Kitty Moore - 3-11-2018 9-45 a.m. - H - Alternate CEQAEXHIBIT EA -1
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDINGS
AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS FOR
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE,
AND ASSOCIATED REZONING
INTRODUCTION
The City of Cupertino (City), as lead agency under the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq., has prepared the Final
Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan Amendment, Housing Element Update,
And Associated Rezoning (the "Project") (State Clearinghouse No. 2014032007) (the "Final
EIR" or "EIR"). The Final EIR is a program -level EIR pursuant to Section 15168 of the State
CEQA Guidelines.' The Final EIR consists of Volumes I and II of the June 2014 Public
Review Draft Project Environmental Impact Report (the "Draft EIR"); the August 2013
Response to Comments Document; and the November 3, 2014 Supplemental Text Revisions
memorandum,z which contains typographical corrections, insignificant modifications,
amplifications and clarifications of the EIR.
In determining to approve the Project, which is described in more detail in Section II, below,
the City makes and adopts the following findings of fact and statement of overriding
considerations, and adopts and makes conditions of project approval the mitigation
measures identified in the Final EIR, all based on substantial evidence in the whole record of
this proceeding (administrative record). Pursuant to Section 15090(a) of the State CEQA
Guidelines, the Final EIR was presented to the City Council, the City Council reviewed and
considered the information contained in the Final EIR prior to making the findings in
Sections II through XIII, below, and the City Council determined that the Final EIR reflects
the independent judgment of the City. The conclusions presented in these findings are
based on the Final FIR and other evidence in the administrative record.
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION (the "Balanced Plan")
As fully described in Chapter 3 of the Draft EIR, the Balanced Plan (also, the "Project")
involves all of the following: (1) a focused General Plan Amendment consisting of revised
city-wide development allocations for office commercial, hotel and residential uses, as well
' The State CEQA Guidelines are found at California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section
15000 et seq.
2 P1aceWorks, Supplemental Text Revisions to the General Plan Amendment, Housing Element Update
and Associated Rezoning Project Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (November 3, 2014)
("Supplemental Text Revisions").
I-1
as buildings heights and densities for Major Mixed -Use Special Areas; (2) updating the
General Plan Housing Element to accommodate the Regional Housing Needs Allocation
(RHNA) for the 2014-2022 planning period to meet the City's fair -share housing obligation
of 1,064 units; (3) amending certain Zoning and Density Bonus portions of the City's
Municipal Code to be consistent with the Housing Element and to be consistent with
requirements pertaining to emergency shelters; and (4) conforming changes to the General
Plan Land Use Map, Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map for consistency and for revisions
required by State law, and reorganization for purposes of increasing clarity and ease of use.
The increased development allocations would be allowed in specific locations throughout
the City, which are categorized as follows and are described and depicted on figures in the
EIR:
• Special Areas (including City Gateways and Nodes along major
transportation corridors);
• Study Areas;
• Other Special Areas (including Neighborhoods and Non-Residential/Mixed-
Use Special Areas); and
• Housing Element Sites
The buildout of the potential future development in these identified locations is based on a
horizon year of 2040; therefore, the EIR analyzes growth occurring between 2014 and 2040.
The 2040 horizon year is generally consistent with other key planning documents, including
Plan Bay Area, which is the Bay Area's Regional Transportation Plan/ Sustainable
Community Strategy to Senate Bill 375, the Sustainable Communities and Climate
Protection Act.
The EIR analyzed the proposed Project (which is "Land Use Alternative C")3 and three
additional alternatives (No Project Alternative, Land Use Alternative A, and Land Use
Alternative B), all at the same level of detail. The Balanced Plan is a revised version of
Alternative C consisting of the same development allocations and Housing Element sites
that were analyzed in the EIR for Alternative C, except, as described in more detail in the
next section below, that the office allocation is reduced to the amount analyzed in the EIR
for Alternative B, and the maximum height limits are reduced except at one location
(Stelling Gateway) as part of reducing the office allocation. The purpose of the revisions to
Alternative C in the Balanced Plan is to more closely achieve a balance among the project
objectives (see Section II.A, below).
3 Draft EIR, p. 2-5 (Table 2-1, footnote a).
I-2
A. General Plan Amendment
Every city and county in California is required to prepare and to adopt a comprehensive,
long-term general plan for the physical development of the county or city and, in some
cases, land outside the city or county boundaries. Government Code § 65300. The City's
current, 2000-2020 General Plan controls the area and density of commercial, office, hotel,
and residential uses built in the city through development allocations in terms of square feet
(commercial and office), rooms (hotel), and units (residential). The allocations are
geographically assigned in certain neighborhoods, commercial, and employment centers so
that private development fulfills both City goals and priorities and reduces adverse impacts
to the environment. The City allocates development potential on a project -by -project basis
to applicants for net new office and commercial square footage, hotel rooms, and/or
residential units. As a result of several recent approvals of projects, a large amount of the
current office, commercial and hotel development allocation has been granted, leaving an
inadequate pool to allocate to additional development in the city.
While the Project is not a complete revision of the City's 2000-2020 General Plan. The
current General Plan contains many goals, policies, standards, and programs that the City
and community would like to continue into the future. The Project instead focuses on
identifying and analyzing potential changes along the major transportation corridors in
Cupertino that have the greatest ability to evolve in the near future because the rest of the
city consists primarily of single-family residential neighborhoods.
The development allocations in the Balanced Plan are as follows:
Office allocation (reduced to amount in Alternative B): 2,540,231 square feet (net
increase of 2,000,000 square feet from the 2000-2020 General Plan)4
Commercial allocation (same as Alternative C): 1,343,679 square feet (net increase of
0 square feet from the 2000-2020 General Plan)5
4 The Alternative C proposed office allocation is 4,040,231 square feet (net increase from 2000-
2020 General Plan of 3,500,000 square feet).
5 The EIR provided an analysis for the commercial development allocation of 1,343,679 square
feet for Alternative C, which is an increase in commercial development allocation of 642,266 square
feet over the remaining allocation of 701,413 square feet in the 2020 General Plan; however, the
additional 642,266 square footage does not constitute a net increase in commercial development in
Cupertino during the planning period of the General Plan Amendment (through 2040). That is
because the entire 642,266 square feet of the increased allocation would come from demolition of
Vallco Shopping Center and rebuilding and/or relocating that existing commercial square footage to
other sites. Due to the high vacancy rate at the Vallco Shopping Mall under existing conditions,
however, the EIR conservatively analyzed the total commercial development allocation of 1,343,679
square feet (642,266 existing square feet + 701,413 new square feet).
I-3
• Hotel allocation (same as Alternative C): 1,339 rooms (net increase of 1,000 rooms
from the 2000-2020 General Plan)
• Residential allocation (same as Alternative C): 4,421 units (net increase of 2,526 units
from the 2000-2020 General Plan)
As shown above, these development allocations consist of a balance among the
development allocations in Alternatives B and C. The recommended heights are lower than
those studied in Alternative C, however. In most Special Areas the Balanced Plan would
have the same height limits as Alternative B, but in one case (South De Anza Avenue) the
height limits would be the same as Alternative A. See Land Use and Community Design
Element, Table LU -2.
The Balanced Plan provides a better balance of land uses than the Alternative C or any of
the other alternatives due to the fact that the office/commercial—to-residential balance is
even better than that in Alternative B, which had the lowest VMT of all of the alternatives
studied in the EIR. However, it will continue to have significant avoidable impacts for
traffic, air quality and noise even after incorporation of all feasible mitigation measures.
The majority of the Balanced Plan is located in the City's Special Areas as identified in the
current General Plan. The development allocations can generally be used in Special Areas,
Study Areas, Housing Element Sites and Other Special Areas; however, hotel development
allocations may not be used in Other Special Areas. The boundaries and proposed changes
within each Special Area, Study Area and Other Special Area are described in detail in
Section 3.7 (Project Components) of Chapter 3 (Project Description) of the Draft EIR.
B. Housing Element Update
The Balanced Plan includes a comprehensive update to the City's Housing Element (the
"2014-2022 Housing Element") in compliance with State law. The Housing Element's
policies and programs are intended to guide the City's housing efforts through the 2014 to
2022 Housing Element period. The 2014-2022 Housing Element keeps many of the existing
policies and strategies in the 2007-2014 Housing Element and revises them to conform to
changes in State law or based on a critical evaluation of the programs and policies. The
Housing Element assesses housing needs for all income groups and establishes a program
to meet these needs. The policies and strategies have also been reorganized to provide for
better readability and to eliminate redundancies.
State law requires each jurisdiction to address how it will satisfy the quantified objectives
for new residential units as represented by the Regional Housing Needs Allocation
(RHNA). The RHNA identifies Cupertino's housing needs by income levels. The City's
housing needs allocation for the period 2014 to 2022 is 1,064 new housing units. The
income levels are separated into four categories: very low, low, moderate and above
moderate, shown in Draft EIR Table 3-20. Draft EIR, p. 3-66. State law allows jurisdictions
I-4
to take credit for residential projects that have been approved, building permits issued
during the plan period in which the review is taking place, and second dwelling units (also
known as accessory dwelling units) that are anticipated to be constructed during the plan
period.
The City has issued entitlements and/or building permits for 30 units since January 1, 2014.
Additionally, it is anticipated that because 32 second units (on single-family lots) were
constructed in the 2007-2014 plan period, 32 second units will be constructed in the current
plan period as well. Therefore, the City can take credit for a total of 62 units (30 units
approved and 32 second units anticipated). As a result, the City is required to identify sites
for the construction of 1,064 minus 62 units, or 1,002 units.
To accommodate the current planning period's RHNA, the Available Land Inventory in the
Draft 2014-2022 Housing Element identified 19 potential housing sites, which are analyzed
in the EIR. The State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD)
generally requires jurisdictions to show a surplus of sites/units in order to guarantee that
the City could realistically accommodate the RHNA allocations. Of the original 19 sites
identified in the Draft EIR, 12 remain for consideration.6 Approximately 2,085 units could
be accommodated on these 12 sites. Draft EIR, Table 3-21, pp. 3-68 to 3-70 and City Council
Staff Report for November 10, 2-14 (Table 3). The maximum number for the residential
allocation pursuant to the Balanced Plan is 4,421 units, which allows for net new
development of 2,526 units above the current General Plan buildout.
HCD generally requires jurisdictions to show a surplus of sites/units in order to guarantee
that the RHNA realistically can be accommodated. Based on consultation with HCD and
the City's housing consultant expert, it is anticipated that HCD will require sites to
accommodate units equivalent to a moderate surplus, between 25% and 40% above the
City's housing need, or approximately between 1,250 and 1,400 units. Of the 12 identified
sites, the City Council has directed staff to submit six sites to HCD for review as to their
adequacy under State Planning and Zoning Law. These six sites can accommodate 1,386
units.
6 Of the 19 studied in the EIR, only 12 sites are available for selection. That is because the
largest property owner associated with the IntrahealthNalley Church etc. site on Stelling Road, and
the owners of two of the three parcels at Cypress Building/Hall property site notified the City that
their properties should not be included in the Housing Sites Inventory. The property owner of a small
portion of Shan Restaurant/Q-Mart/China Dance indicated that their parcel should not be included in
the Housing Sites Inventory, the resulting reduction in size does not result in a significant change in
the size of the site and the balance of the site is included as an Alternate Site. While the property
owner of 40% of the Arya/Scandinavian Design site indicated that their property should be removed
from the Housing Sites Inventory, this site was already recommended for removal in the Balanced
Plan. In addition, four other sites were removed from consideration.
I-5
The means of achieving the development of these units are provided for in the policies and
programs described in the Housing Element. The City's quantified objectives are identified
in Table 3.4 of the Housing Element. The City is not obligated to construct the housing
units identified by the RHNA. Rather, the City is required to demonstrate adequate
capacity for 1,064 housing units by identifying sufficient specific sites in order to satisfy the
RHNA under existing zoning and land use policy.
In addition to analyzing the 2014-2022 Housing Element for the specified planning
period, the Final EIR analyzes the overall environmental effects of increasing housing units
on a citywide basis to address, which is necessary the address the two future housing
elements that are expected to be adopted during the period between 2014 and General Plan
Amendment horizon year of 2040. The Plan Bay Area (the Bay Area Regions Sustainability
Communities Strategy and Regional Transportation Plan) identifies that the City of
Cupertino's housing need by 2040 will be 4,421 units. Therefore, w h i 1 e the Housing
Element only identifies the potential for development of 1,064 units on six Available
Land Inventory housing sites, the Balanced Plan also adds 2,526 units to the City's current
residential development allocation for a total of 4,421 units, the impacts of which are
analyzed in the EIR.
C. Conforming General Plan Amendments, Zoning Amendments, and
Density Bonus Amendments
As part of the Housing Element update process, Chapter 19.56 (Density Bonus) in Title 19
(Zoning) of the City's Municipal Code will be amended to be consistent with the 2007-2014
Housing Element Program 12 (Density Bonus Program). Chapter 19.20 (Permitted,
Conditional and Excluded Uses in Agricultural and Residential Zones), Chapter 19.76
(Public Building (BA), Quasi -Public Building (BQ) and Transportation (T) Zones), and
Chapter 19.84 (Permitted, Conditional And Excluded Uses In Open Space, Park And
Recreation And Private Recreation Zoning Districts), also in Title 19 (Zoning) of the City's
Municipal Code, will be amended to ensure conformance with SB 2 requirements pertaining
to permanent emergency shelters and to comply with the State Employee Housing Act with
respect to farmworker housing and employee housing. In addition, Program 17 of the
Housing Element, which addresses the potential loss of multi -family housing and
displacement of lower- and moderate -income households due to new development, will be
amended to comply with recent legislation and to mitigate the potential displacement
impacts to renters (e.g. tenant relocation benefits).
The Balanced Plan also includes revisions to the General Plan Land Use Map, Zoning
Ordinance (including the Chapters listed above and 19.08 (Definitions) and 19.144
(Development Agreements), and the Zoning map to ensure consistency with the General
Plan as a result of changes to Housing Element policies or to address changes required as a
result of State legislation adopted since the last General Plan update (such as Assembly Bill
I-6
1358, Complete Streets), and as a result of bringing non -conforming land uses into
conformance with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance.
D. Project Objectives
The project objectives are as follows:
Emphasize employment and a mix of economic development opportunities by
replenishing, reallocating, and increasing city-wide office, commercial, and hotel,
allocations in order to capture:
A share of the regional demand for office and hotel development, and
Retail sales tax leakage in the trade area.
Address local needs and regional requirements for new housing, including
affordable housing, in Cupertino by replenishing, re -allocating and increasing city-
wide residential allocations to be consistent with 2040 Bay Area Plan projections to
allow flexibility for the city when future state -mandated updates are required to the
Housing Element.
• Update the Housing Element as required by State law.
• Creating opportunities for mixed-use development consistent with Regional
Sustainable Communities Strategies for greenhouse gas emissions reductions as
required by SB 375.
• Investing in improvement to adapt to climate change over time.
• Consider increased heights in key nodes and gateways, if proposed development
provides retail development and benefits directly to the community.
• Update General Plan policies to implement multi -modal traffic standards as opposed
to LOS thresholds currently identified. Balancing development objectives with
transportation constraints and opportunities.
• Revitalize the Vallco Shopping District by adopting policies to support its
redevelopment, so it becomes a cohesive, vibrant shopping and entertainment
destination that serves both the region and the local community.
III. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS
A. Environmental Impact Report
On March 5, 2014, the City circulated a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of the Draft EIR to the
Office of Planning and Research (OPR) State Clearinghouse and interested agencies and
I-7
persons. A postcard notice had previously been delivered in February 2014 to all postal
addresses in the City to announce upcoming dates for the General Plan and Housing
Element projects. The NOP was circulated for comment by responsible and trustee agencies
and interested parties for a total of 30 days, from March 5, 2014 through April 7, 2014,
during which time the City held a public scoping meeting on March 11, 2014. Comments on
the NOP were received by the City and considered during preparation of the Draft EIR.
The Draft EIR was made available for review by the public and interested parties, agencies,
and organizations for a 45 -day comment period starting on June 18, 2014 and ending
August 1, 2014. The Draft EIR was distributed to local, regional and State agencies. Copies
of the Draft EIR in paper or electronic format were available to interested parties for
purchase or review at Cupertino City Hall. The Draft EIR was also available for review at
libraries in the City and in surrounding communities, and an electronic version of the Draft
EIR and all appendices were posted on a website the City created for the combined General
Plan and Housing Element projects at www.cuptertinogpa.org, which included an
electronic comment portal to receive public comment 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
The City continues to make these documents available on its website for the Project at the
following URL: http://www.cul2ertinogpa.org/app folders/view/1. The public was also
invited to submit written comments on the Draft EIR to the City of Cupertino Community
Development Department by mail or e-mail to planning@cupertino.org.
Notice of availability of the Draft EIR was made in several ways. The City sent a postcard
announcing the availability of the Draft EIR and inviting attendance at the Draft EIR
comment meeting to all postal addresses in Cupertino. In addition, in accordance with
CEQA, the City posted the Notice of Availability (NOA) on the Project website. The City
also sent emails providing notice of the Draft EIR's availability to all persons who had
indicated an interest in the Project and signed up for notifications through the City's
website. The local media publicized the availability of the Draft EIR and the public
comment period.
The City held a Community Open House and EIR Comment Meeting during the comment
period on June 24, 2014. The City solicited written comments at the meeting by distributing
comment cards that were collected at the end of the evening.
The 45 -day comment period on the Draft EIR ended on August 1, 2014 at 4:30 p.m.
Agencies, organizations, and members of the public submitted written comments on the
Draft EIR. The Responses to Comments Document, which is the third volume of the Final
EIR, was issued for public review on August 28, 2014 and sent to public agencies who had
commented on the Draft EIR. Chapter 5 of the Responses to Comments Document provides
responses to the comments received during the comment period on the Draft EIR. Late
comments received after the close of the public comment period have been addressed in
memoranda submitted to the City Council.
no
On September 9, 2014, the Planning Commission held a Study Session on the EIR and took
public comments. On October 7, 2014, the City Council held a Study Session on the Final
EIR and took public comments.
On October 2, 2014, the Environmental Review Committee determined that the EIR was
adequate and recommended that the City Council certify the EIR. On October 20, 2014,
following a duly noticed public hearing on October 14, 2014 that was continued on October
20, 2014, the City Planning Commission, recommended that the City Council certify the
Final EIR.
B. Additional Housing Element Public Review Process
The Housing Element must identify community involvement and decision-making
processes and techniques that constitute affirmative steps for receiving input from all
economic segments of the community, especially low-income persons and their
representatives, as well as from other members of the community. Public participation,
pursuant to Section 65583(c)(8) of the Government Code, was accomplished in a variety of
ways. Outreach was conducted in the form of in-person interviews with stakeholders
including several housing -related non -profits and organizations that provide services to low
income families and individuals in the City; and with parties interested in the Housing
Element process, including property owners and community groups such as the Concerned
Citizens of Cupertino and neighborhood groups. Below are some examples of outreach and
noticing conducted as part of the Housing Element update.
• Notice postcard sent to every postal address in the City.
• Joint Housing Commission and Planning Commission workshop - January 23, 2014
• Housing Commission Workshop - February 12, 2014
• Open House - February 19, 2014, September 16, 2014
• Study Session held with Planning Commission - February 19, 2014
• Study Session held with City Council - March 3, 2014
• Housing Commission meeting on housing policy - March 19, 2014
• Joint Planning Commission/City meeting on housing policy - April 1, 2014
• Newspaper notices.
• Notices sent to all prospective housing element site property owners prior to City
Council authorization to commence environmental review.
I-9
• Notices sent to all prospective housing element site property owners prior to
Planning Commission and City Council prioritization of the sites for HCD review.
• Webpage hosted focusing on the Housing Element Update process.
• Notice of website additions and Workshop reminders e-mailed to over 300 Housing
Element website subscribers.
Staff presentations at the Chamber of Commerce.
Housing Commission Meeting — August 28, 2014
Planning Commission Hearing — October 14, 2014 and October 20, 2014
The City's outreach also included stakeholder meetings with non-profit and for-profit
housing developers, building industry trade groups, architects, planners, and affordable
housing funders. The Housing Element update process in the City has involved a number of
groups and individuals in the process of reviewing current housing conditions and needs
and considering potential housing strategies. Two public workshops were held at Housing
Commission meeting and at a Joint Planning Commission Housing Commission meeting. In
addition, one publicly noticed Planning Commission Study Session was held and included
opportunity for public comment. Feedback from these study sessions and public workshops
was used to identify needs, assess constraints and develop draft programs for the Housing
Element update, and are included in Section 1.3 of Appendix A of the General Plan.
IV. FINDINGS
The findings, recommendations, and statement of overriding considerations set forth below
(the "Findings") are made and adopted by the Cupertino City Council as the City's findings
under CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines relating to the Project. The Findings provide
the written analysis and conclusions of this City Council regarding the Project's
environmental impacts, mitigation measures, alternatives to the Project, and the overriding
considerations that support approval of the Project despite any remaining environmental
effects it may have.
These findings summarize the environmental determinations of the Final EIR with regard to
project impacts before and after mitigation, and do not attempt to repeat the full analysis of
each environmental impact contained in the Final EIR. Instead, these findings provide a
summary description of and basis for each impact conclusion identified in the Final EIR,
describe the applicable mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR, and state the City's
findings and rationale about the significance of each impact following the adoption of
mitigation measures. A full explanation of these environmental findings and conclusions
can be found in the Final EIR, and these findings hereby incorporate by reference the
discussion and analysis in the Final EIR supporting the Final EIR's determinations
regarding mitigation measures and the Project's impacts.
I-10
When evaluating cumulative impacts, CEQA allows the use of either a list of past, present,
and probable future projects, including projects outside the control of the lead agency, or a
summary of projections in an adopted planning document. The cumulative impacts
analysis in the Final EIR uses the projections approach and takes into account growth from
the Project within the Cupertino city boundary and Sphere of Influence (SOI), in
combination with impacts from projected growth in the rest of Santa Clara County and the
surrounding region, as forecast by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG).
In adopting mitigation measures, below, the City intends to adopt each of the mitigation
measures identified in the Final EIR. Accordingly, in the event a mitigation measure
identified in the Final EIR has been inadvertently omitted from these findings, such
mitigation measure is hereby adopted and incorporated into the Project in the findings
below by reference. In addition, in the event the language of a mitigation measure set forth
below fails to accurately reflect the mitigation measure in the Final EIR due to a clerical
error, the language of the mitigation measure as set forth in the Final EIR shall control
unless the language of the mitigation measure has been specifically and expressly modified
by these findings.
Sections V and VI, below, provide brief descriptions of the impacts that the Final EIR
identifies as either significant and unavoidable or less than significant with adopted
mitigation. These descriptions also reproduce the full text of the mitigation measures
identified in the Final EIR for each significant impact.
V. SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS AND
DISPOSITION OF RELATED MITIGATION MEASURES RESULTING IN
SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS
The Final EIR identifies the following significant and unavoidable adverse impacts
associated with the approval of the Project, some of which can be reduced, although not to a
less -than -significant level, through implementation of mitigation measures identified in the
Final EIR. Public Resources Code § 21081(a)(1). In some cases, the City cannot require or
control implementation of mitigation measures for certain impacts because they are within
the responsibility and jurisdiction of other public agencies. Public Resources Code §
21081(a)(2). Therefore, as explained below, some impacts will remain significant and
unavoidable notwithstanding adoption of feasible mitigation measures. To the extent that
these mitigation measures will not mitigate or avoid all significant effects on the
environment, and because the City cannot require mitigation measures that are within the
responsibility and jurisdiction of other public agencies to be adopted or implemented by
those agencies, it is hereby determined that any remaining significant and unavoidable
adverse impacts are acceptable for the reasons specified in Section XII, below. Public
Resources Code § 21081(a)(3). As explained in Section IX, below, the findings in this Section
V are based on the Final EIR, the discussion and analysis in which is hereby incorporated in
full by this reference.
A. Impact AQ -1: Implementation of the Project would conflict with or
obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan.
The Final EIR finds that while the Project would support the primary goals of the 2010 Bay
Area Clean Air Plan, the buildout of the Project would conflict with the BAAQMD Bay Area
Clean Air Plan goal for community -wide VMT to increase at a slower rate compared to
population and employment growth. The rate of growth in VMT would exceed the rate of
population and employment growth, resulting in a substantial increase in regional criteria
air pollutant emissions in Cupertino.
There are no mitigation measures to reduce this impact to a less -than -significant level.
Policies and development standards in the Project would lessen the impact, but due to the
level of growth forecast in the city and the programmatic nature of the Project, the impact
would be significant and unavoidable.
B. Impact AQ -2: Implementation of the Project would violate any air quality
standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality
violation.
The Final EIR finds that future development under the Project would result in a substantial
long-term increase in criteria air pollutants over the 26 -year General Plan horizon. Criteria
air pollutant emissions would be generated from on-site area sources (e.g., fuel used for
landscaping equipment, consumer products), vehicle trips generated by the project, and
energy use (e.g., natural gas used for cooking and heating). Because cumulative
development within the City of Cupertino could exceed the regional significance thresholds,
the Project could contribute to an increase in health effects in the basin until such time as the
attainment standards are met in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB). The
impact is considered significant and unavoidable.
Implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ -2a and AQ -2b, set forth below, which are
hereby adopted and incorporated into the Project, would reduce these impacts, but not to a
less -than -significant level. Due to the programmatic nature of the Project, no additional
mitigation measures are available beyond Mitigation Measures AQ -2a and AQ -2b;
therefore, the impact would be significant and unavoidable.
Mitigation Measure AQ -2a:
As part of the City's development approval process, the City shall require applicants for future
development projects to comply with the current Bay Area Air Quality Management District's basic
control measures for reducing construction emissions of PM10.
I-12
Mitigation Measure AQ -2b:
As part of the City's development approval process, the City shall require applicants for future
development projects that could generate emissions in excess of the Bay Area Air Quality
Management District's (BAAQMDs) current significance thresholds during construction, as
determined by project -level environmental review, when applicable, to implement the current
BAAQMD construction mitigation measures (e.g. Table 8-3 of the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines) or
any construction mitigation measures subsequently adopted by the BAAQMD.
C. Impact AQ -3: Implementation of the Project would result in a cumulatively
considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project
region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air
quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative
thresholds for ozone precursors).
The Final EIR finds that the Project will combine with regional growth within the air basin
to result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of pollutants for the SFBAAB, which is
currently designated a nonattainment area for California and National Os, California and
National PM2.5, and California PM10 ambient air quality standards (AAQS). Any project that
produces a significant regional air quality impact in an area that is in nonattainment adds to
the cumulative impact. Mitigation measures AQ -2a and AQ -2b, set forth and incorporated
above, would reduce impacts to the extent feasible, but the Project's impacts would remain
significant and unavoidable.
There are no mitigation measures to reduce the impact to a less -than -significant level. Air
pollutant emissions associated with the Project would result in a cumulatively considerable
contribution to air quality impacts, and the Project's impacts would be significant and
unavoidable.
D. Impact AQ -6: Implementation of the Project would cumulatively
contribute to air quality impacts in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin.
As described in the discussion of Impact AQ -3, the Final EIR finds that regional air quality
impacts will be significant. Implementation of the Project, in combination with past,
present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, would result in a significant cumulative impact
with respect to air quality even with the applicable regulations, as well as the Mitigation
Measures AQ -2a, AQ -2b, AQ -4a and AQ -4b and the General Plan policies outlined in
Impact AQ -1 through AQ -5. Therefore, this cumulative impact would be significant and
unavoidable.
There are no mitigation measures to reduce the impact to a less -than -significant level.
Implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ -2a, AQ -2b, AQ -4a and AQ -4b and the General
Plan policies outlined in Impact AQ -1 through AQ -5, would lessen the impact, but not to a
less -then -significant level. Because the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin is currently
I-13
designated as a nonattainment area for California and National 03, California and National
PM2.5, and California PM10 AAQS , the Project's cumulative impact would be significant and
unavoidable.
E. Impact NOISE -3: Implementation of the Project would result in a
substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the Project
vicinity above levels existing without the Project.
The Final EIR finds that implementation of the Project would have a significant impact if it
results in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing without the Project. The Final EIR anticipates that there would be
substantial permanent increases to ambient noise levels throughout Cupertino as a result of
implementation of the Project and ongoing regional growth, and that these increases would
result primarily from increases in transportation -related noise, especially noise from
automobile traffic.
Although the Project contains policies that could in certain cases reduce or prevent
significant increases in ambient noise at sensitive land uses upon implementation (e.g.,
noise -reducing technologies, rubberized asphalt, soundwalls, berms, and improved
building sound -insulation), the measures described in these policies would not be
universally feasible, and some of the most effective noise -attenuation measures, including
sound walls and berms, would be infeasible or inappropriate in a majority of locations
where sensitive land uses already exist.
There are no mitigation measures to reduce the impact to a less -than -significant level. All
conceivable mitigations would be either economically impractical, scientifically
unachievable, outside the City's jurisdiction, and/or inconsistent with City planning goals
and objectives. Therefore, even after the application of relevant, feasible regulations and
General Plan policies, the impact to ambient noise levels would remain significant and
unavoidable.
F. Impact NOISE -5: Implementation of the Project, in combination with past,
present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, would result in significant
cumulative impacts with respect to noise.
The Final EIR finds that the analysis of the Project, as described in the discussions of Impact
NOISE -3, addresses cumulative noise impacts from implementation of the Project. Similarly,
the noise contours and traffic -related noise levels developed for the Project include and
account for regional travel patterns as they affect traffic levels in the City. Thus, the future
noise modeling which served as the foundation for the overall Project analysis was based on
future, cumulative conditions, and finds that implementation of the Project would result in
significant cumulative impacts.
I-14
The Final EIR finds that even after the application of pertinent policies and strategies of the
General Plan Amendment cumulative noise impacts of the Project, as described in the
discussion of Impact NOISE -3, would remain significant and unavoidable. Thus,
implementation of the Project would result in a significant and unavoidable cumulative
impact with respect to noise.
There are no feasible mitigation measures to reduce the impact to a less -than -significant
level. As explained in the discussion of Impact NOISE -3, all conceivable cumulative noise
mitigations would be economically impractical, scientifically unachievable, outside the
City's jurisdiction, and/or inconsistent with City planning goals and objectives, and would
be infeasible. Therefore, even after the application of relevant, feasible regulations and
General Plan policies, the cumulative impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
G. Impact TRAF-1: Implementation of the Project would 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.
The Final EIR finds that implementation of the Project would generate additional motor
vehicle trips on the local roadway network, resulting in significant impacts to sixteen (16)
out of 41 study intersections during at least one of the AM or PM peak hours. See Draft EIR,
Table 4.13-13.7
Implementation of Mitigation Measure TRAF-1, set forth below, which is hereby adopted
and incorporated into the Project, would secure a funding mechanism for future roadway
and infrastructure improvements that are necessary to mitigate impacts from future projects
based on then current standards, but not to a less -than -significant level. Impacts would
remain significant and unavoidable because the City cannot guarantee improvements at
these intersections at this time. This is in part because the nexus study has yet to be
prepared and because some of the impacted intersections are within the jurisdiction of the
City of Sunnyvale, the City of Santa Clara, and Caltrans. The City will continue to cooperate
with these jurisdictions to identify improvements that would reduce or minimize the
impacts to intersections and roadways as a result of implementation of future development
projects in Cupertino, but, because many of the improvements in Mitigation Measure TRAF-
1 are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of other agencies and not the City of
Cupertino, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
7 Following completion of the Draft EIR, the impacts to Intersection #29 were
determined to be less -than -significant rather than significant. See Supplemental Text
Revisions Memo.
I-15
Mitigation Measure TRAF-1:
The City of Cupertino shall commit to preparing and implementing a Transportation Mitigation Fee
Program to guarantee funding for roadway and infrastructure improvements that are necessary to
mitigate impacts from future projects based on the then current City standards. As part of the
preparation of the Transportation Mitigation Fee Program, the City shall also commit to preparing a
"nexus" study that will serve as the basis for requiring development impact fees under AB 1600
legislation, as codified by California Code Government Section 66000 et seq., to support
implementation of the Project. The established procedures under AB 1600 require that a "reasonable
relationship" or nexus exist between the transportation improvements and facilities required to
mitigate the transportation impacts of new development pursuant to the Project. The following
examples of transportation improvements and facilities would reduce impacts to acceptable level of
service standards and these, among other improvements, could be included in the development impact
fees nexus study:
♦ SR 85 Northbound Ramps and Stevens Creek Boulevard 02): An exclusive left -turn lane
for the northbound leg of the intersection (freeway off -ramp) at the intersection of SR 85 and
Stevens Creek Boulevard would result in one left -turn lane, one all -movement lane, and one right
turn lane. The additional lane could be added within the existing Caltrans right-of-way.
♦ Stelling Road and Stevens Creek Boulevard 03): The addition of a second exclusive left -turn
lane for the eastbound leg of the intersection from Stevens Creek Boulevard to northbound
Stelling Road, which could be accomplished by reworking the median. Right turns would share
the bike lane.
♦ Sunnyvale -Saratoga Road/De Anza Boulevard and Homestead Road 05): Widen De
Anza Boulevard to four lanes in each direction or the installation of triple left -turn lanes.
♦ De Anza Boulevard and I-280 Northbound Ramp 06): Restriping of De Anza Boulevard in
the southbound direction to provide room for right turn vehicles to be separated from through
traffic may be required. The bike lane would be maintained, and right turns would occur from the
bike lane. The right turns would continue to be controlled by the signal and would need to yield
to pedestrians.
♦ De Anza Boulevard and Stevens Creek Boulevard 08): Restripe westbound Stevens Creek
Boulevard to provide room for right turn vehicles to be separated from through vehicles may be
required. The right turn vehicles will share the bike lane and will still be controlled by the traffic
signal. Paint a bike box at the front of the lane to provide bikes a place to wait at red lights. The
pedestrian crossings will not be affected may enhance the bicycling experience.
♦ De Anza Boulevard and McClellan Road/Pacifica Drive 09): Realign the intersection that
is currently offset resulting in inefficient signal timing such that the McClellan Road and
I-16
Pacifica Drive legs are across from each other may be required. In addition, double left turn lanes
may be required to be added to De Anza Boulevard with sections of double lanes on McClellan
Road and Pacifica Drive to receive the double left turn lanes. These improvements will require the
acquisition of right-of-way and demolition of existing commercial buildings. However, some
existing right-of-way could be abandoned, which would reduce the net right-of-way take.
♦ Wolfe Road and Homestead Road (#16): The addition of a third southbound through lane to
the southbound approach of the intersection of Wolfe Road and Homestead Road may be required,
as well as the addition of a southbound exclusive right -turn lane. Three southbound receiving
lanes on the south side of the intersection currently exist. An additional westbound through lane
for a total of three through -movement lanes, an additional receiving lane on Homestead
westbound to receive the additional through lane, as well as the addition of a westbound exclusive
right -turn lane may be required. This will require widening Homestead Road. An additional
eastbound through lane for a total of three through -movement lanes, an additional receiving lane
on Homestead eastbound to receive the additional through lane, as well as the addition of an
eastbound exclusive left -turn lane for a total of two left -turn lanes may be required. These
improvements will require the acquisition of right-of-way and demolition of parking areas.
♦ Wolfe Road and I-280 Northbound Ramp (#18): The Apple Campus 2 project will be adding
a third northbound through lane starting at the northbound on ramp. This third lane will need to
be extended farther south to effectively serve the additional northbound traffic due to the General
Plan development. This could require widening the Wolfe Road overcrossing. Right-of-way
acquisition may be required. In accordance with Caltrans procedures, a Project Study Report
(PSR) will need to be prepared. The PSR will look at all interchange improvement options, which
may include widening the overcrossing and may also include a redesign of the interchange to go
from a partial cloverleaf design to a diamond design. This could help with heavy volumes in the
right lane, which contributes to the level -of -service deficiency.
♦ Wolfe Road and I-280 Southbound Ramp 019): An additional through lane for a total of
three through -movement lanes for the northbound leg of the intersection at the Wolfe Road and 1-
280 Southbound Ramp may be required. This additional northbound through lane would require
widening to the freeway overcrossing. In addition to widening the overcrossing, the City may
wish to pursue a redesign of the interchange to go from a partial cloverleaf design to a diamond
design. This could help with the problem of heavy volume in the right lane, which contributes to
the level of service deficiency.
♦ Wolfe Road/Miller Avenue and Stevens Creek Boulevard (#21): The restriping of the
westbound leg of the intersection to provide room so that right turn vehicles can be separated
from through vehicles may be required. Right turn vehicles would share the bike lane. Right turn
vehicles would still be controlled by the signal, and pedestrian crossings would not be affected.
Paint a bike box at the front of the lane to provide bikes a place to wait at red lights may enhance
the bicycling experience.
I-17
♦ North Tantau Avenue/Quail Avenue and Homestead Road (#24): Restriping of the
southbound leg of the intersection (Quail Avenue) to provide a separate left turn lane may be
required. This will require the removal of on -street parking near the intersection. The level -of -
service calculations show that with implementation of these improvements, the intersection
would operate at an acceptable LOS D.
♦ Tantau Avenue and Stevens Creek Boulevard (#27): The addition of a separate left -turn lane
to northbound Tantau Avenue may be required. Right-of-way acquisition and demolition of
existing commercial buildings would be required.
♦ Stevens Creek Boulevard and Agilent Technologies Driveway 030): The restriping of the
westbound leg of the intersection to provide room so that right turn vehicles can be separated
from through vehicles may be required. Right turn vehicles would share the bike lane. Right turn
vehicles would still be controlled by the signal, and pedestrian crossings would not be affected.
Paint a bike box at the front of the lane to provide bikes a place to wait at red lights may enhance
the bicycling experience.
♦ Lawrence Expressway Southbound Ramp and Stevens Creek Boulevard (CMP,
County)(#31): The addition of a second right -turn lane for the southbound leg of the intersection
at the Lawrence Expressway Southbound Ramp and Stevens Creek Boulevard may be required.
Both lanes would need to be controlled by the signal, and disallow right turns on red. Right-of-
way acquisition may be required.
♦ Lawrence Expressway Northbound Ramp and Stevens Creek Boulevard (CMP, County)
(#32): Redesign of the northbound leg of the intersection at the Lawrence Expressway
Northbound Ramp and Stevens Creek Boulevard to provide one through -movement lane, and one
exclusive right -turn lane may be required. Right-of-way acquisition would be required.
The fees shall be assessed when there is new construction, an increase in square footage in an existing
building, or the conversion of existing square footage to a more intensive use. The fees collected shall
be applied toward circulation improvements and right-of-way acquisition. The fees shall be calculated
by multiplying the proposed square footage, dwelling unit, or hotel room by the appropriate rate.
Traffic mitigation fees shall be included with any other applicable fees payable at the time the building
permit is issued. The City shall use the traffic mitigation fees to fund construction (or to recoup fees
advanced to fund construction) of the transportation improvements identified above, among other
things that at the time of potential future development may be warranted to mitigate traffic impacts.
H. Impact TRAF 2: Implementation of the Project would 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.
I-18
The Final EIR finds that of the 41 intersections studied in the EIR traffic analysis, 21 are
included in Santa Clara County's Congestion Management Program (CMP). See Table 4.3-
13, Draft EIR. The Project would result in significant impacts to 11 CMP intersections
during at least one of the peak hours. Implementation of Mitigation Measure TRAF-1, set
forth and incorporated above, would reduce these impacts, but not to a less -than -significant
level.
Mitigation Measure:
Implement Mitigation Measure TRAF-1.
As described in the discussion of Impact TRAF-1, because many of the improvements in
Mitigation Measure TRAF-1 are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of other agencies
and not the City of Cupertino, these impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.
I. Impact TRAF-6: Implementation of the Project, in combination with past,
present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, would result in additional
cumulatively considerable impacts.
The Final EIR finds that the analysis of the Project, as described in the discussions of Impact
TRAF-1 and Impact TRAF-2, addresses cumulative impacts to the transportation network in
the city and its surroundings; accordingly, cumulative impacts would be the same as
Project -specific impacts. Therefore, the cumulative impacts to the City's transportation
network resulting from the Project would be significant and unavoidable.
Mitigation Measure:
Implement Mitigation Measure TRAF-1.
As discussed under TRAF-1, because many of the improvements in Mitigation Measure
TRAF-1 are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of other agencies and not the City of
Cupertino, this cumulative impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
VI. SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACTS IDENTIFIED IN THE FINAL EIR THAT
ARE REDUCED TO A LESS -THAN -SIGNIFICANT LEVEL BY MITIGATION
MEASURES ADOPTED AND INCORPORATED INOT THE PROJECT
The Final EIR identifies the following significant impacts associated with the Project. It is
hereby determined that the impacts addressed by these mitigation measures will be
mitigated to a less than significant level or avoided by adopting and incorporating these
mitigation measures conditions into the Project. Public Resources Code § 21081(a)(1). As
explained in Section IX, below, the findings in this Section VI are based on the Final EIR, the
discussion and analysis in which is hereby incorporated in full by this reference.
I-19
A. Impact AQ -4: Implementation of the Project would expose sensitive
receptors to substantial concentrations of air pollution.
The Final EIR finds that the Project could result in locating sensitive receptors in proximity
to major sources of air pollution or the siting of new sources of air pollution in proximity to
sensitive receptors in the city. Nonresidential land uses that generate truck trips may
generate substantial quantities of air pollutants within 1,000 feet of off-site sensitive
receptors. In addition, proposed sensitive land uses in Cupertino may be within 1,000 feet
of major sources of air pollutants, which would create a significant and unavoidable impact.
Implementation of the Mitigation Measures AQ -4a and AQ -4b, set forth below, which are
hereby adopted and incorporated into the Project, would reduce this impact to a less -than -
significant level.
Mitigation Measure AQ -4a:
Applicants for future non-residential land uses within the city that: 1) have the potential to generate
100 or more diesel truck trips per day or have 40 or more trucks with operating diesel -powered
Transport Refrigeration Units (TRUs), and 2) are within 1,000 feet of a sensitive land use (e.g.
residential, schools, hospitals, nursing homes), as measured from the property line of the Project to
the property line of the nearest sensitive use, shall submit a health risk assessment (HRA) to the City
of Cupertino prior to future discretionary Project approval. The HRA shall be prepared in accordance
with policies and procedures of the State Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment and the
Bay Area Air Quality Management District. If the HRA shows that the incremental cancer risk
exceeds ten in one million (10E-06), PM2.5 concentrations exceed 0.3 yg/m3, or the appropriate
noncancer hazard index exceeds 1.0, the applicant will be required to identify and demonstrate that
Best Available Control Technologies for Toxics (T-BACTs) are capable of reducing potential cancer
and noncancer risks to an acceptable level, including appropriate enforcement mechanisms. T-BACTs
may include but are not limited to:
• Restricting idling on-site.
• Electrifying warehousing docks.
• Requiring use of newer equipment and/or vehicles.
• Restricting offsite truck travel through the creation of truck routes.
T-BACTs identified in the HRA shall be identified as mitigation measures in the environmental
document and/or incorporated into the site development plan as a component of the Project.
Mitigation Measure AQ -4b:
Applicants for residential and other sensitive land use projects (e.g. hospitals, nursing homes, day
care centers) in Cupertino within 1,000 feet of a major sources of TACs (e.g. warehouses, industrial
areas, freeways, and roadways with traffic volumes over 10,000 vehicle per day), as measured from
I-20
the property line of the project to the property line of the source/edge of the nearest travel lane, shall
submit a health risk assessment (HRA) to the City of Cupertino prior to future discretionary Project
approval. The HRA shall be prepared in accordance with policies and procedures of the State Office of
Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) and the Bay Area Air Quality Management
District. The latest OEHHA guidelines shall be used for the analysis, including age sensitivity
factors, breathing rates, and body weights appropriate for children age 0 to 16 years. If the HRA
shows that the incremental cancer risk exceeds ten in one million (10E-06), PM2.5 concentrations
exceed 0.3 pg/m3, or the appropriate noncancer hazard index exceeds 1.0, the applicant will be
required to identify and demonstrate that mitigation measures are capable of reducing potential
cancer and non -cancer risks to an acceptable level (i.e. below ten in one million or a hazard index of
1.0), including appropriate enforcement mechanisms. Measures to reduce risk may include but are
not limited to:
• Air intakes located away from high volume roadways and/or truck loading zones.
• Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems of the buildings provided with appropriately
sized Maximum Efficiency Rating Value (MERV) filters.
Mitigation measures identified in the HRA shall be identified as mitigation measures in the
environmental document and/or incorporated into the site development plan as a component of the
Project. The air intake design and MERV filter requirements shall be noted and/or reflected on all
building plans submitted to the City and shall be verified by the City's Planning Division.
B. Impact BIO -1: Implementation of the Project would have a substantial
adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on a plant
or animal population, or essential habitat, defined as a candidate, sensitive
or special -status species.
The Final EIR finds that some special -status bird species such as Cooper's hawk and white-
tailed kite could utilize the remaining riparian corridors and heavily wooded areas for
nesting, dispersal and other functions when they pass through urbanized areas. More
common birds protected under MBTA may nest in trees and other landscaping on the
Project Component locations. Given the remote potential for occurrence of nesting birds at
one or more of the Project Component locations and possibility that nests could be
inadvertently destroyed or nests abandoned as a result of construction activities, this would
be considered a potentially significant impact.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO -1, set forth below, which is hereby adopted and
incorporated into the Project, would avoid or reduce this impact to a less -than -significant
level.
I-21
Mitigation Measure BIO -1:
Nests of raptors and other birds shall be protected when in active use, as required by the federal
Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the California Department of Fish and Game Code. If construction
activities and any required tree removal occur during the breeding season (February 1 and August
31), a qualified biologist shall be required to conduct surveys prior to tree removal or construction
activities. Preconstruction surveys are not required for tree removal or construction activities outside
the nesting period. If construction would occur during the nesting season (February 1 to August 31),
preconstruction surveys shall be conducted no more than 14 days prior to the start of tree removal or
construction. Preconstruction surveys shall be repeated at 14 -day intervals until construction has
been initiated in the area after which surveys can be stopped. Locations of active nests containing
viable eggs or young birds shall be documented and protective measures implemented under the
direction of the qualified biologist until the nests no longer contain eggs or young birds. Protective
measures shall include establishment of clearly delineated exclusion zones (i.e. demarcated by
identifiable fencing, such as orange construction fencing or equivalent) around each nest location as
determined by a qualified biologist, taking into account the species of birds nesting, their tolerance for
disturbance and proximity to existing development. In general, exclusion zones shall be a minimum
of 300 feet for raptors and 75 feet for passerines and other birds. The active nest within an exclusion
zone shall be monitored on a weekly basis throughout the nesting season to identify signs of
disturbance and confirm nesting status. The radius of an exclusion zone may be increased by the
qualified biologist if project activities are determined to be adversely affecting the nesting birds.
Exclusion zones may be reduced by the qualified biologist only in consultation with California
Department of Fish and Wildlife. The protection measures shall remain in effect until the young have
left the nest and are foraging independently or the nest is no longer active.
C. Impact BIO -6: Implementation of the Project, in combination with past,
present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, would result in significant
cumulative impacts with respect to biological resources.
The Final EIR finds that implementation of the Project could result in further conversion of
existing natural habitats to urban and suburban conditions, limiting the existing habitat
values of the surrounding area and potentially resulting in significant cumulative impacts
with respect to biological resources.
With implementation of Mitigation Measure BI0-1, set forth and incorporated above, the
Project would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to this cumulative impact,
and the impact would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measure:
Implement Mitigation Measure BIO -1.
D. Impact HAZ-4: Implementation of the Project would be located on a site
which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant
I-22
to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, create a significant
hazard to the public or the environment.
The Final EIR finds that because hazardous materials are known to be present in soil, soil
gas, and/or groundwater due to past land uses at certain sites that may be redeveloped as
part of the Project, the direct contact, inhalation, or ingestion of hazardous materials could
potentially cause adverse health effects to construction workers and future site users. The
severity of health effects would depend on the contaminant(s), concentration, use of
personal protective equipment during construction, and duration of exposure. The
disturbance and release of hazardous materials during earthwork activities, if present, could
pose a hazard to construction workers, nearby receptors, and the environment and impacts
could be potentially significant.
Implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZ-4a and HAZ-4b, set forth below, which are
hereby adopted and incorporated into the Project, would avoid or reduce this impact to a
less -than -significant level.
Mitigation Measure HAZ-4a:
Construction at the sites with known contamination shall be conducted under a project -specific
Environmental Site Management Plan (ESMP) that is prepared in consultation with the Regional
Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) or the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), as
appropriate. The purpose of the ESMP is to protect construction workers, the general public, the
environment, and future site occupants from subsurface hazardous materials previously identified at
the site and to address the possibility of encountering unknown contamination or hazards in the
subsurface. The ESMP shall summarize soil and groundwater analytical data collected on the project
site during past investigations; identify management options for excavated soil and groundwater, if
contaminated media are encountered during deep excavations; and identify monitoring, irrigation, or
other wells requiring proper abandonment in compliance with local, State, and federal laws, policies,
and regulations.
The ESMP shall include measures for identifying, testing, and managing soil and groundwater
suspected of or known to contain hazardous materials. The ESMP shall: 1) provide procedures for
evaluating, handling, storing, testing, and disposing of soil and groundwater during project
excavation and dewatering activities, respectively; 2) describe required worker health and safety
provisions for all workers potentially exposed to hazardous materials in accordance with State and
federal worker safety regulations; and 3) designate personnel responsible for implementation of the
ESMP.
Mitigation Measure HAZ-4b:
For those sites with potential residual contamination in soil, gas, or groundwater that are planned for
redevelopment with an overlying occupied building, a vapor intrusion assessment shall be performed
I-23
by a licensed environmental professional. If the results of the vapor intrusion assessment indicate the
potential for significant vapor intrusion into an occupied building, project design shall include vapor
controls or source removal, as appropriate, in accordance with regulatory agency requirements. Soil
vapor mitigations or controls could include vapor barriers, passive venting, and/or active venting.
The vapor intrusion assessment and associated vapor controls or source removal can be incorporated
into the ESMP (Mitigation Measure HAZ-4a).
E. Impact HAZ-7: Implementation of the Project, in combination with past,
present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, would result in less than
significant cumulative impacts with respect to hazards and hazardous
materials.
The Final EIR takes into account growth projected by the Project within the Cupertino city
boundary and Sphere of Influence (SOI), in combination with impacts from projected
growth in the rest of Santa Clara County and the surrounding region, as forecast by the
Association of Bay Area of Governments (ABAG). Potential cumulative hazardous materials
impacts could arise from a combination of the development of the Project together with the
regional growth in the immediate vicinity of the Project Study Area. As discussed under
Impact HAZ-4, disturbance and release of hazardous materials during earthwork activities,
if present, could pose a hazard to construction workers, nearby receptors, and the
environment and impacts could be potentially significant.
With implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZ-4a and HAZ-4b, set forth and
incorporated above, in conjunction with compliance with General Plan policies and
strategies, other local, regional, State, and federal regulations, the Project would not make a
cumulatively considerable contribution to this cumulative impact, and the impact would be
less than significant.
Mitigation Measure:
Implement Mitigation Measures HAZ-4a and HAZ-4b.
F. Impact UTIL-6: Implementation of the Project would result in a
determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves, or may
serve the project, that it does not have adequate capacity to serve the
project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing
commitments.
Buildout of the Project would have a significant impact if future projected demand exceeds
the wastewater service capacity of the San Jose/Santa Clara Water Pollution Control Plan
(SJ/SCWPCP) or the Sunnyvale Water Pollution Control Plan (SWPCP), or the Cupertino
Sanitary District (CSD) or City of Sunnyvale collection systems.
I-24
Implementation of Mitigation Measures UTIL-6a, UTIL-6b, and UTIL-6c, set forth below,
which are hereby adopted and incorporated into the Project, would avoid or reduce this
impact to a less -than -significant level.
Mitigation Measure UTIL-6a:
The City shall work with the Cupertino Sanitary District to increase the available citywide treatment
and transmission capacity to 8.65 million gallons per day, or to a lesser threshold if studies justifying
reduced wastewater generation rates are approved by CSD as described in Mitigation Measure UTIL-
6c.
Mitigation Measure UTIL-6b:
The City shall work to establish a system in which a development monitoring and tracking system to
tabulate cumulative increases in projected wastewater generation from approved projects for
comparison to the Cupertino Sanitary District's treatment capacity threshold with San Jose/Santa
Clara Water Pollution Control Plant is prepared and implemented. If it is anticipated that with
approval of a development project the actual system discharge would exceed the contractual treatment
threshold, no building permits for such project shall be issued prior to increasing the available
citywide contractual treatment and transmission capacity as described in Mitigation Measure UTIL-
6a.
Mitigation Measure UTIL-6c:
The City shall work with the Cupertino Sanitary District to prepare a study to determine a more
current estimate of the wastewater generation rates that reflect the actual development to be
constructed as part of Project implementation. The study could include determining how the
green/LEED certified buildings in the City reduce wastewater demands.
G. Impact UTIL-7: Implementation of the Project, in combination with past,
present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, would not result in
significant cumulative impacts with respect to wastewater treatment.
The Final EIR finds that buildout of the Project would generate a minor increase in the
volume of wastewater delivered for treatment at SJ/SCWPCP and SWPCP, representing less
than 1 percent of the available treatment capacity at the SJ/SCWPCP and SWPCP, and it
would occur incrementally over a period of 26 years. Based on the recent trends of
diminishing wastewater treatment demand and the projected population growth in the
service areas, cumulative wastewater treatment demand over the Project buildout period is
far below the excess capacity of the SJ/SCWPCP and SWPCP. Because the cumulative
demand would not substantially impact the existing or planned capacity of the wastewater
treatment systems, which have sufficient capacity for wastewater that would be produced
I-25
by the Project, the construction of new wastewater treatment facilities would not be
necessary.
With implementation of Mitigation Measured UTIL-6a, UTIL-6b and UTIL-6c, set forth and
incorporated above, cumulative development combined with the Project would not exceed
wastewater treatment requirements. Therefore, the Project would not make a cumulatively
considerable contribution to this cumulative impact, and the impact would be less than
significant.
Mitigation Measure:
Implement Mitigation Measures UTIL-6a, UTIL-6b, and UTIL-6c.
H. Impact UTIL-8: The Project would not be served by a landfill(s) with
sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the Project's solid waste
disposal needs.
The Final EIR finds that anticipated rates of solid waste disposal would have a less -than -
significant impact with regard to target disposal rates, and that the City would continue its
current recycling ordinances and zero -waste policies. Nevertheless, the 2023 termination of
the agreement between the Newby Island Landfill facility, as well as that facility's estimated
closure date in 2025, would result in insufficient solid waste disposal capacity at buildout of
the Project, resulting in a significant impact.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure UTIL-8, set forth below, which is hereby adopted
and incorporated into the Project, would avoid or reduce this impacts to a less -than -
significant level.
Mitigation Measure UTIL-8:
The City shall continue its current recycling ordinances and zero -waste policies in an effort to further
increase its diversion rate and lower its per capita disposal rate. In addition, the City shall monitor
solid waste generation volumes in relation to capacities at receiving landfill sites to ensure that
sufficient capacity exists to accommodate future growth. The City shall seek new landfill sites to
replace the Altamont and Newby Island landfills, at such time that these landfills are closed.
I. Impact UTIL-10: Implementation of the Project, in combination with past,
present and reasonably foreseeable projects, would result in significant
cumulative impacts with respect to solid waste.
The Final EIR finds that buildout of the Project will increase the quantity of solid waste for
disposal. AB 939 established a goal for all California cities to provide at least 15 years of
ongoing landfill capacity; however, growth from other cities in the region may exceed the
growth that was taken into account when determining landfill capacity. Also, because the
I-26
Newby Island Landfill facility, which currently takes approximately 92 percent of the City's
solid waste, is expected to close in 2025, Cupertino may eventually experience insufficient
landfill capacity to accommodate existing or increased population and employment levels.
Although implementation of existing waste reduction programs and diversion requirements
would reduce the potential for exceeding existing capacities of landfills, the potential lack of
landfill capacity for disposal of solid waste would be a significant cumulative impact.
With implementation of Mitigation Measure UTIL-8, set forth and incorporated above, the
Project would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to this cumulative impact,
and the impact would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measure
Implement Mitigation Measure UTIL-8,
VII. GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS
An EIR is required to discuss growth inducing impacts, which consist of the ways in which
the project could foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional
housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment. State CEQA
Guidelines § 15126.2(d); Public Resources Code § 21100(b)(5). Direct growth inducement
would result, for example, if a project involves the construction of substantial new housing
that would support increased population in a community or establishes substantial new
permanent employment opportunities. This additional population could, in turn, increase
demands for public utilities, public services, roads, and other infrastructure. Indirect
growth inducement would result if a project stimulates economic activity that requires
physical development or removes an obstacle to growth and development (e.g., increasing
infrastructure capacity that would enable new or additional development). It must not be
assumed that growth in any area is necessarily beneficial, detrimental, or of little
significance to the environment. State CEQA Guidelines § 15126.2(d). Section 6.3 of the
Draft EIR analyzes the growth inducing impacts of the Project. As explained in Section IX,
below, the findings in this Section VII are based on the Final EIR, the discussion and
analysis in which is hereby incorporated in full by this reference.
Implementation of the Project would directly induce population, employment and economic
growth by replenishing the commercial, residential, hotel, and office space allocation within
some areas of the city. The Project would result in the following growth patterns based on
the expected growth assumptions for the city boundary:
I-27
Implementation of the Project to the year 2040 would result in increased office space
development allocation of approximately 2,540,231 square feet. This would result in
a total anticipated office space of approximately 11,470,005 square feet by 2040.8
Implementation of the Project to the year 2040 would result in a commercial space
development allocation of approximately 1,343,679 square feet, which is an increase
of 642,266 square feet in the allocation pool but a net increase of 0 square feet. That
is because all 642,266 square feet of increase allocation would come from demolition
and rebuilding of existing commercial square footage (see footnote 5, above). This
would result in a total anticipated commercial space of approximately 4,430,982
square feet by 2040.9
Implementation of the Project to the year 2040 would result in increased hotel room
development allocation of approximately 1,339 rooms. This would result in a total
anticipated hotel room inventory of approximately 2,429 rooms by 2040.10
Implementation of the Project to the year 2040 would result in increased residential
unit development allocation of approximately 4,421 units. This would result in a
total anticipated residential unit inventory of approximately 25,820 residential units
by 2040.11
State law requires the City to promote the production of housing to meet its Regional
Housing Needs Allocation made by ABAG. The housing and commercial/ industrial
growth in Cupertino would allow the City to address its regional fair -share housing
obligations.
The Project is considered growth inducing because it encourages new growth in the
urbanized areas of Cupertino. Development in these areas would consist of infill
development on underutilized sites, sites that have been previously developed, and sites
that are vacant and have been determined to be suitable for development. However,
because infrastructure is largely in place and commercial or office growth would be
required to comply with the City's General Plan, Zoning regulations and standards for
public services and utilities; secondary or indirect effects associated with this growth do not
represent a new significant environmental impact which has not already been addressed in
the individual resource chapters of this EIR.
8 Existing built/approved office space was 8,929,774 square feet in 2013.
9 Existing built/approved commercial space was 3,729,569 square feet in 2013.
10 Existing built/approved hotel rooms are 1,090 rooms. With the remaining
commercial allocation, commercial buildout by 2040 is estimated to be 4,430,982 square feet.
Cupertino Community Development Department (October 31, 2014).
11 Existing built/approved residential units was 21,339 units in 2014.
I-28
VIII. ALTERNATIVES
The Final EIR analyzed four alternatives, examining the environmental impacts and
feasibility of each alternative, as well as the ability of the alternatives to meet project
objectives. The project objectives are listed in Chapter 3 (Project Description) of the Draft
EIR; the potentially significant environmental effects of the Project, including feasible
mitigation measures identified to avoid these impacts, are analyzed in Chapter 4
(Environmental Evaluation) of the Draft EIR; and the alternatives are described in detail in
Chapter 5 (Alternatives to the Proposed Project) of the Draft EIR.
Brief summaries of the alternatives are provided below. A brief discussion of the
Environmentally Superior Alternative follows the summaries of the alternatives. As
explained in Section IX, below, the findings in this Section VII are based on the Final EIR,
the discussion and analysis in which is hereby incorporated in full by this reference.
A. The No Project Alternative
CEQA requires evaluation of the "no project" alternative. State CEQA Guidelines §
15126.6(e). Consistent with State CEQA Guidelines section 15126.6(e)(3)(A), the No Project
Alternative assumes that growth and development would continue to occur under the
provisions of the current 2000-2020 General Plan, including the development allocations for
office and commercial space, and hotel and residential unit allocations. Thus, no new
development potential beyond what is currently permitted in the 2000-2020 General Plan
would occur.
As shown in Draft EIR Table 5-1, the No Project Alternative would allow for the following
new development allocations:
• Office allocation: 540,231 square feet (no net increase from 2000-2020 General Plan)
• Commercial allocation: 701,413 square feet (no net increase from 2000-2020 General
Plan)
• Hotel allocation: 339 rooms (no net increase from 2000-2020 General Plan)
• Residential allocation: 1,895 units (no net increase from 2000-2020 General Plan)
As discussed in Section 5.1.7 of the Draft EIR, the No Project Alternative would not achieve
any of the City's project objectives, which are as follows, except that it would provide for the
RHNA for the 20014-2022 planning period:
Emphasize employment and a mix of economic development opportunities by
replenishing, reallocating, and increasing city-wide office, commercial, and hotel,
allocations in order to capture:
I-29
A share of the regional demand for office and hotel development, and
Retail sales tax leakage in the trade area.
Address local needs and regional requirements for new housing, including
affordable housing, in Cupertino by replenishing, re -allocating and increasing city-
wide residential allocations to be consistent with 2040 Bay Area Plan projections to
allow flexibility for the city when future state -mandated updates are required to the
Housing Element.
• Update the Housing Element as required by State law.
• Creating opportunities for mixed-use development consistent with Regional
Sustainable Communities Strategies for greenhouse gas emissions reductions as
required by SB 375.
• Investing in improvement to adapt to climate change over time.
• Consider increased heights in key nodes and gateways, if proposed development
provides retail development and benefits directly to the community.
• Update General Plan policies to implement multi -modal traffic standards as opposed
to LOS thresholds currently identified. Balancing development objectives with
transportation constraints and opportunities.
• Revitalize the Vallco Shopping District by adopting policies to support its
redevelopment, so it becomes a cohesive, vibrant shopping and entertainment
destination that serves both the region and the local community.
For the foregoing reasons, the No Project Alternative is hereby rejected as infeasible.
B. Land Use Alternative A
Land Use Alternative A identifies how growth would occur if the City largely continues the
policies of the current 2005 General Plan, while making minor development allocation and
boundary changes. The 2005 General Plan land use standards would continue to apply to
Vallco Shopping Mall, and it would not be redeveloped in any substantial manner.
Alternative A would increase city-wide office and hotel allocation but would not increase
allocations for commercial and residential uses. No maximum height increases are
proposed under this alternative.
As shown in Draft EIR Table 5-1, the Land Use Alternative A would allow for the following
new development allocations:
I-30
• Office allocation: 1,040,231 square feet (net increase of 500,000 square feet from the
2000-2020 General Plan)
• Commercial allocation: 701,413 square feet (no net increase from the 2000-2020
General Plan)
• Hotel allocation: 600 rooms (net increase of 261 rooms from the 2000-2020 General
Plan)
• Residential: 1,895 units (no net increase from the 2000-2020 General Plan)
As discussed in Section 5.2.8 of the Draft EIR, Alternative A would not achieve the project
objectives concerning local needs and regional requirements for new housing, including
affordable housing, in Cupertino, because it would not provide sufficient residential units to
meet the City's Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) of 1,064 units minus 62, or
1,002 units. In order to fully comply with the RHNA, the City would need to provide a
moderate surplus of 25% to 40 % in addition to the 1,002 units or approximately 1,250 to
1,400 units. Alternative A only allows for a surplus of only eight units, however.
Alternative A also would not increase the allocation of residential units to accommodate
Plan Bay Area projections for residential growth by 2040 (4,421 units).
Alternative A fails to meet project objectives with regard to reallocating, replenishing and
increasing city-wide office, commercial and hotel allocations for purposes of economic
development, because Alternative A does not allow for any commercial growth beyond that
allocated under the 2000-2020 General Plan and allows in insufficient amount of office and
hotel growth. Further, Alternative A does not meet the project objective to consider
increased heights in key Nodes and Gateways, because no maximum height increases are
proposed under this alternative.
Alternative A also does not meet the City's objective of creating mixed use development
consistent with Plan Bay Area and SB 375, because it would not concentrate development in
major transportation corridors to the same degree as Alternatives B and C and the Balanced
Plan. Alternative A does not envision a complete redevelopment for Vallco Shopping
District that would involve adding office and residential uses as in Alternatives B and C.
This would not completely meet the project objective to revitalize the Shopping District so it
becomes a cohesive, vibrant shopping and entertainment destination that serves both the
region and the local community.
For the foregoing reasons, Land Use Alternative A is hereby rejected as infeasible.
C. Land Use Alternative B
Land Use Alternative B identifies how the City can focus development along major mixed-
use corridors in order to create more complete commercial, office and entertainment areas,
I-31
and to address mid-term housing needs. It would increase development allocations for
office, commercial and hotel land uses in order to better capture retail sales leakage and
regional demand for office development. Alternative B also envisions the transformation of
the Vallco Shopping Mall into a retail, employment, housing and entertainment destination,
but possibly at a slightly smaller scale than under Alternative C. Although the zoning and
land use designations are the same in the Alternative B and Alternative C, the Foothill
Market and Bateh Housing Element sites were not studied as part of Alternative B.
Alternative B would allow for revised density and height standards at key Gateways and
Nodes within Special Areas along major transportation corridors that are different from
Alternative C. Alternative B also would increase residential allocations to the amount
necessary to meet the City's housing need of 1,002 units plus a moderate surplus of 25% to
40%, or approximately 1,250 to 1,400 units, but would increase the allocation of residential
units to accommodate only 75 percent of Plan Bay Area projections for residential growth by
2040.
As shown in Draft EIR Table 5-1 and the Supplemental Text Revisions, the Land Use
Alternative B would allow for the following new development allocations:
• Office allocation: 2,540,231 square feet (net increase of 2,000,000 square feet from
the 2000-2020 General Plan)
• Commercial allocation: 1,343,679 square feet (net increase of 0 square feet from the
2000-2020 General Plan)12
• Hotel allocation: 839 rooms (net increase of 500 rooms from the 2000-2020 General
Plan)
• Residential: 3,316 units (net increase of 1,421 units from the 2000-2020 General Plan)
While Alternative B meets all of the project objectives, in comparison with the Balanced
Plan, described in Section II.A, above, the commercial, hotel, and residential allocations
under Alternative B would not strike the optimal balance in attempting to achieve the City's
economic development objectives. Furthermore, as described in Section 5.3.8 of the Draft
EIR, Alternative B would not go as far as Alternative C in meeting project objectives with
regard to reallocating, replenishing and increasing city-wide commercial and hotel
allocations for purposes of economic development, and replenishment of the residential
allocation because it would add less office square footage and fewer hotel rooms, thereby
failing to capture as much regional demand for office and hotel uses and failing to capture
as much retail sales tax leakage. Similar to the Balanced Plan, Alternative B envisions that
the Vallco Shopping District will be completely redeveloped. Alternative B allows for 500
fewer hotel rooms and 1,105 fewer residential units than the Balanced Plan, however.
12See footnote 5, above.
I-32
The City commissioned a Market Study13 which indicates that the City has a strong market
for office, hotel room and residential development. An allocation of only 500 hotel rooms
and only 75 percent of the Plan Bay Area projection for residential development by 2040
would not achieve the City's goal of capturing a share of the regional demand for hotel
development or meeting the City's goals of providing fewer affordable housing options.
For the foregoing reasons, Land Use Alternative B is hereby rejected as infeasible.
D. Land Use Alternative C
Land Use Alternative C identifies a way to transform the Vallco Shopping Mall into a locally
and regionally significant retail, employment, housing and entertainment destination, and
account for a large portion of the City's RHNA. Similar to the Balanced Plan, Alternative B
envisions that the Vallco Shopping District will be completely redeveloped. In addition,
under Alternative C, the Vallco area would become the "downtown" of Cupertino, serving
the mixed-use hub for residents, workers and the larger region. Alternative C would
increase development allocations to levels higher than those that would be allowed under
either Land Use Alternative A or Land Use Alternative B in order to fully capture retail sales
leakage and regional demand for office and hotel development. Alternative C would allow
for revised height standards at key Gateways and Nodes within Special Areas along major
transportation corridors at heights greater than those allowed under Alternative B. The
increases in heights and densities in key Nodes, Gateways and Sub -areas are consistent with
the City's goals of concentrating development along the five mixed-use corridors.
Alternative C also would increase residential allocations to the amount necessary to meet
the City's housing need of 1,002 units plus a moderate surplus 25% to 40%, or
approximately 1,250 to 1,400 units, and would increase the allocation of residential units to
accommodate 100 percent of Plan Bay Area projections for residential growth by 2040.
As shown in Draft EIR Table 5-1 and the Supplemental Text Revisions, the Land Use
Alternative C (the "proposed Project" in the EIR) would allow for the following new
development allocations:
Office allocations: 4,040,231 square feet (net increase of 3,500,000 square feet from
the 2000-2020 General Plan)
Commercial allocation: 1,343,679 square feet (net increase of 0 square feet from the
2000-2020 General Plan)14
Hotel allocation: 1,339 rooms (net increase of 1,000 rooms from the 2000-2020
General Plan)
13 BAE Urban Economics, General Plan Amendment Market Study (February 13, 2014).
14 See footnote 5, above.
I-33
• Residential allocation: 4,421 units (net increase of 2,526 units from the 2000-2020
General Plan)
While Land Use Alternative C would meet all of the project objectives, the combination of
the office allocation in Alternative C together with the other land use allocations in
Alternative C would not be as effective or as balanced as the Balanced Plan, which includes
the lower office allocation in Alternative B, in achieving the project objective of creating a
mix of economic development opportunities.
Furthermore, the environmental effects from the larger office allocation in Alternative C
would be marginally greater than the environmental effects from the office allocation in the
Balanced Plan (which has the same office allocation as Alternative B). That is because the
Alternative C office allocation is 59 percent greater than the office allocation in the Balanced
Plan. Increased allocation to office development would mean more jobs and, as people move
to Cupertino to fill those jobs, a higher population. Draft EIR Table 5-2 projects a 70 percent
greater increase in jobs and a 75 percent greater increase in population under Alternative C
compared to the increases under Alternative B. The increased development and population
growth resulting from the Alternative C office allocation would have greater effects on the
environment than the office allocation component of the Balanced Plan and Alternative B.
Alternative B would reduce air quality impacts, as described in the analysis of Impact AIR -
1, because the Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) for Alternative B is lower and reduces the
impact to less than significant. See Draft EIR Table 5.5. This is because the mix of
development in the Balanced Plan, which includes the same office allocation as Alternative
B, represented a better balance of development. In categories where all of the alternatives
were found to have significant and unavoidable impacts, namely air quality, noise, and
traffic, Land Use C's office allocation would result in greater environmental impacts, as it
represents the greatest amount of development, which would result in higher consumption
of non-renewable resources, generate the greatest amount of waste and pollutants, and
increase the demand of public facilities and infrastructure.
For the foregoing reasons, Land Use Alternative C is hereby rejected as infeasible.
E. Environmentally Superior Alternative
In addition to the discussion and comparison of impacts of the Balanced Plan and the
Alternatives, Section 15126.6(e)(2) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that an
"environmentally superior' alternative be selected and the reasons for such a selection be
disclosed. The environmentally superior alternative is the alternative that would be
expected to create the least significant environmental effects. Identification of the
environmentally superior alternative is an informational procedure and the alternative
selected may not be the alternative that best meets the goals or needs of Cupertino.
As shown in Draft EIR Table 5-5, the impacts associated with each of the four land use
scenarios analyzed in this EIR would essentially be the same. As previously stated, this is
I-34
because the recommended mitigation measures would apply to all of the alternatives, and
compliance with the General Plan policies designed to reduce environmental impacts would
also apply to all future development in Cupertino. However, as shown in Draft EIR Table 5-
5, for Land Use Alternative B air quality Impact AQ -1 (Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the applicable air quality plan) would be less than significant for
Alternative B but would be significant and unavoidable for the other alternatives. That is
because the mix of development in Alternative B would increase office square footage, but
to all lesser extent than Alternative C, while at the same time increasing the residential
allocation unlike Alternative A and the No Project Alternative.
While Alternative C represents the maximum extent of residential development anticipated
by the Plan Bay Area for Cupertino by 2040, Alternative C's higher increase in office square
footage (4,040,231 square feet compared to the lower office increase in Alternative B of
2,540,231 square feet), together with the total increase in residential allocation, does not
reflect a balanced jobs -housing ratio that results in lower per capita VMT when compared to
Alternative B. Under Alternative C, land uses allocations in the General Plan would
generate 897,419 VMT per day (10.47 miles per service population per day in 2013). Based
on the future estimates of VMT per person for Cupertino for year 2040, 1,264,271 VMT per
day (10.94 miles per service population per day in 2040) would be generated in Cupertino.
Accordingly, the daily VMT in the Project Study Area under Alternative C would increase
at a slightly greater rate (40.9 percent) between 2013 and 2040 than would the service
population of the Project Study Area (34.8 percent). In comparison, under Alternative B,
based on the future estimates of VMT per person for Cupertino for year 2040, 1,097,596 VMT
per day (10.24 miles per service population per day in 2040) would be generated in the City.
Under Alternative B, daily VMT in the Project Study Area would increase at a slower rate
(22.3 percent) between 2013 and 2040 than would the service population of the Project Study
Area (25.0 percent). When the VMT increase is less than or equal to the projected
population increase, this represents a balanced jobs -housing ratio.
In identifying an Environmental Superior Alternative, the analysis in the EIR is based on the
principle that less development would mean reduced effects on the environment. Each
incremental increase in development allocations among the alternatives represents
increased population and activity which would result in increased noise, air quality,
greenhouse gas, traffic, and utilities impacts. Although a number of these impacts would be
significant and unavoidable under every alternative, the severity of the significant and
unavoidable impacts would vary according to the development allocations within a given
alternative. For example, while Land Use Alternative B would reduce Air Quality Impact
AQ -1, as described above in Section VIII.D, the No Project Alternative would be the
environmentally superior alternative because it would not allow for new development to
occur beyond what is currently planned for in the 2000-2020 General Plan, which would
result in the least amount of development in the City and thereby reduce the consumption
of renewable resources (e.g., lumber and water) and nonrenewable resources (e.g., fossil
fuels, natural gas, and gasoline). Less development would place fewer demands on public
I-35
service providers (which could require new facilities), would require fewer road, sewer,
water and energy infrastructure improvements, and would generate less waste, which
would overall reduce impacts on the environment.
In accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2), if the environmentally
superior alternative is the No Project alternative, the EIR shall also identify an
environmentally superior alternative from among the other alternatives. Accordingly, the
environmentally superior alternative would be Land Use Alternative A, because less
development would occur compared to Land Use Alternative B, Land Use Alternative C,
and the Balanced Plan. Under Land Use Alternative A, no new commercial space, hotel
rooms or residential units would be permitted beyond the allocations in the current General
Plan.
For the foregoing reasons, Alternative A is considered the environmentally superior
alternative.
IX. INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE
These findings incorporate the text of the Final EIR for the Project, the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program, City staff reports relating to the Project and other
documents relating to public hearings on the Project, by reference, in their entirety. Without
limitation, this incorporation is intended to elaborate on the scope and nature of mitigation
measures, project and cumulative impacts, the basis for determining the significance of
impacts, the comparison of the alternatives to the Project, the determination of the
environmentally superior alternative, and the reasons for approving the Project.
X. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Various documents and other materials related to the Project constitute the record of
proceedings upon which the City bases its findings and decisions contained herein. Those
documents and materials are located in the offices of the custodian for the documents and
materials, which is the City of Cupertino Community Development Department, Cupertino
City Hall, 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014-3202.
XI. NO RECIRCULATION REQUIRED
State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 requires a lead agency to recirculate an EIR for
further review and comment when "significant new information" is added to the EIR after
public notice is given of the availability of the Draft EIR but before certification. No
significant new information was added to the Draft EIR as a result of the public comment
process. The Final EIR responds to comments, and clarifies, amplifies and makes
insignificant modifications to the Draft EIR. The Final EIR does not identify any new
significant effects on the environment or a substantial increase in the severity of an
environmental impact.
I-36
The EIR analyzes full buildout of 2040 growth for Cupertino as projected in Plan Bay Area.
The Balanced Plan consists of the same development allocations and Housing Element sites
that were analyzed in the EIR for Alternative C except, as described in more detail in the
next section below, the office allocation is reduced to the amount analyzed in the EIR for
Alternative B, the maximum height limits are reduced except at one location. Accordingly,
all portions of the Balanced Plan were analyzed in the EIR, either as part of Alternative C or
as part of Alternative B. There are no new significant effects on the environment or a
substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact associated with substituting
the smaller office allocation from Alternative B for the original, larger office allocation in
Alternative B in order to create the Balanced Plan that are the subject of these Findings nor
are there new significant effects on the environment or a substantial increase in the severity
of an environmental impact associated with the changes in maximum height limits.
For the foregoing reasons, recirculation of the Final EIR is not required.
XII. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
As set forth above, the City has found that the Project will result in project and cumulative
significant adverse environmental impacts related to air quality, noise, and traffic and
transportation that cannot be avoided following adoption, incorporation into the Project,
and implementation of mitigation measures described in the EIR. In addition, there are no
feasible project alternatives that would mitigate or avoid all of the Project's significant
environmental impacts. Section 15093(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines provides that when
the decision of the public agency results in the occurrence of significant impacts that are not
avoided or substantially lessened, the agency must state in writing the reasons to support its
actions. See also Public Resources Code Section 21081(b). Having balanced the economic,
legal, social, technological or other benefits of the Project, including region -wide or
statewide environmental benefits, against its significant and unavoidable environmental
impacts, the City finds that the Project benefits outweigh its unavoidable adverse
environmental effects, and that the adverse environmental effects are therefore acceptable.
The following statement identifies the reasons why, in the City's judgment, specific benefits
of the Project outweigh the significant and unavoidable effects. The substantial evidence
supporting the benefits of the Project can be found in the preceding sections of these
Findings, in the Project itself, and in the record of proceedings as defined in Section X,
above. The City further finds that each of the project benefits discussed below is a separate
and independent basis for these findings. The reasons set forth below are based on the Final
EIR and other information in the administrative record.
1) The Vision Statement in the General Plan states that "Cupertino aspires to be a
balanced community with quiet and attractive residential neighborhoods; exemplary
parks and schools; accessible open space areas, hillsides and creeks; and a vibrant,
I-37
mixed use 'Heart of the City.' Cupertino will be safe, friendly, healthy, connected,
walkable, bikeable and inclusive for all residents and workers, with ample places and
opportunities for people to interact, recreate, innovate and collaborate." In
incorporating the office allocation from Land Use Alternative B, the commercial
allocations from Land Use Alternatives B and C, and the hotel and residential
allocations from Land Use Alternative C, the Project provides the City with a balanced
mix of economic development opportunities while seeking to lessen significant
impacts by pursuing the highest possible levels of development.
2) The Project provides the City with the commercial development allocation it needs to
increase sales and avoid retail leakage in the trade area as, recommended on page 85-
86 of the General Plan Amendment Market Study (BAE Urban Economics, February
13, 2014), and would allow the City flexibility to encourage new commercial uses in
other parts of the City in the future that will general additional sales taxes. and as set
forth in the project objectives.
3) The Project provides for economic growth by creating employment-related land uses.
This will attract new businesses and allow existing businesses to stay and grow within
the City, improve sales tax and property tax revenue to help the City maintain a
healthy fiscal balance to provide its residents with high quality services.
4) The Project concentrates growth along the City's major transportation corridors and in
the City's employment centers, which are areas that are within walking distance/bus
distance of large employment areas. Encouraging development in existing urbanized
areas results in fewer impacts from the construction of new infrastructure, maximizes
use of existing impervious surfaces, provides multi -modal transportation
opportunities, and reduces miles traveled, which translates into air quality benefits.
5) The Project concentrates growth at locations with existing uses and, as a result,
potential future development under the Project would consist largely of either
redevelopment of existing building, selective demolition of existing structures and
replacement with new construction, or new infill development adjacent to existing
uses, all of which would serve to lessen environmental impacts.
6) The Project policies concentrating growth along transportation corridors and in
employment centers contributes to community goals of protecting the City's
neighborhoods and connectivity.
7) The Project includes policies that encourage conservation of water and energy
resources in conformance with the City's sustainability goals.
I-38
8) The Project is in conformance with the principles of planning sustainable communities
by meeting both the present and future housing needs of the City, and fulfills the City
Council's charge to prepare a Housing Element.
9) The Project is consistent with key planning documents, including Plan Bay Area,
which is the Bay Area's Regional Transportation Plan (RTP)/Sustainable Community
Strategy (SCS), as well as SB 375, the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection
Act.
10) The Project meets the City's Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) of 1,064
units, and provides a moderate surplus above the City's housing need of 1,002 units,
or approximately 1,400 units.
11) The Project provides opportunities for increased building heights in key Nodes and
Gateways, and makes additional building height and residential density increases
contingent on future development projects in Cupertino providing the City with
community benefits.
12) The Project provides for revitalizing the Vallco Shopping Mall and transforming it into
a locally and regionally significant retail, employment, housing and entertainment
destination, which would become the "downtown' of Cupertino.
13) The Gateways and Nodes located within some of the Project's Special Areas represent
key locations in the City that, with the use of design elements, such as buildings,
arches, fountains, banners, signage, special lighting, landscaping and public art, have
the opportunity to create a memorable impression of Cupertino. These key locations
are essential for providing residents, visitors, and workers an attractive, friendly, and
comfortable place with inviting active pedestrian spaces and services.
XIII. SUMMARY
Based on the foregoing Findings and the information contained in the record, the
City has made one or more of the following Findings with respect to each of the
significant environmental effects of the Project:
a. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project
that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects
identified in the Final EIR.
b. Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of
another public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by that
other public agency.
c. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, make
infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the Final EIR
I-39
that would otherwise avoid or substantially lessen the identified significant
environmental effects of the Project.
2. Based on the foregoing Findings and the information contained in the record, the
City determines that:
633792.9
a. All significant effects on the environment due to the approval of the Project
have been eliminated or substantially lessened where feasible.
b. Any remaining significant effects on the environment found to be unavoidable
are acceptable due to the factors described in the Statement of Overriding
Considerations, above.
I-40