPARK-WAY SET B A C K SETBACK STANDARD8'-6" X 18'STANDARD8'-6" X 18'STANDARD8'-6" X 18' 2.4 . 3 GU E S T PA R K I N G DN DN DN STANDARD8'-6" X 18' STANDARD 8'-6" X 18' STANDARD 8'-6" X 18' ADA PARKING 9' X 18' DN STANDARD 10'-0" X 20' STANDARD 10'-0" X 20'STANDARD8'-6" X 18' DN DN DN DN UP 15 ' - 0 " 12'-0"3'-0"8'-0" 10'-0" 10'-0" 11'-9 1/8" TYP. 9'-7 1/8" TYP. 10 ' - 2 3 / 4 " T Y P . 24' - 0 " M I N . 8'-6 1/8" TYP. 2'-0" 4'-0" 5'- 0 " 4'-0"4'-0" 4'-0" 4'-0" 2'-2 3/4"4'-0" 24 ' - 0 " M I N . 24' - 0 " M I N . 24 ' - 0 " M I N . 26 ' - 6 1 / 4 " 4'-0" 3'-4" 5'-9"5'-0" APP R O X . 1 5 ' - 0 " APPROX. 5'-0" 4'-5" 4'-1" 7'-8" 5'-6" 7'-4" 5'-2" 6'-0"5'-0"4'-0"2'-0" +3 8 9 . 9 9 +38 1 . 3 3 +378.85 +380.00 +3 9 0 . 0 1 3.2 . 3 3.2 . 3 2.4.2 2.4 . 2 2.4 . 2 3.2 . 8 2.4 . 2 3.2 . 8 3.2 . 8 3.2 . 8 3.2 . 8 3.2 . 8 1.1 . 2 1.1 . 2 2.4.4 2.4.42.4.2 3.2 . 3 (E ) T R E E S T O BE R E M O V E D (E ) T R E E S T O BE R E M O V E D (E ) T R E E S T O B E RE M O V E D (E ) T R E E S T O B E RE M O V E D 1.1 . 2 1.1 . 6 1.1 . 6 2.34.12.34.12.34.1 2.3 4 . 1 2.3 4 . 1 2.3 4 . 1 2.3 4 . 1 2.3 4 . 1 2.3 4 . 1 2.3 4 . 1 2.3 4 . 1 2.3 4 . 1 2.3 4 . 1 2.3 4 . 1 2.3 4 . 1 2.3 4 . 1 3.2.3 3.2.33.2.3 3.2.33.2.3 3.2 . 3 3' T A L L F E N C E 3' T A L L F E N C E 3' T A L L F E N C E 3' T A L L F E N C E 3.2.3 3' T A L L F E N C E 3.2 . 3 3' T A L L F E N C E 2.3 4 . 2 2.3 4 . 2 2.3 4 . 2 2.3 4 . 2 3' T A L L P L A N T E R W A L L 2.3 4 . 1 2.3 4 . 1 (E) P R O P E R T Y W A L L - R E S U R F A C E W/S T U C C O O N L Y O N T H E PR O P E R T Y S I D E (E) P R O P E R T Y W A L L - R E S U R F A C E W/S T U C C O O N L Y O N T H E PR O P E R T Y S I D E (E ) P R O P E R T Y W A L L - RES U R F A C E W / S T U C C O ON L Y O N T H E P R O P E R T Y SID E (E) P R O P E R T Y W A L L - R E S U R F A C E W/S T U C C O O N L Y O N T H E PR O P E R T Y S I D E 2.3 4 . 1 2.3 4 . 1 2.34.1 2.34.1 2.34.1 2.34.1 2.34.14' TALL FENCE (N ) R E T A I N I N G WA L L (N ) R E T A I N I N G WA L L (N ) R E T A I N I N G WA L L (N ) R E T A I N I N G 3' T A L L F E N C E 5' T A L L F E N C E 1.1 . 2 2.2 0 . 1 2.2 5 . 1 2.2 0 . 1 2.2 5 . 1 3' TALL FENCE 2.3 4 . 3 2.3 4 . 3 AD A R A M P W I L L A L S O B E IN S T A L L E D O N T H E N O R T H W E S T CO R N E R O F S I L V E R O A K W A Y / FO O T H I L L B L V D WO R K S P A C E 5 HO M E 5 HO M E 6 WO R K S P A C E 4 HO M E 4 WO R K S P A C E 3 HO M E 3 HO M E 2 WO R K S P A C E 1 HO M E 1 SETBACK SE T B A C K SE T B A C K WO R K S P A C E 2 DN N 04°53'00" W 140.01' 1- S T O R Y R E S I D E N C E 1-S T O R Y D U P L E X SIN G L E F A M I L Y R E S I D E N C E BU I L D I N G A R E A : 2 , 6 6 8 S F (IN C L . G A R A G E ) 2-S T O R I E S BU I L D I N G H E I G H T 2 5 ' - 5 " F.F . + 3 8 4 . 8 5 ' PA D + 3 8 3 . 8 0 ' SIN G L E F A M I L Y R E S I D E N C E BU I L D I N G A R E A : 2 , 6 6 8 S F (IN C L . G A R A G E ) 2-S T O R I E S BU I L D I N G H E I G H T 2 4 ' - 8 " F.F . + 3 8 3 . 0 0 ' PA D + 3 8 2 . 0 0 ' SIN G L E F A M I L Y R E S I D E N C E BU I L D I N G A R E A : 2 , 6 6 8 S F (IN C L . G A R A G E ) 2-S T O R I E S BU I L D I N G H E I G H T 2 4 ' - 8 " F.F . + 3 8 3 . 0 0 ' PA D + 3 8 2 . 0 0 ' SIN G L E F A M I L Y R E S I D E N C E BU I L D I N G A R E A : 2 , 6 6 8 S F (IN C L . G A R A G E ) 2-S T O R I E S BU I L D I N G H E I G H T 2 4 ' - 8 " F.F. + 3 8 3 . 0 0 ' PA D + 3 8 2 . 0 0 ' SIN G L E F A M I L Y R E S I D E N C E BU I L D I N G A R E A : 2 , 6 6 8 S F (IN C L . G A R A G E ) 2-S T O R I E S BU I L D I N G H E I G H T 2 4 ' - 8 " F.F . + 3 8 3 . 0 0 ' PA D + 3 8 2 . 0 0 ' SIN G L E F A M I L Y R E S I D E N C E BU I L D I N G A R E A : 2 , 6 9 0 S F (IN C L . G A R A G E ) 2-S T O R I E S BU I L D I N G H E I G H T 2 4 ' - 8 " F.F . + 3 8 4 . 8 5 ' PA D + 3 8 3 . 8 0 ' CO U R T Y A R D F.F. + 3 8 2 . 0 0 ' CO U R T Y A R D F.F . + 3 8 3 . 8 5 ' CO U R T Y A R D F.F . + 3 8 4 . 8 4 ' ATT A C H E D G A R A G E F.F . + 3 8 7 . 0 0 ' PA D + 3 8 6 . 1 0 ' ATT A C H E D G A R A G E F.F . + 3 8 4 . 5 0 ' PA D + 3 8 3 . 6 0 ' ATT A C H E D G A R A G E F.F . + 3 8 4 . 8 4 ' PA D + 3 8 4 . 0 0 ' CO U R T Y A R D F.F. + 3 8 2 . 0 0 ' CO U R T Y A R D F.F . + 3 8 2 . 0 0 ' CO U R T Y A R D F.F . + 3 8 2 . 0 0 ' AT T A C H E D G A R A G E F.F . + 3 8 3 . 0 0 ' PA D + 3 8 2 . 6 0 ' DET A C H E D W O R K S P A C E BU I L D I N G A R E A : 4 5 2 S F 1-S T O R Y F.F . + 3 8 0 . 8 5 ' DET A C H E D W O R K S P A C E BU I L D I N G A R E A : 4 5 2 S F 1-S T O R Y F.F . + 3 8 0 . 5 0 ' DET A C H E D W O R K S P A C E BU I L D I N G A R E A : 4 5 2 S F 1-S T O R Y F.F . + 3 8 0 . 5 0 ' DET A C H E D W O R K S P A C E BU I L D I N G A R E A : 4 1 1 S F 1-S T O R Y F.F . + 3 8 0 . 5 0 ' DE T A C H E D W O R K S P A C E BU I L D I N G A R E A : 4 1 1 S F 1-S T O R Y F.F . + 3 8 0 . 5 0 ' STANDARD8'-6" X 18' STANDARD8'-6" X 18' TO R BIKE LANE BIKE LANE ATT A C H E D G A R A G E F.F . + 3 8 3 . 0 0 ' PA D + 3 8 2 . 4 0 ' ATT A C H E D G A R A G E F.F . + 3 8 3 . 0 0 ' PA D + 3 8 2 . 3 0 ' N 04°53'00" W 158.26' N 8 9 ° 4 0 ' 0 0 " W 1 7 2 . 5 2 ' N 8 9 ° 4 0 ' 0 0 " E 1 5 4 . 2 7 ' R T O R T O R T O R T O R T O T O R T O R T O R T O R 8'-6 " X 2 2 ' - 0 " STR E E T P A R K I N G 8'-6 " X 2 2 ' - 0 " ST R E E T P A R K I N G 8'-6 " X 2 2 ' - 0 " ST R E E T P A R K I N G 8'-6 " X 2 2 ' - 0 " STR E E T P A R K I N G 8'- 6 " X 2 2 ' - 0 " STR E E T P A R K I N G SIDEWALKPARK-WAY CO R N E R S I G H T T R I A N G L E O R T DE D I C A T I O N EXISTINGSIDEWALK R R T O R R R EXISTING PROPERTY LINEDEDICATION PROPERTY LINE R R R R R R STANDARD10'-0" X 20'STANDARD10'-0" X 20' STANDARD 10'-0" X 20' STANDARD 10'-0" X 20' STANDARD10'-0" X 20'STANDARD10'-0" X 20'STANDARD10'-0" X 20'STANDARD10'-0" X 20' STANDARD10'-0" X 20'STANDARD10'-0" X 20'STANDARD10'-0" X 20'STANDARD10'-0" X 20' STANDARD10'-0" X 20'STANDARD10'-0" X 20' STANDARD10'-0" X 20'STANDARD10'-0" X 20' So u r c e : M o d a t i v e , 3 / 1 2 / 1 4 0102030 Feet SECTION 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, CHECKLIST, AND DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS This section describes the existing environmental conditions on and near the project site, as well as environmental impacts associated with the proposed project. The environmental checklist, as recommended in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, identifies environmental impacts that could occur if the proposed project is implemented. The right-hand column in the checklist lists the source(s) for the answer to each question. The sources cited are identified at the end of this section. Mitigation measures are identified for all significant project impacts. “Mitigation Measures” are measures that will minimize, avoid, or eliminate a significant impact (CEQA Guidelines §15370). 4.1 AESTHETICS 4.1.1 Setting 4.1.1.1 Project Site The project site contains a vacant automobile service station facility that is approximately 1,445 square feet in size and fronts North Foothill Boulevard. Views of the project site from southbound North Foothill Boulevard are limited and blocked by landscaping and topography until the intersection of Silver Oak Way (see Photo 1). Views from northbound North Foothill Boulevard are also obscured by landscaping in the roadway median. A view from northbound North Foothill Boulevard at the break in the median at Cupertino Road is shown in Photo 2. The automobile service station building was formerly also used as a gas station and there is a canopy over dispenser islands in front of service bays and an office (see Photo 3). The property is accessed from driveways on North Foothill Boulevard and Silver Oak Way. Plantings of pine trees are present along retaining walls on the southern and western sides of the property and raised planters are present along the roadway frontages (see Photos 1 and 4). The site is sloping and public views of the site are limited to views from the adjacent roadways. 4.1.1.2 Surrounding Visual Character The project site is surrounded by existing suburban residential development and two roadways. One- and two-story wood and stucco clad single family residential buildings are located on adjacent properties (see Photos 5 and 6). The Sunny View Retirement Community, a landscaped complex of residential buildings with senior apartments and assisted living for seniors, is present east of North Foothill Boulevard. In addition, office and commercial uses in one- and two-story buildings are located south and southeast of the site closer to Stevens Creek Boulevard. North Foothill Boulevard is a four-lane north/south collector roadway used by automobiles and buses with a speed limit of 40 miles per hour in the project vicinity. Mature landscape trees and shrubs provide a visual buffer between residences and the heavily travelled roadway. The site also fronts Silver Oak Way, a residential street where traffic speeds and volumes are much lower compared to North Foothill Boulevard. City of Cupertino 9 Initial Study 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project March 2014 PHOTOS 1 AND 2 10 PHOTO 1: View of site at North Foothill Boulevard and Silver Oak Way, looking southwest from the median. Retaining walls and a grade change are visible at the southern and western boundaries of this sloping site. PHOTO 2: View of site from North Foothill Boulevard at Cupertino Road, looking northwest. PHOTOS 3 AND 4 11 PHOTO 3: View of existing building on the site from North Foothill Boulevard, looking west. PHOTO 4: View of site from sidewalk along Silver Oak Way, looking southeast. PHOTOS 5 AND 6 12 PHOTO 5: View of one-story residences on Silver Oak Way, opposite (north of) the site. Trees in background border North Foothill Boulevard. PHOTO 6: View of two story, wood clad townhouse buildings and mature land-scaping in project vicinity, viewed from Silver Oak Way. Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts 4.1.1.3 Scenic Views The Montebello foothills at the south and west boundaries of the valley floor provide a scenic backdrop to the City of Cupertino. The sloping project site does not provide prominent viewpoints of scenic resources from public vantage points. Views of the foothills from the project site and adjacent roadways are obscured by existing walls, landscape vegetation, and/or adjacent buildings. 4.1.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Checklist Source(s) Would the project: 1. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 1,2 2. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? 1,2 3. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? 1 4. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which will adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? 1 Aesthetic values are, by nature, very subjective. Opinions as to what constitutes a degradation of visual character will differ among individuals. One of the best available means for assessing what constitutes a visually acceptable standard for new buildings are the City’s design standards and implementation of those standards through the City’s design process. The following discussion addresses the proposed changes to the visual setting of the project area and factors that are part of the community’s assessment of the aesthetic values of a project’s design. 4.1.2.1 Impact to Scenic Views or Scenic Resources The project site is located within a developed area on the floor of the Santa Clara Valley. The site does not provide scenic open space and is not located along a state scenic highway. Redevelopment of this suburban site, therefore, would not have a direct adverse effect on a scenic vista or damage scenic resources. As discussed previously, scenic views from the immediate project vicinity are limited. The foothills west and south of the site are obscured by existing development, boundary walls, and landscape trees. Implementation of the proposed project would not substantially block scenic views and is not anticipated to have a substantial effect on a scenic vista. (No Impact) City of Cupertino 13 Initial Study 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project March 2014 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts 4.1.2.2 Change in Visual Character The visual character of buildings is a function of design features, including roof design (e.g., flat versus pitched or sloping roofs), fenestration (window design), and building height. Building heights within a structure can also be varied (or modulated) in ways that add interest or soften a building’s interface with the street. For example, building heights can be “stepped back” with shorter elevations in the front and varying roof shapes and heights towards the back. This can reduce the apparent mass of a building and create an appearance that fits into an area with different heights and varying roof styles. The design of building entrances, including use of awnings or porches can also reduce the mass and perception of overall building scale at street and pedestrian interfaces. The building style and function of structures on the site would change from a light colored commercial, automobile oriented building with commercial signage to a cluster of two-story residential and work structures that would cover a greater portion of the property (see Photos 1-4). The height and mass of buildings on the project site, as viewed from the public rights-of-way of North Foothill Boulevard and Silver Oak Way, would increase under the proposed project. Representative conceptual elevations for the residences and work spaces, as viewed from North Foothill Boulevard and Silver Oak Way, are shown in Figure 4.1-1. The building pads for the two- story residences would be at an elevation of 383 feet, and stepped about six feet below the grade of the adjacent residential properties to the west. The work space buildings fronting North Foothill Boulevard also would be stepped down about three feet from the residential structures on the site. To soften views of the new development, new trees would be planted on the site and along the street frontage and rooflines of the proposed structures would vary. Final building and landscaping design would be determined during the planning entitlement process. The building size and conceptual elevations for future residences on the site are similar to the townhouse development located west and north of the site. Residences allowed on the site, therefore, would not substantially degrade the visual character and quality of the project site or area. (Less Than Significant Impact) 4.1.2.3 Light and Glare Impacts The project would have windows and lighting typical of two-story residential construction (refer to Figure 4.1-1). Additional residential lighting on the project site would not be substantially greater than that created by the existing commercial building or existing residences in the project area. The project, therefore, would not result in substantial light or glare impacts that would adversely affect residences or other land uses surrounding the project site. (Less Than Significant Impact) 4.1.3 Conclusion The proposed project would not result in significant visual or aesthetic impacts. (Less Than Significant Impact) City of Cupertino 14 Initial Study 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project March 2014 CONCEPTUAL BUILDING ELEVATIONS FROM PUBLIC VIEW POINTS FIGURE 4.1-1 15 FOOTHILL BLVD PUD10121 N Foothill Blvd.Cupertino, CA 95014Owner: Foothill Auto Service &Detail, Inc., a CaliforniaCorporation KEY PLAN SILVER OAK WAY 1 2 3 4 5 6 5w 4w 3w 2w 1w FO O T H I L L B L V D 03.15.13 PLANNING STUDYSESSION SUBMITTAL 05.24.13 REVISED STUDY 08.23.13 REVISED STUDY 12.06.13 REVISED STUDY 01.24.14 FORMAL SUBMITTAL 03.12.14 REVISED SUBMITTAL All ideas, designs, arrangements and plansindicated or represented by this drawingare owned by and the property ofModative, Inc. and are solely for use on thespecified project and shall not be used onother projects, or for additions to thisproject, or for the completion of this projectby others without the prior written consentof and appropriate compensation toModative, Inc. No part thereof shall bereproduced, copied, adapted, published,sold, distributed to others or otherwise usedwithout the prior written consent of andappropriate compensation to Modative,Inc. Copyright © PROJECT NO 12-014 DATESCALE A16 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 3/12/14AS SHOWN30 ' - 0 " 25 ' - 7 3 / 4 " 2'- 1 3 / 8 " 11 ' - 0 " 12 ' - 6 " 3' FENCE 3' FENCE 3' FENCE3' FENCE 4' GATE 4' GATE 4' GATE 4' GATE HOME "F" ROOF PEAK LINE +417.00' BU I L D I N G H E I G H T 3' FENCE 6" 14 ' - 0 " 4' GATE SILVER OAK WAYBUS STOP HOME "A" ROOF PEAK LINE +405.00' FOOTHILL BLVD MA X B U I L D I N G H E I G H T BU I L D I N G H E I G H T EXISTING GRADE LINEEXISTING GRADE LINEEXISTING GRADE LINE KEY PLAN AB C D E F G 1 2 3 4 5 6 5W 4W 3W 2W 1w SILVER OAK WAY FO O T H I L L B L V D 2 3 / 4 " 14 ' - 0 " 30 ' - 0 " 25 ' - 7 3 / 4 " 2'- 1 3 / 8 " 11 ' - 0 " 12 ' - 6 " 6'- 5 5 / 8 " 13 ' - 1 1 " 20 ' - 4 5 / 8 " 30 ' - 0 " 3' FENCE 3' FENCE5' FENCE5' FENCE 3' FENCE HOME "F" ROOF PEAK LINE +417.00' HOME "C" ROOF PEAK LINE +409.00' BU I L D I N G H E I G H T DRIVEWAY FOOTHILL BLVD SILVER OAK WAY MA X B U I L D I N G H E I G H T BU I L D I N G H E I G H T BU I L D I N G H E I G H T MA X B U I L D I N G H E I G H T EXISTING GRADE LINE EXISTING GRADE LINE EXISTING GRADE LINE EAST ELEVATION (FOOTHILL BLVD)1 1/8" = 1'-0" NORTH ELEVATION (SILVER OAK WAY)2 1/8" = 1'-0" G F 6 D 5 4 3 2 16 F 1 W G 6 C FOOTHILL BLVD PUD10121 N Foothill Blvd.Cupertino, CA 95014Owner: Foothill Auto Service &Detail, Inc., a CaliforniaCorporation KEY PLAN SILVER OAK WAY 1 2 3 4 5 6 5w 4w 3w 2w 1w FO O T H I L L B L V D 03.15.13 PLANNING STUDYSESSION SUBMITTAL 05.24.13 REVISED STUDY 08.23.13 REVISED STUDY 12.06.13 REVISED STUDY 01.24.14 FORMAL SUBMITTAL 03.12.14 REVISED SUBMITTAL All ideas, designs, arrangements and plansindicated or represented by this drawingare owned by and the property ofModative, Inc. and are solely for use on thespecified project and shall not be used onother projects, or for additions to thisproject, or for the completion of this projectby others without the prior written consentof and appropriate compensation toModative, Inc. No part thereof shall bereproduced, copied, adapted, published,sold, distributed to others or otherwise usedwithout the prior written consent of andappropriate compensation to Modative,Inc. Copyright © PROJECT NO 12-014 DATESCALE A16 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 3/12/14AS SHOWN30 ' - 0 " 25 ' - 7 3 / 4 " 2'- 1 3 / 8 " 11 ' - 0 " 12 ' - 6 " 3' FENCE 3' FENCE 3' FENCE3' FENCE 4' GATE 4' GATE 4' GATE 4' GATE HOME "F" ROOF PEAK LINE +417.00' BU I L D I N G H E I G H T 3' FENCE 6" 14 ' - 0 " 4' GATE SILVER OAK WAYBUS STOP HOME "A" ROOF PEAK LINE +405.00' FOOTHILL BLVD MA X B U I L D I N G H E I G H T BU I L D I N G H E I G H T EXISTING GRADE LINEEXISTING GRADE LINEEXISTING GRADE LINE KEY PLAN AB C D E F G 1 2 3 4 5 6 5W 4W 3W 2W 1w SILVER OAK WAY FO O T H I L L B L V D 2 3 / 4 " 14 ' - 0 " 30 ' - 0 " 25 ' - 7 3 / 4 " 2'- 1 3 / 8 " 11 ' - 0 " 12 ' - 6 " 6'- 5 5 / 8 " 13 ' - 1 1 " 20 ' - 4 5 / 8 " 30 ' - 0 " 3' FENCE 3' FENCE5' FENCE5' FENCE 3' FENCE HOME "F" ROOF PEAK LINE +417.00' HOME "C" ROOF PEAK LINE +409.00' BU I L D I N G H E I G H T DRIVEWAY FOOTHILL BLVD SILVER OAK WAY MA X B U I L D I N G H E I G H T BU I L D I N G H E I G H T BU I L D I N G H E I G H T MA X B U I L D I N G H E I G H T EXISTING GRADE LINE EXISTING GRADE LINE EXISTING GRADE LINE EAST ELEVATION (FOOTHILL BLVD)1 1/8" = 1'-0" NORTH ELEVATION (SILVER OAK WAY)2 1/8" = 1'-0" G F 6 D 5 4 3 2 16 F 1 W G 6 C FOOTHILL BLVD PUD10121 N Foothill Blvd.Cupertino, CA 95014Owner: Foothill Auto Service &Detail, Inc., a CaliforniaCorporation KEY PLAN SILVER OAK WAY 1 2 3 4 5 6 5w 4w 3w 2w 1w FO O T H I L L B L V D 03.15.13 PLANNING STUDYSESSION SUBMITTAL 05.24.13 REVISED STUDY 08.23.13 REVISED STUDY 12.06.13 REVISED STUDY 01.24.14 FORMAL SUBMITTAL 03.12.14 REVISED SUBMITTAL All ideas, designs, arrangements and plansindicated or represented by this drawingare owned by and the property ofModative, Inc. and are solely for use on thespecified project and shall not be used onother projects, or for additions to thisproject, or for the completion of this projectby others without the prior written consentof and appropriate compensation toModative, Inc. No part thereof shall bereproduced, copied, adapted, published,sold, distributed to others or otherwise usedwithout the prior written consent of andappropriate compensation to Modative,Inc. Copyright © PROJECT NO 12-014 DATESCALE A16 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 3/12/14AS SHOWN30 ' - 0 " 25 ' - 7 3 / 4 " 2'- 1 3 / 8 " 11 ' - 0 " 12 ' - 6 " 3' FENCE 3' FENCE 3' FENCE3' FENCE 4' GATE 4' GATE 4' GATE 4' GATE HOME "F" ROOF PEAK LINE +417.00' BU I L D I N G H E I G H T 3' FENCE 6" 14 ' - 0 " 4' GATE SILVER OAK WAYBUS STOP HOME "A" ROOF PEAK LINE +405.00' FOOTHILL BLVD MA X B U I L D I N G H E I G H T BU I L D I N G H E I G H T EXISTING GRADE LINEEXISTING GRADE LINEEXISTING GRADE LINE KEY PLAN AB C D E F G 1 2 3 4 5 6 5W 4W 3W 2W 1w SILVER OAK WAY FO O T H I L L B L V D 2 3 / 4 " 14 ' - 0 " 30 ' - 0 " 25 ' - 7 3 / 4 " 2'- 1 3 / 8 " 11 ' - 0 " 12 ' - 6 " 6'- 5 5 / 8 " 13 ' - 1 1 " 20 ' - 4 5 / 8 " 30 ' - 0 " 3' FENCE 3' FENCE5' FENCE5' FENCE 3' FENCE HOME "F" ROOF PEAK LINE +417.00' HOME "C" ROOF PEAK LINE +409.00' BU I L D I N G H E I G H T DRIVEWAY FOOTHILL BLVD SILVER OAK WAY MA X B U I L D I N G H E I G H T BU I L D I N G H E I G H T BU I L D I N G H E I G H T MA X B U I L D I N G H E I G H T EXISTING GRADE LINE EXISTING GRADE LINE EXISTING GRADE LINE EAST ELEVATION (FOOTHILL BLVD)1 1/8" = 1'-0" NORTH ELEVATION (SILVER OAK WAY)2 1/8" = 1'-0" G F 6 D 5 4 3 2 16 F 1 W G 6 C HOME “F” ROOF PEAK LINE +417.00’ HOME “F” ROOF PEAK LINE +417.00’ HOME “C” ROOF PEAK LINE +409.00’ HOME “A” ROOF PEAK LINE +405.00’ FOOTHILL BOULEVARD EXISTING GRADE LINE EXISTING GRADE LINE EXISTING GRADE LINE EXISTING GRADE LINE EXISTING GRADE LINE SILVER OAK WAY 2 3 / 4 ” 14 ’ - 0 ” BU I L D I N G H E I G H T 2’ - 1 3 / 8 ” 11 ’ - 0 ” 12 ’ - 6 ” 25 ’ - 7 3 / 4 ” 30 ’ - 0 ” 6’ - 5 5 / 8 ” 13 ’ - 1 1 ” 20 ’ - 4 5 / 8 ” 30 ’ - 0 ” FOOTHILL BOULEVARD 14 ’ - 0 ” 2’ - 1 3 / 8 ” 11 ’ - 0 ” 12 ’ - 6 ” 25 ’ - 7 3 / 4 ” 30 ’ - 0 ” NORTH ELEVATION (SILVER OAK WAY) EAST ELEVATION (FOOTHILL BLVD) A-G EXISTING OFF-SITE RESIDENTS PROJECT SITE BU I L D I N G H E I G H T Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts 4.2 AGRICULTURAL AND FOREST RESOURCES 4.2.1 Setting 4.2.1.1 Agricultural Resources According to the Santa Clara County Important Farmland 2010 map, the project site is designated as Urban and Built-Up Land. Urban and Built-Up Land is defined as residential land with a density of at least six units per 10-acre parcel, as well as land used for industrial and commercial purposes, golf courses, landfills, airports, sewage treatment, and water control structures. Currently, the project site is not zoned or used for agricultural purposes, nor is it the subject of a Williamson Act contract.1 The site is located within an urban area of Cupertino and there is no property used for agricultural purposes adjacent to the project site. 4.2.1.2 Forest Resources The project site does not contain any forest land and no forest or timberland is located in the vicinity of the project site. 4.2.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Checklist Source(s) Would the project: 1. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? 1,3 2. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? 4,5 3. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? 4 4. Result in a loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? 1,2 1 California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection. Santa Clara County Williamson Act FY 2012/2013. 2012. City of Cupertino 16 Initial Study 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project March 2014 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Checklist Source(s) Would the project: 5. Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? 1 4.2.2.1 Agricultural Resources Impact As discussed above, the project site is not designated, zoned or used as farmland or for agricultural purposes. The development of the project site would not result in conversion of farmland to non- agricultural use. For these reasons, the proposed project would not result in impacts to agricultural resources. (No Impact) 4.2.2.2 Forest Resources Impact None of the properties adjacent to the project site or in the vicinity are used for forestry and, therefore, the proposed project would not impact forest resources. (No Impact) 4.2.3 Conclusion The proposed project would not result in significant impacts to agriculture or forestry resources. (No Impact) City of Cupertino 17 Initial Study 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project March 2014 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts 4.3 AIR QUALITY 4.3.1 Setting 4.3.1.1 Climate and Topography The City of Cupertino is located in the Santa Clara Valley within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. The project area’s proximity to both the Pacific Ocean and the San Francisco Bay has a moderating influence on the climate. This portion of the Santa Clara Valley is bounded to the north by the San Francisco Bay and the Santa Cruz Mountains to the southwest. The surrounding terrain greatly influences winds in the valley, resulting in a prevailing wind that follows along the valley’s northwest-southwest axis. Pollutants in the air can cause health problems, especially for children, the elderly, and people with heart or lung problems. Healthy adults may experience symptoms during periods of intense exercise. Pollutants can also cause damage to vegetation, animals, and property. 4.3.1.2 Regional and Local Criteria Pollutants Major criteria pollutants, listed in “criteria” documents by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) include ozone, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and suspended particulate matter (PM). These pollutants can have health effects such as respiratory impairment and heart/lung disease symptoms. Violations of ambient air quality standards are based on air pollutant monitoring data and are judged for each air pollutant. The Bay Area as a whole does not meet state or federal ambient air quality standards for ground level ozone and PM2.5 and state standards for PM10. The area is considered attainment or unclassified for all other pollutants. 4.3.1.3 Local Community Risks/Toxic Air Contaminants and Fine Particulate Matter Besides criteria air pollutants, there is another group of substances found in ambient air referred to as Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs). These contaminants tend to be localized and are found in relatively low concentrations in ambient air. However, they can result in adverse chronic health effects if exposure to low concentrations occurs for long periods. Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) is a complex mixture of substances that includes elements such as carbon and metals; compounds such as nitrates, organics, and sulfates; and complex mixtures such as diesel exhaust and wood smoke. Long-term and short-term exposure to PM2.5 can cause a wide range of health effects. Common stationary source types of TACs and PM2.5 include gasoline stations, dry cleaners, and diesel backup generators which are subject to permit requirements. The other, often more significant, common source is motor vehicles on freeways and roads. City of Cupertino 18 Initial Study 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project March 2014 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts 4.3.1.4 Regulatory Setting The City of Cupertino is within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). BAAQMD is the agency primarily responsible for assuring that the federal and state ambient air quality standards are maintained in the San Francisco Bay Area. Air quality standards are set by the federal government (the 1970 Clean Air Act and its subsequent amendments) and the state (California Clean Air Act of 1988 and its subsequent amendments). Regional air quality management districts such as the BAAQMD must prepare air quality plans specifying how state standards would be met. The BAAQMD’s most recently adopted Clean Air Plan (CAP) is the Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan (2010 CAP). This plan includes a comprehensive strategy to reduce emissions from stationary, area, and mobile sources. The 2010 CAP provides an updated comprehensive plan to improve Bay Area air quality and protect public health, taking into account future growth projections to 2035. Some of these measures or programs rely on local governments for implementation. The 2010 CAP also includes measures designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 4.3.1.5 Sensitive Receptors BAAQMD defines sensitive receptors as facilities where sensitive receptor population groups (children, the elderly, the acutely ill and the chronically ill) are likely to be located. These land uses include residences, school playgrounds, child-care centers, retirement homes, convalescent homes, hospitals and medical clinics. Existing sensitive receptors near the project site include the residential uses adjacent to the west and south of the project site (refer to Figure 2.2-3). 4.3.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Checklist Source(s) Would the project: 1. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? 1,6 2. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? 1,7 3. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is classified as non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors? 1,7 4. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? 1 City of Cupertino 19 Initial Study 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project March 2014 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Checklist Source(s) Would the project: 5. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? 1 4.3.2.1 Project-Level Significance Thresholds The thresholds of significance for criteria air pollutants are a net increase of 54 pounds or more per day of reactive organic gas (ROG), nitrous oxide (NOX), and/or PM2.5; or 82 pounds or more a day of PM10. These thresholds are based on thresholds identified by BAAQMD in 2011.2 The BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines recommend that projects be evaluated for community risk when they are located within 1,000 feet of freeways, high traffic volume roadways (10,000 average annual daily trips or more), and/or stationary permitted sources of TACs. The thresholds for TACs are an increased cancer risk of greater than 10.0 in one million, increased non-cancer risk of greater than 1.0 on the hazard index (chronic or acute), or a PM2.5 increase of 0.3 µg/m3. 4.3.2.2 Clean Air Plan Consistency Determining consistency with the 2010 CAP involves assessing whether applicable control measures contained in the 2010 CAP are implemented. Implementation of control measures improve air quality and protect public health. These control measures are organized into five categories: 2 As discussed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(b), the determination of whether a project may have a significant effect on the environment calls for careful judgment on the part of the Lead Agency and must be based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data. The City of Cupertino and other Lead Agencies in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin often utilize the thresholds and methodology for assessing air emissions and/or health effects adopted by BAAQMD based upon the scientific and other factual data prepared by BAAQMD in developing those thresholds. In December 2010, the California Building Industry Association (BIA) filed a lawsuit in Alameda County Superior Court challenging toxic air contaminant (TAC) and PM2.5 thresholds adopted by BAAQMD in its CEQA Air Quality Guidelines (California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Alameda County Superior Court Case No. RG10548693). One of the identified concerns is inhibiting infill and smart growth in the urbanized Bay Area. On March 5, 2012, the Alameda County Superior Court issued a judgment that BAAQMD had failed to comply with CEQA when it adopted its thresholds. The Court issued a writ of mandate ordering the District to set aside the thresholds and cease disseminating them until the District fully complies with CEQA. The BAAQMD appealed this ruling, and the Appellate Court overturned that decision finding that adopting the thresholds did not amount to a project under CEQA (California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District, First Appellate District, A135335 & A136212, August 13, 2013). In April 2012, BAAQMD revised their website in conformance with the court order, no longer recommending use of the 2010 thresholds in determining a project’s significant air quality impacts. Based on the Appellate ruling, however, the BAAQMD may reinstate these thresholds or adopt new ones, once the ruling becomes final. The City has carefully considered the thresholds prepared by BAAQMD and the recent court ruling, and regards the thresholds to be based on the best information available for the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin and conservative in terms of the assessment of health effects associated with TACs and PM2.5. Therefore, the analysis in this Initial Study is based upon the methodologies and thresholds in the BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. City of Cupertino 20 Initial Study 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project March 2014 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts Stationary Source Measures, Mobile Source Measures, Transportation Control Measures (TCMs), Land Use and Local Impact Measures, and Energy and Climate Measures. Applicable control measures and the project’s consistency with them are summarized in Table 4.3-1, below. The proposed project is generally consistent with the control measures. Table 4.3-1: Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan Applicable Control Measures Control Measures Description Project Consistency Transportation Control Measures Improve Bicycle Access and Facilities Expand bicycle facilities serving transit hubs, employment sites, educational and cultural facilities, residential areas, shopping districts, and other activity centers. The project is located adjacent to North Foothill Boulevard, a collector street with designated bike lanes. The project would not modify bicycle facilities in the vicinity. Improve Pedestrian Access and Facilities Improve pedestrian access to transit, employment, and major activity centers. There are existing sidewalks and crosswalks that provide pedestrian access to bus stops for the Route 51 service. The project would enhance pedestrian facilities in the vicinity by increasing the distance from the curb and providing landscaping between the curb and sidewalk. Energy and Climate Measures Energy Efficiency Increase efficiency and conservation to decrease fossil fuel use in the Bay Area. The project is required to comply with the Residential Mandatory Measures of the California Green Building Code. The mandatory measures include water conserving plumbing fixtures and fittings, recycle and/or salvage a minimum of 50 percent of the nonhazardous construction and demolition waste for reuse, and use of low VOC paints. The project proposes a place for people to live and work, thereby, reducing the need for future residents to commute to work. Tree-Planting Promote planting of low-VOC-emitting shade trees to reduce urban heat island effects, save energy, and absorb CO2 and other air pollutants. The project will remove five trees and plant new trees around the site perimeter and around new residences. 4.3.2.3 Short-Term Construction-Related Impacts Criteria Air Pollutants and Precursors Construction activities would temporarily affect local air quality. Construction activities such as earthmoving, construction vehicle traffic, and wind blowing over exposed earth would generate exhaust emissions and fugitive particulate matter emissions that affect local and regional air quality. Construction activities are also a source of organic gas emissions. Solvents in adhesives, non-water City of Cupertino 21 Initial Study 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project March 2014 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts based paints, thinners, some insulating materials, and caulking materials would evaporate into the atmosphere and would participate in the photochemical reaction that creates urban ozone. Asphalt used in paving is also a source of organic gases for a short time after its application. Construction dust could affect local air quality at various times during construction of the project. The dry, windy climate of the area during the summer months creates a high potential for dust generation when and if underlying soils are exposed to the atmosphere. Construction activities would increase dustfall and locally elevated levels of PM10 downwind. The 2011 BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines contains a screening table that lists a minimum number of residential units that could result in significant construction-related air quality impacts. The development of 114 single-family dwelling units is identified by BAAMQD as potentially resulting in significant construction-related air quality impacts. The screening criteria provide lead agencies with a conservative indication of whether a project could result in significant air quality impacts. The project (six single-family residences with five detached workspaces) is below the screening threshold of 114 single-family residences and therefore, would not generate a significant amount of construction-related criteria pollutant emissions. For all proposed projects, BAAQMD recommends implementation of the Basic Construction Mitigation Measures whether or not construction-related emissions exceed applicable thresholds. Standard Project Conditions: Consistent with the BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, the project shall implement the following dust and construction equipment exhaust control measures to reduce construction-related air pollutant emissions: • All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day; • All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material on-site shall be covered; • All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited; • All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used; • Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the lead agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations; • Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to five minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points; and • All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified visible emissions evaluator. City of Cupertino 22 Initial Study 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project March 2014 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts The construction emissions from the project are less than significant based on the BAAQMD screening level and BAAQMD’s Basic Construction Mitigation Measures will be included on project plan documents prior to issuance of any building permits for the construction of the residences and workspaces on the site. The proposed project, therefore, would not result in a significant construction-related air quality impact. (Less Than Significant Impact) Local Community Risks and Hazards During Construction Construction equipment and associated heavy-duty truck traffic generates diesel exhaust, which is a known TAC. Health risks from TACs are a function of both concentration and duration of exposure. The proposed project includes grading on the site, however, given the relatively small size of the site the potential for large construction equipment to emit significant quantities of TACs over prolonged periods of time is limited. The project construction period is estimated to be nine months and involve the use of a limited amount of diesel-fueled construction equipment for grading, excavation, and paving. The project will implement BAAQMD’s recommended Basic Construction Mitigation Measures to reduce dust and diesel exhaust emissions. Construction of the proposed project, therefore, would not significantly increase health risks on adjacent sensitive receptors. (Less Than Significant Impact) 4.3.2.4 Operational-Related Impacts The 2011 BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines contains a screening table that lists a minimum number of residential units that would result in operational-related emissions over the criteria pollutant thresholds of 54 pounds per day of NOX or ROG and 82 pounds per day of particulate matter. For residential uses, development of 325 single-family dwelling units is the screening level size for operational-related impacts due to criteria pollutant emissions and their precursors (e.g., NOX, ROG, particulate matter). The screening criteria provide lead agencies with a conservative indication of whether a project could result in significant air quality impacts. The proposed six single-family residences (and five ancillary workspaces) are well below the screening level and, therefore, the project would not result in a significant air quality impact due to emissions of criteria air pollutants and their precursors. (Less Than Significant Impact) 4.3.2.5 Local Community Risks and Hazards Impacts to the Project The BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines call for evaluation of projects for community risk when they are located within 1,000 feet of freeways, high traffic volume roadways (10,000 average annual daily trips or more), and/or stationary permitted sources of TACs. Local community risks and hazards in the project vicinity were estimated using BAAQMD screening tools and the results are summarized in Appendix A. There are two permitted stationary sources of TACs within 1,000 feet of the project site, an emergency backup generator at the County of Santa Clara, Monta Vista Fire Station at 22620 Stevens Creek Boulevard and the Cupertino Beacon Service Station at 22510 Stevens Creek Boulevard. The two stationary sources, individually and combined, would not exceed the threshold for increased cancer risk of 10.0 in one million (refer to tables in Appendix A). North Foothill Boulevard and Stevens Creek Boulevard east of Foothill Boulevard are the only roadways within 1,000 feet of the project site that exceed 10,000 average daily trips. City of Cupertino 23 Initial Study 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project March 2014 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts Neither roadway would exceed the threshold for increased cancer risk of 10.0 in one million, increased non-cancer risk of greater than 1.0 on the hazard index (chronic or acute), or a PM2.5 increase of 0.3 µg/m3. The emission of TACs from stationary sources and vehicles along high volume roadways in the vicinity of the site would not exceed TAC and PM2.5 thresholds (individually or cumulatively) and future residents of the project site would not, therefore, be significantly impacted from TACs. (Less Than Significant Impact) 4.3.2.6 Odor The project does not propose a use that would generate objectionable odors. (Less Than Significant Impact) 4.3.3 Conclusion The proposed project would not exceed the BAAQMD criteria pollutant emissions thresholds or place sensitive receptors in an area subject to significant risks from TACs. In addition, the project includes measures to further reduce air pollutant emissions from construction activities. The project would not result in significant air quality impacts. (Less Than Significant Impact) City of Cupertino 24 Initial Study 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project March 2014 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts 4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES The following discussion is based in part on a tree survey completed by Michael L. Bench, Consulting Arborist in March 2013. A copy of the tree survey is included in Appendix B of this Initial Study. 4.4.1 Setting 4.4.1.1 Existing Conditions The 0.87-acre project site is located within an urban area of Cupertino. The project site is currently developed with a commercial building formerly used as a gasoline station and automobile repair shop. In addition to the existing building, landscaping is present in raised planters and perimeter tree plantings. Habitats in developed urban areas are relatively low in species diversity. Species that use this habitat are urban and suburban adapted birds, such as rock dove, mourning dove, house sparrow, scrub jay, and starling. Based upon the developed habitats found on the site, no special-status plant or animal species are expected to be present on the site. A tree survey was completed for the project site in March 2013. There are five Monterey pines on the site and 13 trees on immediately adjacent properties next to the concrete perimeter wall. A summary of the trees is included in Table 4.4-1. None of the surveyed trees are native species (e.g., coast live oak or valley oak). Table 4.4-1: Summary of Tree Species and Size Species Diameter in inches Total Up to 12 13-18 19-36 Over 36 On-Site Monterey pine 0 1 4 0 5 Off-Site, Adjacent to Concrete Perimeter Walls (diameter estimated) Blue atlas cedar 0 0 1 0 1 Canary Island pine 0 1 0 0 1 Deodar cedar 0 0 1 0 1 Italian cypress 9 0 0 0 9 Lemon 1 0 0 0 1 City of Cupertino 25 Initial Study 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project March 2014 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts 4.4.1.2 Regulatory Setting Special-Status Species Threatened and Endangered Species State and federal “endangered species” legislation has provided the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) with a mechanism for conserving and protecting plant and animal species of limited distribution and/or low or declining populations. Permits may be required from both the CDFW and USFWS if activities associated with a proposed project will result in the take of a species listed as threatened or endangered. To “take” a listed species, as defined by the State of California, is “to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture or kill” said species (California Fish and Game Code, Section 86). “Take” is more broadly defined by the federal Endangered Species Act to include “harm” of a listed species (16 USC, Section 1532(19), 50 CFR, Section 17.3). Migratory Birds State and federal laws also protect most bird species. The Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (FMBTA: 16 U.S.C., scc. 703, Supp. I, 1989) prohibits killing, possessing, or trading in migratory birds, except in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior. This act encompasses whole birds, parts of birds, and bird nests and eggs. Birds of Prey Birds of prey, such as owls and hawks, are protected in California under provisions of the State Fish and Game Code, Section 3503.5, (1992), which states that it is “unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any birds in the order Falconiformes or Strigiformes (birds of prey) or to take, possess, or destroy the nest or eggs of any such bird except as otherwise provided by this code or any regulation adopted pursuant thereto.” Construction disturbance during the breeding season could result in the incidental loss of fertile eggs or nestlings, or otherwise lead to nest abandonment. Disturbance that causes nest abandonment and/or loss of reproductive effort is considered “taking” by the CDFW. Trees The City of Cupertino recognizes the substantial economic, environmental, and aesthetic importance of its tree population. The City finds that the preservation of specimen and heritage trees on private and public property, and the protection of all trees during construction, is necessary for the best interests of the City and of the citizens and public (Municipal Code Chapter 14.18). The City’s Municipal Code calls for protection of “specimen” and “heritage” trees and requires a permit prior to their removal. Specimen trees include the following species that have a minimum single-trunk diameter of 10-inches (31-inches in circumference) or minimum multi-trunk diameter of 20-inches (63-inches in circumference) measured at 4.5 feet from natural grade: oak (including coast City of Cupertino 26 Initial Study 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project March 2014 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts live oak, valley oak, black oak, blue oak, and interior live oak), California buckeye, big leaf maple, deodar cedar, blue atlas cedar, bay laurel or California bay, and western sycamore (Municipal Code Chapter 14.18.050). Heritage Trees are any tree or grove of trees which, because of factors including, but not limited to, its historic value, unique quality, girth, height, or species, has been found by the City to have a special significance to the community. The removal of specimen trees, heritage trees, and any tree required to be planted or retained as part of an approved development application, building permit, tree removal permit or code enforcement action shall not be removed without first obtaining a tree removal permit (Municipal Code Chapter 14.18.140). In addition, protected trees and other trees/plantings required to be retained are to be protected during demolition, grading and construction operations through the application of standards in the Municipal Code (Chapter 14.18.210). Street trees are regulated separately from trees on private property and removal or trimming of street trees except by the City’s Right of Way Supervisor or their designee is prohibited (Municipal Code Chapter 14.12.080). There are no protected species on the project site and no street trees along the project frontage, but the five existing Monterey pine trees on-site are protected since they were required to be planted or retained as part of an approved development application. Two protected species (cedars) and several other trees are located adjacent to the project site. 4.4.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Checklist Source(s) Would the project: 1. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife Service? 1 2. 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 Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife Service? 1 3. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? 1 City of Cupertino 27 Initial Study 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project March 2014 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Checklist Source(s) Would the project: 4. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? 1 5. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? 4,8 6. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? 1 The project site is not located within an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. For this reason, the last threshold listed above is not discussed further. 4.4.2.1 Impacts to Special-Status Species Special-Status Plant Species The project site is a developed, urban property containing limited landscape plant species at the site perimeter. Redevelopment of the project site would not result in significant impacts to special-status plant species. (No Impact) Special-Status Animal Species and Species Protected Under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act Given the existing development on the site and lack of suitable habitat for many special-status animal species, the project is not anticipated to result in impacts to special-status animal species with the possible exception of tree nesting raptors or other nesting birds. The Monterey pine trees on the site support potential habitat for urban-adapted tree nesting raptors and other birds. Tree nesting raptors, along with all migratory birds, are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and disturbance to nests which results in nest abandonment or death would be in violation of state and federal law. Impact BIO-1: The development of the proposed project could result in direct impacts to nesting birds, if present on the site at the time of construction. (Significant Impact) City of Cupertino 28 Initial Study 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project March 2014 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts Mitigation Measures: As a condition of approval, the proposed project shall implement the following measures to avoid impacts to nesting birds: MM BIO-1.1: Removal of trees on the project site should be scheduled between September and December (inclusive) to avoid the nesting season for birds and no additional surveys would be required. MM BIO-1.2: If removal of the trees on-site is planned to take place between January and August (inclusive), a pre-construction survey for nesting birds shall be conducted by a qualified ornithologist to identify active nesting raptor or other bird nests that may be disturbed during project implementation. Between January and April (inclusive) pre- construction surveys shall be conducted no more than 14 days prior to the initiation of construction activities or tree relocation or removal. Between May and August (inclusive), pre-construction surveys shall be conducted no more than thirty (30) days prior to the initiation of these activities. The surveying ornithologist shall inspect all trees in and immediately adjacent to the construction area for nests. If an active raptor nest is found in or close enough to the construction area to be disturbed by these activities, the ornithologist shall, in consultation with the State of California, Department of Fish & Wildlife (CDFW), designate a construction-free buffer zone around the nest until the end of the nesting activity. Buffers for other birds shall be determined by the ornithologist. MM BIO-1.3: A report summarizing the results of the pre-construction survey and any designated buffer zones or protection measures for tree nesting birds shall be submitted to the Community Development Director prior to the start of grading or tree removal. 4.4.2.2 Trees The tree survey and inspections of neighboring trees completed for the project (refer to Appendix A) evaluated impacts to trees based on tree health and anticipated redevelopment, including grading and replacement of perimeter walls. Five Monterey pine trees at the project perimeter would be removed as a part of site redevelopment. While grading would occur within 15 feet of the property line, roots and root zones of the trees on adjacent properties to the west would not be affected because, based upon observations by the project arborist and confirmed by the City Arborist, they do not extend to the area of disturbance. Construction activities will have no substantial effect on the 13 trees located on adjacent properties. The project proposes to plant new street trees along Silver Oak Way and North Foothill Boulevard. New landscape tree plantings are also proposed around the perimeter of the site (see Figure 3.0-1). Replacement tree plantings would off-set the removal of mature trees from the site and implementation of the project would not conflict with City of Cupertino tree protection regulations. (Less Than Significant Impact) City of Cupertino 29 Initial Study 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project March 2014 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts 4.4.3 Conclusion Impact BIO-1: The construction of the proposed project, with the implementation of mitigation measures MM BIO-1.1 through MM BIO-1.3, would not result in significant impacts to nesting birds. (Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated) City of Cupertino 30 Initial Study 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project March 2014 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts 4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES This section is based in part on the results of an archaeological literature review at the Northwest Information Center by Holman & Associates in May 2013. A copy of the report is on file with the City of Cupertino. 4.5.1 Setting 4.5.1.1 Prehistoric Context and Resources The project site is located in the Santa Clara Valley. Native American occupation of the valley extended over 5,000 to 8,000 years and possibly longer. Before European settlement, Native Americans resided in the area that is now Cupertino and lived in the Rancho San Antonio area for over 3,000 years. The South Bay Area’s favorable environment during the prehistoric period included alluvial plains, foothills, many water courses, and bay margins that provided an abundance of wild food and other resources. The Native American people who originally inhabited the Santa Clara Valley belong to a group known as the “Coastanoan” or Ohlone, who broadly occupied the central California coast from the northern tip of the San Francisco Peninsula to Big Sur in the south and as far east as the Diablo Range. The Coastanoan/Ohlone people engaged in a hunting, fishing and collecting economy focusing on the collection of seasonal plant and animal resources. However, their traditional lifestyle disappeared by about 1810 when it was disrupted diseases, a declining birth rate, and the introduction of the California mission system established by the Spanish in the San José/Santa Clara area in 1777. In the Cupertino area, areas likely to be archaeologically sensitive, are found along stream courses and in oak groves. The project site is located approximately 650 feet northwest of Regnart Creek on the valley floor. Extant or known former oak groves are not present in the immediate vicinity of the project site. There are no recorded prehistoric archaeological sites on the project site or within one-quarter mile. In the opinion of Holman & Associates, based upon the results of eight cultural resources studies done in the general area, the site has a low to moderate potential for containing buried or obscured prehistoric archaeological resources. 4.5.1.2 Historic Resources Based upon a review of aerial photographs, the project site was used for agricultural purposes prior to construction of a service station on the site in 1971. The building on the site is less than 50 years old. The Cupertino General Plan identifies Historic Sites, Commemorative Sites and Community Landmarks currently present in the City (Figure 2-G in the General Plan). The buildings on and adjacent to the site are not identified as historic structures and are not on a Historic Site, Commemorative Site or designated as a Community Landmarks in the General Plan. City of Cupertino 31 Initial Study 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project March 2014 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts Historical resources eligible for listing in the California Register must meet criteria of significance and retain enough of their historic character or appearance to be recognizable as historical character to convey the reasons for their significance. Given that neither the building nor the project site is identified in the City’s General Plan as a cultural resource and the architectural style of the commercial building does not embody distinctive characteristics or method of construction, the structure does not appear to exhibit historic significance. 4.5.1.3 Paleontological Resources Paleontological resources are the fossilized remains of organisms from prehistoric environments found in geologic strata. The project site is underlain by Pleistocene alluvial fan material deposits which have high potential to yield fossils.3,4 4.5.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Checklist Source(s) Would the project: 1. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource as defined in §15064.5? 1,2 2. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource as defined in §15064.5? 1,9 3. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site, or unique geologic feature? 1 4. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? 1,9 The proposed project includes the demolition and removal of the existing building and pavement on the site to allow for the construction of six residences and five detached workspaces. Removal of the existing building and construction of the proposed project would require grading, excavation, and trenching on the site to install utilities and remove contaminated soils (refer to Section 4.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials). 3 C. Bruce Hanson. 2010. Paleontological Evaluation Report for the Envision San José 2040 General Plan, Santa Clara County, California. 4 U.S. Geological Survey. “Preliminary quaternary geologic maps of Santa Clara Valley, Santa Clara, Alameda, and San Mateo counties, California: A digital database”. Accessed March 21, 2013. Available at: < http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/1994/of94-231/sccomap.pdf > City of Cupertino 32 Initial Study 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project March 2014 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts 4.5.2.1 Prehistoric, Historic, and Paleontological Resources The project is not located near a water course or former oak groves and it is unlikely that prehistoric materials associated with aboriginal settlements along creeks would be encountered during site grading and/or excavation. There are no historic structures located on the site and demolition of the existing building would not result in an impact to a historical resource or a site recognized in the Cupertino General Plan as a Historic Site, Commemorative Site or Community Landmark. While unlikely, buried prehistoric or historic deposits which could provide information on prehistory or the history of this site, its inhabitants, and the role it played in the development of the City could be encountered during construction activities. Impact CUL-1: Development of the proposed project could result in significant impacts to buried cultural resources, if encountered. (Significant Impact) Mitigation Measures: As a condition of approval, the proposed project shall implement the following mitigation measures to reduce impacts to cultural resources to a less than significant level: MM CUL-1.1: In the event of the discovery of prehistoric or historic archaeological deposits or paleontological deposits, work shall be halted within 50 feet of the discovery and a qualified professional archaeologist (or paleontologist, as applicable) shall examine the find and make appropriate recommendations regarding the significance of the find and the appropriate mitigation. The recommendation shall be implemented and could include collection, recordation, and analysis of any significant cultural materials. MM CUL-1.2: In the event that human remains are found, all project-related construction shall cease within a 50-foot radius of the find in order to proceed with the testing and mitigation measures required. Pursuant to Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code and Section 5097.94 of the Public Resources Code of the State of California: • In the event of the discovery of human remains during construction, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains. The Santa Clara County Coroner shall be notified and shall make a determination as to whether the remains are Native American. If the Coroner determines that the remains are not subject to his authority, he shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission who shall attempt to identify descendants of the deceased Native American. If no satisfactory agreement can be reached as to the disposition of the remains pursuant to this State law, then the land owner shall re-inter the human remains and items associated with Native American burials on the property in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance. City of Cupertino 33 Initial Study 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project March 2014 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts MM CUL-1.3: A final report summarizing the discovery of cultural materials shall be submitted to the Director of Community Development prior to issuance of building permits. This report shall contain a description of the mitigation program that was implemented and its results, including a description of the monitoring and testing program, a list of the resources found, a summary of the resources analysis methodology and conclusion, and a description of the disposition/curation of the resources. The report shall verify completion of the mitigation program to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning. 4.5.3 Conclusion Impact CUL-1: The proposed project, with the implementation of the mitigation measures MM CUL-1.1, MM CUL-1.2, and MM CUL-1.3 would not result in significant impacts to cultural resources. (Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated) City of Cupertino 34 Initial Study 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project March 2014 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts 4.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS The following discussion is based on a geotechnical investigation completed for the project by Murray Engineers Inc. in October 2013. A copy of this report is included in Appendix C of this Initial Study. 4.6.1 Setting 4.6.1.1 Geologic Overview The project site is located in the Santa Clara Valley, a broad, sediment-filled basin bounded on the southwest by the Santa Cruz Mountains and the on the northeast by the Diablo Mountain range. The San Andreas Fault system, including the Monte Vista-Shannon Fault, exists within the Santa Cruz Mountains and the Hayward and Calaveras Fault systems exist within the Diablo Range. Most of Cupertino is on level ground that rises gently to the west. The project site is located at an elevation of approximately 385 feet above mean sea level. 4.6.1.2 On-Site Conditions The project site is developed with a one-story gas station building and two covered fuel islands. The remaining portions of the site are paved with the exception of planter areas along the northern and eastern site boundaries. A large underground fuel storage tank (UST) pit is located near the northeast corner of the site and a smaller pit is located near the center-west area of the site. The tanks have been removed and the excavations backfilled with a gravelly soil mixture. The ground surface across the site generally slopes down to the east and south at very gentle gradients. The grades along the southern and western edges of the site slope down at slightly steeper gradients into the main portion of the site. Soils and Groundwater Borings were taken to characterize on-site soils. Based on the investigation, the area of the larger backfilled UST pit in the northeastern corner of the site is underlain by up to 12 feet of loose fill material and the area of the smaller backfilled UST pit is underlain by up to seven feet of loose fill material. The remainder of the site is underlain by surficial alluvial soils, underlain by conglomerate bedrock. The results of soil analysis indicate that on-site soils have a low potential for expansion. Groundwater is reported to be present at a depth of approximately 53 feet below ground surface.5 Fluctuations in the level of the groundwater may occur due to variations in rainfall, temperature, landscaping, underground drainage patterns, and other factors. 5 PIERS Environmental Services, Inc. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report. February 2013. City of Cupertino 35 Initial Study 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project March 2014 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts Seismicity and Seismic Hazards The San Francisco Bay Area is one of the most seismically active regions in the United States. The significant earthquakes that occur in the Bay Area are generally associated with the crustal movements along well-defined active fault zones of the San Andreas Fault system, which regionally trend in the northwesterly direction. The site is not located within a designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone6 or a Santa Clara County Fault Hazard Zone.7 In addition, no known surface expression of active faults are believed to cross the site and fault rupture hazard is not a significant geologic hazard at the site. Nearby active or potentially active faults include Monta Vista-Shannon fault approximately 2,700 feet southwest of the site, San Andreas fault approximately 3.9 miles southwest of the site, Hayward fault approximately 13 miles northeast of the site, and Calaveras fault approximately 17 miles northwest of the site. Because of the proximity of the project site to these faults, ground shaking, ground failure, or liquefaction due to an earthquake could cause damage to structures. Liquefaction Liquefaction is the result of seismic activity and is characterized as the transformation of loosely water-saturated soils from a solid state to a liquid state after ground shaking. There are many variables that contribute to liquefaction, including the age of the soil, soil type, soil cohesion, soil density, and groundwater level. The project site is not located within a designated State of California Liquefaction Hazard Zone8 or a Santa Clara County Liquefaction Hazard Zone.9 Based on an analysis of soils and the depth to groundwater, the liquefaction potential for the site is considered low. Lateral Spreading Lateral spreading typically occurs as a form of horizontal displacement of relatively flat-lying alluvial material toward an open or “free” face such as an open body of water, channel, or excavation. There are no open faces on or near the project site. Landsliding Landslides occur when the stability of a slope changes from a stable to unstable condition. In general, steep slopes are less stable than more gently inclined ones. Landslides can also be triggered 6 California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology. Special Studies Zones Cupertino Quadrangle. Map. July 1, 1974. Available at: <http://www.quake.ca.gov/gmaps/WH/regulatorymaps.htm>. 7 County of Santa Clara. Geologic Hazard Zones. Map. October 26, 2012. 8 California Department of Conservation, California Geologic Survey. Seismic Hazard Zones Cupertino Quadrangle. Map. September 23, 2002. Available at: <http://www.quake.ca.gov/gmaps/WH/regulatorymaps.htm>. 9 County of Santa Clara. Geologic Hazard Zones. Map. October 26, 2012. City of Cupertino 36 Initial Study 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project March 2014 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts by seismic shaking. The project site is not located within a State of California Landslide zone.10 The City’s General Plan also maps geologic and seismic hazards and the site is within a valley area, an area with relatively low levels of geologic hazards. 4.6.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Checklist Source(s) Would the project: 1. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: a. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as described on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? (Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.) 10 b. Strong seismic ground shaking? 10 c. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? 10 d. Landslides? 10 2. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 1 3. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that will become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? 1,10 4. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Section 1802.3.2 of the California Building Code (2007), creating substantial risks to life or property? 10 5. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? 1 The project does not propose to use septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems, therefore, the last bulleted threshold above is not discussed further. 10 County of Santa Clara. Geologic Hazard Zones. Map. October 26, 2012. City of Cupertino 37 Initial Study 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project March 2014 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts 4.6.2.1 Soils and Groundwater Impacts Based on the geotechnical investigation prepared for the project, soils on the site are capable of supporting the proposed structures if constructed in accordance with the recommendations in the geotechnical investigation (Appendix C). Groundwater beneath the site is at approximately 53 feet below ground surface but may fluctuate seasonally. It is estimated that subsurface construction (utility trenching, grading, and hazardous materials remediation – refer to Section 4.8) would not extend beyond 20 feet below ground surface. For this reason, groundwater does not pose constraints to the proposed project. The proposed project would not be exposed to substantial slope instability, erosion, or landslide- related hazards due to the gently sloping topography of the site. Based on the above discussion, the proposed project would not be subject to substantial hazards related to soils on the site. (Less Than Significant Impact) Seismicity and Seismic Hazards The project site is located in a seismically active region and, therefore, strong ground shaking would be expected during the lifetime of the proposed project. While no active faults are known to cross the project site, ground shaking on the site could damage buildings and other proposed structures. The liquefaction and lateral spreading potential on the site are low. In conformance with standard practices in the City of Cupertino, the project shall be designed and constructed in conformance with the California Building Code guidelines for Seismic Zone 4 and geotechnical investigation recommendations (refer to Appendix C) to avoid or minimize potential damage from seismic shaking on the site. Implementation of building code requirements and geotechnical investigation recommendations would reduce seismic and seismic-related hazards to a less than significant level. (Less Than Significant Impact) 4.6.3 Conclusion The proposed project, with the implementation of standard practices for building construction, would not result in significant seismicity or seismic hazard impacts. (Less Than Significant Impact) City of Cupertino 38 Initial Study 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project March 2014 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts 4.7 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS 4.7.1 Setting 4.7.1.1 Background Information Unlike emissions of criteria and toxic air pollutants, which are discussed in Section 4.3 and have local or regional impacts, emissions of greenhouse gases have a broader, global impact. Global warming associated with the “greenhouse effect” is a process whereby greenhouse gases accumulating in the atmosphere contribute to an increase in the temperature of the earth’s atmosphere over time. The principal greenhouse gases contributing to global warming and associated climate change are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and fluorinated compounds. Greenhouse gas emissions contributing to global climate change are attributable in large part to human activities associated with the transportation, industrial/ manufacturing, utility, residential, commercial, and agricultural sectors. 4.7.1.2 Regulatory Framework State of California AB 32 and Related Executive Orders and Regulations The Global Warming Solutions Act (also known as “Assembly Bill (AB) 32”) sets the State of California’s 2020 greenhouse gas emissions reduction goal into law. The Act requires that the greenhouse gas emissions in California be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020. Prior to adoption of AB 32, the Governor of California also signed Executive Order S-3-05 which identified CalEPA as the lead coordinating State agency for establishing climate change emission reduction targets in California. Under Executive Order S-3-05, the state plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. Additional state law and regulations related to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions includes SB 375, the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act (see discussion below), the State’s Renewables Portfolio Standard for Energy Standard (Senate Bill 2X) and fleet-wide passenger car standards (Pavley Regulations). In December 2008, the CARB approved the Climate Change Scoping Plan, which proposes a comprehensive set of actions designed to reduce California’s dependence on oil, diversify energy sources, save energy, and enhance public health, among other goals. Per AB 32, the Scoping Plan must be updated every five years to evaluate the mix of AB 32 policies to ensure that California is on track to achieve the 2020 greenhouse gas reduction goal. On October 1, 2013, CARB released a Discussion Draft of the 2014 update to the AB 32 Scoping Plan report for public review and comment. In spring 2014, CARB expects to bring an updated Scoping Plan document to the Board for consideration. The 2014 Update will define CARB’s climate change priorities for the next five years and lay the groundwork to start the transition to the post-2020 goals set forth in Executive Orders S-3-05 and B-16-2012 (see below). The 2014 Update will highlight California’s progress toward meeting the “near-term” 2020 greenhouse gas emission reduction goals defined in the 2008 Scoping Plan and evaluate how to align the State’s longer-term greenhouse gas reduction strategies City of Cupertino 39 Initial Study 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project March 2014 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts with other State policy priorities, such as for water, waste, natural resources, agriculture, clean energy, and transportation and land use. CEQA As required under state law (Public Resources Code Section 21083.05), the California Natural Resources Agency has amended the state CEQA Guidelines to address the analysis and mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions. Under these sections of the CEQA Guidelines (§15064.4), lead agencies, such as the City of Cupertino, retain discretion to determine the significance of impacts from greenhouse gas emissions based upon individual circumstances. Neither CEQA nor the CEQA Guidelines provide a specific methodology for analysis of greenhouse gases and under the amendments to the CEQA Guidelines, a lead agency may describe, calculate or estimate greenhouse gas emissions resulting from a project and use a model and/or qualitative analysis or performance based standards to assess impacts. The CEQA Guidelines (§15183.5) also outline the required components of a “Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy.” Projects consistent with such a Strategy or Plan would reduce their contribution to cumulative greenhouse gas impacts to a less than significant level. Senate Bill 375 – Sustainable Communities Strategy Senate Bill 375 (SB 375), known as the Sustainable Communities Strategy and Climate Protection Act, was signed into law in September 2008. It builds on AB 32 by requiring CARB to develop regional greenhouse gas reduction targets to be achieved from the automobile and light truck sectors for 2020 and 2035 when compared to emissions in 2005. The per capita reduction targets for passenger vehicles in the San Francisco Bay Area include a seven percent reduction by 2020 and a 15 percent reduction by 2035.11 The four major requirements of SB 375 are: 1. Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) must meet greenhouse gas emission reduction targets for automobiles and light trucks through land use and transportation strategies. 2. MPOs must create a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS), to provide an integrated land use/transportation plan for meeting regional targets, consistent with the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). 3. Regional housing elements and transportation plans must be synchronized on eight-year schedules, with Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocation numbers conforming to the SCS. 4. MPOs must use transportation and air emissions modeling techniques consistent with guidelines prepared by the California Transportation Commission (CTC). MTC and ABAG adopted Plan Bay Area in July 2013. The strategies in the plan are intended to promote compact, mixed-use development close to public transit, jobs, schools, shopping, parks, recreation, and other amenities, particularly within Priority Development Areas (PDAs) identified by 11 The emission reduction targets are for those associated with land use and transportation strategies, only. Emission reductions due to the California Low Carbon Fuel Standards or Pavley emission control standards are not included in the targets. City of Cupertino 40 Initial Study 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project March 2014 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts local jurisdictions. While the project site is close to bus transit (i.e., Route 51), it is not located in a PDA. Regional and Local Plans Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan The Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan (CAP) is a multi-pollutant plan that addresses greenhouse gas emissions along with other air emissions in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. One of the key objectives in the 2010 CAP is climate protection. The 2010 CAP includes emission control measures in five categories: Stationary Source Measures, Mobile Source Measures, Transportation Control Measures, Land Use and Local Impact Measures, and Energy and Climate Measures. Consistency of a project with current control measures is one measure of its consistency with the CAP. The current CAP also includes performance objectives, consistent with the state’s climate protection goals under AB 32 and SB 375, designed to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases to 1990 levels by 2020 and 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2035. City of Cupertino General Plan The Cupertino General Plan includes an Environmental Resources/Sustainability Section, with policies that call for energy efficiency, alternative transportation planning, and green building. These policies and the City’s Green Building and Green Business Programs include measures designed to reduce energy and water use and associated direct and indirect greenhouse gas emissions. The City also has adopted a construction and debris (C&D) recycling program ordinance that requires applicants seeking building or demolition permits for projects greater than 3,000 square feet to recycle at least 60 percent of project discards. Recycling can indirectly reduce greenhouse gas emissions by reducing the need to manufacture or mine new products or materials. 4.7.1.3 Existing Conditions The project site is developed with a gas and service station, which is currently unoccupied. As a result, the greenhouse gas emissions from the site (i.e., from vehicle trips to and from the site, electricity use, etc.) are minimal. 4.7.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Checklist Source(s) Would the project: 1. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? 1 City of Cupertino 41 Initial Study 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project March 2014 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Checklist Source(s) Would the project: 2. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? 1,7 4.7.2.1 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Threshold As discussed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(b), the determination of whether a project may have a significant effect on the environment calls for careful judgment on the part of the Lead Agency and must be based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data. The first checklist question is assessed using quantitative thresholds for GHG emissions identified by BAAQMD in 2009. Using a methodology that models how new land use development in the San Francisco Bay area can meet Statewide AB 32 GHG reduction goals, BAAQMD identified a significance threshold of 1,100 metric tons of CO2e per year.12 The City has carefully considered the thresholds prepared by BAAQMD and regards the quantitative thresholds to be based on the best information available for residential and commercial development in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. Evidence supporting these thresholds has been presented in the following documents: • Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2009. CEQA Thresholds Options and Justification Report. • BAAQMD. 2011. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. (Appendix D). • California Air Resources Board. 2008. Climate Change Scoping Plan. (Statewide GHG Emission Targets) BAAQMD has not identified a threshold of significance for construction-related GHG emissions. 4.7.2.1 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impacts from the Project The BAAQMD 2011 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines contains a screening threshold of 56 single- family dwelling units for operational-related impacts due to greenhouse gas emissions. The screening criteria provides lead agencies with a conservative indication of whether a project could result in significant greenhouse gas emissions impact (e.g. annual operational emissions over 1,100 metric tons per year). 12 In addition to this bright-line threshold, an “efficiency” threshold was identified for urban high density, transit- oriented development projects that are intended to reduce vehicle trips but that may still result in overall emissions greater than 1,100 metric tons per year. This efficiency threshold is 4.6 metric tons of CO2e per service population (e.g., residents and employees) per year. City of Cupertino 42 Initial Study 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project March 2014 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts The project would allow construction of six single-family residences, five of which would have detached workspaces. Greenhouse gas emissions from the proposed project would consist of emissions from construction and operation of the proposed buildings: • Mobile emissions (e.g., emissions from combustion of fossil fuels for vehicle trips to and from the site); • Emissions from the generation of electricity to operate lighting, appliances, and HVAC on the site, and to convey water to the site; • Construction emissions; and • Emissions from the manufacture and transport of building materials. The proposed development is below the screening threshold and therefore, the project would not result in a significant new emissions of greenhouse gases. In addition, the project would be built according to the Residential Mandatory Measures of the California Green Building Code which requires water conserving plumbing fixtures and fittings, recycle and/or salvage a minimum of 50 percent of the nonhazardous construction and demolition waste for reuse, and use of low VOC paints. The project, therefore, would not generate significant greenhouse gas emissions. (Less Than Significant Impact) 4.7.2.2 Consistency with Adopted Plans and Policies for Greenhouse Gas Reduction As discussed in Section 4.7.2 Regulatory Background, the State of California has adopted a Climate Change Scoping Plan. Greenhouse gas emissions are also addressed in the adopted 2010 CAP and Plan Bay Area. There are no other regional plans that apply to projects in the City of Cupertino that have completed environmental review and been adopted. Comparison of Project Features to State of California Climate Change Scoping Plan Measures The CARB-approved Climate Change Scoping Plan outlines a comprehensive set of actions intended to reduce overall greenhouse gas emissions in California, improve the environment, reduce dependence on oil, diversify California’s energy sources, save energy, create new jobs, and enhance public health. The Scoping Plan includes 39 Recommended Actions for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. While the Scoping Plan focuses on measures and regulations at a statewide level, implementation of measures at the local level are also important. Recommended Actions/measures that pertain to the project are noted in Table 4.7-1. Under the Scoping Plan, local governments are expected to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by five million metric tons (statewide) through transportation and land use changes. In addition, local governments play a key role in implementing many of the strategies contained in the Scoping Plan, such as energy efficient building codes, local renewable energy generation, and recycling programs. As discussed in Section 4.7.2.1 and listed in Table 4.7-1, the project includes energy efficiency, land use and transportation, and water conservation features consistent with several recommended actions in the Scoping Plan and would not conflict with implementation of recommended actions in the Scoping Plan intended to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2020. City of Cupertino 43 Initial Study 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project March 2014 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts Table 4.7-1: Climate Change Scoping Plan – Applicable Recommended Actions Compared to Project Features Measure Description Applicable Feature Transportation T-3 Regional Transportation-Related Greenhouse Gas Targets Land use and transportation measures included in the project that help reduce vehicle travel include proximity to transit, jobs, and services Energy Efficiency/Electricity and Natural Gas E-1 Energy Efficiency, including more stringent building standards CalGreen Building Codes will apply. E-4 Million Solar Roofs/Solar Initiative Not currently proposed. CR-1 Energy Efficiency – Utility, Building and Appliance Standards CalGreen Building Codes will apply. CR-2 Solar Water Heating Not currently proposed. Green Buildings GB-1 Green Buildings CalGreen Building Codes will apply. Water W-1 Water Use Efficiency Project will use low flow plumbing fixtures. The City’s Landscape Ordinance will apply, which requires low water use landscaping and reduction of turf (lawn) area. W-4 Reuse Urban Runoff On-site reuse is not proposed. Recycling and Waste Management RW-3 High Recycling/Zero Waste (including Commercial Recycling) Future residents would participate in City recycling and waste reduction programs, as applicable. Sustainable Communities Strategy Plan Bay Area, which includes a Sustainable Communities Strategy that links transportation and land use planning, grew out of California’s 2008 Senate Bill 375 (Steinberg), which requires each of the state’s 18 metropolitan areas to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from cars and light trucks. Plan Bay Area promotes compact, mixed-use commercial and residential development focused in Priority Development Areas that is walkable and bikable and close to mass transit, jobs, schools, shopping, parks, recreation and other amenities. The project is not in a designated Priority Development Area and given its size would not conflict with the sustainable Communities Strategy in Plan Bay Area. It consists of redevelopment of an urban site with six single family residents and five live/work spaces. The project, located near bus transit and providing work space near residences, would not be inconsistent with efforts to reduce GHG emissions from cars and light trucks with Plan Bay Area, however. City of Cupertino 44 Initial Study 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project March 2014 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan The 2010 CAP includes performance objectives, consistent with the state’s climate protection goals under AB 32 and SB 375, designed to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases to 1990 levels by 2020 and 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2035. The 2010 CAP identifies a range of Transportation Control Measures, Land Use and Local Impacts Measures, and Energy and Climate Measures that make up the CAP’s control strategy for emissions, including greenhouse gas emissions. As discussed in Section 4.3 Air Quality, the project is generally consistent with applicable control measures and the development of the project would not interfere with implementation of the 2010 CAP. The location (i.e., urban infill), mix of uses, and measures included in the project to reduce greenhouse gas emissions would not conflict with plans, policies, or regulations for reducing greenhouse gas emissions adopted by the California legislature, CARB, BAAQMD, or City of Cupertino. (Less Than Significant Impact) 4.7.3 Conclusion The project would not generate net new greenhouse gas emissions above the threshold of 1,100 MT CO2e per year or conflict with plans, policies or regulations for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Therefore, the project would result in a less than significant impact to global climate change. (Less Than Significant Impact) City of Cupertino 45 Initial Study 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project March 2014 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts 4.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS The following discussion is based on a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment report prepared by PIERS Environmental Services, Inc. in February 2013; peer review of existing environmental documents by Cornerstone Earth Group in March 2013; a memorandum by ERM in response to the peer review in July 2013; soil vapor survey report by ERM completed in July 2013; and a mitigation plan prepared by ERM in November 2013. Copies of these reports are included in Appendix D of this Initial Study. 4.8.1 Setting 4.8.1.1 Site Observations The existing service station building on-site is a one-story concrete masonry structure with a low pitched roof. A canopy over the former pump island area extends towards North Foothill Boulevard. The project site is mostly paved with asphalt or concrete, except at a former underground fuel tank pit area, which is backfilled but not paved. The gasoline dispensers have been removed and stored on the south side of the building, where cuttings from a tree removal and various service station items are also stored. The building is mostly vacant with a small office, restrooms, and storage rooms at the northern end. The southern end of the building formerly contained an auto repair area. An area of concrete was removed during the removal of hydraulic vehicle hoists and has not been replaced. There is a recessed area of concrete where a smog checking apparatus formally operated. Another former fuel tank pit area at the northwest portion of the site is visible as a patched area in the asphalt. Hazardous materials and other chemicals at the site include one drum marked “hazardous waste” dated November 16, 2012, which apparently contains oily soil from the hoist removals. No evidence of water supply, irrigation, oil, injection, dry wells, or chemical storage tanks were observed on the site. No drains or sumps were observed on the site, except for a plugged drain or sewer cleanout behind the building. No unusual staining or odors were observed at this location. No stained soil was observed on-site. No significant staining was observed on the exterior paved surfaces. Minor oil and grease is present on the concrete floor of the former repair area.13 4.8.1.2 Historic Use The project site was occupied by an orchard from at least 1939 through the mid-1950s. During the 1960s, the project site appears either as an agricultural field or undeveloped land. A gasoline service station was constructed on the site in 1971. The site operated as a gasoline service station until January 2010 when the service station ceased operation. The auto repair services continued on-site until mid-2011. During the operation of the gasoline service station, underground gasoline and waste oil storage tanks (USTs) were removed and replaced, groundwater monitoring wells installed, an oil/water separator removed, and gasoline piping and dispensers removed and 13 PIERS Environmental Services, Inc. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment. February 2013. City of Cupertino 46 Initial Study 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project March 2014 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts replaced. Closure letters were issued by the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) and permits issued by the Santa Clara County Fire Department (SCCFD) for removal of the USTs. The project site is listed as a closed leaking UST case in a regulatory database (as discussed in Section 4.8.1.2 below). In December 2012, the fuel tanks, piping, dispensers, and underground hydraulic hoists were removed. 4.8.1.2 Possible On-Site Sources of Contamination Database Records Search A database search was completed to determine whether the project site was listed on any federal, state, local, historical, and/or brownfield databases as a known or suspected source of contamination, or a site that handles or stores hazardous materials. The project site is listed as a closed leaking UST case. The project site is not listed on any other regulatory agency databases searched. Refer to Appendix D for a list of databases searched. Historic Uses Given the site’s historic agricultural use, it is possible that on-site soils could be contaminated with organochlorine pesticides or metals including DDT and arsenic. Soils on-site could also be impacted with residual contaminants (e.g., petroleum hydrocarbons and volatile organic compounds) from the former USTs and polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) from in the former hydraulic hoists associated with the operation of the former gasoline service station. Soil, Soil Vapor, and Groundwater Sampling The soil and soil vapor samples collected on-site and analyzed found elevated levels of petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) including benzene, ethylbenzene, and tetrachloroethene (PCE), from the former USTs. Groundwater samples collected did not indicate elevated levels of contaminants. The soil samples were not analyzed for residual pesticides. Refer to Appendix D for details regarding soil and groundwater sampling locations and detected levels of contaminants. Lead and Asbestos-Containing Materials A pre-demolition survey of the existing structure completed in July 2013 identified lead-based paint and asbestos-containing materials (ACMs). Lead-based paint is of concern, both as a source of direct exposure through ingestion of paint chips, and as a contributor to lead interior dust and exterior soil. Asbestos containing materials (ACMs) are of concern because exposure to ACMs has been linked to cancer. City of Cupertino 47 Initial Study 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project March 2014 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts 4.8.1.3 Possible Off-Site Sources of Contamination Database Records Search A database search was completed for the site to evaluate the likelihood of contamination incidents near the project site. A list of database sources reviewed, a description of sources, and a radius map showing the location of reported facilities relative to the project site are included in Appendix D (Phase I report). Based on the groundwater flow direction, case status, and/or distance of the facility in relation to the project site, nearby incidents are not likely to significantly impact the project site. 4.8.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Checklist Source(s) Would the project: 1. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? 11-15 2. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? 11-15 3. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? 1 4. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, will it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? 11-15 5. 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, will the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? 1 6. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, will the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? 1 City of Cupertino 48 Initial Study 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project March 2014 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Checklist Source(s) Would the project: 7. Impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? 1 8. Expose people or structures to a 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 The project site is not located within an airport land use plan, two miles of a public airport or public use airport, or vicinity of a private airstrip. The project site is not located within one-quarter mile of a school. The project would not interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Given the project’s infill, urbanized location, the project site is not subject to wildland fires. Therefore, the project would have no impact regarding these resources. 4.8.2.1 Soil, Soil Vapor, and Groundwater Contamination The project site was previously used for agricultural purposes and a gasoline/auto repair service station. Analysis of soil and soil vapor samples collected on-site found elevated levels of TPH and VOCs from the former USTs. Residual agricultural chemicals from historic agricultural use and PCBs associated with the operation of the hydraulic hoists (which has since been removed) on-site may also be present in native soils. The Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health (SCCDEH) has taken oversight for the cleanup of the site (case number 07S2W15F04f). Given the previous uses on-site and results of soil, soil vapor, groundwater samples completed to- date, construction workers and future residences could be exposed to contaminated soils and subject to soil vapor. Impact HAZ-1: Construction workers and future residences could be exposed to contaminated soils and health risks associated with soil vapor on-site. (Significant Impact) Mitigation Measures: The project proposes to implement the following mitigation measures to reduce impacts to construction workers and future residences from soil contamination and soil vapors on-site. Site Characterization and Remediation For Former Underground Fuel Tank(s) MM HAZ-1.1: The project shall conduct soil sampling and analysis of the extent of TPH and VOC contamination in soil, soil vapor, and/or groundwater in accordance with the Work Plan approved by the Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health City of Cupertino 49 Initial Study 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project March 2014 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts (SCCDEH) on November 5, 2013. The approved Work Plan describes sample methodology, sample locations, the quality assurance/quality control plan, reporting, and schedule. The Work Plan shall be implemented by the project and the results of the sampling shall be submitted to the SCCDEH. If additional investigation is required to sufficiently delineate the contaminants of concern, additional sampling or mitigation measures shall be proposed and be reviewed and approved by the SCCDEH. The Work Plan shall be completed to the satisfaction of the SCCDEH prior to issuance of grading permits for project construction. MM HAZ-1.2: A Site Remediation Plan shall be prepared based on the documented soil conditions and approved by the SCCDEH. The Site Remediation Plan shall include the design of a remedy that has the goal of mitigating ongoing threats to water quality and to conditions of unacceptable risk for residential land use. The Site Remediation Plan shall include implementation and monitoring schedules. Upon approval of the Site Remediation Plan, the approved remediation design shall be implemented at the project site, prior to issuance of grading permits for project construction. Based on the current understanding of site conditions, soil vapor extraction (SVE) is considered an appropriate remedy to mitigate the soil vapor levels to an acceptable level for residential use. An SVE system would consist of a series of soil vapor extraction wells connected to a vacuum pump. The depth and number of wells would be determined based on results of the additional sampling. Vapors collected via the extraction system would be treated either through absorption onto activated carbon or destroyed using an on-site combustion system. The operation of the mitigation system would be tuned for optimal performance during the early operations period. Mitigation of soil vapors to levels acceptable for residential land use is expected to take approximately three months. System operation shall comply with City noise ordinances and necessary permits (e.g., Bay Area Air Quality Management District) shall be obtained prior to operation of the system. In addition, required permits for well installation shall be obtained from the Santa Clara Valley Water District. If vapor mitigation through SVE is the only remedy implemented, confirmation of its effectiveness shall be documented by four quarters of soil vapor monitoring (multi- depth vapor wells installed to five and 10 feet at each proposed residence) performed after the termination of the remediation system. If a different remedy is approved, the Site Remediation Plan shall include an applicable implementation plan, schedule, monitoring, and confirmation program. Other feasible remedies could include soil excavation with or without above-ground treatment, passive sub-slab vapor barriers, active sub-slab vapor management systems, or a combination of these components. City of Cupertino 50 Initial Study 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project March 2014 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts Other Soil Contaminant Sources MM HAZ-1.3: In addition to the sampling described above, soils at the site shall be assessed for impact from other potential contaminant sources. These sources shall be sampled and analyzed as follows: • Soil samples shall be collected near the location of the former hydraulic hoists and analyzed for PCBs. Samples shall be collected at locations dictated by visual evidence of discoloration and analyzed using EPA SW 846 methodology (e.g., 8081 or 8082). If no discoloration is evident, one soil sample shall be collected at each hoist. • Three soil samples shall be collected from the site at a maximum depth of 0.5 feet below the native soil surface and analyzed for organochlorine pesticides and arsenic. Additional samples may be required based on the results of this analysis. • The soil sampling results shall be compared to appropriate risk-based screening levels and submitted to SCCDEH and the Director of Community Development prior to construction grading on the site. If additional investigation is required to sufficiently delineate the contaminants of concern, additional sampling or mitigation measures shall be proposed and reviewed and approved by the SCCDEH prior to construction grading. Removal and Disposal of Contaminated Soils MM HAZ-1.4: Soil containing pesticides, PCB, and/or petroleum hydrocarbons shall be removed by properly trained and licensed personnel and contractors, prior to construction workers entering the site to begin earthwork. Contaminated soil shall be handled by trained personnel using appropriate protective equipment and engineering controls, in accordance with local, state, and federal laws. Contaminated soil shall be transported separate from other soil excavated at the site, and disposed at an appropriate offsite facility in accordance with its characteristics or, if mitigated by an alternative method, with approval from SCCDEH, or other appropriate regulatory agency. Reporting MM HAZ-1.5: Upon completion of remediation activities and confirmation that the resulting conditions are adequately protective of residential development, a Closure Report shall be prepared and submitted to the City and SCCDEH for review and approval. The report shall summarize: • Past investigations, analytical reports, and current site conditions; • Implemented mitigation measures and soil management activities; • Off-site transport and disposal of excavated soil, and • Excavation backfill materials and procedures. City of Cupertino 51 Initial Study 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project March 2014 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts Once the mitigation measures described have achieved thresholds established for residential use, the report shall include a request regulatory closure for the property. Final approval that the site is suitable for residential land uses shall be issued by SCCDEH and copied to the City of Cupertino prior to issuance of grading or demolition permits for project construction. Health and Safety and Site Management During Remediation and Construction Activities MM HAZ-1.6: A site-specific Health and Safety Plan (HASP) shall be prepared prior to issuance of grading permits for project construction to address potential health and safety hazards associated with implementation of the Work Plan and proposed redevelopment activities (e.g., site preparation, demolition, grading and construction). The HASP shall govern activities of all personnel present during field activities. A job hazard analysis (JHA) shall be prepared for each task prior to performing said task. The JHAs shall include, at a minimum, identification of likely hazards associated with the task, requirements and procedures for employee protection, and required mitigation measures. Any contractor performing a task not covered in the HASP shall be required to develop a JHA specific to that task prior to performing the task. MM HAZ-1.7: A Site Management Plan (SMP) shall be developed to establish management practices for handling contaminated soil or other materials encountered during construction activities. The SMP shall identify potential health, safety, and environmental exposure considerations associated with redevelopment activities and shall identify appropriate mitigation measures. The SMP shall be submitted to the City and SCCDEH for approval prior to commencing construction activities. The SMP will include the following: • Proper mitigation as needed and demolition of the existing structure; • Proper handling and disposal of waste oil below the building; • Management of stockpiles, including sampling, disposal, and dust and runoff control including implementation of a stormwater pollution prevention program; • Management of underground structures encountered, including utilities and/or underground storage tanks; • Procedures to follow if evidence of an unknown historic release of hazardous materials (e.g., underground storage tanks, buried debris, contamination) is discovered during excavation or demolition activities; • Traffic control during site improvements; • Noise, work hours, and other relevant City regulations; • Mitigation of soil vapors; and • Monitoring, reporting, and regulatory oversight arrangements. City of Cupertino 52 Initial Study 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project March 2014 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts 4.8.2.2 Lead-Based Paint and Asbestos Containing Materials Demolition of the existing building could create lead-based dust at concentrations which would expose workers and nearby receptors to potential health risks. State regulations require that air monitoring be performed during the demolition activities at sites containing lead-based paint. If lead-based paint is determined to be present and is peeling, flaking, or blistering, it would need to be removed prior to demolition. It is assumed that such paint would become separated from the building components during demolition activities and must be managed and disposed of as a separate waste stream. If the lead-based paint is still bonded to the building materials, its removal is not required prior to demolition. The National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) guidelines require that all potentially friable ACMs be removed prior to building demolition that may disturb the ACMs. ACMs are defined by the USEPA as materials containing more than one percent (1%) asbestos. Title 8, Section 1529, of the California Code of Regulations (CCR), however, defines asbestos-containing construction material (ACCM) as any manufactured construction material which contains more than one-tenth of one percent (0.1%) asbestos by weight. Standard Project Conditions: The project, in conformance with regulatory programs and with the implementation of the following standard mitigation measures, would not result in significant impacts from lead-based paint and/or ACMs: • In conformance with state and local laws, a visual inspection/pre-demolition survey, and possible sampling, shall be conducted prior to the demolition of on-site buildings to determine the presence of lead-based paint and/or asbestos-containing materials. • During demolition activities, all building materials containing lead-based paint shall be removed in accordance with Cal/OSHA Lead in Construction Standard, Title 8, California Code Regulations 1532.1, including employee training, employee air monitoring, and dust control. Any debris or soil containing lead-based paint or coatings would be disposed of at landfills that meet acceptance criteria for the waste being disposed. • All potentially friable ACMs shall be removed in accordance with NESHAP guidelines prior to building demolition or renovation that may disturb the materials. All demolition activities will be undertaken in accordance with Cal/OSHA standards contained in Title 8 of the CCR, Section 1529, to protect workers from exposure to asbestos. • A registered asbestos abatement contractor shall be retained to remove and dispose of ACMs identified in the asbestos survey performed for the site in accordance with the standards stated above. • Materials containing more than one percent (1%) asbestos are also subject to BAAQMD regulations. Removal of materials containing more than one percent (1%) asbestos shall be completed in accordance with BAAQMD requirements. City of Cupertino 53 Initial Study 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project March 2014 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts The project, with the implementation of the above standard project conditions, would not result in significant impacts from lead-based paint and ACMs. (Less Than Significant Impact) 4.8.3 Conclusion Impact HAZ-1: The project, with the implementation of the identified mitigation measures (MM HAZ-1.1 to -1.8), would not result in significant impacts from contaminated soils and soil vapor on-site. (Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation) City of Cupertino 54 Initial Study 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project March 2014 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts 4.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 4.9.1 Setting 4.9.1.1 Regulatory Setting Federal Emergency Management Agency In 1968, Congress created the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) in response to the rising cost of taxpayer funded disaster relief for flood victims and the increasing amount of damage caused by floods. The NFIP makes federally-backed flood insurance available for communities that agree to adopt and enforce floodplain management ordinances to reduce future flood damage. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) manages the NFIP and creates Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) that designate 100-year floodplain zones and delineate other flood hazard areas. A 100-year floodplain zone is the area that has a one in one hundred (one percent) chance of being flooded in any one year based on historical data. Portions of the City are identified as special flood hazard areas with a one percent annual chance and 0.2 percent annual chance of flooding (also known as the 100-year and 500-year flood zones) as determined by the FEMA NFIP. The project site is not located in a 100-year floodplain.14 Water Quality (Nonpoint Source Pollution Program) The federal Clean Water Act and California’s Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act are the primary laws related to water quality. Regulations set forth by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and the State Water Resources Control Board have been developed to fulfill the requirements of this legislation. USEPA’s regulations include the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program, which controls sources that discharge pollutants into the waters of the United States (e.g., streams, lakes, bays, etc.). These regulations are implemented at the regional level by the water quality control boards, which for the Cupertino area is the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Statewide Construction General Permit The State Water Resources Control Board has implemented a NPDES General Construction Permit for the State of California. For projects disturbing one acre or more of soil, a Notice of Intent (NOI) and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) must be prepared prior to commencement of construction. Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit (MRP)/C.3 Requirements The San Francisco Bay RWQCB also has issued a Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit (Permit Number CAS612008) (MRP). In an effort to standardize stormwater management requirements throughout the region, this permit replaces the formerly separate countywide municipal 14 Federal Emergency Management Agency. Flood Insurance Rate Map. May 18, 2009. City of Cupertino 55 Initial Study 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project March 2014 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts stormwater permits with a regional permit for 77 Bay Area municipalities, including the City of Cupertino. Under provisions of the NPDES Municipal Permit, redevelopment projects that add and/or replace more than 10,000 square feet of impervious surface, or 5,000 square feet of uncovered parking area, are required to design and construct stormwater treatment controls to treat post- construction stormwater runoff. Amendments to the MRP require all of the post-construction runoff to be treated by using Low Impact Development (LID) treatment controls, such as biotreatment facilities. The MRP also identifies subwatershed and catchment areas subject to hydromodification management controls. The project site is located an area that is less than 65 percent impervious. Projects that add or replace one acre of impervious surfaces are subject to the hydromodification standard and associated requirements in the MRP.15 The project site is 0.87 acre in size. City of Cupertino Municipal Code Chapter 16.52 Prevention of Flood Damage of the City of Cupertino Municipal Code governs construction in Special Flood Hazard Areas (zone A, AO or A1-30 on FIRM maps) having special flood or flood-related erosion hazards. Under this regulation, the Director of Public Works reviews all development permits to determine that the permit requirements of this chapter have been satisfied, and that building sites are reasonably safe from flooding. Chapter 9.18 Stormwater Pollution Prevention and Watershed Protection of the City of Cupertino Municipal Code outlines the City’s minimum requirements designed to control the discharge of pollutants into the City of Cupertino’s storm drain system and to assure that discharges from the City of Cupertino storm drain system comply with applicable provisions of the Federal Clean Water Act and NPDES Permit. 4.9.1.2 Existing Conditions Hydrology and Drainage Surface Water The project site is located within the Lower Peninsula Watersheds, which consists of a 98-square- mile area of multiple small-creek watersheds including the Stevens Creek watershed.16 Surface runoff from the project site is conveyed to Heney Creek which flows to Stevens Creek and ultimately the San Francisco Bay. Approximately 71 percent (or 0.44 acres) of the project site consists of impervious surfaces (i.e., pavement and building). Runoff from the site is currently conveyed to a 12-inch storm drain line located in North Foothill Boulevard that drains to Heney Creek in the Stevens Creek watershed. 15 Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program. Hydromodification Management (HM) Applicability Map City of Cupertino. November 2010. Available at: <http://www.scvurppp- w2k.com/HMP_app_maps/Cupertino_HMP_Map.pdf> 16 Santa Clara Valley Water District. “West Valley”. Accessed August 20, 2013. <http://www.valleywater.org/services/LowerPeninsula.aspx>. City of Cupertino 56 Initial Study 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project March 2014 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts Groundwater The project site is located in the Santa Clara Valley Groundwater Basin between the Diablo Mountains to the east and the Santa Cruz Mountains to the west. The Santa Clara Valley Groundwater Basin is filled by valley floor alluvium and the Santa Clara Formation. Groundwater is reported at approximately 53 feet below the ground surface.17 Fluctuations in the level of the groundwater may occur due to variations in rainfall, underground drainage patterns, and other factors. Groundwater is expected to flow to the northeast, towards San Francisco Bay. Flooding According to the FEMA FIRM, the site is located within Zone X, which is defined as areas of 0.2 percent annual chance flood, areas of percent chance flood with average depths of less than one foot or with drainage areas less than one square mile; and areas protected by levees from the one percent chance flood.18 Other Inundation Hazards Dam Failure The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) compiles the dam failure inundation hazard maps submitted to the State Office of Emergency Services by dam owners throughout the Bay Area. The project site is not located within a dam failure inundation hazard area.19 Sea Level Rise The project site is located at an elevation of approximately 385 feet above mean sea level, and is not within a shoreline area vulnerable to projected sea level rise from global climate change of up to 55 inches.20 Earthquake-Induced Waves and Mudflow Hazards The site is not located near a large body of water, near the ocean, or in a landslide hazard zone and, therefore, is not subject to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. 17 PIERS Environmental Services, Inc. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report. February 2013. 18 Federal Emergency Management Agency. Flood Insurance Rate Map. Panel 06085C0204H. May 18, 2009. 19 Association of Bay Area Governments. Dam Failure Inundation Hazard Map for Cupertino. Map. October 20, 2003. Available at: <http://www.abag.ca.gov/cgi-bin/pickdamx.pl> 20 Bay Conservation and Development Commission. Living with a Rising Bay: Vulnerability and Adaptation in San Francisco Bay and on its Shoreline. 2011. Page 28. Available at: <http://www.bcdc.ca.gov/BPA/LivingWithRisingBay.pdf> City of Cupertino 57 Initial Study 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project March 2014 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts Water Quality The water quality of streams, creeks, ponds, and other surface water bodies can be greatly affected by pollution carried in contaminated surface runoff. Pollutants from unidentified sources, known as “non-point” source pollutants, are washed from streets, construction sites, parking lots, and other exposed surfaces into storm drains. Surface runoff from roads is collected by storm drains and discharged into Heney Creek. The runoff often contains contaminants such as oil and grease, plant and animal debris (e.g., leaves, dust, and animal feces), pesticides, litter, and heavy metals. In sufficient concentration, these pollutants have been found to adversely affect the aquatic habitats to which they drain. Under existing conditions, the project site is developed with a former gas and service station, pavement, and landscaping. Runoff from the site may contain sediment, fertilizers, and pesticides from landscaped areas, and metals, trash, oils and grease from paved areas. 4.9.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Checklist Source(s) Would the project: 1. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? 1 2. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there will 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 will drop to a level which will not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? 1 3. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which will result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or off-site? 1 4. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which will result in flooding on-or off-site? 1 City of Cupertino 58 Initial Study 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project March 2014 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Checklist Source(s) Would the project: 5. Create or contribute runoff water which will exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? 1 6. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? 1 7. 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? 1,16 8. Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which will impede or redirect flood flows? 1,16 9. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? 16,17 10. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? 1 4.9.2.1 Hydrology and Drainage Impacts Redevelopment of the site would result in the same overall amount of impervious surfaces on-site (0.44 acres). Therefore, it is assumed that the existing storm drainage system would continue to have sufficient capacity to accommodate runoff from the project. (Less Than Significant Impact) 4.9.2.2 Flooding Impacts As discussed previously, the project site is not within the 100-year, or one percent flood zone. The project, therefore, would not place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area or impede or redirect flood flows within a 100-year flood hazard area. (No Impact) 4.9.2.3 Other Inundation Hazards The project is not located in an area subject to inundation hazards from dam failure, projected sea level rise or earthquake induced waves or mudflows. (No Impact) City of Cupertino 59 Initial Study 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project March 2014 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts 4.9.2.4 Groundwater Supply Impacts The project would use water supplied by San José Water Company. Water supply impacts of the project are addressed in Section 4.17 Utilities and Service Systems. The project site does not include an in-stream groundwater recharge area and redevelopment of this site would not substantially interfere with groundwater recharge of the local aquifer used for drinking water supply. It is not anticipated that construction activities, including grading and excavation for hazardous materials remediation (refer to Section 4.8), would be at depths greater than 20 feet. Groundwater is approximately 53 feet below ground surface, therefore, it is unlikely that groundwater would be encountered during construction. The project would not result in substantial direct or indirect impacts to groundwater resources in the area. (Less Than Significant Impact) 4.9.2.5 Water Quality Impacts Construction-Related Impacts Construction of the proposed project, including grading and excavation activities, may result in temporary impacts to surface water quality. Project grading and construction activities would affect the water quality of storm water surface runoff. Construction of the proposed project would also result in a disturbance to the underlying soils, thereby increasing the potential for sedimentation and erosion. When disturbance to underlying soils occurs, the surface runoff that flows across the site may contain sediments that are ultimately discharged into the storm drainage system. Standard Project Conditions: In conformance with the City of Cupertino’s Municipal Code Chapter 9.18, the project shall implement the following standard measure to reduce construction- related water quality impacts to a less than significant level: • The project shall implement construction BMPs to avoid impacts to surface water quality during construction, to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. Construction BMPs would include, but would not be limited to, the following measures: − Preclude non-stormwater discharges to the stormwater system. − Incorporate effective, site-specific Best Management Practices for erosion and sediment control during the construction period. − Cover soil, equipment, and supplies that could contribute to non-visible pollution prior to rainfall events or monitor runoff. − Perform monitoring of discharges to the stormwater system. Post-Construction Impacts Runoff from the project site would contain pollution from the new residences and detached workspaces and pavement. The project also would increase traffic and human activity on and around the site, generating pollutants and increasing dust, litter, and other contaminants that could be washed into the storm drain system. Runoff from the proposed project may contain increased oil and grease City of Cupertino 60 Initial Study 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project March 2014 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts from parked vehicles, as well as sediment and chemicals (i.e., fertilizers and pesticides) from the landscaped areas. Standard Project Conditions: In conformance with the City of Cupertino’s Municipal Code Chapter 9.18, the project shall implement the following standard measures to reduce post- construction water quality impacts to a less than significant level: • The project shall comply with Provision C.3 of NPDES Permit Number CAS612008, which provides enhanced performance standards for the management of storm water for new development. Prior to issuance of building and grading permits, each phase of development shall include provision for post-construction structural controls in the project design in compliance with the NPDES C.3 permit provisions, and shall include BMPs for reducing contamination in storm water runoff as permanent features of the project. The project includes the incorporation of vegetated swales, rain gardens, and flow-through planters to treat and reduce the amount of runoff from the site. The specific BMPs to be used in each phase of development shall be determined based on design and site-specific considerations and will be determined prior to issuance of building and grading permits. • To protect groundwater from pollutant loading of urban runoff, BMPs which are primarily infiltration devices (such as infiltration trenches and infiltration basins) must meet, at a minimum, the following conditions: − Pollution prevention and source control BMPs shall be implemented to protect groundwater; − Use of infiltration BMPs cannot cause or contribute to degradation of groundwater; − Infiltration BMPs must be adequately maintained; − Vertical distance from the base of any infiltration device to the seasonal high groundwater mark must be at least 10 feet. In areas of highly porous soils and/or high groundwater table, BMPs shall be subject to a higher level of analysis (considering potential for pollutants such as on-site chemical use, level of pretreatment, similar factors); − Unless storm water is first treated by non-infiltration means, infiltration devices shall not be recommended for areas of industrial or light industrial activity; areas subject to high vehicular traffic (25,000 or greater average daily traffic trips on main roadway or 15,000 or more average daily traffic trips on any intersecting roadway); automotive repair shops; car washes; fleet storage areas (bus, truck, etc.); nurseries; and other land uses and activities considered by the City as high threats to water quality; and − Infiltration devices shall be located a minimum of 100 feet horizontally from any water supply wells. City of Cupertino 61 Initial Study 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project March 2014 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts • Best Management Practices (BMPs) shall be selected and designed to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works in accordance with the requirements contained in the most recent versions of the following documents: − City of Cupertino Post-Construction BMP Section Matrix; − SCVURPPP “Guidance for Implementing Storm water Regulations for New and Redevelopment Projects;” − NPDES Municipal Storm water Discharge Permit issued to the City of Cupertino by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region; − California BMP Handbooks; − Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association (BASMAA) “Start at the Source” Design Guidance Manual; − BASMAA “Using Site Design Standards to Meet Development Standards for Storm water Quality – A Companion Document to Start at the Source;” and − City of Cupertino Planning Procedures Performance Standard. • To maintain effectiveness, all storm water treatment facilities shall include long-term maintenance programs. • The applicant, the project arborist and landscape architect, shall work with the City and the SCVURPPP to select pest resistant plants to minimize pesticide use, as appropriate, and the plant selection will be reflected in the landscape plans. The proposed project, with the implementation of the above conditions, would not result in significant water quality impacts. (Less Than Significant Impact) 4.9.3 Conclusion The proposed project, with the implementation of the City’s standard stormwater quality conditions, would not result in significant hydrology or water quality impacts. (Less Than Significant Impact) City of Cupertino 62 Initial Study 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project March 2014 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts 4.10 LAND USE 4.10.1 Setting 4.10.1.1 General Plan and Zoning Designations The project site is located in a mixed use area of Cupertino along a major collector roadway and is designated in the City’s General Plan for Commercial/Residential land uses. This land use designation is applied to mixed use areas that are predominantly commercial and offices and supporting residential uses may be allowed to offset job growth, better balance the citywide jobs to housing and when they are compatible with the primarily non-residential character of the area. The project site is zoned P(CG) which allows for General Commercial development. 4.10.1.2 Existing and Surrounding Uses The 0.87-acre project site is developed with a commercial structure, paving and landscaping at the site perimeter (see Photos 1-4). The commercial structure (currently vacant) was formerly used as a gasoline station and automobile repair facility. Fuel dispensers have been removed, although some remain stored on the site. The project site is located at the northern edge of a mixed use area fronting on North Foothill Expressway. Surrounding land uses include single-family residences to the north, west and south (both individual residences and townhouse cluster housing), a retirement community of senior apartments and continuing care facilities to the east, office uses to the southeast, and commercial uses to the south at the intersection of North Foothill Boulevard and Stevens Creek Boulevard (refer to Figure 2.2-3). 4.10.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Checklist Source(s) Would the project: 1. Physically divide an established community? 1 2. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? 1,2,4 3. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? 1 City of Cupertino 63 Initial Study 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project March 2014 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts The proposed project would demolish the existing automobile service station and construct six, two- story single-family dwelling units. Five of the six dwelling units would have detached one-story workspaces intended for live/work uses. The project proposes rezoning the site to Planned Development General Commercial/Residential – P(CG, Res) to reflect the proposed residential uses on the site. The relationship of the proposed buildings to adjacent uses to the west and south are shown on Figure 4.10-1. Building elevations as viewed from adjacent roadways (North Foothill Boulevard and Silver Oak Way) are included in Section 4.1 Aesthetics and shown on Figure 4.1-1. 4.10.2.1 Consistency with General Plan and Zoning Ordinance The proposed residential use with work spaces is consistent with the existing General Plan land use designation (Commercial/Residential) which allows a mix of commercial or office uses and residential uses. The proposed project would rezone the site from P(CG), which only allows for commercial development, to P(CG, Res) to allow construction of single-family residences and detached workspaces. Development surrounding the project site contains several residential housing types and quasi-public uses (a retirement community). Office and commercial uses are also present to the south and southeast of the site. Residences on the site would be constructed consistent with the proposed zoning standards (including building setbacks and heights) and would require approval of building permits and any applicable Planning permits, such as an Architectural and Site Approval. Compatibility with Adjacent Land Uses The detached work units would be located along the North Foothill Boulevard frontage (Figure 3.0- 1). These units would be separated from single-family residential uses to the north by Silver Oak Way and do not include outdoor areas, such as trash enclosures or loading docks, that could be sources of noise, dust, or spillover lighting. Five of the six residential buildings would be at a lower grade than adjacent residences to the south and west. Fill would be placed along the western boundary of the site to accommodate construction of a sixth residence with no workspace. The two-story residence would be setback from the property line approximately 15 feet and landscape trees planted between the residence (Home 6 on Figure 3.0- 1) and the residential property to the west. Rezoning of the site and construction of the proposed project, in conformance with design guidelines in the City’s zoning ordinance, would not result in result in land use compatibility or other related environmental impacts. The proposed project would not physically divide an established community nor would it conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating environmental impacts. (Less Than Significant Impact) City of Cupertino 64 Initial Study 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project March 2014 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts 4.10.2.2 Other Land Use Plans The project site is not located in an area with an adopted habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. (No Impact) 4.10.3 Conclusion The proposed project is compatible with residential and other development in the project area and would not physically divide any established community. Implementation of the project, therefore, would not result in significant land use impacts. (Less Than Significant Impact) City of Cupertino 65 Initial Study 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project March 2014 CO N C E P T U A L B U I L D I N G E L E V A T I O N S ( S O U T H A N D W E S T V I E W S ) FIGURE 4.10-1 66 30'-0" 4'-0" TYP. 58 ' - 4 1 3 / 6 4 " HO M E " B " R O O F P E A K L I N E + 4 0 6 . 0 0 ' HO M E " C " R O O F P E A K L I N E + 4 0 9 . 0 0 ' MAX BUILDING HEIGHT BUILDING HEIGHT BUILDING HEIGHT MAX BUILDING HEIGHT TR A S H TR A S H 6"14'-0" 25'-11 7/8" 11'-0"13'-6" 1'-0"11'-0"13'-9" 25'-9" 30'-0"BUILDING HEIGHT EX I S T I N G G R A D E L I N E EX I S T I N G G R A D E L I N E 5 W C 6 A 4 3 2 1 B 3'-6" TYP. 4'-10" 3' F E N C E 30'-0" 21'-7 7/8" 7'-10 25/64"13'-9" HOME "F" ROOF PEAK LINE +417.00'HOME "B" ROOF PEAK LINE +406.00' MAX BUILDING HEIGHT BUILDING HEIGHT TRASH ENCLOSURE ELEVAT 1/8" 6 G 3 4 5 F SIL V E R O A K W A Y A B C D E F G 1 2 3 4 5 6 5W4W3W2W1w SIL V E R O A K W A Y FOOTHILL BLVD A- G E X I S T I N G O F F - S I T E R E S I D E N T S PR O J E C T S I T E HO M E “ C ” R O O F P E A K L I N E + 4 0 9 . 0 0 ’ HO M E “ F ” R O O F P E A K L I N E + 4 1 7 . 0 0 ’ HO M E “ B ” R O O F P E A K L I N E + 4 0 6 . 0 0 ’ HO M E “ B ” R O O F P E A K L I N E + 4 0 6 . 0 0 ’ 32 ’ - 8 ” 58 ’ - 4 1 3 / 6 4 ” EX I S I T N G G R A D E L I N E EX I S I T N G G R A D E L I N E EX I S I T N G G R A D E L I N E EX I S I T N G G R A D E L I N E EX I S I T N G G R A D E L I N E TR A S H 11’-0”13’-9” 30’-0” 13’-9”7-10 25/64” 25’-9” 30’-0” 13’-6” 25’-11 7/8” 30’-0” 11’-0” TR A S H 14’-0”SOUTH ELEVATION WEST ELEVATIONFOOTHILL BLVD Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts 4.11 MINERAL RESOURCES 4.11.1 Setting Mineral resources found and extracted in Santa Clara County include construction aggregate deposits such as sand, gravel, and crushed stone. There are several areas in the City of Cupertino that are designated by the State Mining and Geology Board under the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 (SMARA) as containing mineral deposits which are of regional significance; however, the City’s General Plan indicates that these areas are either depleted or unavailable due to existing development. The project site at North Foothill Boulevard is not within one of the areas of Cupertino designated as containing mineral deposits of importance. 4.11.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Checklist Source(s) Would the project: 1. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that will be of value to the region and the residents of the state? 1,2 2. Result in the loss of availability of a locally- important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? 1,2 4.11.2.1 Impacts to Mineral Resources The project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource. 4.11.3 Conclusion Implementation of the proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource. (No Impact) City of Cupertino 67 Initial Study 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project March 2014 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts 4.12 NOISE The following discussion is based on an environmental noise assessment prepared by Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. for the project in July 2013. A copy of this report is included in Appendix E of this Initial Study. 4.12.1 Setting 4.12.1.1 Background Information Noise Several factors influence sound as it is perceived by the human ear, including the actual level of sound, the period of exposure to the sound, the frequencies involved, and the fluctuation in the noise level during exposure. Noise is measured on a “decibel” scale which serves as an index of loudness. Because the human ear cannot hear all pitches or frequencies, sound levels are frequently adjusted or weighted to correspond to human hearing. This adjusted units is known as the “A-weighted” decibel, or dBA. Further, sound is averaged over time and penalties are added to the average for noise that is generated during times that may be more disturbing to sensitive uses such as early morning, or late evening. Since excessive noise levels can adversely affect human activities and human health, federal, state, and local governmental agencies have set forth criteria or planning goals to minimize or avoid these effects. The noise guidelines are almost always expressed using one of several noise averaging methods, such as Leq, DNL, or CNEL.21 Using one of these descriptors is a way for a location’s overall noise exposure to be measured, realizing of course that there are specific moments when noise levels are higher (e.g., when a jet is taking off from the Airport or when a leaf blower is operating) and specific moments when noise levels are lower (e.g., during lulls in traffic flows on SR 85 or in the middle of the night). Vibration Ground vibration consists of rapidly fluctuating motions or waves with an average motion of zero. Several different methods are typically used to quantify vibration amplitude. One is the Peak Particle Velocity (PPV) and another is the Root Mean Square (RMS) velocity. The PPV is defined as the maximum instantaneous positive or negative peak of the vibration wave. The RMS velocity is defined as the average of the squared amplitude of the signal. The PPV and RMS vibration velocity amplitudes are used to evaluate human response to vibration. In this report, a PPV descriptor with units of millimeters per second (mm/sec) or inches per second (in/sec) is used to evaluate construction generated vibration for building damage and human complaints. 21 Leq stands for the Noise Equivalent Level and is a measurement of the average energy level intensity of noise over a given period of time such as the noisiest hour. DNL stands for Day-Night Level and is a 24-hour average of noise levels, with a 10 dB penalty applied to noise occurring between 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM. CNEL stands for Community Noise Equivalent Level; it is similar to the DNL except that there is an additional five dB penalty applied to noise which occurs between 7:00 PM and 10:00 PM. Typically, where traffic noise predominates, the CNEL and DNL are typically within two dBA of the peak-hour Leq. City of Cupertino 68 Initial Study 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project March 2014 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts Low-level vibrations frequently cause irritating secondary vibration, such as a slight rattling of windows, doors or stacked dishes. The rattling sound can give rise to exaggerated vibration complaints, even though there is very little risk of actual structural damage. Construction activities can cause vibration that varies in intensity depending on several factors. The use of pile driving and vibratory compaction equipment typically generates the highest construction related ground-borne vibration levels. The PPV descriptor is routinely used to measure and assess ground-borne vibration and almost exclusively used to assess the potential of vibration to induce structural damage and the degree of annoyance for humans. The two primary concerns with construction-induced vibration, the potential to damage a structure and the potential to interfere with the enjoyment of life, are evaluated against different vibration limits. Studies have shown that the threshold of perception for average persons is in the range of 0.008 to 0.012 in/sec PPV. Human perception to vibration varies with the individual and is a function of physical setting and the type of vibration. Persons exposed to elevated ambient vibration levels, such as people in an urban environment, may tolerate a higher vibration level. Additional information on the fundamentals of noise and vibration are included in Appendix E. 4.12.1.2 Regulatory Framework City of Cupertino General Plan The Health and Safety Element of the City’s General Plan identifies noise and land use compatibility standards for various land uses. Goal L identifies the need to provide a compatible noise environment for existing and future land uses. Residential land uses are considered “normally acceptable” in noise environments of 60 dBA CNEL or less, and conditionally acceptable in noise environments between 60 and 70 dBA CNEL. Goal O of the noise section is design buildings to diminish noise. Interior noise levels at residences are to be maintained at or below 45 dBA CNEL. City of Cupertino Municipal Code The City regulates noise within the community in Chapter 10.48 (Community Noise Control) of the Municipal Code. Construction noise is limited as follows: A. Grading, construction and demolition activities shall be allowed to exceed the noise limits of Section 10.48.040 during daytime hours; provided, that the equipment utilized has high- quality noise muffler and abatement devices installed and in good condition, and the activity meets one of the following two criteria: 1. No individual device produces a noise level more than 87 dBA at a distance of 25 feet; or 2. The noise level on any nearby property does not exceed 80 dBA. B. Notwithstanding Section 10.48.053A, it is a violation of this chapter to engage in any grading, street construction, demolition or underground utility work within 750 feet of a residential area on Saturdays, Sundays and holidays, and during the nighttime period, except as provided in Section 10.48.030. City of Cupertino 69 Initial Study 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project March 2014 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts C. Construction, other than street construction, is prohibited on holidays, except as provided in Sections 10.48.029 and 10.48.030. D. Construction, other than street construction, is prohibited during nighttime periods unless it meets the nighttime standards of Section 10.48.040. E. The use of helicopters as a part of a construction and/or demolition activity shall be restricted to between the hours of 9AM and 6:30PM Monday through Friday only, and prohibited on the weekends and holidays. The notice shall be given at least 24 hours in advance of said usage. In cases of emergency, the 24 hour period may be waived. 4.12.1.3 Existing Conditions The project site is located southwest of the North Foothill Boulevard/Silver Oak Way intersection and is currently developed with a gasoline station and automobile repair facility, which is no longer in operation. Noise monitoring was completed at the site in June 2013 in order to quantify existing ambient noise levels. The noise monitoring survey included one long-term noise measurement and five short-term measurements. The existing noise environment at the site and in the vicinity results primarily from traffic on North Foothill Boulevard. The existing ambient CNEL at the site was measured at up to 73 dBA. Refer to Appendix E for more details regarding the noise measurements, including a map of noise measurement locations. The project site is not located within two miles of an airport or private airstrip, or within an airport land use plan referral area. 4.12.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Checklist Source(s) Would the project result in: 1. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? 18 2. Exposure of persons to, or generation of, excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? 18 3. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 18 4. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 18 City of Cupertino 70 Initial Study 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project March 2014 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Checklist Source(s) Would the project result in: 5. 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, will the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? 1 6. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, will the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? 1 CEQA does not define what noise level increase would be considered substantial. Typically, project- generated noise level increases of three dBA CNEL or greater would be considered significant where exterior noise levels would exceed the normally acceptable noise level standard. Where noise levels would remain at or below the normally acceptable noise level standard with the project, noise level increases of five dBA CNEL or greater would be considered significant. A substantial temporary noise level increase would occur where noise from construction activities exceeds 60 dBA Leq and the ambient noise environment by at least five dBA Leq at noise-sensitive uses in the project vicinity for a period of one year or more. 4.12.2.1 Noise Impacts to the Project Future Exterior Noise Environment Traffic along North Foothill Boulevard would continue to be the predominant source of noise affecting the noise environment at the project site. The CNEL at a distance of 75 feet from the center of North Foothill Boulevard is calculated to range from 73 to 74 dBA assuming a one dBA CNEL noise increase in the future. This noise level would be expected at the westernmost facades of proposed workspaces. Proposed Homes 1-5 would be exposed to exterior noise levels of 71 to 72 dBA CNEL (refer to Figure 3.0-1 for home locations). The future exterior noise environment at the project site would exceed the “normally acceptable” noise level category of up to 60 dBA CNEL and the “conditionally acceptable” category of up to 70 dBA CNEL. The site’s noise exposure would be considered “normally unacceptable” for the proposed residential land uses. Homes 1-5 each include two private outdoor use areas (refer to Figure 3.0-1). The first private outdoor use area of each residence would be located in a shielded area between the residence and the workspace, approximately 100 feet from the centerline of North Foothill Boulevard. Exterior noise levels within these courtyard areas are calculated to be 65 dBA CNEL or less, and would be considered “conditionally acceptable” with the future noise environment. The second private outdoor use area for Homes 1-5 would each be located in a shielded area behind the residences, approximately 130 feet from the centerline of North Foothill Boulevard. Exterior noise levels at these outdoor use areas would be considered “normally acceptable” with the future noise City of Cupertino 71 Initial Study 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project March 2014 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts environment as future noise levels are calculated to range from 59 to 60 dBA CNEL. Exterior noise levels at private outdoor use areas of Home 6 would not exceed the City’s noise level goal for exterior noise (60 dBA CNEL). Each residence has an outdoor use area where the noise level is “normally acceptable,” therefore, the project would not result in a significant exterior noise impact. (Less Than Significant Impact) Future Interior Noise Environment Future exterior noise levels are calculated to range from 73 to 74 dBA CNEL at the workspace buildings and from 71 to 72 dBA CNEL at Homes 1-5. The City requires that interior noise levels within new residential units be maintained at or below 45 dBA CNEL. In buildings of typical construction, with the windows partially open, interior noise levels are generally 15 dBA lower than exterior noise levels. With the windows maintained closed, standard residential construction typically provides about 20 to 25 decibels of noise reduction. For example, a unit exposed to exterior noise levels of 74 dBA CNEL would be 59 dBA CNEL inside with the windows partially open and would range from 49 to 54 dBA CNEL with the windows shut. Interior noise levels would exceed the maximum allowable interior sound level of 45 dBA CNEL inside proposed Homes 1-5. Attaining the necessary noise reduction from exterior to interior spaces for Homes 1-5 is possible with proper wall construction techniques, the selections of proper windows and doors, and the incorporation of a forced-air mechanical ventilation system to allow the occupant the option of controlling noise by closing the windows. The future noise environment at the easternmost facade of Home 6 would just exceed 60 dBA CNEL. Standard residential construction with forced-air mechanical ventilation would be sufficient to reduce interior noise levels to 45 dBA CNEL or less. Impact NOI-1: Proposed Homes 1-5 could have interior noise levels exceeding the City’s standard of 45 dBA CNEL. (Significant Impact) Mitigation Measures: The project proposes to implement the following mitigation measures to incorporate ventilation systems and noise attenuation to reduce interior noise levels at Homes 1-5 to 45 dBA CNEL or less: MM NOI-1.1: Provide a suitable form of forced-air mechanical ventilation, as determined by the City of Cupertino Building Official, for all the units so that windows could be kept closed at the occupant’s discretion to control noise and achieve the 45 dBA CNEL interior noise standard. MM NOI-1.2: Provide sound rated windows and doors for Homes 1-5 to maintain interior noise levels at acceptable levels. Preliminary calculations made based on the data contained in the conceptual design plans indicate that sound-rated windows and doors with a sound transmission class rating of STC 30 to 35 would be sufficient to control noise and achieve the 45 dBA CNEL interior noise standard. City of Cupertino 72 Initial Study 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project March 2014 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts MM NOI-1.3: Confirm the final specifications for noise insulation treatments during final design of the project. Results of the analysis, including the description of the necessary noise control treatments, shall be submitted to the City along with the building plans and approved prior to issuance of building permits. 4.12.2.2 Noise and Vibration Impacts From the Project Construction-Related Impacts Construction Vibration The construction of the project may generate perceptible vibration when heavy equipment or impact tools (e.g., jackhammers, hoe rams, etc.) are used. Construction activities would include demolition of existing structures, excavation, site preparation work, foundation work, and new building framing and finishing. For structural damage, the California Department of Transportation uses a vibration limit of 0.5 inches/second, peak particle velocity (in/sec, PPV) for buildings structurally sound and designed to modern engineering standards, 0.3 in/sec, PPV for buildings that are found to be structurally sound but where structural damage is a major concern, and a conservative limit of 0.08 in/sec, PPV for historic buildings or buildings that are documented to be structurally weakened. No historic buildings or buildings that are documented to be structurally weakened adjoin the project site. Therefore, groundborne vibration levels exceeding 0.3 in/sec PPV would have the potential to result in a significant vibration impact. Table 4.12-1 presents typical vibration levels that could be expected from construction equipment at a distance of 25 feet. Project construction activities such as drilling, the use of jackhammers, rock drills and other high-power or vibratory tools, and rolling stock equipment (tracked vehicles, compactors, etc.) may generate substantial vibration in the immediate vicinity. Jackhammers typically generate vibration levels of 0.035 in/sec PPV and drilling typically generates vibration levels of 0.09 in/sec PPV at a distance of 25 feet. Vibration levels would vary depending on soil conditions, construction methods, and equipment used. Vibration levels from typical construction activities would be expected to be 0.2 in/sec PPV or less at a distance of 25 feet, below the 0.3 in/sec PPV significance threshold. Vibration generated by construction activities near the common property line would at times be perceptible, however, would not be expected to result in architectural damage to these buildings. The project, therefore, would not result in significant construction-related vibration impacts. (Less Than Significant Impact) City of Cupertino 73 Initial Study 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project March 2014 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts Table 4.12-1: Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment Equipment PPV at 25 feet (in/sec) Approximate Vibration Velocity at 25 feet (VdB) Vibratory Roller 0.210 94 Hoe Ram 0.089 87 Large bulldozer 0.089 87 Caisson drilling 0.089 87 Loaded trucks 0.076 86 Jackhammer 0.035 79 Small bulldozer 0.003 58 Note: VdB is the term used for vibration decibels. Source: United States Department of Transportation, Office of Planning and Environment, Federal Transit Administration. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. May 2006. Construction Noise Construction activities can generate high noise levels, especially during the construction of project infrastructure when heavy equipment is used. The highest maximum instantaneous noise levels generated by project construction would typically range from about 90 to 95 dBA Lmax at a distance of 50 feet from the noise source. Typical hourly average construction generated noise levels are about 81 dBA to 88 dBA Leq measured at a distance of 50 feet from the center of the site during busy construction periods (e.g., earth moving equipment, impact tools, etc.). Construction generated noise levels drop off at a rate of about six dBA per doubling of distance between the source and receptor. Shielding by buildings or terrain often result in lower construction noise levels at distant receptors. Noise impacts resulting from construction depend on the noise generated by various pieces of construction equipment, the timing and duration of noise generating activities, and the distance between construction noise sources and noise sensitive receptors. Construction noise impacts primarily occur when construction activities take place during noise-sensitive times of the day (early morning, evening, or nighttime hours), the construction occurs in areas immediately adjoining noise sensitive land uses, or when construction durations last over extended periods of time. Typically, significant noise impacts do not result when standard construction noise control measures are enforced at the project site and when the duration of the noise generating construction period is limited to one construction season (typically one year) or less. Given the size of the project, all exterior construction activities are anticipated to be completed in less than nine months, and once construction moves indoors, minimal noise would be generated at off-site locations. Even though construction activities would be conducted in accordance with the provisions of the City of Cupertino Municipal Code (refer to Section 4.12.1.2), noise levels from some activities could exceed the quantitative noise limits contained in the Municipal Code resulting in a significant impact. Impact NOI-2: Construction of the proposed project would result in a significant temporary noise impact. (Significant Impact) City of Cupertino 74 Initial Study 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project March 2014 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts Mitigation Measures: The project proposes to implement the following mitigation measures of minimizing disruption and annoyance of construction to adjacent uses to reduce construction noise impacts to a less than significant level: MM NOI-2.1: Avoid the unnecessary idling of equipment and stage construction equipment as far as reasonable from residences adjacent to the site. MM NOI-2.2: Prepare a detailed construction plan identifying the schedule for major noise- generating construction activities. MM NOI-2.3: Notify adjacent residents to the project site of the construction schedule. MM NOI-2.3: Locate stationary noise generating equipment such as air compressors or portable power generators as far as possible from sensitive receptors. MM NOI-2.4: Construct temporary noise barriers to screen stationary noise generating equipment when located near adjoining sensitive land uses. MM NOI-2.5: Utilize “quiet” air compressors and other stationary noise sources where technology exists. MM NOI-2.6: Control noise from construction workers’ radios to a point that they are not audible at existing residences bordering the project site. MM NOI-2.8: Designate a “noise disturbance coordinator” who would be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. The disturbance coordinator would determine the cause of the noise complaints (e.g., starting too early, bad muffler, etc.) and would require that reasonable measures warranted to correct the problem be implemented. Conspicuously post a telephone number for the disturbance coordinator at the construction site and include it in the notice sent to neighbors regarding the construction schedule. Project-Generated Traffic A significant noise impact would be identified if project-generated traffic would result in a noise level increase of three dBA CNEL or more at noise-sensitive land uses (e.g., existing residences). Existing traffic volumes along North Foothill Boulevard would have to double in order for the project to result in a three dBA CNEL noise increase above existing conditions. Given the size of the project, it is estimated that 10 peak hour automobile trips would be added to existing traffic volumes. The project is estimated to generate 128 average daily trips, while North Foothill Boulevard near the project site has over 16,000 average daily trips. Project-generated traffic noise level increases would be negligible compared to the traffic noise generated by North Foothill Boulevard. Traffic noise levels are calculated to not measurably increase (0 dBA CNEL) as a result of the project, and the impact is less than significant. (Less Than Significant Impact) City of Cupertino 75 Initial Study 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project March 2014 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts 4.12.3 Conclusion Impact NOI-1: The proposed project, with the implementation of the identified mitigation measures requiring the incorporation of mechanical ventilation systems and noise attenuation, would reduce interior noise levels to 45 dBA CNEL or less. (Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated) Impact NOI-2: The construction of the proposed project, with the implementation of the identified mitigation measures to minimize the disruption and annoyance of construction to adjacent uses, would not result in significant construction-related noise impacts. (Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated) City of Cupertino 76 Initial Study 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project March 2014 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts 4.13 POPULATION AND HOUSING 4.13.1 Setting Based on information from the California Department of Finance, the City of Cupertino population was estimated to be approximately 59,620 in January 2013.22 The average number of persons per household in Cupertino in 2010 was 2.87.23 Approximately 31,060 jobs were provided within the City of Cupertino’s Sphere of Influence in 2005, and the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) Projections 2009 shows a projected increase to 33,340 jobs by the year 2020. The General Plan does not specifically allocate additional residential development to this area of the City. The General Plan, however, does allow for reallocation of development capacity from one area of the City to another if adequate infrastructure is available and no significant environmental impacts are identified. 4.13.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Checklist Source(s) Would the project: 1. Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? 1 2. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 1 3. Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 1 22 State of California, Department of Finance. E-1 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties and the State with Annual Percent Change — January 1, 2012 and 2013. May 2013. Available at: <http://www.dof.ca.gov/research/demographic/reports/estimates/e-1/view.php> 23 U.S. Census Bureau. “American Fact Finder”. Profile of General Population and Housing Characteristics: 2010, for the City of Cupertino. Accessed July 18, 2013. Available at: <http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=DEC_10_AIAN_AIANDP1&prodType=table> City of Cupertino 77 Initial Study 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project March 2014 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts 4.13.2.1 Growth Inducement Impacts The project site is located within the incorporated limits of the City of Cupertino and redevelopment of the project site would not result in an expansion of urban services or the pressure to expand beyond the City’s existing Sphere of Influence. As discussed above, the General Plan sets forth development allocations for residential uses for different areas of the City. The project site is not located in an area specifically allocated additional residential development capacity in the General Plan. The General Plan also allows for reallocation of development capacity between geographical areas of the City. The project site currently does not contain any residences. The project proposes to allow redevelopment of the site with six new single-family residences and five work space structures. Conservatively using U.S. Census estimates of 2.87 residents per household in Cupertino, the project would result in a population increase of approximately 17 residents on the site. The population growth associated with redevelopment of the site would not induce significant unplanned growth in housing within the City. (Less Than Significant Impact) 4.13.2.2 Housing Displacement Impacts The project would not displace people or housing. (No Impact) 4.13.3 Conclusion The project would not result in substantial growth inducement or impacts to existing housing supply. (Less Than Significant Impact) City of Cupertino 78 Initial Study 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project March 2014 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts 4.14 PUBLIC SERVICES 4.14.1 Setting 4.14.1.1 Fire Service Fire safety and protection is provided by the Santa Clara County Fire Department, which also serves unincorporated Santa Clara County and the communities of Campbell, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill and Saratoga. The Santa Clara County Fire Department serves a total area of approximately 100 square miles and a population of over 226,000 persons. The Santa Clara County Fire Department has 17 fire stations, an administrative headquarters, a maintenance facility, five other support facilities, and more than 100 vehicles. The Department employs 283 personnel to provide fire suppression, emergency medical and fire marshal services, hazardous materials regulation and response, rescue and extrication, public education and fire investigation services. The Department’s suppression force is also augmented by volunteer firefighters.24 There are three fire stations located in the City of Cupertino: 1) Cupertino Fire Station No. 1 is located at 20215 Stevens Creek Boulevard, 2) Monta Vista Fire Station No. 7 is located at 22620 Stevens Creek Boulevard, and 3) Seven Springs Fire Station No. 2 is located at 21000 Seven Springs Parkway. The Monta Vista Fire Station is located approximately 0.3 miles southwest of the project site and would be the first to respond to any emergencies. 4.14.1.2 Police Service Public safety services are provided by the Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Office. The Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Office serves the communities of Cupertino, Los Altos Hills, Saratoga, and the unincorporated areas of the Santa Clara County. The Sheriff’s Office serves a population of approximately 197,700 persons and has 1,429 sworn personnel. There are twenty-eight deputies allocated to the City of Cupertino.25 The Santa Clara County Sheriff’s West Valley Division, which is located at 1601 South De Anza Boulevard, provides law enforcement services to the residents of Cupertino. 4.14.1.3 Schools The project site is located within the Cupertino Union Elementary School District and the Fremont Union High School District. Students in the project area may attend Stevens Creek Elementary School, Kennedy Middle School, and Monta Vista High School. 24 City of Cupertino. “Fire: Santa Clara County Fire Department About County Fire”. Accessed July 18, 2013. Available at: < http://www.cupertino.org/index.aspx?page=365> 25 City of Cupertino. “Sheriff's Office West Valley Division”. Accessed July 18, 2013. Available at: <http://www.cupertino.org/index.aspx?page=364> City of Cupertino 79 Initial Study 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project March 2014 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts 4.14.1.4 Parks Residents of Cupertino are served by regional and community park facilities, including regional open space, community and neighborhood parks, playing fields and trails. Examples of regional facilities include Rancho San Antonio and Stevens Creek County Parks and Fremont Older Open Space Preserve managed by the Midpeninsula Open Space District. The City of Cupertino’s neighborhood parks system serves the active and passive recreational needs of its residents. The City of Cupertino’s parkland is comprised of 12 neighborhood parks and four special purpose parks (Memorial Park, McClellan Ranch Park, Blackberry Farm and Creekside Park). The City’s General Plan Park Acreage Policy (Policy 2-74) states that the City should provide parkland equal to a minimum of three acres for every 1,000 residents. In addition, Policy 2-75 states that the each household should be within a 0.5-mile walk of a neighborhood park or community park with neighborhood facilities, and that the route is reasonably free of physical barriers, including streets with heavy traffic. Monta Vista Park is located approximately 0.5 mile walking distance south of the site and Varian Park is located approximately 0.5 mile walking distance northeast of the site via Cupertino Road, both of which require crossing a busy street (Stevens Creek Boulevard for Monta Vista Park and North Foothill Boulevard for Varian Park). 4.14.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Checklist Source(s) 1. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire Protection? Police Protection? Schools? Parks? Other Public Facilities? 1 1 1 1 1 City of Cupertino 80 Initial Study 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project March 2014 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts 4.14.2.1 Fire and Police Services The project site is located within an urbanized area of Cupertino that is served by the Santa Clara County Fire Department and the Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Office. The proposed residences would be constructed in conformance with the appropriate Fire and Building Codes to reduce fire risk. The City requires smoke alarms in new residential development to further reduce fire risk. Development of the proposed project would intensify the use of the project site in comparison to existing conditions, which may incrementally increase the number of calls for fire and police services, including medical calls. Additional service demands generated by the proposed project, however, would not require construction of additional fire or police facilities. (Less Than Significant Impact) 4.14.2.2 Schools The project would allow development of six single-family residences that would generate approximately three to four elementary students and one to two high school students.26 The project site is located within the Cupertino Union School District and the Fremont Union High School District. Students in the project area may attend Stevens Creek Elementary School, Kennedy Middle School, and Monta Vista High School. The demand for housing in the Cupertino Union School District and in the Monta Vista High attendance area is very high. The number of students generated from the project is relatively small and would not result in substantial individual effects on school capacity. In accordance with California Government Code Section 65996, the developer shall pay a school impact fee to the Cupertino Union Elementary School District and the Fremont Union High School District to offset the increased demands on school facilities caused by the proposed project. The School Impact Fee program is considered under state law as an acceptable method of offsetting a project’s effect on the adequacy of school facilities, with the individual school districts responsible for implementing school facilities improvements. The proposed project would generate new students in the local school districts. As described above, the school impact fees and property tax paid by the project would cover the cost of facility improvements and operating cost for the project-generated students. The project, therefore, would not result in a significant impact to school facilities. (Less Than Significant Impact) 26 Schoolhouse Services. Enrollment and Fiscal Impact Analysis 20030 Stevens Creek Project. January 2012. Tables 1 & 2 (0.64 elementary and middle school students and 0.21 high school students per single family and some condominium units). City of Cupertino 81 Initial Study 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project March 2014 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts 4.14.2.3 Parks The proposed residential lots allow for limited private open space in side yards. No new public parkland or recreational facilities are proposed as a part of the project. Future residents of the site would incrementally increase the use of existing recreational facilities in the area. The two closest parks to the project site are both an approximately 0.5-mile walk from the project site. There is a crosswalk and signalized intersection at Stevens Creek Boulevard along the route to Monta Vista Park and a crosswalk on North Foothill Boulevard at Cupertino Road along a possible walking route to Varian Park. The proposed project shall be required to comply with the City’s Municipal Code regarding parkland dedication and/or payment of in-lieu fees to reduce impacts to parks facilities in the City. Standard Project Condition: In conformance with standard practices in the City of Cupertino, the proposed project shall implement the following standard measure to reduce park impacts: • The project shall comply with the Municipal Code requirements for parkland dedication and/or payment of in-lieu fees (Section 18.24.060). With implementation of the City’s parkland dedication requirements, it is unlikely that the incremental increase in use from the proposed residential development would cause significant physical deterioration of existing park facilities or require construction of new facilities. (Less Than Significant Impact) 4.14.3 Conclusion The proposed project, with the implementation of the above standard project condition, would not result in significant impacts to public services. (Less Than Significant Impact) City of Cupertino 82 Initial Study 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project March 2014 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts 4.15 RECREATION 4.15.1 Setting The City of Cupertino is served by approximately 162 acres of parkland, including neighborhood parks, community parks, and school playing fields. The Parks and Recreation Department manages leisure services facilities including Quinlan Community Center, Cupertino Sports Center, Monta Vista Recreation Center, Cupertino Senior Center, and Blackberry Farm. The Department of Parks and Recreation is responsible for park planning and development, and a comprehensive leisure program for the City. The City’s General Plan Policy 2-74, states that the City should provide parkland equal to a minimum of three acres for every 1,000 residents. General Plan Policy 2-75 states that the each household should be within a 0.5-mile walk of a neighborhood park or community park with neighborhood facilities, and that the route is reasonably free of physical barriers, including streets with heavy traffic. As discussed in Section 4.14 Public Services, Monta Vista Park is located approximately 0.5 mile walking distance south of the site and Varian Park is located approximately 0.5 mile walking distance northeast of the site via Cupertino Road, both of which require crossing a busy street (Stevens Creek Boulevard for Monta Vista Park and North Foothill Boulevard for Varian Park). 4.15.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Checklist Source(s) 1. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility will occur or be accelerated? 1 2. 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? 1 Future residents of the site would incrementally increase the use of existing recreational facilities in the area. The two closest parks to the project site are both an approximately 0.5-mile walk from the project site. Future residents walking to these parks would be required to cross heavily traveled roadways. There is a crosswalk and signalized intersection at Stevens Creek Boulevard along the route to Monta Vista Park and a crosswalk on North Foothill Boulevard at Cupertino Road along a possible walking route to Varian Park. City of Cupertino 83 Initial Study 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project March 2014 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts The project’s compliance with the City’s parkland dedication/payment of in-lieu fees (refer to Section 4.14 Public Services) would offset recreational impacts. (Less Than Significant Impact) 4.15.3 Conclusion The proposed project would not result in significant recreation impacts. (Less Than Significant Impact) City of Cupertino 84 Initial Study 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project March 2014 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts 4.16 TRANSPORTATION The following discussion is based in part on a transportation evaluation prepared by Fehr & Peers in August 2013. A copy of this report is provided in Appendix F of this Initial Study. 4.16.1 Setting 4.16.1.1 Existing Transportation Network Roadway Network The roadway network serving the project site is described below. Regional Access Interstate 280 (I-280) is a north/south freeway that extends from US 101 in San José to I-80 in San Francisco. It is generally an east/west oriented eight-lane freeway within the City of Cupertino. I-280 provides access to the project site via an interchange with Foothill Expressway/Boulevard. State Route 85 (SR 85) is oriented in a north/south direction with four mixed-flow lanes and two high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes. SR 85 provides access to the project site via an interchange at Stevens Creek Boulevard. Local Access Foothill Boulevard is a four-lane major collector in the vicinity of the project site. Bike lanes are provided on both sides of the street. Foothill Boulevard becomes Foothill Expressway north of I-280 and Stevens Canyon Road south of McClellan Road. Stevens Creek Boulevard is a six-lane, east-west divided arterial. It extends from the western boundary of the City of Cupertino into the cities of San José and Santa Clara. Stevens Creek Boulevard provides access to the project site via North Foothill Boulevard. Silver Oak Way is a local roadway that borders the project site to the north. On-street parking is allowed on both sides of the street. Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities In the project vicinity, pedestrian facilities include sidewalks, crosswalks, and pedestrian signals at signalized intersections. Sidewalks are provided on Foothill Boulevard and Silver Oak Way. Foothill Boulevard also has a pedestrian crosswalks at Cupertino Road. Sidewalks are also provided on Stevens Creek Boulevard with the exception of a few segments between Foothill Boulevard and Lebanon Drive. Pedestrian signals are present at the intersection of Foothill Boulevard and Stevens Creek Boulevard. City of Cupertino 85 Initial Study 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project March 2014 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts Bike lanes identified with special lane markings, pavement legends, and signage in the vicinity are located on Foothill Boulevard and Stevens Creek Boulevard. Transit Service The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) operates bus service in Santa Clara County. Bus Route 51 provides service between De Anza College and the Moffett Field/Ames Center. The hours of operation are from 6:30 AM to 7:00 PM with 20 to 60 minute headways on weekdays. Route 51 stops at the Mountain View Transit Center where riders can transfer onto Caltrain or light rail. 4.16.1.2 Existing Conditions The project site is developed with an unoccupied gas and service station. It is estimated that the gas and service station would generate approximately 650 average daily trips, if occupied. 4.16.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Checklist Source(s) Would the project: 1. Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non- motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? 1,2 2. Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? 1,19 3. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? 1 City of Cupertino 86 Initial Study 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project March 2014 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Checklist Source(s) Would the project: 4. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible land uses (e.g., farm equipment)? 1 5. Result in inadequate emergency access? 1 6. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? 2 The project proposes to construct six single-family residences, five of which would have detached workspaces. Vehicular access to the project site would be provided via a driveway on Silver Oak Way (refer to Figure 3.0-1). Parking for the residences and visitors would be provided at the rear of and between Homes 1-5 and along the western site boundary, south of Home 6. On-street parking would be available on Silver Oak Way as well. It is estimated that the proposed project would generate 129 average daily trips, with 15 during the AM peak hour and 10 during the PM peak hour.27 The project would generate fewer trips than the existing gas and service station, if occupied. Please refer to Appendix F for more detail regarding the project’s trip generation. 4.16.2.1 Intersection Level of Service The project is estimated to generate 15 AM and 10 PM peak hour trips. The Santa Clara VTA Congestion Management Program Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines requires a transportation impact analysis when a project generates 100 or more peak hour trips. A project that generates less than 100 peak hour trips is assumed to result in a less than significant traffic impact, therefore, a transportation impact analysis is not required. (Less Than Significant Impact) 4.16.2.2 Other Transportation Issues The proposed project includes new detached sidewalks and an extension of the curb at Silver Oak Way and Foothill Boulevard to create a bulb-out for safer pedestrian crossings. These improvements would not create a hazard. The project would provide adequate emergency vehicle access to the residential units and workspaces on the site. The on-site circulation for pedestrians and vehicles has been reviewed by Fehr & Peers and the design would incorporate their recommendations for internal walkways. The project would not conflict with any policies, plans, or programs that encourage alternative transportation programs. (No Impact) 27 The AM peak hour of traffic is generally between 7:00 and 9:00 AM, and the PM peak hour is typically between 4:00 and 6:00 PM. It is during these periods on an average day that the most congested traffic conditions occur. City of Cupertino 87 Initial Study 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project March 2014 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts 4.16.3 Conclusion The proposed project would not generate substantial amounts of traffic at intersections in the project vicinity nor would it create design hazards or conflict with alternative transportation programs and, therefore, would not result in any significant transportation impacts. (Less Than Significant Impact) City of Cupertino 88 Initial Study 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project March 2014 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts 4.17 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS 4.17.1 Setting 4.17.1.1 Water Water service to the project site is supplied by the San José Water Company, which also maintains the water system. San José Water Company (SJWC) serves approximately 139 square miles of the Santa Clara Valley, including most of San Jose, most of Cupertino, the entire cities of Campbell, Monte Sereno, Saratoga, the Town of Los Gatos, and parts of unincorporated Santa Clara County. SJWC relies on groundwater, imported treated water, and local surface water for its potable water supply. In 2010, SJWC received approximately 39 percent of its water supply from groundwater, 50 percent from imported treated water, and 12 percent from local surface water.28 In 2010, SJWC delivered 133,066 acre-feet of water per year (AFY) which is expected to increase to 159,479 by 2035. The project site is served by an existing 10-inch water line in Silver Oak Way. Because the existing building on the site is vacant, it does not currently use substantial quantities of water. 4.17.1.2 Storm Drainage The City’s storm drain system is made up of underground pipelines. These pipes carry surface runoff from streets to prevent flooding. Runoff (stormwater and runoff from landscape irrigation and other urban sources) enters the system at the grated catch basins found along the curb near street intersections. Water from these pipes is discharged, untreated, directly into City creeks. The project site is served by a 12-inch storm drain line located in North Foothill Boulevard that drains to Heney Creek in the Stevens Creek watershed. 4.17.1.3 Wastewater/Sanitary Sewer System The Cupertino Sanitary District provides sewer service to the project site. The Cupertino Sanitary District collects and transports wastewater to the San José/Santa Clara Regional Wastewater Facility (RWF) located in north San José. The District purchases 7.85 million gallons per day of water treatment capacity from the RWF.29 Approximately five million gallons of wastewater a day is generated within the Cupertino Sanitary District and conveyed to the RWF.30 The City is well below their allotted capacity at the RWF. The project site is served by an eight-inch sanitary sewer line in Silver Oak Way. Currently, little (if any) sewage is generated on-site. 28 San José Water Company. 2010 Urban Water Management Plan. April 2011. 29 City of Milpitas. “Agreement for Treatment Plant Capacity Transfer”. 2009. Accessed: July 18. 2013. Available at: <http://www.ci.milpitas.ca.gov/_pdfs/council/2009/010609/item_17.pdf> 30 Cupertino Sanitary District. 2009 Annual Report. City of Cupertino 89 Initial Study 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project March 2014 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts 4.17.1.4 Solid Waste Commercial and residential garbage and recycling services in the project area are provided by Recology. Solid waste collected from the City is delivered to Newby Island Sanitary Landfill (NISL). Many types of recyclable materials are also delivered to the Sunnyvale Materials Recovery Station (SMART Station) for recycling. As of December 2012, NISL had approximately 5.8 million cubic yards of capacity remaining.31,32 The City has a contract with NISL until the year 2023, or until the cumulative tonnage delivered equals 2.05 million tons. Since the City’s contract with NISL, the City has delivered a total of approximately 1.4 million tons of waste to the landfill. The City generates approximately 31,500 tons of solid waste a year.33 4.17.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Checklist Source(s) Would the project: 1. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? 1 2. 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? 1,22 3. Require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? 1 4. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? 1,20 5. 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? 1 31 King, Rick. Personal communications with NISL General Manager. May 14, 2013. 32 Note the City of San José approved a height expansion at Newby Island Sanitary Landfill in August 2012, which would add approximately 15 million cubic yards to the capacity of the landfill. 33 The estimate annual tonnage of solid waste generated by the City is based on an average of 2009-2011. Source: King, Rick. Personal communications with NISL General Manager. February 2012. City of Cupertino 90 Initial Study 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project March 2014 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Checklist Source(s) Would the project: 6. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? 21 7. Comply with federal, state and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? 1 4.17.2.1 Water Service and Supply Based on the 2010 Urban Water Management Plan adopted by San José Water Company in April 2011, water demand in their service area is expected to increase by approximately 20 percent. The project could increase water use on the site to approximately 2,400 gallons of water per day if no efficiency measures were incorporated into the project.34 The project will be constructed to meet California Green Building Code standards which include the incorporation of efficient plumbing fixtures and irrigation controls to reduce water use on the site. The project, therefore, would not substantially increase water demand to the extent that new entitlements and sources of water would be required. (Less Than Significant Impact) 4.17.2.2 Storm Drainage The proposed project would increase the amount of pervious surfaces on the site and is not anticipated to increase the rate of stormwater runoff from the site. As described in Section 4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality, the project would be required to incorporate Low Impact Development (LID) stormwater treatment measures and, therefore, would not substantially increase runoff from the project site or exceed the capacity of the City’s existing storm drainage system. (Less Than Significant Impact) 4.17.2.3 Wastewater/Sanitary Sewer System As described previously, the City is well below its allotment for wastewater treatment at the WPCP. The Cupertino Sanitary District, therefore, has adequate wastewater treatment capacity for the proposed project. The existing gas station, if occupied, is estimated to generate approximately 725 gallons of sewage a day.35 The project is estimated to generate 2,000 gallons of sewage per day.36 Based on the projected sewage generation from the site and a recent flow monitoring analysis completed by the 34 Based upon an estimated per capita rate of 135 gallons per capita per day for the five-year period of 2004-2008 in the 2010 San José Water Company Urban Water Management Plan and about three residents per single family unit. 35 Sewage generation for the gas station is based on a generation rate of 0.5 gallons of sewage per day (Source: City of San José. Sewage Treatment Plan Connection Fees, Coefficients, and Rates. March 2001.) 36 SMP Engineers. Sanitary Sewer Flow Calculations. December 12, 2013. City of Cupertino 91 Initial Study 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project March 2014 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts Cupertino Sanitary District, there is sufficient capacity in the existing sanitary sewer system to serve the project.37 (Less Than Significant Impact) 4.17.2.4 Solid Waste The proposed project is estimated to generate approximately 26,800 pounds (or 13.4 tons) of solid waste per year.38 Based on the project’s estimated annual waste generation, the City’s annual waste generation, and the City’s remaining allocation at NISL, there is sufficient capacity within the City’s contract with NISL and at NISL to serve the proposed project. (Less Than Significant Impact) 4.17.3 Conclusion The utilities and service systems currently available are adequate to serve the proposed project. (Less Than Significant Impact) 37 Bowersox, Nichol. Personal communications with Cupertino Sanitary District Project Manager. December 12, 2013. 38 CalRecycle. “Residential Developments: Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates”. January 16, 2013. Accessed April 9, 2013. Available at: <http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/wastechar/WasteGenRates/Residential.htm> Based on a solid waste generation rate of 12.23 pounds per household per day. City of Cupertino 92 Initial Study 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project March 2014 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts 4.18 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Checklist Source(s) 1. Does the project have the potential to 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? p.9-94 2. 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)? p.9-94 3. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals? p.9-94 4. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? p.9-94 4.18.1 Project Impacts The proposed project, with the implementation of the mitigation measures identified in Section 4.0 of this Initial Study, would not result in significantly degrade or impact the quality of the environment. As discussed specifically in Section 4.4 Biological Resources, the project would not impact sensitive habitat or wildlife. (Less Than Significant Impact) 4.18.2 Cumulative Impacts Cumulative impacts refer to two or more individual effects which, when considered together are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts. The project would not result in impacts to agricultural and forest resources or mineral resources and therefore, would not contribute to cumulative impacts to those resources. The project would result in the removal of existing trees, but the project would plant replacement trees. Therefore, the project would not have a considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact on trees. City of Cupertino 93 Initial Study 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project March 2014 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts There are no planned or proposed development in the project area that could contribute to cumulative aesthetic, air quality (including construction-related impacts), hydrology and water quality, noise, population and housing, recreation, or utilities and service system impacts. The project’s archaeological resources and geology and soils impacts are specific to the project site and would not contribute to cumulative impacts elsewhere. The project’s cumulative impacts to greenhouse gas emissions is discussed in Section 4.7 and it was concluded that the project would have a less than significant (cumulative) greenhouse gas emissions impact. Based on the above discussion, the project would not have cumulatively considerable impacts. (Less Than Significant Impact) 4.18.3 Short-term Environmental Goals vs. Long-term Environmental Goals The project proposes to construct six residences, five of which would include a separate work space, in an urban area. The project would not result in the conversion of a greenfield site to urban uses or otherwise commit resources in a wasteful or inefficient manner. The construction phase would require the use of nonrenewable construction material, such as concrete, metals, and plastics. Nonrenewable resources and energy would also be consumed during the manufacturing and transportation of buildings materials, preparation of the site, and construction of the buildings. The operational phase would consume energy for multiple purposes including, building heating and cooling, lighting, and electronics. Energy, in the form of fossil fuels, would be used to fuel vehicles traveling to and from the project site. The project would result in an increase in demand upon nonrenewable resources; however, the project is required to comply with Residential Mandatory Measures of the California Green Building Code. The mandatory measures include water conserving plumbing fixtures and fittings, recycle and/or salvage a minimum of 50 percent of the nonhazardous construction and demolition waste for reuse, and use of low VOC paints. The project would not induce substantial job or population growth (refer to Section 4.13) or result in a large or irretrievable commitment of resources. For these reasons, the project does not have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals. (Less Than Significant Impact) 4.18.4 Direct or Indirect Adverse Effects on Human Beings Based on the analysis completed in Section 4.0 of this Initial Study, the project would not result in direct or indirect adverse effects on human beings. The project, with the implementation of the measures identified in Section 4.0, would not expose people to substantial air pollutants, geological hazards, hazardous materials, flooding, or noise. (Less Than Significant Impact) City of Cupertino 94 Initial Study 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project March 2014 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts Checklist Sources 1. Professional judgment and expertise of the environmental specialist preparing this assessment, based upon a review of the site and surrounding conditions, as well as a review of the project plans. 2. City of Cupertino. General Plan. November 2005. 3. California Department of Conservation. Santa Clara County Important Farmland 2010. Map. 4. City of Cupertino. Municipal Code. February 19, 2013. 5. California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection. Santa Clara County Williamson Act FY 2012/2013. 2012. 6. Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan. September 15, 2010. 7. Bay Area Air Quality Management District. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. May 2011. 8. Michael L. Bench, Consulting Arborist. An Evaluation of the Existing Trees at 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Cupertino, CA. March 22, 2013. 9. Holman & Associates, Archaeological Consultants. Archaeological Literature Review of 10121 North Foothill Residences Project, Cupertino, Santa Clara County, California. May 29, 2013. 10. Murray Engineers Inc. Geotechnical Investigation Foothill Residences. October 2013. 11. PIERS Environmental Services, Inc. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment. February 2013. 12. Cornerstone Earth Group. 10121 N. Foothill Boulevard Peer Review. March 25, 2013. 13. ERM. Plan to Address Redevelopment Concerns Memorandum. July 22, 2013. 14. ERM. Soil Vapor Survey Results. July 26, 2013. 15. ERM. Mitigation Plan for 10121 Foothills Blvd, Cupertino. November 15, 2013. 16. Federal Emergency Management Agency. Flood Insurance Rate Map. Panel 06085C0204H. May 18, 2009. 17. Association of Bay Area Governments. Dam Failure Inundation Hazard Map for Cupertino. Map. October 20, 2003. Available at: <http://www.abag.ca.gov/cgi-bin/pickdamx.pl> City of Cupertino 95 Initial Study 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project March 2014 Section 4.0 – Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Discussion of Impacts 18. Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. Foothill Boulevard PUD Environmental Noise Assessment. July 10, 2013. 19. Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority. Congestion Management Program, Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines. Updated March 29, 2004. 20. San José Water Company. 2010 Urban Water Management Plan. April 2011. 21. King, Rick. Personal communications with NISL General Manager. May 14, 2013. 22. Bowersox, Nichol. Personal communications with Cupertino Sanitary District Project Manager. December 12, 2013. City of Cupertino 96 Initial Study 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project March 2014 SECTION 5.0 REFERENCES Association of Bay Area Governments. Dam Failure Inundation Hazard Map for Cupertino. Map. October 20, 2003. Available at: <http://www.abag.ca.gov/cgi-bin/pickdamx.pl> Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan. September 15, 2010. ---. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. May 2011. Bay Conservation and Development Commission. Living with a Rising Bay: Vulnerability and Adaptation in San Francisco Bay and on its Shoreline. 2011. Page 28. Available at: <http://www.bcdc.ca.gov/BPA/LivingWithRisingBay.pdf> Bowersox, Nichol. Personal communications with Cupertino Sanitary District Project Manager. December 12, 2013. C. Bruce Hanson. 2010. Paleontological Evaluation Report for the Envision San José 2040 General Plan, Santa Clara County, California. California Department of Conservation, California Geologic Survey. Seismic Hazard Zones Cupertino Quadrangle. Map. September 23, 2002. Available at: <http://www.quake.ca.gov/gmaps/WH/regulatorymaps.htm>. California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection. Santa Clara County Williamson Act FY 2012/2013. 2012. California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology. Special Studies Zones Cupertino Quadrangle. Map. July 1, 1974. Available at: <http://www.quake.ca.gov/gmaps/WH/regulatorymaps.htm>. California Department of Conservation. Santa Clara County Important Farmland 2010. Map. CalRecycle. “Residential Developments: Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates”. January 16, 2013. Accessed April 9, 2013. Available at: <http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/wastechar/WasteGenRates/Residential.htm> City of Cupertino. “Fire: Santa Clara County Fire Department About County Fire”. Accessed July 18, 2013. Available at: < http://www.cupertino.org/index.aspx?page=365> ---. “Sheriff's Office West Valley Division”. Accessed July 18, 2013. Available at: <http://www.cupertino.org/index.aspx?page=364> ---. General Plan. November 2005. ---. Municipal Code. February 19, 2013. City of Cupertino 97 Initial Study 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project March 2014 Section 5.0 – References City of Milpitas. “Agreement for Treatment Plant Capacity Transfer”. 2009. Accessed: July 18. 2013. Available at: <http://www.ci.milpitas.ca.gov/_pdfs/council/2009/010609/item_17.pdf> Cornerstone Earth Group. 10121 N. Foothill Boulevard Peer Review. March 25, 2013. County of Santa Clara. Geologic Hazard Zones. Map. October 26, 2012. Cupertino Sanitary District. 2009 Annual Report. City of San José. Sewage Treatment Plan Connection Fees, Coefficients, and Rates. March 2001. ERM. Mitigation Plan for 10121 Foothills Blvd, Cupertino. November 15, 2013. ---. Plan to Address Redevelopment Concerns Memorandum. July 22, 2013. ---. Soil Vapor Survey Results. July 26, 2013. Federal Emergency Management Agency. Flood Insurance Rate Map. Panel 06085C0204H. May 18, 2009. Holman & Associates, Archaeological Consultants. Archaeological Literature Review of 10121 North Foothill Residences Project, Cupertino, Santa Clara County, California. May 29, 2013. Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. Foothill Boulevard PUD Environmental Noise Assessment. July 10, 2013. King, Rick. Personal communications with NISL General Manager. May 14, 2013. Michael L. Bench, Consulting Arborist. An Evaluation of the Existing Trees at 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Cupertino, CA. March 22, 2013. Murray Engineers Inc. Geotechnical Investigation Foothill Residences. October 2013. PIERS Environmental Services, Inc. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report. February 2013. San José Water Company. 2010 Urban Water Management Plan. April 2011. Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority. Congestion Management Program, Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines. Updated March 29, 2009. Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program. Hydromodification Management (HM) Applicability Map City of Cupertino. November 2010. Available at: <http://www.scvurppp-w2k.com/HMP_app_maps/Cupertino_HMP_Map.pdf> Santa Clara Valley Water District. “West Valley”. Accessed August 20, 2013. <http://www.valleywater.org/services/LowerPeninsula.aspx>. City of Cupertino 98 Initial Study 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project March 2014 Section 5.0 – References Schoolhouse Services. Enrollment and Fiscal Impact Analysis 20030 Stevens Creek Project. January 2012. Tables 1 & 2 (0.64 elementary and middle school students and 0.21 high school students per single family and some condominium units). State of California, Department of Finance. E-1 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties and the State with Annual Percent Change — January 1, 2012 and 2013. May 2013. Available at: <http://www.dof.ca.gov/research/demographic/reports/estimates/e-1/view.php> U.S. Census Bureau. “American Fact Finder”. Profile of General Population and Housing Characteristics: 2010, for the City of Cupertino. Accessed July 18, 2013. Available at: <http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=DEC_10 _AIAN_AIANDP1&prodType=table> U.S. Geological Survey. “Preliminary quaternary geologic maps of Santa Clara Valley, Santa Clara, Alameda, and San Mateo counties, California: A digital database”. Accessed March 21, 2013. Available at: < http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/1994/of94-231/sccomap.pdf > City of Cupertino 99 Initial Study 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project March 2014 SECTION 6.0 LEAD AGENCY AND CONSULTANTS 6.1 LEAD AGENCY City of Cupertino Community Development Department Aarti Shrivastava, Director George Schroeder, Associate Planner 6.2 CONSULTANTS David J. Powers & Associates, Inc. Environmental Consultants and Planners Nora Monette, Principal Kristy Weis, Project Manager Ryan Shum, Researcher Zach Dill, Graphic Artist Cornerstone Earth Group Hazardous Materials Consultants Ron Helm, Principal ERM Hazardous Materials Consultants Ben Leslie-Bole, Principal Fehr & Peers Transportation Consultants Ian Barnes, Transportation Engineer Katy Cole, Associate Holman & Associates Archaeological Consultants Miley Holman, Principal Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. Acoustical Consultants Michael Thill, Vice-President Michael L. Bench Consulting Arborist PIERS Environmental Services, Inc. Hazardous Materials Consultants Joel Greger, Senior Project Manager Dawn Murray, President City of Cupertino 100 Initial Study 10121 North Foothill Boulevard Live/Work Project March 2014 FOR TECHNICAL APPENDICES, PLEASE ACCESS THE FOLLOWING LINK: http://cupertino.org/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?doc umentid=7962