Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.
This document contains no pages.
EIR Volume 1PlaceWorks
June 18, 2014 | DraŌ EIR Volume I
General Plan Amendment, Housing Element Update,
and Associated Rezoning Draft EIR
for the City of CuperƟ no
State Clearinghouse No. 2014032007
June 18, 2014 | DraŌ EIR Volume I
General Plan Amendment, Housing Element Update,
and Associated Rezoning Draft EIR
for the City of CuperƟ no
State Clearinghouse No. 2014032007
Orange County • Northern California • Los Angeles/Downtown • Los Angeles/West • Inland Empire • San Diego
www.placeworks.com
In associaƟ on with:
BKF Engineering
Environmental CollaboraƟ ve
Hexagon TransportaƟ on Consultants
Tom Origer & Associates
1625 ShaƩ uck Avenue, Suite 300
Berkeley, California 94709
510.848.3815
Prepared by
PLACEWORKS i
Table of Contents Volume I
1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................................. 1-1
1.1 PROPOSED PROJECT ........................................................................................................................ 1-1
1.2 EIR SCOPE ........................................................................................................................................... 1-2
1.3 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS .............................................................................................. 1-4
2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................................................................... 2-1
2.2 ENVIRONMENTAL PROCEDURES ...................................................................................................... 2-1
2.3 SUMMARY OF PROPOSED PROJECT ............................................................................................... 2-3
2.4 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT ............................................................................... 2-5
2.5 AREAS OF CONCERN ......................................................................................................................... 2-6
2.6 SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES .................................................................... 2-7
3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................................................... 3-1
3.1 BACKGROUND ..................................................................................................................................... 3-1
3.2 OVERVIEW ........................................................................................................................................... 3-2
3.3 CUPERTINO LOCATION AND SETTING ............................................................................................. 3-3
3.4 PROJECT STUDY AREA ...................................................................................................................... 3-3
3.5 PROJECT OBJECTIVES....................................................................................................................... 3-6
3.6 PLANNING PROCESS .......................................................................................................................... 3-7
3.7 PROJECT COMPONENTS .................................................................................................................. 3-11
3.8 PROJECT COMPONENT LOCATION SUMMARY ........................................................................... 3-123
3.9 REQUIRED PERMITS AND APPROVALS ........................................................................................ 3-123
4. ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION ........................................................................................................................ 4-1
4.1 AESTHETICS ..................................................................................................................................... 4.1-1
4.2 AIR QUALITY ..................................................................................................................................... 4.2-1
4.3 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES .............................................................................................................. 4.3-1
4.4 CULTURAL RESOURCES ................................................................................................................. 4.4-1
4.5 GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND SEISMICITY ............................................................................................... 4.5-1
4.6 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS..................................................................................................... 4.6-1
4.7 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ..................................................................................... 4.7-1
4.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY .............................................................................................. 4.8-1
4.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING .............................................................................................................. 4.9-1
4.10 NOISE .............................................................................................................................................. 4.10-1
4.11 POPULATION AND HOUSING .......................................................................................................... 4.11-1
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
TABLE OF CONTENTS VOLUME I
ii JUNE 18, 2014
4.12 PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION ......................................................................................... 4.12-1
4.13 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC ................................................................................................. 4.13-1
4.14 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS .............................................................................................. 4.14-1
Technical Appendices
Appendix A: Notice of Preparation Comment Letters
Appendix B: Community Discussion Summaries
Appendix C: Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Data and Calculation Sheet
Appendix D: Cultural Resources Data
Appendix E: Noise Data
Appendix F: Public Services Data
Appendix G: Transportation and Traffic Data
Appendix H: Utilities and Service System Data
Appendix I: Proposed General Plan Policy Amendments
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
TABLE OF CONTENTS VOLUME I
PLACEWORKS iii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 3-1 Regional and Vicinity Map ..................................................................................................................... 3-4
Figure 3-2 Project Study Area ................................................................................................................................. 3-5
Figure 3-3 2000 – 2020 General Plan Land Use Map ............................................................................................ 3-9
Figure 3-4 2000-2020 General Plan Special Centers ........................................................................................... 3-16
Figure 3-5 Special Areas Along Major Transportation Corridors Including Gateways and Nodes ........................ 3-17
Figure 3-6 Proposed Homestead Special Area ..................................................................................................... 3-19
Figure 3-7 Proposed North Vallco Park Special Area ........................................................................................... 3-23
Figure 3-8 Proposed Heart of the City Special Area ............................................................................................. 3-26
Figure 3-9 Proposed North De Anza Special Area ................................................................................................ 3-31
Figure 3-10 Proposed South De Anza Special Area ............................................................................................... 3-34
Figure 3-11 Study Area Locations ........................................................................................................................... 3-36
Figure 3-12 Study Area 1 (Cupertino Inn and Goodyear Tire) ................................................................................ 3-38
Figure 3-13 Study Area 2 (City Center) ................................................................................................................... 3-41
Figure 3-14 Study Area 3 (PG&E) ........................................................................................................................... 3-44
Figure 3-15 Study Area 4 (Mirapath) ....................................................................................................................... 3-47
Figure 3-16 Study Area 5 (Cupertino Village) ......................................................................................................... 3-50
Figure 3-17 Study Area 6 (Vallco Shopping District) ............................................................................................... 3-53
Figure 3-18 Study Area 7 (Stevens Creek Office Center) ....................................................................................... 3-57
Figure 3-19 Other Special Areas Including Neighborhoods and Non-Residential/Mixed-Use Special Areas ......... 3-60
Figure 3-20 Potential Housing Sites ....................................................................................................................... 3-71
Figure 3-21 Housing Element Site 1 (Shan Restaurant) ......................................................................................... 3-73
Figure 3-22 Housing Element Site 2 (Arya/Scandinavian Design) .......................................................................... 3-75
Figure 3-23 Housing Element Site 3 (United Furniture/East of East Estates Drive) ............................................... 3-77
Figure 3-24 Housing Element Site 4 (Barry Swenson) ........................................................................................... 3-79
Figure 3-25 Housing Element Site 5 (Glenbrook Apartments) ................................................................................ 3-81
Figure 3-26 Housing Element Site 6 (The Villages Apartments) ............................................................................. 3-83
Figure 3-27 Housing Element Site 7 (Carl Berg Property) ...................................................................................... 3-85
Figure 3-28 Housing Element Site 8 (Bateh Bros.) ................................................................................................. 3-87
Figure 3-29 Housing Element Site 9 (Foothill at McClellan Center – Foothill Market) ............................................ 3-89
Figure 3-30 Housing Element Site 10 (The Hamptons) .......................................................................................... 3-91
Figure 3-31 Housing Element Site 11 (Vallco Shopping District except Rosebowl) ................................................ 3-93
Figure 3-32 Housing Element Site 12 (Homestead Lanes and Adjacency) ............................................................ 3-95
Figure 3-33 Housing Element Site 13 (Loree Shopping Center) ............................................................................. 3-97
Figure 3-34 Housing Element Site 14 (Marina Plaza) ............................................................................................. 3-99
Figure 3-35 Housing Element Site 15 (Stevens Creek Office Center) .................................................................. 3-101
Figure 3-36 Housing Element Site 16 (Summerwinds & Granite Rock) ................................................................ 3-103
Figure 3-37 Housing Element Site 17 (Homestead Road – IntraHealth/Office/Tennis Courts) ............................. 3-105
Figure 3-38 Housing Element Site 18 (The Oaks Shopping Center) .................................................................... 3-107
Figure 3-39 Housing Element Site 19 (Cypress Building Association /Hall Property) ........................................... 3-109
Figure 3-40 General Plan and Zoning Ordinance Conformance Sites .................................................................. 3-117
Figure 3-41 Project Component Summary Map ................................................................................................... 3-127
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
TABLE OF CONTENTS VOLUME I
iv JUNE 18, 2014
Figure 4.1-1 Maximum Building Heights ............................................................................................................... 4.1-27
Figure 4.2-1 San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin ...................................................................................................... 4.2-2
Figure 4.2-2 BAAQMD Community Air Risk Evaluation (CARE) Program Impacted Communities ...................... 4.2-14
Figure 4.2-3 Sources of Toxic Air Contaminants in the City of Cupertino ............................................................. 4.2-61
Figure 4.3-1 Vegetation and Habitat Types ............................................................................................................ 4.3-9
Figure 4.3-2 Special Status Plant and Animal Species ........................................................................................ 4.3-10
Figure 4.4-1 Cultural Resources ........................................................................................................................... 4.4-13
Figure 4.5-1 Geologic Map, Cupertino, California ................................................................................................... 4.5-5
Figure 4.7-1 Hazardous Material Sites ................................................................................................................. 4.7-14
Figure 4.7-2 Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in Local Responsibility Areas ............................................... 4.7-16
Figure 4.7-3 Fire Hazard Severity Zones in State Responsibility Areas ............................................................... 4.7-17
Figure 4.7-4 Wildland Urban Interface Fire Area .................................................................................................. 4.7-18
Figure 4.8-1 Watersheds....................................................................................................................................... 4.8-15
Figure 4.8-2 Storm Water Drainage System ......................................................................................................... 4.8-17
Figure 4.8-3 Groundwater Subbasins ................................................................................................................... 4.8-20
Figure 4.8-4 FEMA Floodplains ............................................................................................................................ 4.8-24
Figure 4.8-5 Dam Inundation ................................................................................................................................ 4.8-26
Figure 4.10-1 Noise Monitoring Locations ............................................................................................................ 4.10-21
Figure 4.10-2 Existing Noise Contours ................................................................................................................. 4.10-24
Figure 4.10-3 2040 Noise Contours – Proposed Project ...................................................................................... 4.10-42
Figure 4.11-1 Cupertino Priority Development Areas ............................................................................................. 4.11-3
Figure 4.13-1 Study Intersections and Roadway Segments ................................................................................... 4.13-5
Figure 4.13-2 Existing Bicycle Facilities ................................................................................................................ 4.13-21
Figure 4.13-3 Existing Transit Services ................................................................................................................ 4.13-24
Figure 4.13-4a Study Intersections 1 – 16 Existing Intersection Lane Configurations ............................................ 4.13-26
Figure 4.13-4b Study Intersections 17 – 32 Existing Intersection Lane Configurations .......................................... 4.13-27
Figure 4.13-4c Study Intersections 33 – 40 Existing Intersection Lane Configurations .......................................... 4.13-28
Figure 4.13-5a Study Intersections 1 – 16 Existing Traffic Volumes ....................................................................... 4.13-29
Figure 4.13-5b Study Intersections 17 – 32 Existing Traffic Volumes ..................................................................... 4.13-30
Figure 4.13-5c Study Intersections 33 – 40 Existing Traffic Volumes ..................................................................... 4.13-31
Figure 4.13-6 Roadway Segment Volumes .......................................................................................................... 4.13-37
Figure 4.14-1 Cupertino Water Service Areas ........................................................................................................ 4.14-7
Figure 4.14-2 Sewer Districts ................................................................................................................................ 4.14-30
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
TABLE OF CONTENTS VOLUME I
PLACEWORKS v
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2-1 Alternatives Development Allocations Comparison Summary ............................................................... 2-5
Table 2-2 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures ...................................................................................... 2-8
Table 3-1 Remaining City-wide Development Allocation ....................................................................................... 3-7
Table 3-2 Summary – All Project Components Development Allocations ............................................................ 3-12
Table 3-3 Existing and Proposed Major Mixed-Use Special Area Combined Development Allocation ................ 3-18
Table 3-4 Existing and Proposed Homestead Special Area Development Standards ......................................... 3-20
Table 3-5 Existing and Proposed North Vallco Special Area Development Standards ........................................ 3-24
Table 3-6 Existing and Proposed Heart of the City Special Area Development Standards ................................. 3-27
Table 3-7 Existing and Proposed North De Anza Special Area Development Standards .................................... 3-32
Table 3-8 Existing and Proposed South De Anza Special Area Development Standards ................................... 3-33
Table 3-9 Existing Study Area Combined Development Allocation ...................................................................... 3-35
Table 3-10 Study Area 1 (Cupertino Inn and Goodyear Tire) Existing and Proposed Development Standards .... 3-39
Table 3-11 Study Area 2 (City Center) Existing and Proposed Development Standards ...................................... 3-42
Table 3-12 Study Area 3 (PG&E) Existing and Proposed Development Standards .............................................. 3-45
Table 3-13 Study Area 4 (Mirapath) Existing and Proposed Development Standards .......................................... 3-48
Table 3-14 Study Area 5 (Cupertino Village) Existing and Proposed Development Standards ............................. 3-51
Table 3-15 Study Area 6 (Vallco Shopping District) Existing and Proposed Development Standards ................... 3-54
Table 3-16 Study Area 7 (Stevens Creek Office Center) Existing and Proposed Development Standards ........... 3-58
Table 3-17 Monta Vista Village Neighborhood Existing and Proposed Development Standards .......................... 3-62
Table 3-18 Bubb Road Special Area Existing and Proposed Development Standards ......................................... 3-63
Table 3-19 Other Non-Residential/Mixed-Use Special Areas Existing and Proposed Development Standards .... 3-65
Table 3-20 City of Cupertino Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) ........................................................... 3-66
Table 3-21 Housing Element Sites Existing and Proposed Development Standards ............................................ 3-68
Table 3-22 General Plan and Zoning Ordinance Conformance Sites ................................................................... 3-111
Table 3-23 Project Component Location Summary ............................................................................................. 3-124
Table 4.1-1 Policies and Strategies of the Cupertino 2000-2020 General Plan .................................................... 4.1-3
Table 4.2-1 Ambient Air Quality Standards for Criteria Pollutants ....................................................................... 4.2-10
Table 4.2-2 Policies and Strategies of the Cupertino 2000-2020 General Plan .................................................. 4.2-15
Table 4.2-3 Attainment Status of Criteria Pollutants in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin............................ 4.2-17
Table 4.2-4 Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Summary ......................................................................................... 4.2-17
Table 4.2-5 Criteria Air Pollutant emissions Generated by Existing Land Uses within Cupertino ........................ 4.2-18
Table 4.2-6 Control Measures from the 2010 Bay Area Clean Air Plan ............................................................... 4.2-25
Table 4.2-7 Comparison of the Change in Service Population and VMT in the City of Cupertino ....................... 4.2-48
Table 4.2-8 Community-Wide Criteria Air Pollutants Generated by Proposed Land Uses in the General Plan ... 4.2-50
Table 4.2-9 CARB Recommendations for Siting New Sensitive Land Uses ........................................................ 4.2-60
Table 4.2-10 BAAQMD Odor Screening Distances ............................................................................................... 4.2-66
Table 4.3-1 Policies and Strategies of the Cupertino 2000-2020 General Plan .................................................... 4.3-4
Table 4.3-2 Estimated Vegetation Cover in City Boundary ................................................................................... 4.3-6
Table 4.4-1 Policies and Strategies of the Cupertino 2000-2020 General Plan .................................................... 4.4-5
Table 4.4-2 Cultural Resources in the Project Study Area and Vicinity .................................................................. 4.4-8
Table 4.5-1 Policies and Strategies of the Cupertino 2000-2020 General Plan .................................................... 4.5-3
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
TABLE OF CONTENTS VOLUME I
vi JUNE 18, 2014
Table 4.6-1 GHG Emissions and their Relative Global Warming Potential Compared to CO2 .............................. 4.6-3
Table 4.6-2 Summary of GHG Emissions Risks to California ................................................................................ 4.6-6
Table 4.6-3 Scoping Plan GHG Reduction Measures and Reductions toward 2020 Target .................................. 4.6-9
Table 4.6-4 Policies and Strategies of the Cupertino 2000-2020 General Plan .................................................. 4.6-15
Table 4.6-5 GHG emissions Generated by Existing Land Uses in Cupertino ...................................................... 4.6-17
Table 4.6-6 2020 Cupertino Community GHG emissions Inventory .................................................................... 4.6-24
Table 4.6-6 2040 Cupertino Community GHG emissions Inventory .................................................................... 4.6-25
Table 4.7-1 Policies and Strategies of the Cupertino 2000-2020 General Plan .................................................... 4.7-8
Table 4.7-2 Hazardous Materials And Lust Sites ................................................................................................. 4.7-11
Table 4.8-1 Santa Clara County General Plan Policies Relevant to Hydrology and Water Quality ....................... 4.8-9
Table 4.8-2 Policies and Strategies of the Cupertino 2000-2020 General Plan .................................................. 4.8-10
Table 4.8-3 Under Capacity Storm Drainage Infrastructure ................................................................................. 4.8-19
Table 4.8-4 Designated Beneficial Uses of Water Bodies in Cupertino ............................................................... 4.8-22
Table 4.8-5 303(d) List of Impaired Water Bodies in Cupertino ........................................................................... 4.8-22
Table 4.9-1 Policies and Strategies of the Cupertino 2000-2020 General Plan .................................................... 4.9-5
Table 4.10-1 Change in Apparent Loudness ......................................................................................................... 4.10-3
Table 4.10-2 Typical Noise Levels ......................................................................................................................... 4.10-4
Table 4.10-3 Human Reaction to Typical Vibration Levels .................................................................................... 4.10-6
Table 4.10-4 Goals, Policies, and Programs of the Cupertino General Plan ......................................................... 4.10-8
Table 4.10-5 Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments ......................................................... 4.10-10
Table 4.10-6 Daytime and Nighttime Maximum Noise Levels ............................................................................. 4.10-13
Table 4.10-7 Daytime and Nighttime Maximum Noise Levels ............................................................................. 4.10-13
Table 4.10-8 Noise Monitoring Summary ............................................................................................................ 4.10-22
Table 4.10-9 Groundborne Vibration Levels for Construction Equipment ........................................................... 4.10-33
Table 4.10-10 Increases to Ambient Noise Levels Along Major Roadway Segments – Proposed Project ............ 4.10-37
Table 4.10-11 Construction Equipment Noise Emission Levels ............................................................................ 4.10-45
Table 4.11-1 Population, Household, and Employment Projections ...................................................................... 4.11-7
Table 4.11-2 City of Cupertino Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) ........................................................ 4.11-7
Table 4.11-3 Proposed Project Estimated Population, Household, and Employment ......................................... 4.11-13
Table 4.12-1 Policies and Strategies of the Cupertino 2000-2020 General Plan .................................................. 4.12-2
Table 4.12-2 Policies and Strategies of the Cupertino 2000-2020 General Plan .................................................. 4.12-9
Table 4.12-3 Current Capacity and Enrollment for the CUSD ............................................................................. 4.12-15
Table 4.12-4 Current Capacity and Enrollment for the FUHSD ........................................................................... 4.12-17
Table 4.12-5 Policies and Strategies of the Cupertino 2000-2020 General Plan ................................................ 4.12-21
Table 4.12-6 Policies and Strategies of the Cupertino 2000-2020 General Plan ................................................ 4.12-27
Table 4.13-1 Study Intersections ........................................................................................................................... 4.13-1
Table 4.13-2 Policies and Strategies of the Cupertino 2000-2020 General Plan ................................................ 4.13-12
Table 4.13-3 Signalized Intersection Level of Service Definitions Based on Average Delay ............................... 4.13-15
Table 4.13-4 Freeway Segment Level of Service Definitions Based on Density ................................................. 4.13-17
Table 4.13-5 VTA Routes and Peak Period Headways in Cupertino ................................................................... 4.13-25
Table 4.13-6 Existing AM and PM peak hour level of service results .................................................................. 4.13-32
Table 4.13-7 Average Daily Traffic on Selected Roadway Segments ................................................................. 4.13-35
Table 4.13-8 Existing Freeway Levels of Service ................................................................................................ 4.13-38
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
TABLE OF CONTENTS VOLUME I
PLACEWORKS vii
Table 4.13-9 VMT Per Capita .............................................................................................................................. 4.13-39
Table 4.13-10 Daily VMT By Trip Orientation ........................................................................................................ 4.13-40
Table 4.13-11 2040 No Project and Project Model Forecasts ............................................................................... 4.13-41
Table 4.13-12 2040 No Project AM and PM Peak Hour Level of Service Results ................................................. 4.13-43
Table 4.13-13 Proposed Project Intersection Levels of Service Table ................................................................... 4.13-50
Table 4.13-14 Average Daily Traffic on Selected Roadway Segments Under the Proposed Project .................... 4.13-56
Table 4.13-15 Daily Freeway Segment Impact Analysis under Proposed Project ................................................. 4.13-58
Table 4.13-16 VMT Per Capita .............................................................................................................................. 4.13-60
Table 4.13-17 VMT By Trip Orientation ................................................................................................................. 4.13-60
Table 4.14-1 Policies and Strategies of the Cupertino 2000-2020 General Plan .................................................. 4.14-5
Table 4.14-2 Cal Water LAS District Projected SB X7 7 Water Demand (AFY) .................................................. 4.14-10
Table 4.14-3 Cal Water Conservation Programs ................................................................................................. 4.14-11
Table 4.14-4 Cal Water Supply Shortage Reduction Stages ............................................................................... 4.14-12
Table 4.14-5 SJWC Total Demand (AFY) ............................................................................................................ 4.14-12
Table 4.14-6 Proposed Development in Cal Water and SJWC Service Areas by 2040 ...................................... 4.14-14
Table 4.14-7 Projected Water Demand Cal Water LAS District + Proposed Project (AFY) ................................. 4.14-15
Table 4.14-8 Demand and Supply Comparison - Normal Hydrologic Year: Cal Water LAS District
+ Proposed Project (afy) ................................................................................................................. 4.14-15
Table 4.14-9 Demand and Supply Comparison - One Dry Year: Cal Water LAS District
+ Proposed Project (AFY) ............................................................................................................... 4.14-16
Table 4.14-10 Demand and Supply Comparison - Multiple Dry Year Period (4 Years): Cal Water LAS District
+ Proposed Project (AFY) ............................................................................................................... 4.14-18
Table 4.14-11 Current and Projected SJWC Water Supply – Including Conservation (afy) .................................. 4.14-19
Table 4.14-12 SJWC 2035 Supply and Demand -- Normal, Single-Dry, and Multiple-Dry Years (acre feet) ......... 4.14-20
Table 4.14-13 Policies and Strategies of the Cupertino 2000-2020 General Plan ................................................ 4.14-26
Table 4.14-14 Landfills Existing Capacity and Estimated Closure Date ................................................................ 4.14-50
Table 4.14-15 Projected Residents, Employment, and Waste Generation at 2040 Buildout – Proposed Project . 4.14-51
Table 4.14-16 Buildout and Regional Growth Comparison – Proposed Project .................................................... 4.14-53
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
TABLE OF CONTENTS VOLUME I
viii JUNE 18, 2014
PLACEWORKS 1-1
1. Introduction
A thorough examination of the existing regulatory and environmental setting in the City of Cupertino is a
critical initial step in the adoption and implementation of the General Plan Amendment, Housing Element
Update, and associated Rezoning Project, herein referred to as the “proposed Project” or “Project,” and the
certification of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) process. Therefore, this report is intended to
analyze the significant environmental effects (“impacts”) of the proposed Project. The information in this
report will serve as a resource throughout the Project approval and environmental review process for the
community, City staff, and decision-makers.
Pursuant to Section 21080(d) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)1 and Section 15378[a] of
the CEQA Guidelines,2 the proposed General Plan Amendment, Housing Element Update, and associated
Rezoning is considered a "project" subject to environmental review because it is "an action [undertaken by a
public agency] which has the potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment or
a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment." This Draft Environmental Impact
Report (Draft EIR) provides an assessment of the potential environmental consequences of adoption and
implementation of the proposed Project. Additionally, this Draft EIR identifies mitigation measures and
alternatives to the proposed Project that would avoid or reduce significant impacts. This Draft EIR compares
the buildout potential3 for the proposed Project with the existing baseline condition, described in detail in
each resource section of Chapter 4.0, Environmental Analysis. The City of Cupertino (City) is the Lead
Agency for the proposed Project. This assessment is intended to inform the City’s decision-makers, other
responsible agencies, and the public-at-large of the nature of the proposed Project and its effect on the
environment.
1.1 PROPOSED PROJECT
The City of Cupertino is currently undertaking a community-based planning process to review land use
alternatives as part of a focused General Plan Amendment. Proposed alternatives include options for city-
wide development allocations (office, commercial, hotel, and residential), as well as building heights and
densities for five Special Areas along major transportation corridors, where Gateways and Nodes have been
identified, seven Study Areas, and Other Special Areas including Neighborhoods and Non-residential/Mixed
Use Special Areas. These Project Component locations are shown in Chapter 3, Project Description, of this
Draft EIR on Figures 3-4, 3-10, and 3-19, respectively.
1 The CEQA Statute is found at California Public Resources Code, Division 13, Sections 21000-21177.
2 The CEQA Guidelines are found at California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, Sections 15000-15387.
3 Defined as the maximum theoretical amount of development that could occur within the 26-year horizon of the General Plan.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
INTRODUCTION
1-2 JUNE 18, 2014
The proposed land use alternatives and changes to the goals, policies, and strategies would require
amendments to the City of Cupertino 2000-2020 General Plan adopted by the City Council on November
15, 2005.
The City is also updating the General Plan’s Housing Element to accommodate the Regional Housing Needs
Allocation (RHNA)4 for the 2014–2022 planning period and meet its fair share housing obligation of 1,064
units. As part of this 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 the permanent emergency shelters
and to be compliant with the State Employee Housing Act with respect to farmworker housing and
employee housing. Furthermore, 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
would be amended to be compliant with recent legislation and to mitigate the potential displacement
impacts to renters (e.g. tenant relocation benefits).
The proposed Project will also include 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
Zoning map to ensure consistency with the General Plan as a result of changes to Housing Element policies
that are required by State Law5 or as adopted by the City Council as a result of the Project, changes to
General Plan Policy to address changes required as a result of recently adopted State Law (such as Assembly
Bill 1358, Complete Streets), and as a result of bringing non-conforming land uses into conformance with
the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance.
1.2 EIR SCOPE
This Draft EIR is a Program EIR that analyzes the adoption and implementation of the proposed General
Plan Amendment, Housing Element Update, and associated Rezoning. CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines
allow lead agencies to prepare, a number of types of EIRs. Different types of EIRs are used for varying
situations and intended uses. As described in Section 15161 of the CEQA Guidelines, the most common
type of EIR is a project EIR, which examines the environmental impacts of a specific development project. As
described in Section 15168 of the CEQA Guidelines, program EIRs are appropriate when a project consists
of a series of actions related to the issuance of rules, regulations, and other planning criteria.
4 The RHNA is an estimate of projected needed housing units throughout the State that is based on Department of Finance population
projections and regional population forecasts. The Association of Bay Area Governments is the regional planning agency tasked with the
responsibility of developing a regional housing plan with a RHNA for each jurisdiction to meet existing and future housing needs.
5 Specific State Law includes, but is not limited to, the Federal Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988, California’s Fair Employment and
Housing Act, and the State’s Housing Element law.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
INTRODUCTION
PLACEWORKS 1-3
In this case, the proposed Project that is the subject of this EIR consists of long-term plans that will be
implemented over time as policy documents guiding future development activities and City actions. No
specific development projects are proposed as part of the Project. Therefore, this EIR is a program-level EIR
that analyzes the potential significant environmental effects of the adoption of the proposed Project. As a
program EIR, it is not project-specific, and does not evaluate the impacts of individual projects that may be
proposed under the General Plan. Such subsequent projects will require a separate environmental review,
when applicable as required by CEQA, which could be in the form of a Negative Declaration, Mitigated
Negative Declaration, or a Subsequent EIR, to secure the necessary development permits. Therefore, while
subsequent environmental review may be tiered from this EIR, this EIR is not intended to address project-
specific impacts of individual projects.
The scope of this EIR was established by the City of Cupertino through the EIR scoping process and
includes an analysis of both the Project’s impact and the cumulative impacts in the following issue areas:
Aesthetics
Air Quality
Biological Resources
Cultural Resources
Geology, Soils, and Seismicity
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Hydrology and Water Quality
Land Use and Planning
Noise
Population and Housing
Public Services and Recreation
Transportation and Traffic
Utilities and Service Systems
CEQA Required Assessment Conclusions:
Impacts Found Not To Be Significant
Significant Unavoidable Impacts
Growth-Inducing Impacts
Significant Irreversible Changes
The implementation of the proposed Project was found to have no impacts related to Agricultural and
Forestry Resources, and Mineral Resources. A complete discussion of the impacts to Agricultural and
Forestry Resources, and Mineral Resources is provided in Chapter 6, CEQA-Required Assessment, of this
Draft EIR.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
INTRODUCTION
1-4 JUNE 18, 2014
1.3 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS
1.3.1 DRAFT EIR
Pursuant to CEQA Section 21080(d) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15063, the City of Cupertino
determined that the proposed Project could result in potentially significant environmental impacts and that
an EIR would be required. In compliance with Section 21080.4 of the California Public Resources Code,
the City circulated a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of an EIR for the proposed Project to the Office of
Planning and Research (OPR) State Clearinghouse and interested agencies and persons on March 5, 2014
for a 30-day review period. A public Scoping Meeting was held on Tuesday, March 11, 2014 at 5:00 p.m. at
the Cupertino Community Hall (10350 Torre Avenue, next to the library). The NOP and scoping process
solicited comments from responsible and trustee agencies, as well as interested parties regarding the scope
of the Draft EIR. Appendix A, Notice of Preparation Comment Letters, of this Draft EIR contains the NOP
as well as the comments received by the City in response to the NOP.
This Draft EIR will be available for review by the public and interested parties, agencies, and organizations
for a 45-day comment period starting Tuesday, June 18, 2014 and ending Friday, August 1, 2014. A
Community Open House will be held on Tuesday, June 24, 2014. During the comment period, the public is
invited to submit written comments via mail or e-mail on the Draft EIR to the City of Cupertino
Community Development Department by 5:00 p.m. on Friday, August 1, 2014.
Written comments should be submitted to:
Ms. Piu Ghosh, Senior Planner
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
Email: planning@cupertino.org
1.3.2 FINAL EIR
Upon completion of the 45-day review period for the Draft EIR, the City of Cupertino will review all
written comments received and prepare written responses to each comment on the adequacy of the EIR. A
Final EIR will then be prepared, which contains all of the comments received, responses to comments
raising environmental issues, and any changes to the Draft EIR. The Final EIR will then be presented to the
City of Cupertino for certification as the environmental document for the proposed Project. All persons
who commented on the Draft EIR will be notified of the availability of the Final EIR and the date of the
public hearing before the City.
All responses to comments submitted on the Draft EIR by agencies will be provided to those agencies at
least 10 days prior to certification of the EIR. The City Council will make findings regarding the extent and
nature of the impacts as presented in the Final EIR. The Final EIR will need to be certified as having been
prepared in compliance with CEQA by the City prior to making a decision to approve or deny the proposed
Project. Public input is encouraged at all public hearings before the City.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
INTRODUCTION
PLACEWORKS 1-5
After the City Council certifies the Final EIR, it may then consider the General Plan Amendment, Housing
Element, and associated Rezoning. The City Council will adopt and incorporate into the project all feasible
mitigation measures identified in the EIR and it may also require other feasible mitigation measures.
In some cases, the City Council may find that certain mitigation measures are outside the jurisdiction of the
City to implement, or that no feasible mitigation measures have been identified for a given significant
impact. In that case, the City Council may nonetheless determine that economic, legal, social, technological,
or other benefits of the proposed Project outweigh the unavoidable, significant effects on the environment.
1.3.3 MITIGATION MONITORING
Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 requires that the lead agency adopt a monitoring or reporting
program for any project for which it has made findings pursuant to Public Resources Code 21081 or
adopted a Negative Declaration pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080(c). Such a program is
intended to ensure the implementation of all mitigation measures adopted through the preparation of an
EIR or Negative Declaration. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the proposed Project
will be completed as part of the environmental review process.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
INTRODUCTION
1-6 JUNE 18, 2014
PLACEWORKS 2-1
2. Executive Summary
This chapter presents an overview of the proposed Project, identifies areas of concern, and conclusions of
the analysis contained in Chapters 4.0 through 4.14 of this Draft EIR. For a complete description of the
proposed Project, please see Chapter 3, Project Description, of this Draft EIR. For a discussion of
alternatives to the proposed Project, please see Chapters 5.0 through 5.3, Alternatives to the Proposed
Project, of this Draft EIR.
This Draft EIR addresses the significant environmental effects associated with implementation of the
proposed Project. CEQA requires that local government agencies consider the environmental consequences
of projects over which they have discretionary approval authority prior to taking action. An EIR is a public
document designed to provide the public and local and State governmental agency decision-makers with an
analysis of potential environmental consequences to support informed decision-making.
This Draft EIR has been prepared pursuant to the requirements of CEQA1 (and the CEQA Guidelines2 (to
determine if approval of the identified discretionary actions and related subsequent development could have
a significant effect on the environment (i.e. significant impact). The City of Cupertino, as the Lead Agency,
has reviewed and revised as necessary all submitted drafts, technical studies, and reports to reflect its own
independent judgment, including reliance on applicable City technical personnel and review of all technical
subconsultant reports. Information for this Draft EIR was obtained from on-site field observations;
discussions with affected agencies; analysis of adopted plans and policies; review of available studies, reports,
data, and similar literature in the public domain; and specialized environmental assessments (e.g. air quality,
hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, noise, and transportation and traffic).
2.2 ENVIRONMENTAL PROCEDURES
The six main purposes of this document as established by CEQA are:
To disclose to decision-makers and the public the significant environmental effects of proposed activities.
To identify ways to avoid or reduce environmental damage.
To prevent environmental damage by requiring implementation of feasible alternatives or mitigation
measures.
To disclose to the public the reasons for agency approval of projects with significant environmental
effects.
To foster interagency coordination in the review of projects.
To enhance public participation in the planning process.
1 The CEQA Statute is found at California Public Resources Code, Division 13, Sections 21000-21177.
2 The CEQA Guidelines are found at California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, Sections 15000-15387.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2-2 JUNE 18, 2014
An EIR is the most comprehensive form of environmental documentation identified in CEQA and the
CEQA Guidelines. It provides the information needed to assess the environmental consequences of a
proposed Project, to the extent feasible. EIRs are intended to provide an objective, factually supported, full-
disclosure analysis of the environmental consequences associated with a proposed Project that has the
potential to result in significant adverse environmental impacts. An EIR is also one of various decision-
making tools used by a lead agency to consider the environmental merits and disadvantages of a project that
is subject to its discretionary authority. Prior to approving a proposed Project, the lead agency must
consider the information contained in the EIR, determine whether the EIR was properly prepared in
accordance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, determine that it reflects the independent judgment of
the lead agency, adopt findings concerning the project’s significant environmental impacts, mitigation
measures and Alternatives, and must adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations if the proposed
Project would result in significant impacts that cannot be avoided.
2.2.1 REPORT ORGANIZATION
This Draft EIR is organized into the following chapters:
Chapter 1: Introduction. Provides an overview describing the Draft EIR document.
Chapter 2: Executive Summary. Summarizes the environmental consequences that would result
from implementation of the proposed Project the alternatives to the proposed Project, the
recommended mitigation measures, and indicates the level of significance of environmental impacts
with and without mitigation.
Chapter 3: Project Description. Describes the proposed Project in detail, including the
characteristics, objectives, and the structural and technical elements of the proposed action.
Chapter 4: Environmental Evaluation. Organized into 14 sub-chapters corresponding to the
environmental resource categories identified in Appendix G, Environmental Checklist, of the CEQA
Guidelines, this chapter provides a description of the physical environmental conditions in the City of
Cupertino as they existed at the time the Notice of Preparation was published, from both a local and
regional perspective, as well as an analysis of the potential environmental impacts of the proposed
Project, and recommended mitigation measures, if required, to reduce their significance. The
environmental setting included in each sub-chapter provides baseline physical conditions from which
the Lead Agency determines the significance of environmental impacts resulting from the proposed
Project. Each sub-chapter also includes a description of the thresholds used to determine if a significant
impact would occur; the methodology to identify and evaluate the potential impacts of the proposed
Project; and the potential cumulative impacts associated with the proposed Project.
Chapter 5: Alternatives to the Proposed Project. Organized into three sub-chapters, this chapter
considers three alternatives to the proposed Project, which are the CEQA-required “No Project”
Alternative, General Plan Land Use Alternative A, and General Plan Land Use Alternative B.
Chapter 6: CEQA-Required Assessment Conclusions. Discusses growth inducement, cumulative
impacts, significant unavoidable effects, and significant irreversible changes as a result of the proposed
Project. Additionally, this chapter identifies environmental issues that were determined not to require
further environmental review during the scoping process pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15128.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
PLACEWORKS 2-3
Chapter 7: Organizations and Persons Consulted. Lists the people and organizations that were
contacted during the preparation of this EIR for the proposed Project.
Appendices: The appendices for this document (presented in PDF format on a CD attached to the
back cover) contain the following supporting documents:
Appendix A: Notice of Preparation Comment Letters
Appendix B: Community Discussion Summaries
Appendix C: Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Data and Calculation Sheet
Appendix D: Cultural Resources Data
Appendix E: Noise Data
Appendix F: Public Services Data
Appendix G: Transportation and Traffic Data
Appendix H: Utilities and Service System Data
Appendix I: Proposed General Plan Policy Amendments
2.2.2 TYPE AND PURPOSE OF THIS DRAFT EIR
According to Section 15121(a) of the CEQA Guidelines, the purpose of an EIR is to:
Inform public agency decision-makers and the public generally of the significant environmental effects of a project,
identify possible ways to minimize the significant effects, and describe reasonable alternatives to the project.
Because of the long-term planning horizon of the proposed Project and the permitting, planning, and
development actions that are related both geographically and as logical parts in the chain of contemplated
actions for implementation, this Draft EIR has been prepared as a program EIR for the proposed Project,
pursuant to Section 15168 of the CEQA Guidelines.
Once a program EIR has been certified, subsequent activities within the program must be evaluated to
determine whether additional CEQA review needs to be prepared. However, if the program EIR addresses
the program’s effects as specifically and comprehensively as possible, subsequent activities could be found to
be within the program EIR scope, and additional environmental review may not be required (CEQA
Guidelines Section 15168[c]). When a program EIR is relied on for a subsequent activity, the lead agency
must incorporate feasible mitigation measures and Alternatives developed in the program EIR into the
subsequent activities (CEQA Guidelines Section 15168[c][3]). If a subsequent activity would have effects
that are not within the scope of a program EIR, the lead agency must prepare a new Initial Study leading to a
Negative Declaration, a Mitigated Negative Declaration, or an EIR. For these subsequent environmental
review documents, this Program EIR will serve as the first-tier environmental analysis.
2.3 SUMMARY OF PROPOSED PROJECT
The City of Cupertino has undertaken a community-based planning process to review land use alternatives
as part of a focused General Plan Amendment. Proposed alternatives include options for city-wide
development allocations (office, commercial, hotel, and residential), as well as building heights and densities
for Special Areas along major transportation corridors, where Gateways/Nodes have been identified, seven
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2-4 JUNE 18, 2014
Study Areas, and Other Special Areas including Residential and Non-Residential/Mixed-Use Special Areas.
These Project Component locations are shown in Chapter 3, Project Description, of this Draft EIR on
Figures 3-4, 3-10 and 3-19, respectively. The proposed land use alternatives and changes to the goals,
policies and strategies would require amendments to the City of Cupertino 2000-2020 General Plan
adopted by the City Council on November 15, 2005.
The City is also updating the General Plan’s Housing Element to accommodate the Regional Housing Needs
Allocation (RHNA) for the 2014–2022 planning period and meet its fair-share housing obligation of 1,064
units. As part of this 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) and 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 19.92 (Park and Recreation Zones), also in Title 19 (Zoning) of the City’s Municipal Code, will
be amended to ensure conformance with SB 2 requirements pertaining to the permanent emergency
shelters. Furthermore, Program 15 of the Housing Element addresses the potential loss of rental housing
and displacement of lower and moderate income households due to new development. The Zoning
Ordinance will also be amended to be consistent with the State Employee Housing Act with respect to
farmworker housing and employee housing. Under the proposed Project, the City may also consider
amending existing policies to be compliant with recent legislation and to mitigate the potential displacement
impacts to renters (e.g. tenant relocation benefits).
The proposed Project will also include changes to the General Plan Land Use Map, Zoning Ordinance
(including Chapters listed above and 19.08 (Definitions) and 19.144 (Development Agreements) and
Zoning map for internal consistency as a result of changes to Housing Element policies that are required by
State Law3 or as adopted by the City Council as a result the Project, changes to General Plan Policy to
address changes required as a result of recently adopted State Law (such as Assembly Bill 1358, Complete
Streets) and as a result of bringing non-conforming land use into conformance with the General Plan and
Zoning Ordinance.
This Draft EIR provides an assessment of the potential environmental impacts of implementing the
proposed Project. Because of the comprehensive nature of the General Plan Amendment, Housing Element
Update, and associated Rezoning, the Project description is organized by the following five distinct Project
Components:
1. Special Areas, along major transportation corridors, including City Gateways/Nodes
2. Study Areas
3. Other Special Areas including Neighborhoods and Non-Residential/Mixed-Use Special Areas
4. Housing Element Sites
5. General Plan Land Use Map and, Zoning Map and Ordinance Amendments
3 Specific State Law includes, but is not limited to, the Federal Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988, California’s Fair Employment and
Housing Act, and the State’s Housing Element law.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
PLACEWORKS 2-5
A detailed description of each of these proposed Project Components is provided in Chapter 3, Project
Description, of this Draft EIR.
2.4 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
This Draft EIR analyzes alternatives to the proposed Project that are designed to reduce the significant
environmental impacts of the proposed Project and feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the
proposed Project. There is no set methodology for comparing the alternatives or determining the
environmentally superior alternative under CEQA. Identification of the environmentally superior
alternative involves comparing the environmental effects of the alternatives with the environmental effects
of the proposed Project. The following three alter natives to the proposed Project were considered and
analyzed in detail in Chapter 5, of this Draft EIR.
No Project Alternative
General Plan Land Use Alternative A
General Plan Land Use Alternative B
Table 2-1 provides the development projections for each alternative that is analyzed in this Draft EIR. As
shown in Table 2-1, the proposed Project provides the most conservative and worst-case analysis for CEQA
purposes.
TABLE 2‐1 ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT ALLOCATIONS COMPARISON SUMMARY
Category
Proposed
Projecta
No
Projectb
Land Use
Alternative A
Land Use
Alternative B
Office 4,040,231 sf 540,231 sf 1,040,231 sf 2,540,231 sf
Commercial 1,343,679 sf 701,413 sf 701,413 sf 1,343,679 sf
Hotel 1,339 rooms 339 rooms 600 rooms 839 rooms
Residential 4,421 units 1,895 units 1,895 units 3,316 units
Note: sf = square feet
a. The proposed Project represents General Plan Land Use Alternative C.
b. No Project represents remaining development allocation under the existing 2005 General Plan.
c. Reflects the redevelopment of Vallco Mall (1,267,601 sf) with 625,335 sf reserved for the Vallco Mall and the remaining 642,266 sf reallocated
to other areas in the City.
Source: City of Cupertino.
Chapter 5, Alternatives to the Proposed Project, of this Draft EIR, includes a complete discussion of these
alternatives and alternatives that were considered but not carried forward for detailed analysis.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2-6 JUNE 18, 2014
2.5 AREAS OF CONCERN
The City issued a Notice of Preparation (NOP) on March 5, 2014, and held a scoping meeting on March 11,
2014. The scoping period for this EIR was between March 5 and April 7, 2014, during which interested
agencies and the public could submit comments about the proposed Project. The following is a discussion of
issues that are likely to be of particular concern to agencies and interested members of the public during the
environmental review process. While every environmental concern applicable to the CEQA process is
addressed in this Draft EIR, this list is not necessarily exhaustive; rather, it attempts to capture those
concerns that are likely to generate the greatest interest based on the input received during the scoping
process.
Visual resources including the views of hillsides/skylines.
Emissions from exhaust of idling cars in need of parking.
Increased building height and density impacts on raptor/hawk populations.
Wildlife ecosystem including birds and squirrels.
Public health hazards from greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
General impacts on seniors and children.
Noise from new sources, including restaurants.
Impacts to public service providers including police, libraries, schools, and the loss of playgrounds.
Water treatment and demand.
Sewer and water capacity along the Special Areas.
Solid waste capacity and service proximity to sites.
PG&E capacity.
Possibility of extending recycled water line into city from Wolfe/Homestead.
Overall impacts to transportation infrastructure, including congestion on Homestead Road.
Morning and afternoon traffic near schools.
Pedestrian safety for all ages including seniors and children.
Additional traffic generated by work, schools shopping.
Shuttles/alternative modes of transportation.
Vehicle miles traveled.
Meeting Association of Bay Areas Governments (ABAG) requirements and impacts of high-density
residential.
Impacts on neighboring cities.
Impacts of entitled projects.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
PLACEWORKS 2-7
2.6 SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Under CEQA, a significant effect on the environment (i.e. significant impact) is defined as a substantial, or
potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the Project Study Area ,
including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic and aesthetic
significance.
The proposed Project has the potential to generate significant environmental impacts in a number of areas.
As shown in Table 2-1, some significant impacts would be reduced to a less-than-significant level if the
mitigation measures identified in this Draft EIR are adopted and implemented. However, pursuant to
Section 15126.2(b) of the CEQA Guidelines, which requires that an EIR describe any significant impacts
that cannot be avoided, even with the implementation of feasible mitigation measures, as shown in Table 2-1,
significant unavoidable impacts were identified in the areas of air quality, noise and transportation and
traffic. For a complete summary of the significant and unavoidable impacts, please see Section 6.2 in
Chapter 6.0, CEQA-Required Assessment Conclusions, of this Draft EIR. As described in detail in Chapter
6.0, the proposed Project would have no significant impact on agricultural and forestry resources and
mineral resources due to existing conditions in the City of Cupertino. Accordingly, these topics have not
been analyzed further in this Draft EIR.
Table 2-1 summarizes the conclusions of the environmental analysis contained in this Draft EIR and presents
a summary of impacts and mitigation measures identified. It is organized to correspond with the
environmental issues discussed in Chapters 4.1 through 4.14. The table is arranged in four columns: 1)
environmental impacts; 2) significance without mitigation; 3) mitigation measures; and 4) significance with
mitigation. For a complete description of potential impacts, please refer to the specific discussions in
Chapters 4.1 through 4.14.
GE
N
E
R
A
L
P
L
A
N
A
M
E
N
D
M
E
N
T
,
H
O
U
S
I
N
G
E
L
E
M
E
N
T
U
P
D
A
T
E
,
A
N
D
A
S
S
O
C
I
A
T
E
D
R
E
Z
O
N
I
N
G
D
R
A
F
T
E
I
R
CI
T
Y
O
F
C
U
P
E
R
T
I
N
O
EX
E
C
U
T
I
V
E
S
U
M
M
A
R
Y
2-
8
JUNE 18, 2014
TAB
L
E
2‐2
SUM
M
A
R
Y
OF
IMP
A
C
T
S
AN
D
MIT
I
G
A
T
I
O
N
MEA
S
U
R
E
S
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
Im
p
a
c
t
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
c
e
Wi
t
h
o
u
t
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
Me
a
s
u
r
e
s
Significance With Mitigation
Ae
s
t
h
e
t
i
c
s
AE
S
‐1:
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
of
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
wo
u
l
d
no
t
ha
v
e
an
ad
v
e
r
s
e
ef
f
e
c
t
on
a sc
e
n
i
c
vi
s
t
a
.
LT
S
N/
A
LTS
AE
S
‐2:
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
of
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
wo
u
l
d
no
t
su
b
s
t
a
n
t
i
a
l
l
y
da
m
a
g
e
sc
e
n
i
c
re
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
,
in
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
,
bu
t
no
t
li
m
i
t
e
d
to
,
tr
e
e
s
,
ro
c
k
ou
t
c
r
o
p
p
i
n
g
s
,
an
d
hi
s
t
o
r
i
c
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
,
wi
t
h
i
n
a St
a
t
e
sc
e
n
i
c
hi
g
h
w
a
y
.
LT
S
N/
A
LTS
AE
S
‐3:
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
of
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
wo
u
l
d
no
t
su
b
s
t
a
n
t
i
a
l
l
y
de
g
r
a
d
e
th
e
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
vi
s
u
a
l
ch
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
or
qu
a
l
i
t
y
of
th
e
Si
t
e
an
d
it
s
su
r
r
o
u
n
d
i
n
g
s
.
LT
S
N/
A
LTS
AE
S
‐4:
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
of
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
wo
u
l
d
no
t
cr
e
a
t
e
a
ne
w
so
u
r
c
e
of
su
b
s
t
a
n
t
i
a
l
li
g
h
t
or
gl
a
r
e
wh
i
c
h
wo
u
l
d
ad
v
e
r
s
e
l
y
af
f
e
c
t
da
y
or
ni
g
h
t
t
i
m
e
vi
e
w
s
in
th
e
ar
e
a
.
LT
S
N/
A
LTS
AE
S
‐5:
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
of
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
,
in
co
m
b
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
wi
t
h
pa
s
t
,
pr
e
s
e
n
t
an
d
re
a
s
o
n
a
b
l
y
fo
r
e
s
e
e
a
b
l
e
pr
o
j
e
c
t
s
,
wo
u
l
d
no
t
re
s
u
l
t
in
si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
im
p
a
c
t
s
wi
t
h
re
s
p
e
c
t
to
ae
s
t
h
e
t
i
c
s
.
LT
S
N/
A
LTS
Ai
r
Qu
a
l
i
t
y
AQ
‐1:
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
of
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
wo
u
l
d
co
n
f
l
i
c
t
wi
t
h
or
ob
s
t
r
u
c
t
im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
of
th
e
ap
p
l
i
c
a
b
l
e
ai
r
qu
a
l
i
t
y
pl
a
n
.
S
Th
e
r
e
ar
e
no
ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
me
a
s
u
r
e
s
av
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
.
Se
e
Ch
a
p
t
e
r
4.2,
Ai
r
Qu
a
l
i
t
y
,
fo
r
a co
m
p
l
e
t
e
di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
.
SU
AQ
‐2:
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
of
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
wo
u
l
d
vi
o
l
a
t
e
an
y
ai
r
qu
a
l
i
t
y
st
a
n
d
a
r
d
or
co
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
e
su
b
s
t
a
n
t
i
a
l
l
y
to
an
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
or
pr
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
ai
r
qu
a
l
i
t
y
vi
o
l
a
t
i
o
n
.
S
AQ
‐2a
:
As
pa
r
t
of
th
e
Ci
t
y
’
s
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
ap
p
r
o
v
a
l
pr
o
c
e
s
s
,
th
e
Ci
t
y
shall
re
q
u
i
r
e
ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
s
fo
r
fu
t
u
r
e
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
pr
o
j
e
c
t
s
to
co
m
p
l
y
with the
cu
r
r
e
n
t
Ba
y
Ar
e
a
Ai
r
Qu
a
l
i
t
y
Ma
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
Di
s
t
r
i
c
t
’
s
ba
s
i
c
control
me
a
s
u
r
e
s
fo
r
re
d
u
c
i
n
g
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
em
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
of
PM
10
.
AQ
‐2b
:
As
pa
r
t
of
th
e
Ci
t
y
’
s
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
ap
p
r
o
v
a
l
pr
o
c
e
s
s
th
e
Ci
t
y
shall
re
q
u
i
r
e
ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
s
fo
r
fu
t
u
r
e
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
pr
o
j
e
c
t
s
th
a
t
co
u
l
d
ge
n
e
r
a
t
e
em
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
in
ex
c
e
s
s
of
th
e
Ba
y
Ar
e
a
Ai
r
Qu
a
l
i
t
y
Ma
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
District’s
(B
A
A
Q
M
D
s
)
cu
r
r
e
n
t
si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
c
e
th
r
e
s
h
o
l
d
s
du
r
i
n
g
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
,
as
de
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
d
by
pr
o
j
e
c
t
‐le
v
e
l
en
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
re
v
i
e
w
,
wh
e
n
ap
p
l
i
c
a
b
l
e
,
to
im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
th
e
cu
r
r
e
n
t
BA
A
Q
M
D
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
me
a
s
u
r
e
s
(e.g.
Ta
b
l
e
8‐3
of
th
e
BA
A
Q
M
D
CE
Q
A
Gu
i
d
e
l
i
n
e
s
)
or
an
y
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
me
a
s
u
r
e
s
su
b
s
e
q
u
e
n
t
l
y
ad
o
p
t
e
d
by
th
e
BA
A
Q
M
D
.
SU
GE
N
E
R
A
L
P
L
A
N
A
M
E
N
D
M
E
N
T
,
H
O
U
S
I
N
G
E
L
E
M
E
N
T
U
P
D
A
T
E
,
A
N
D
A
S
S
O
C
I
A
T
E
D
R
E
Z
O
N
I
N
G
D
R
A
F
T
E
I
R
CITY OF CUPERTINO
EX
E
C
U
T
I
V
E
S
U
M
M
A
R
Y
PL
A
C
E
W
O
R
K
S
2-9
TAB
L
E
2‐2
SUM
M
A
R
Y
OF
IMP
A
C
T
S
AN
D
MIT
I
G
A
T
I
O
N
MEA
S
U
R
E
S
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
Im
p
a
c
t
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
c
e
Wi
t
h
o
u
t
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
Me
a
s
u
r
e
s
Significance With Mitigation
AQ
‐3:
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
of
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
wo
u
l
d
re
s
u
l
t
in
a
cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
l
y
co
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
b
l
e
ne
t
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
of
an
y
cr
i
t
e
r
i
a
po
l
l
u
t
a
n
t
fo
r
wh
i
c
h
th
e
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
re
g
i
o
n
is
no
n
a
t
t
a
i
n
m
e
n
t
un
d
e
r
an
ap
p
l
i
c
a
b
l
e
fe
d
e
r
a
l
or
st
a
t
e
am
b
i
e
n
t
ai
r
qu
a
l
i
t
y
st
a
n
d
a
r
d
(i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
re
l
e
a
s
i
n
g
em
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
wh
i
c
h
ex
c
e
e
d
qu
a
n
t
i
t
a
t
i
v
e
th
r
e
s
h
o
l
d
s
fo
r
oz
o
n
e
pr
e
c
u
r
s
o
r
s
)
.
S
Th
e
r
e
ar
e
no
ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
me
a
s
u
r
e
s
av
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
.
Se
e
Ch
a
p
t
e
r
4.2,
Ai
r
Qu
a
l
i
t
y
,
fo
r
a co
m
p
l
e
t
e
di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
.
SU
AQ
‐4:
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
of
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
wo
u
l
d
ex
p
o
s
e
se
n
s
i
t
i
v
e
re
c
e
p
t
o
r
s
to
su
b
s
t
a
n
t
i
a
l
co
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
of
ai
r
po
l
l
u
t
i
o
n
.
S
AQ
‐4a
:
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
s
fo
r
fu
t
u
r
e
no
n
‐re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
la
n
d
us
e
s
wi
t
h
i
n
the city
th
a
t
:
1)
ha
v
e
th
e
po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
to
ge
n
e
r
a
t
e
10
0
or
mo
r
e
di
e
s
e
l
tr
u
c
k
tr
i
p
s
per
da
y
or
ha
v
e
40
or
mo
r
e
tr
u
c
k
s
wi
t
h
op
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
di
e
s
e
l
‐po
w
e
r
e
d
TR
U
s
,
and
2)
ar
e
wi
t
h
i
n
1,
0
0
0
fe
e
t
of
a
se
n
s
i
t
i
v
e
la
n
d
us
e
(e
.
g
.
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
,
schools,
ho
s
p
i
t
a
l
s
,
nu
r
s
i
n
g
ho
m
e
s
)
,
as
me
a
s
u
r
e
d
fr
o
m
th
e
pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
li
n
e
of the
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
to
th
e
pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
li
n
e
of
th
e
ne
a
r
e
s
t
se
n
s
i
t
i
v
e
us
e
,
shall
su
b
m
i
t
a
he
a
l
t
h
ri
s
k
as
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
(H
R
A
)
to
th
e
Ci
t
y
of
Cu
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
prior to
fu
t
u
r
e
di
s
c
r
e
t
i
o
n
a
r
y
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
ap
p
r
o
v
a
l
.
Th
e
HR
A
sh
a
l
l
be
pr
e
p
a
r
e
d
in
ac
c
o
r
d
a
n
c
e
wi
t
h
po
l
i
c
i
e
s
an
d
pr
o
c
e
d
u
r
e
s
of
th
e
St
a
t
e
Of
f
i
c
e
of
En
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
He
a
l
t
h
Ha
z
a
r
d
As
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
an
d
th
e
Ba
y
Ar
e
a
Ai
r
Quality
Ma
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
Di
s
t
r
i
c
t
.
If
th
e
HR
A
sh
o
w
s
th
a
t
th
e
in
c
r
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
ca
n
c
e
r
risk
ex
c
e
e
d
s
te
n
in
on
e
mi
l
l
i
o
n
(1
0
E
‐06
)
,
PM
2.
5
co
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
ex
c
e
e
d
0.3
µg/
m
3,
or
th
e
ap
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
no
n
c
a
n
c
e
r
ha
z
a
r
d
in
d
e
x
ex
c
e
e
d
s
1.0, the
ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
wi
l
l
be
re
q
u
i
r
e
d
to
id
e
n
t
i
f
y
an
d
de
m
o
n
s
t
r
a
t
e
th
a
t
Best
Av
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
Co
n
t
r
o
l
Te
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
i
e
s
fo
r
To
x
i
c
s
(T
‐BA
C
T
s
)
ar
e
ca
p
a
b
l
e
of
re
d
u
c
i
n
g
po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
ca
n
c
e
r
an
d
no
n
c
a
n
c
e
r
ri
s
k
s
to
an
ac
c
e
p
t
a
b
l
e
level,
in
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
ap
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
en
f
o
r
c
e
m
e
n
t
me
c
h
a
n
i
s
m
s
.
T‐BA
C
T
s
ma
y
include
bu
t
ar
e
no
t
li
m
i
t
e
d
to
:
Re
s
t
r
i
c
t
i
n
g
id
l
i
n
g
on
‐si
t
e
.
El
e
c
t
r
i
f
y
i
n
g
wa
r
e
h
o
u
s
i
n
g
do
c
k
s
.
Re
q
u
i
r
i
n
g
us
e
of
ne
w
e
r
eq
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
an
d
/
o
r
ve
h
i
c
l
e
s
.
Re
s
t
r
i
c
t
i
n
g
of
f
s
i
t
e
tr
u
c
k
tr
a
v
e
l
th
r
o
u
g
h
th
e
cr
e
a
t
i
o
n
of
tr
u
c
k
ro
u
t
e
s
.
T‐BA
C
T
s
id
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d
in
th
e
HR
A
sh
a
l
l
be
id
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d
as
mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
me
a
s
u
r
e
s
in
th
e
en
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
do
c
u
m
e
n
t
an
d
/
o
r
in
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
e
d
in
t
o
th
e
site
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
pl
a
n
as
a co
m
p
o
n
e
n
t
of
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
.
LTS
GE
N
E
R
A
L
P
L
A
N
A
M
E
N
D
M
E
N
T
,
H
O
U
S
I
N
G
E
L
E
M
E
N
T
U
P
D
A
T
E
,
A
N
D
A
S
S
O
C
I
A
T
E
D
R
E
Z
O
N
I
N
G
D
R
A
F
T
E
I
R
CI
T
Y
O
F
C
U
P
E
R
T
I
N
O
EX
E
C
U
T
I
V
E
S
U
M
M
A
R
Y
2-
1
0
JUNE 18, 2014
TAB
L
E
2‐2
SUM
M
A
R
Y
OF
IMP
A
C
T
S
AN
D
MIT
I
G
A
T
I
O
N
MEA
S
U
R
E
S
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
Im
p
a
c
t
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
c
e
Wi
t
h
o
u
t
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
Me
a
s
u
r
e
s
Significance With Mitigation
AQ
‐4b
:
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
s
fo
r
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
an
d
ot
h
e
r
se
n
s
i
t
i
v
e
la
n
d
us
e
projects
(e
.
g
.
ho
s
p
i
t
a
l
s
,
nu
r
s
i
n
g
ho
m
e
s
,
da
y
ca
r
e
ce
n
t
e
r
s
)
in
Cu
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
within
1,
0
0
0
fe
e
t
of
a ma
j
o
r
so
u
r
c
e
s
of
TA
C
s
(e
.
g
.
wa
r
e
h
o
u
s
e
s
,
in
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
areas,
fr
e
e
w
a
y
s
,
an
d
ro
a
d
w
a
y
s
wi
t
h
tr
a
f
f
i
c
vo
l
u
m
e
s
ov
e
r
10
,
0
0
0
ve
h
i
c
l
e
per
da
y
)
,
as
me
a
s
u
r
e
d
fr
o
m
th
e
pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
li
n
e
of
th
e
pr
o
j
e
c
t
to
th
e
pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
li
n
e
of
th
e
so
u
r
c
e
/
e
d
g
e
of
th
e
ne
a
r
e
s
t
tr
a
v
e
l
la
n
e
,
sh
a
l
l
su
b
m
i
t
a health
ri
s
k
as
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
(H
R
A
)
to
th
e
Ci
t
y
of
Cu
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
pr
i
o
r
to
future
di
s
c
r
e
t
i
o
n
a
r
y
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
ap
p
r
o
v
a
l
.
Th
e
HR
A
sh
a
l
l
be
pr
e
p
a
r
e
d
in
ac
c
o
r
d
a
n
c
e
wi
t
h
po
l
i
c
i
e
s
an
d
pr
o
c
e
d
u
r
e
s
of
th
e
St
a
t
e
Of
f
i
c
e
of
En
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
Health
Ha
z
a
r
d
As
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
(O
E
H
H
A
)
an
d
th
e
Ba
y
Ar
e
a
Ai
r
Qu
a
l
i
t
y
Ma
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
Di
s
t
r
i
c
t
.
Th
e
la
t
e
s
t
OE
H
H
A
gu
i
d
e
l
i
n
e
s
sh
a
l
l
be
us
e
d
fo
r
th
e
an
a
l
y
s
i
s
,
in
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
ag
e
se
n
s
i
t
i
v
i
t
y
fa
c
t
o
r
s
,
br
e
a
t
h
i
n
g
ra
t
e
s
,
an
d
bo
d
y
weights
ap
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
fo
r
ch
i
l
d
r
e
n
ag
e
0
to
16
ye
a
r
s
.
If
th
e
HR
A
sh
o
w
s
th
a
t
the
in
c
r
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
ca
n
c
e
r
ri
s
k
ex
c
e
e
d
s
te
n
in
on
e
mi
l
l
i
o
n
(1
0
E
‐06
)
,
PM2.5
co
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
ex
c
e
e
d
0.
3
µg
/
m
3,
or
th
e
ap
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
no
n
c
a
n
c
e
r
hazard
in
d
e
x
ex
c
e
e
d
s
1.
0
,
th
e
ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
wi
l
l
be
re
q
u
i
r
e
d
to
id
e
n
t
i
f
y
and
de
m
o
n
s
t
r
a
t
e
th
a
t
mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
me
a
s
u
r
e
s
ar
e
ca
p
a
b
l
e
of
re
d
u
c
i
n
g
po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
ca
n
c
e
r
an
d
no
n
‐ca
n
c
e
r
ri
s
k
s
to
an
ac
c
e
p
t
a
b
l
e
le
v
e
l
(i
.
e
.
be
l
o
w
te
n
in one
mi
l
l
i
o
n
or
a
ha
z
a
r
d
in
d
e
x
of
1.
0
)
,
in
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
ap
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
en
f
o
r
c
e
m
e
n
t
me
c
h
a
n
i
s
m
s
.
Me
a
s
u
r
e
s
to
re
d
u
c
e
ri
s
k
ma
y
in
c
l
u
d
e
bu
t
ar
e
no
t
limited
to
:
Ai
r
in
t
a
k
e
s
lo
c
a
t
e
d
aw
a
y
fr
o
m
hi
g
h
vo
l
u
m
e
ro
a
d
w
a
y
s
an
d
/
o
r
truck
lo
a
d
i
n
g
zo
n
e
s
.
He
a
t
i
n
g
,
ve
n
t
i
l
a
t
i
o
n
,
an
d
ai
r
co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
i
n
g
sy
s
t
e
m
s
of
th
e
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
pr
o
v
i
d
e
d
wi
t
h
ap
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
l
y
si
z
e
d
Ma
x
i
m
u
m
Ef
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y
Ra
t
i
n
g
Value
(M
E
R
V
)
fi
l
t
e
r
s
.
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
me
a
s
u
r
e
s
id
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d
in
th
e
HR
A
sh
a
l
l
be
id
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d
as
mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
me
a
s
u
r
e
s
in
th
e
en
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
do
c
u
m
e
n
t
and/or
in
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
e
d
in
t
o
th
e
si
t
e
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
pl
a
n
as
a
co
m
p
o
n
e
n
t
of the
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
.
Th
e
ai
r
in
t
a
k
e
de
s
i
g
n
an
d
ME
R
V
fi
l
t
e
r
re
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
sh
a
l
l
be
no
t
e
d
an
d
/
o
r
re
f
l
e
c
t
e
d
on
al
l
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
pl
a
n
s
su
b
m
i
t
t
e
d
to the
Ci
t
y
an
d
sh
a
l
l
be
ve
r
i
f
i
e
d
by
th
e
Ci
t
y
’
s
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
Di
v
i
s
i
o
n
.
GE
N
E
R
A
L
P
L
A
N
A
M
E
N
D
M
E
N
T
,
H
O
U
S
I
N
G
E
L
E
M
E
N
T
U
P
D
A
T
E
,
A
N
D
A
S
S
O
C
I
A
T
E
D
R
E
Z
O
N
I
N
G
D
R
A
F
T
E
I
R
CITY OF CUPERTINO
EX
E
C
U
T
I
V
E
S
U
M
M
A
R
Y
PL
A
C
E
W
O
R
K
S
2-11
TAB
L
E
2‐2
SUM
M
A
R
Y
OF
IMP
A
C
T
S
AN
D
MIT
I
G
A
T
I
O
N
MEA
S
U
R
E
S
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
Im
p
a
c
t
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
c
e
Wi
t
h
o
u
t
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
Me
a
s
u
r
e
s
Significance With Mitigation
AQ
‐5:
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
of
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
wo
u
l
d
no
t
cr
e
a
t
e
or
ex
p
o
s
e
a
su
b
s
t
a
n
t
i
a
l
nu
m
b
e
r
of
pe
o
p
l
e
to
ob
j
e
c
t
i
o
n
a
b
l
e
od
o
r
s
.
LT
S
N/
A
LTS
AQ
‐6:
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
of
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
wo
u
l
d
cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
l
y
co
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
e
to
ai
r
qu
a
l
i
t
y
im
p
a
c
t
s
in
th
e
Sa
n
Fr
a
n
c
i
s
c
o
Ba
y
Ar
e
a
Ai
r
Ba
s
i
n
.
S
Th
e
r
e
ar
e
no
ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
me
a
s
u
r
e
s
av
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
.
Se
e
Ch
a
p
t
e
r
4.2,
Ai
r
Qu
a
l
i
t
y
,
fo
r
a co
m
p
l
e
t
e
di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
.
SU
Bi
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
BI
O
‐1:
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
of
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
wo
u
l
d
ha
v
e
a
su
b
s
t
a
n
t
i
a
l
ad
v
e
r
s
e
ef
f
e
c
t
,
ei
t
h
e
r
di
r
e
c
t
l
y
or
th
r
o
u
g
h
ha
b
i
t
a
t
mo
d
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
,
on
a
pl
a
n
t
or
an
i
m
a
l
po
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
,
or
es
s
e
n
t
i
a
l
ha
b
i
t
a
t
,
de
f
i
n
e
d
as
a
ca
n
d
i
d
a
t
e
,
se
n
s
i
t
i
v
e
or
sp
e
c
i
a
l
‐st
a
t
u
s
sp
e
c
i
e
s
.
S
BI
O
‐1:
Ne
s
t
s
of
ra
p
t
o
r
s
an
d
ot
h
e
r
bi
r
d
s
sh
a
l
l
be
pr
o
t
e
c
t
e
d
wh
e
n
in
active
us
e
,
as
re
q
u
i
r
e
d
by
th
e
fe
d
e
r
a
l
Mi
g
r
a
t
o
r
y
Bi
r
d
Tr
e
a
t
y
Ac
t
an
d
the
Ca
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
De
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
of
Fi
s
h
an
d
Ga
m
e
Co
d
e
.
If
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
ac
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
an
d
an
y
re
q
u
i
r
e
d
tr
e
e
re
m
o
v
a
l
oc
c
u
r
du
r
i
n
g
th
e
br
e
e
d
i
n
g
season
(F
e
b
r
u
a
r
y
1
an
d
Au
g
u
s
t
31
)
,
a
qu
a
l
i
f
i
e
d
bi
o
l
o
g
i
s
t
sh
a
l
l
be
re
q
u
i
r
e
d
to
co
n
d
u
c
t
su
r
v
e
y
s
pr
i
o
r
to
tr
e
e
re
m
o
v
a
l
or
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
ac
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
.
Pr
e
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
su
r
v
e
y
s
ar
e
no
t
re
q
u
i
r
e
d
fo
r
tr
e
e
re
m
o
v
a
l
or
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
ac
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
ou
t
s
i
d
e
th
e
ne
s
t
i
n
g
pe
r
i
o
d
.
If
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
would
oc
c
u
r
du
r
i
n
g
th
e
ne
s
t
i
n
g
se
a
s
o
n
(F
e
b
r
u
a
r
y
1
to
Au
g
u
s
t
31),
pr
e
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
su
r
v
e
y
s
sh
a
l
l
be
co
n
d
u
c
t
e
d
no
mo
r
e
th
a
n
14
da
y
s
prior
to
th
e
st
a
r
t
of
tr
e
e
re
m
o
v
a
l
or
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
.
Pr
e
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
surveys
sh
a
l
l
be
re
p
e
a
t
e
d
at
14
‐da
y
in
t
e
r
v
a
l
s
un
t
i
l
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
ha
s
been
in
i
t
i
a
t
e
d
in
th
e
ar
e
a
af
t
e
r
wh
i
c
h
su
r
v
e
y
s
ca
n
be
st
o
p
p
e
d
.
Lo
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
of
ac
t
i
v
e
ne
s
t
s
co
n
t
a
i
n
i
n
g
vi
a
b
l
e
eg
g
s
or
yo
u
n
g
bi
r
d
s
sh
a
l
l
be
do
c
u
m
e
n
t
e
d
an
d
pr
o
t
e
c
t
i
v
e
me
a
s
u
r
e
s
im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
e
d
un
d
e
r
th
e
di
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
of the
qu
a
l
i
f
i
e
d
bi
o
l
o
g
i
s
t
un
t
i
l
th
e
ne
s
t
s
no
lo
n
g
e
r
co
n
t
a
i
n
eg
g
s
or
yo
u
n
g
birds.
Pr
o
t
e
c
t
i
v
e
me
a
s
u
r
e
s
sh
a
l
l
in
c
l
u
d
e
es
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
m
e
n
t
of
cl
e
a
r
l
y
de
l
i
n
e
a
t
e
d
ex
c
l
u
s
i
o
n
zo
n
e
s
(i
.
e
.
de
m
a
r
c
a
t
e
d
by
id
e
n
t
i
f
i
a
b
l
e
fe
n
c
i
n
g
,
su
c
h
as
orange
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
fe
n
c
i
n
g
or
eq
u
i
v
a
l
e
n
t
)
ar
o
u
n
d
ea
c
h
ne
s
t
lo
c
a
t
i
o
n
as
de
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
d
by
a
qu
a
l
i
f
i
e
d
bi
o
l
o
g
i
s
t
,
ta
k
i
n
g
in
t
o
ac
c
o
u
n
t
th
e
sp
e
c
i
e
s
of
bi
r
d
s
ne
s
t
i
n
g
,
th
e
i
r
to
l
e
r
a
n
c
e
fo
r
di
s
t
u
r
b
a
n
c
e
an
d
pr
o
x
i
m
i
t
y
to
existing
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
.
In
ge
n
e
r
a
l
,
ex
c
l
u
s
i
o
n
zo
n
e
s
sh
a
l
l
be
a
mi
n
i
m
u
m
of 300
fe
e
t
fo
r
ra
p
t
o
r
s
an
d
75
fe
e
t
fo
r
pa
s
s
e
r
i
n
e
s
an
d
ot
h
e
r
bi
r
d
s
.
Th
e
active
ne
s
t
wi
t
h
i
n
an
ex
c
l
u
s
i
o
n
zo
n
e
sh
a
l
l
be
mo
n
i
t
o
r
e
d
on
a
we
e
k
l
y
basis
th
r
o
u
g
h
o
u
t
th
e
ne
s
t
i
n
g
se
a
s
o
n
to
id
e
n
t
i
f
y
si
g
n
s
of
di
s
t
u
r
b
a
n
c
e
and
co
n
f
i
r
m
ne
s
t
i
n
g
st
a
t
u
s
.
Th
e
ra
d
i
u
s
of
an
ex
c
l
u
s
i
o
n
zo
n
e
may be
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
d
by
th
e
qu
a
l
i
f
i
e
d
bi
o
l
o
g
i
s
t
if
pr
o
j
e
c
t
ac
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
ar
e
de
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
d
to LTS
GE
N
E
R
A
L
P
L
A
N
A
M
E
N
D
M
E
N
T
,
H
O
U
S
I
N
G
E
L
E
M
E
N
T
U
P
D
A
T
E
,
A
N
D
A
S
S
O
C
I
A
T
E
D
R
E
Z
O
N
I
N
G
D
R
A
F
T
E
I
R
CI
T
Y
O
F
C
U
P
E
R
T
I
N
O
EX
E
C
U
T
I
V
E
S
U
M
M
A
R
Y
2-
1
2
JUNE 18, 2014
TAB
L
E
2‐2
SUM
M
A
R
Y
OF
IMP
A
C
T
S
AN
D
MIT
I
G
A
T
I
O
N
MEA
S
U
R
E
S
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
Im
p
a
c
t
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
c
e
Wi
t
h
o
u
t
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
Me
a
s
u
r
e
s
Significance With Mitigation
be
ad
v
e
r
s
e
l
y
af
f
e
c
t
i
n
g
th
e
ne
s
t
i
n
g
bi
r
d
s
.
Ex
c
l
u
s
i
o
n
zo
n
e
s
ma
y
be
re
d
u
c
e
d
by
th
e
qu
a
l
i
f
i
e
d
bi
o
l
o
g
i
s
t
on
l
y
in
co
n
s
u
l
t
a
t
i
o
n
wi
t
h
Ca
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
De
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
of
Fi
s
h
an
d
Wi
l
d
l
i
f
e
.
Th
e
pr
o
t
e
c
t
i
o
n
me
a
s
u
r
e
s
sh
a
l
l
re
m
a
i
n
in
ef
f
e
c
t
until
th
e
yo
u
n
g
ha
v
e
le
f
t
th
e
ne
s
t
an
d
ar
e
fo
r
a
g
i
n
g
in
d
e
p
e
n
d
e
n
t
l
y
or
th
e
nest
is
no
lo
n
g
e
r
ac
t
i
v
e
.
BI
O
‐2:
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
of
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
wo
u
l
d
no
t
ha
v
e
a
su
b
s
t
a
n
t
i
a
l
ad
v
e
r
s
e
ef
f
e
c
t
on
an
y
ri
p
a
r
i
a
n
ha
b
i
t
a
t
or
ot
h
e
r
se
n
s
i
t
i
v
e
na
t
u
r
a
l
co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
ty
p
e
.
LT
S
N/
A
LTS
BI
O
‐3:
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
of
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
wo
u
l
d
no
t
ha
v
e
a
su
b
s
t
a
n
t
i
a
l
ad
v
e
r
s
e
ef
f
e
c
t
on
fe
d
e
r
a
l
l
y
pr
o
t
e
c
t
e
d
we
t
l
a
n
d
s
as
de
f
i
n
e
d
by
Se
c
t
i
o
n
40
4
of
th
e
Cl
e
a
n
Wa
t
e
r
Ac
t
,
th
r
o
u
g
h
di
r
e
c
t
re
m
o
v
a
l
,
fi
l
l
i
n
g
,
hy
d
r
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
in
t
e
r
r
u
p
t
i
o
n
,
or
ot
h
e
r
me
a
n
s
.
LT
S
N/
A
LTS
BI
O
‐4:
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
of
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
wo
u
l
d
no
t
in
t
e
r
f
e
r
e
su
b
s
t
a
n
t
i
a
l
l
y
wi
t
h
th
e
mo
v
e
m
e
n
t
of
an
y
na
t
i
v
e
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
or
mi
g
r
a
t
o
r
y
fi
s
h
or
wi
l
d
l
i
f
e
sp
e
c
i
e
s
,
th
e
i
r
wi
l
d
l
i
f
e
co
r
r
i
d
o
r
s
or
nu
r
s
e
r
y
si
t
e
s
.
LT
S
N/
A
LTS
BI
O
‐5:
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
of
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
wo
u
l
d
no
t
co
n
f
l
i
c
t
wi
t
h
an
y
lo
c
a
l
or
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
s
or
po
l
i
c
i
e
s
pr
o
t
e
c
t
i
n
g
bi
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
re
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
.
LT
S
N/
A
LTS
BI
O
‐6:
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
of
th
e
No
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
,
in
co
m
b
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
wi
t
h
pa
s
t
,
pr
e
s
e
n
t
,
an
d
re
a
s
o
n
a
b
l
y
fo
r
e
s
e
e
a
b
l
e
pr
o
j
e
c
t
s
,
wo
u
l
d
no
t
re
s
u
l
t
in
si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
im
p
a
c
t
s
wi
t
h
re
s
p
e
c
t
to
bi
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
re
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
.
LT
S
Se
e
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
Me
a
s
u
r
e
BI
O
‐1.
LTS/M
Cu
l
t
u
r
a
l
Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
CU
L
T
‐1:
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
of
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
wo
u
l
d
no
t
ha
v
e
th
e
po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
to
ca
u
s
e
a
su
b
s
t
a
n
t
i
a
l
ad
v
e
r
s
e
ch
a
n
g
e
in
th
e
si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
c
e
of
a
hi
s
t
o
r
i
c
a
l
re
s
o
u
r
c
e
as
de
f
i
n
e
d
in
Se
c
t
i
o
n
15
0
6
4
.
5
.
LT
S
N/
A
LTS
CU
L
T
‐2:
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
of
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
wo
u
l
d
no
t
ha
v
e
th
e
po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
to
ca
u
s
e
su
b
s
t
a
n
t
i
a
l
ad
v
e
r
s
e
ch
a
n
g
e
in
th
e
si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
c
e
of
an
ar
c
h
a
e
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
re
s
o
u
r
c
e
pu
r
s
u
a
n
t
to
Se
c
t
i
o
n
15
0
6
4
.
5
.
LT
S
N/
A
LTS
GE
N
E
R
A
L
P
L
A
N
A
M
E
N
D
M
E
N
T
,
H
O
U
S
I
N
G
E
L
E
M
E
N
T
U
P
D
A
T
E
,
A
N
D
A
S
S
O
C
I
A
T
E
D
R
E
Z
O
N
I
N
G
D
R
A
F
T
E
I
R
CITY OF CUPERTINO
EX
E
C
U
T
I
V
E
S
U
M
M
A
R
Y
PL
A
C
E
W
O
R
K
S
2-13
TAB
L
E
2‐2
SUM
M
A
R
Y
OF
IMP
A
C
T
S
AN
D
MIT
I
G
A
T
I
O
N
MEA
S
U
R
E
S
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
Im
p
a
c
t
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
c
e
Wi
t
h
o
u
t
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
Me
a
s
u
r
e
s
Significance With Mitigation
CU
L
T
‐3:
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
of
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
wo
u
l
d
no
t
ha
v
e
th
e
po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
to
di
r
e
c
t
l
y
or
in
d
i
r
e
c
t
l
y
de
s
t
r
o
y
a
un
i
q
u
e
pa
l
e
o
n
t
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
re
s
o
u
r
c
e
or
si
t
e
,
or
un
i
q
u
e
ge
o
l
o
g
i
c
fe
a
t
u
r
e
.
LT
S
N/
A
LTS
CU
L
T
‐4:
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
of
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
wo
u
l
d
no
t
ha
v
e
th
e
po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
to
di
s
t
u
r
b
an
y
hu
m
a
n
re
m
a
i
n
s
,
in
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
th
o
s
e
in
t
e
r
r
e
d
ou
t
s
i
d
e
of
fo
r
m
a
l
ce
m
e
t
e
r
i
e
s
.
LT
S
N/
A
LTS
CU
L
T
‐5:
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
of
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
,
in
co
m
b
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
wi
t
h
pa
s
t
,
pr
e
s
e
n
t
,
an
d
re
a
s
o
n
a
b
l
y
fo
r
e
s
e
e
a
b
l
e
pr
o
j
e
c
t
s
,
wo
u
l
d
no
t
re
s
u
l
t
in
cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
im
p
a
c
t
s
wi
t
h
re
s
p
e
c
t
to
cu
l
t
u
r
a
l
re
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
.
LT
S
N/
A
LTS
Ge
o
l
o
g
y
,
So
i
l
s
,
an
d
Se
i
s
m
i
c
i
t
y
GE
O
‐1:
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
of
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
wo
u
l
d
no
t
ex
p
o
s
e
pe
o
p
l
e
or
st
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
s
to
po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
su
b
s
t
a
n
t
i
a
l
ad
v
e
r
s
e
ef
f
e
c
t
s
,
in
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
th
e
ri
s
k
of
lo
s
s
,
in
j
u
r
y
,
or
de
a
t
h
in
v
o
l
v
i
n
g
su
r
f
a
c
e
ru
p
t
u
r
e
al
o
n
g
a
kn
o
w
n
ac
t
i
v
e
fa
u
l
t
;
st
r
o
n
g
se
i
s
m
i
c
gr
o
u
n
d
sh
a
k
i
n
g
;
se
i
s
m
i
c
‐re
l
a
t
e
d
gr
o
u
n
d
fa
i
l
u
r
e
,
in
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
li
q
u
e
f
a
c
t
i
o
n
;
an
d
la
n
d
s
l
i
d
e
s
.
LT
S
N/
A
LTS
GE
O
‐2:
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
of
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
wo
u
l
d
no
t
re
s
u
l
t
in
su
b
s
t
a
n
t
i
a
l
so
i
l
er
o
s
i
o
n
or
th
e
lo
s
s
of
to
p
s
o
i
l
.
LT
S
N/
A
LTS
GE
O
‐3:
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
of
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
wo
u
l
d
no
t
re
s
u
l
t
in
a
si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
im
p
a
c
t
re
l
a
t
e
d
to
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
on
un
s
t
a
b
l
e
ge
o
l
o
g
i
c
un
i
t
s
an
d
so
i
l
s
or
re
s
u
l
t
in
on
‐
or
of
f
‐si
t
e
la
n
d
s
l
i
d
e
,
la
t
e
r
a
l
sp
r
e
a
d
i
n
g
,
su
b
s
i
d
e
n
c
e
,
li
q
u
e
f
a
c
t
i
o
n
,
or
co
l
l
a
p
s
e
.
LT
S
N/
A
LTS
GE
O
‐4:
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
of
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
wo
u
l
d
no
t
cr
e
a
t
e
su
b
s
t
a
n
t
i
a
l
ri
s
k
s
to
li
f
e
or
pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
as
a
re
s
u
l
t
of
it
s
lo
c
a
t
i
o
n
on
ex
p
a
n
s
i
v
e
so
i
l
,
as
de
f
i
n
e
d
Se
c
t
i
o
n
18
0
3
.
5
.
3
of
th
e
Ca
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
Co
d
e
,
cr
e
a
t
i
n
g
su
b
s
t
a
n
t
i
a
l
ri
s
k
s
to
li
f
e
or
pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
.
LT
S
N/
A
LTS
GE
O
‐5:
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
of
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
,
in
co
m
b
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
wi
t
h
pa
s
t
,
pr
e
s
e
n
t
,
an
d
re
a
s
o
n
a
b
l
y
fo
r
e
s
e
e
a
b
l
e
pr
o
j
e
c
t
s
,
wo
u
l
d
re
s
u
l
t
in
le
s
s
th
a
n
si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
im
p
a
c
t
s
wi
t
h
re
s
p
e
c
t
to
ge
o
l
o
g
y
an
d
so
i
l
s
.
LT
S
N/
A
LTS
GE
N
E
R
A
L
P
L
A
N
A
M
E
N
D
M
E
N
T
,
H
O
U
S
I
N
G
E
L
E
M
E
N
T
U
P
D
A
T
E
,
A
N
D
A
S
S
O
C
I
A
T
E
D
R
E
Z
O
N
I
N
G
D
R
A
F
T
E
I
R
CI
T
Y
O
F
C
U
P
E
R
T
I
N
O
EX
E
C
U
T
I
V
E
S
U
M
M
A
R
Y
2-
1
4
JUNE 18, 2014
TAB
L
E
2‐2
SUM
M
A
R
Y
OF
IMP
A
C
T
S
AN
D
MIT
I
G
A
T
I
O
N
MEA
S
U
R
E
S
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
Im
p
a
c
t
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
c
e
Wi
t
h
o
u
t
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
Me
a
s
u
r
e
s
Significance With Mitigation
Gr
e
e
n
h
o
u
s
e
Ga
s
Em
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
GH
G
‐1:
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
of
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
wo
u
l
d
no
t
di
r
e
c
t
l
y
or
in
d
i
r
e
c
t
l
y
ge
n
e
r
a
t
e
GH
G
em
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
th
a
t
ma
y
ha
v
e
a
si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
im
p
a
c
t
on
th
e
en
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
.
LT
S
N/
A
LTS
GH
G
‐2:
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
of
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
wo
u
l
d
no
t
co
n
f
l
i
c
t
wi
t
h
an
ap
p
l
i
c
a
b
l
e
pl
a
n
,
po
l
i
c
y
,
or
re
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
of
an
ag
e
n
c
y
ad
o
p
t
e
d
fo
r
th
e
pu
r
p
o
s
e
of
re
d
u
c
i
n
g
th
e
em
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
of
GH
G
s
.
LT
S
N/
A
LTS
GH
G
‐3:
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
of
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
,
in
co
m
b
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
wi
t
h
pa
s
t
,
pr
e
s
e
n
t
,
an
d
re
a
s
o
n
a
b
l
y
fo
r
e
s
e
e
a
b
l
e
pr
o
j
e
c
t
s
,
wo
u
l
d
no
t
re
s
u
l
t
in
si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
im
p
a
c
t
s
wi
t
h
re
s
p
e
c
t
to
GH
G
em
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
.
LT
S
N/
A
LTS
Ha
z
a
r
d
s
an
d
Ha
z
a
r
d
o
u
s
Ma
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
HA
Z
‐1:
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
of
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
wo
u
l
d
no
t
cr
e
a
t
e
a
si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
ha
z
a
r
d
to
th
e
pu
b
l
i
c
or
th
e
en
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
th
r
o
u
g
h
th
e
ro
u
t
i
n
e
tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
,
us
e
,
or
di
s
p
o
s
a
l
of
ha
z
a
r
d
o
u
s
ma
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
.
LT
S
N/
A
LTS
HA
Z
‐2:
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
of
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
wo
u
l
d
cr
e
a
t
e
a si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
ha
z
a
r
d
to
th
e
pu
b
l
i
c
or
th
e
en
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
th
r
o
u
g
h
re
a
s
o
n
a
b
l
y
fo
r
e
s
e
e
a
b
l
e
up
s
e
t
an
d
ac
c
i
d
e
n
t
co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
in
v
o
l
v
i
n
g
th
e
re
l
e
a
s
e
of
ha
z
a
r
d
o
u
s
ma
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
in
t
o
th
e
en
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
.
LT
S
N/
A
LTS
HA
Z
‐3:
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
of
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
wo
u
l
d
em
i
t
ha
z
a
r
d
o
u
s
em
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
or
ha
n
d
l
e
ha
z
a
r
d
o
u
s
or
ac
u
t
e
l
y
ha
z
a
r
d
o
u
s
ma
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
,
su
b
s
t
a
n
c
e
s
,
or
wa
s
t
e
wi
t
h
i
n
on
e
‐qu
a
r
t
e
r
mi
l
e
of
an
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
or
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
sc
h
o
o
l
.
LT
S
N/
A
LTS
HA
Z
‐4:
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
of
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
wo
u
l
d
be
lo
c
a
t
e
d
on
a
si
t
e
wh
i
c
h
is
in
c
l
u
d
e
d
on
a
li
s
t
of
ha
z
a
r
d
o
u
s
ma
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
si
t
e
s
co
m
p
i
l
e
d
pu
r
s
u
a
n
t
to
Go
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t
Co
d
e
Se
c
t
i
o
n
65
9
6
2
.
5
an
d
,
as
a re
s
u
l
t
,
cr
e
a
t
e
a si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
ha
z
a
r
d
to
th
e
pu
b
l
i
c
or
th
e
en
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
.
S
HA
Z
‐4a
:
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
at
th
e
si
t
e
s
wi
t
h
kn
o
w
n
co
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
shall be
co
n
d
u
c
t
e
d
un
d
e
r
a
pr
o
j
e
c
t
‐sp
e
c
i
f
i
c
En
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
Si
t
e
Ma
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
Pl
a
n
(E
S
M
P
)
th
a
t
is
pr
e
p
a
r
e
d
in
co
n
s
u
l
t
a
t
i
o
n
wi
t
h
th
e
Re
g
i
o
n
a
l
Water
Qu
a
l
i
t
y
Co
n
t
r
o
l
Bo
a
r
d
(R
W
Q
C
B
)
.
Th
e
pu
r
p
o
s
e
of
th
e
ES
M
P
is
to
protect
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
wo
r
k
e
r
s
,
th
e
ge
n
e
r
a
l
pu
b
l
i
c
,
th
e
en
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
,
an
d
future
si
t
e
oc
c
u
p
a
n
t
s
fr
o
m
su
b
s
u
r
f
a
c
e
ha
z
a
r
d
o
u
s
ma
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
pr
e
v
i
o
u
s
l
y
id
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d
at
th
e
si
t
e
an
d
to
ad
d
r
e
s
s
th
e
po
s
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
of
en
c
o
u
n
t
e
r
i
n
g
LTS
GE
N
E
R
A
L
P
L
A
N
A
M
E
N
D
M
E
N
T
,
H
O
U
S
I
N
G
E
L
E
M
E
N
T
U
P
D
A
T
E
,
A
N
D
A
S
S
O
C
I
A
T
E
D
R
E
Z
O
N
I
N
G
D
R
A
F
T
E
I
R
CITY OF CUPERTINO
EX
E
C
U
T
I
V
E
S
U
M
M
A
R
Y
PL
A
C
E
W
O
R
K
S
2-15
TAB
L
E
2‐2
SUM
M
A
R
Y
OF
IMP
A
C
T
S
AN
D
MIT
I
G
A
T
I
O
N
MEA
S
U
R
E
S
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
Im
p
a
c
t
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
c
e
Wi
t
h
o
u
t
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
Me
a
s
u
r
e
s
Significance With Mitigation
un
k
n
o
w
n
co
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
or
ha
z
a
r
d
s
in
th
e
su
b
s
u
r
f
a
c
e
.
Th
e
ES
M
P
shall
su
m
m
a
r
i
z
e
so
i
l
an
d
gr
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
an
a
l
y
t
i
c
a
l
da
t
a
co
l
l
e
c
t
e
d
on
th
e
project
si
t
e
du
r
i
n
g
pa
s
t
in
v
e
s
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
s
;
id
e
n
t
i
f
y
ma
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
op
t
i
o
n
s
for
ex
c
a
v
a
t
e
d
so
i
l
an
d
gr
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
,
if
co
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
t
e
d
me
d
i
a
are
en
c
o
u
n
t
e
r
e
d
du
r
i
n
g
de
e
p
ex
c
a
v
a
t
i
o
n
s
;
an
d
id
e
n
t
i
f
y
mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
,
ir
r
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
,
or
ot
h
e
r
we
l
l
s
re
q
u
i
r
i
n
g
pr
o
p
e
r
ab
a
n
d
o
n
m
e
n
t
in
co
m
p
l
i
a
n
c
e
wi
t
h
lo
c
a
l
,
St
a
t
e
,
an
d
fe
d
e
r
a
l
la
w
s
,
po
l
i
c
i
e
s
,
an
d
re
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
.
Th
e
ES
M
P
sh
a
l
l
in
c
l
u
d
e
me
a
s
u
r
e
s
fo
r
id
e
n
t
i
f
y
i
n
g
,
te
s
t
i
n
g
,
an
d
ma
n
a
g
i
n
g
so
i
l
an
d
gr
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
su
s
p
e
c
t
e
d
of
or
kn
o
w
n
to
co
n
t
a
i
n
ha
z
a
r
d
o
u
s
ma
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
.
Th
e
ES
M
P
sh
a
l
l
:
1)
pr
o
v
i
d
e
pr
o
c
e
d
u
r
e
s
fo
r
ev
a
l
u
a
t
i
n
g
,
ha
n
d
l
i
n
g
,
st
o
r
i
n
g
,
te
s
t
i
n
g
,
an
d
di
s
p
o
s
i
n
g
of
so
i
l
an
d
gr
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
during
pr
o
j
e
c
t
ex
c
a
v
a
t
i
o
n
an
d
de
w
a
t
e
r
i
n
g
ac
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
,
re
s
p
e
c
t
i
v
e
l
y
;
2)
describe
re
q
u
i
r
e
d
wo
r
k
e
r
he
a
l
t
h
an
d
sa
f
e
t
y
pr
o
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
fo
r
al
l
wo
r
k
e
r
s
po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
l
y
ex
p
o
s
e
d
to
ha
z
a
r
d
o
u
s
ma
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
in
ac
c
o
r
d
a
n
c
e
wi
t
h
St
a
t
e
an
d
federal
wo
r
k
e
r
sa
f
e
t
y
re
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
;
an
d
3)
de
s
i
g
n
a
t
e
pe
r
s
o
n
n
e
l
re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
l
e
for
im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
of
th
e
ES
M
P
.
HA
Z
‐4b
:
Fo
r
th
o
s
e
si
t
e
s
wi
t
h
po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
re
s
i
d
u
a
l
co
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
in
so
i
l
,
gas,
or
gr
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
th
a
t
ar
e
pl
a
n
n
e
d
fo
r
re
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
wi
t
h
an
ov
e
r
l
y
i
n
g
oc
c
u
p
i
e
d
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
,
a
va
p
o
r
in
t
r
u
s
i
o
n
as
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
sh
a
l
l
be
pe
r
f
o
r
m
e
d
by a
li
c
e
n
s
e
d
en
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
pr
o
f
e
s
s
i
o
n
a
l
.
If
th
e
re
s
u
l
t
s
of
th
e
va
p
o
r
in
t
r
u
s
i
o
n
as
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
in
d
i
c
a
t
e
th
e
po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
fo
r
si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
va
p
o
r
in
t
r
u
s
i
o
n
into an
oc
c
u
p
i
e
d
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
,
pr
o
j
e
c
t
de
s
i
g
n
sh
a
l
l
in
c
l
u
d
e
va
p
o
r
co
n
t
r
o
l
s
or
source
re
m
o
v
a
l
,
as
ap
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
,
in
ac
c
o
r
d
a
n
c
e
wi
t
h
re
g
u
l
a
t
o
r
y
agency
re
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
.
So
i
l
va
p
o
r
mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
s
or
co
n
t
r
o
l
s
co
u
l
d
in
c
l
u
d
e
passive
ve
n
t
i
n
g
,
an
d
/
o
r
ac
t
i
v
e
ve
n
t
i
n
g
.
Th
e
va
p
o
r
in
t
r
u
s
i
o
n
as
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
and
as
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
d
va
p
o
r
co
n
t
r
o
l
s
or
so
u
r
c
e
re
m
o
v
a
l
ca
n
be
in
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
e
d
into
th
e
ES
M
P
(M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
Me
a
s
u
r
e
HA
Z
‐4a
)
.
HA
Z
‐5:
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
of
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
wo
u
l
d
no
t
im
p
a
i
r
im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
of
,
or
ph
y
s
i
c
a
l
l
y
in
t
e
r
f
e
r
e
wi
t
h
,
an
ad
o
p
t
e
d
em
e
r
g
e
n
c
y
re
s
p
o
n
s
e
pl
a
n
or
em
e
r
g
e
n
c
y
ev
a
c
u
a
t
i
o
n
pl
a
n
.
LT
S
N/
A
LTS
GE
N
E
R
A
L
P
L
A
N
A
M
E
N
D
M
E
N
T
,
H
O
U
S
I
N
G
E
L
E
M
E
N
T
U
P
D
A
T
E
,
A
N
D
A
S
S
O
C
I
A
T
E
D
R
E
Z
O
N
I
N
G
D
R
A
F
T
E
I
R
CI
T
Y
O
F
C
U
P
E
R
T
I
N
O
EX
E
C
U
T
I
V
E
S
U
M
M
A
R
Y
2-
1
6
JUNE 18, 2014
TAB
L
E
2‐2
SUM
M
A
R
Y
OF
IMP
A
C
T
S
AN
D
MIT
I
G
A
T
I
O
N
MEA
S
U
R
E
S
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
Im
p
a
c
t
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
c
e
Wi
t
h
o
u
t
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
Me
a
s
u
r
e
s
Significance With Mitigation
HA
Z
‐6:
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
of
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
wo
u
l
d
no
t
ex
p
o
s
e
pe
o
p
l
e
or
st
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
s
to
a si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
ri
s
k
of
lo
s
s
,
in
j
u
r
y
or
de
a
t
h
in
v
o
l
v
i
n
g
wi
l
d
l
a
n
d
fi
r
e
s
,
in
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
wh
e
r
e
wi
l
d
l
a
n
d
s
ar
e
ad
j
a
c
e
n
t
to
ur
b
a
n
i
z
e
d
ar
e
a
s
or
wh
e
r
e
re
s
i
d
e
n
c
e
s
ar
e
in
t
e
r
m
i
x
e
d
wi
t
h
wi
l
d
l
a
n
d
s
.
LT
S
N/
A
LTS
HA
Z
‐7:
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
of
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
,
in
co
m
b
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
wi
t
h
pa
s
t
,
pr
e
s
e
n
t
,
an
d
re
a
s
o
n
a
b
l
y
fo
r
e
s
e
e
a
b
l
e
pr
o
j
e
c
t
s
,
wo
u
l
d
re
s
u
l
t
in
le
s
s
th
a
n
si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
im
p
a
c
t
s
wi
t
h
re
s
p
e
c
t
to
ha
z
a
r
d
s
an
d
ha
z
a
r
d
o
u
s
ma
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
.
LT
S
Se
e
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
Me
a
s
u
r
e
HA
Z
‐4a
an
d
HA
Z
‐4b
.
LTS/M
Hy
d
r
o
l
o
g
y
an
d
Wa
t
e
r
Qu
a
l
i
t
y
HY
D
R
O
‐1: Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
of
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
wo
u
l
d
no
t
vi
o
l
a
t
e
an
y
wa
t
e
r
qu
a
l
i
t
y
st
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
or
wa
s
t
e
di
s
c
h
a
r
g
e
re
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
.
LT
S
N/
A
LTS
HY
D
R
O
‐2:
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
of
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
wo
u
l
d
no
t
su
b
s
t
a
n
t
i
a
l
l
y
de
p
l
e
t
e
gr
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
su
p
p
l
i
e
s
or
in
t
e
r
f
e
r
e
su
b
s
t
a
n
t
i
a
l
l
y
wi
t
h
gr
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
re
c
h
a
r
g
e
su
c
h
th
a
t
th
e
r
e
wo
u
l
d
be
a
ne
t
de
f
i
c
i
t
in
aq
u
i
f
e
r
vo
l
u
m
e
or
a
lo
w
e
r
i
n
g
of
th
e
lo
c
a
l
gr
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
ta
b
l
e
le
v
e
l
(e
.
g
.
th
e
pr
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
ra
t
e
of
pr
e
‐
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
ne
a
r
b
y
we
l
l
s
wo
u
l
d
dr
o
p
to
a
le
v
e
l
wh
i
c
h
wo
u
l
d
no
t
su
p
p
o
r
t
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
la
n
d
us
e
s
or
pl
a
n
n
e
d
us
e
s
fo
r
wh
i
c
h
pe
r
m
i
t
s
ha
v
e
be
e
n
gr
a
n
t
e
d
)
.
LT
S
N/
A
LTS
HY
D
R
O
‐3:
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
of
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
wo
u
l
d
no
t
su
b
s
t
a
n
t
i
a
l
l
y
al
t
e
r
th
e
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
dr
a
i
n
a
g
e
pa
t
t
e
r
n
of
th
e
si
t
e
or
ar
e
a
,
in
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
th
r
o
u
g
h
th
e
al
t
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
of
th
e
co
u
r
s
e
of
a
st
r
e
a
m
or
ri
v
e
r
,
in
a
ma
n
n
e
r
th
a
t
wo
u
l
d
re
s
u
l
t
in
su
b
s
t
a
n
t
i
a
l
er
o
s
i
o
n
,
si
l
t
a
t
i
o
n
,
or
fl
o
o
d
i
n
g
on
‐
or
of
f
‐si
t
e
.
LT
S
N/
A
LTS
HY
D
R
O
‐4:
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
of
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
wo
u
l
d
no
t
cr
e
a
t
e
or
co
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
e
ru
n
o
f
f
wa
t
e
r
th
a
t
wo
u
l
d
ex
c
e
e
d
th
e
ca
p
a
c
i
t
y
of
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
or
pl
a
n
n
e
d
st
o
r
m
wa
t
e
r
dr
a
i
n
a
g
e
sy
s
t
e
m
s
or
pr
o
v
i
d
e
su
b
s
t
a
n
t
i
a
l
ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
so
u
r
c
e
s
of
po
l
l
u
t
e
d
ru
n
o
f
f
.
LT
S
N/
A
LTS
HY
D
R
O
‐5:
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
of
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
wo
u
l
d
no
t
ot
h
e
r
w
i
s
e
su
b
s
t
a
n
t
i
a
l
l
y
de
g
r
a
d
e
wa
t
e
r
qu
a
l
i
t
y
.
LT
S
N/
A
LTS
GE
N
E
R
A
L
P
L
A
N
A
M
E
N
D
M
E
N
T
,
H
O
U
S
I
N
G
E
L
E
M
E
N
T
U
P
D
A
T
E
,
A
N
D
A
S
S
O
C
I
A
T
E
D
R
E
Z
O
N
I
N
G
D
R
A
F
T
E
I
R
CITY OF CUPERTINO
EX
E
C
U
T
I
V
E
S
U
M
M
A
R
Y
PL
A
C
E
W
O
R
K
S
2-17
TAB
L
E
2‐2
SUM
M
A
R
Y
OF
IMP
A
C
T
S
AN
D
MIT
I
G
A
T
I
O
N
MEA
S
U
R
E
S
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
Im
p
a
c
t
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
c
e
Wi
t
h
o
u
t
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
Me
a
s
u
r
e
s
Significance With Mitigation
HY
D
R
O
‐6:
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
of
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
wo
u
l
d
no
t
pl
a
c
e
ho
u
s
i
n
g
wi
t
h
i
n
a 10
0
‐ye
a
r
fl
o
o
d
ha
z
a
r
d
ar
e
a
as
ma
p
p
e
d
on
a
Fe
d
e
r
a
l
Fl
o
o
d
Ha
z
a
r
d
Bo
u
n
d
a
r
y
or
Fl
o
o
d
In
s
u
r
a
n
c
e
Ra
t
e
Ma
p
or
ot
h
e
r
fl
o
o
d
ha
z
a
r
d
de
l
i
n
e
a
t
i
o
n
ma
p
or
pl
a
c
e
st
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
s
th
a
t
wo
u
l
d
im
p
e
d
e
or
re
d
i
r
e
c
t
fl
o
o
d
fl
o
w
s
wi
t
h
i
n
a
10
0
‐ye
a
r
fl
o
o
d
ha
z
a
r
d
ar
e
a
.
LT
S
N/
A
LTS
HY
D
R
O
‐7:
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
of
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
wo
u
l
d
no
t
ex
p
o
s
e
pe
o
p
l
e
or
st
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
s
to
a
si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
ri
s
k
of
lo
s
s
,
in
j
u
r
y
or
de
a
t
h
in
v
o
l
v
i
n
g
fl
o
o
d
i
n
g
,
in
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
fl
o
o
d
i
n
g
as
a
re
s
u
l
t
of
th
e
fa
i
l
u
r
e
of
a le
v
e
e
or
da
m
.
LT
S
N/
A
LTS
HY
D
R
O
‐8:
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
of
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
wo
u
l
d
no
t
be
im
p
a
c
t
e
d
by
in
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
as
a re
s
u
l
t
of
a se
i
c
h
e
,
ts
u
n
a
m
i
,
or
mu
d
f
l
o
w
.
LT
S
N/
A
LTS
HY
D
R
O
‐9:
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
of
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
,
in
co
m
b
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
wi
t
h
pa
s
t
,
pr
e
s
e
n
t
,
an
d
re
a
s
o
n
a
b
l
y
fo
r
e
s
e
e
a
b
l
e
pr
o
j
e
c
t
s
,
wo
u
l
d
re
s
u
l
t
in
le
s
s
th
a
n
si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
im
p
a
c
t
s
wi
t
h
re
s
p
e
c
t
to
wa
t
e
r
qu
a
l
i
t
y
.
LT
S
N/
A
LTS
La
n
d
Us
e
an
d
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
LU
‐1:
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
of
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
wo
u
l
d
no
t
ph
y
s
i
c
a
l
l
y
di
v
i
d
e
an
es
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
e
d
co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
.
LT
S
N/
A
LTS
LU
‐2:
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
of
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
wo
u
l
d
no
t
co
n
f
l
i
c
t
wi
t
h
an
ap
p
l
i
c
a
b
l
e
la
n
d
us
e
pl
a
n
,
po
l
i
c
y
,
or
re
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
ad
o
p
t
e
d
fo
r
th
e
pu
r
p
o
s
e
of
av
o
i
d
i
n
g
or
mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
n
g
an
en
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
ef
f
e
c
t
.
LT
S
N/
A
LTS
LU
‐3:
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
of
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
,
in
co
m
b
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
wi
t
h
pa
s
t
,
pr
e
s
e
n
t
,
an
d
re
a
s
o
n
a
b
l
y
fo
r
e
s
e
e
a
b
l
e
pr
o
j
e
c
t
s
,
wo
u
l
d
no
t
re
s
u
l
t
in
si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
im
p
a
c
t
s
wi
t
h
re
s
p
e
c
t
to
la
n
d
us
e
an
d
pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
.
LT
S
N/
A
LTS
GE
N
E
R
A
L
P
L
A
N
A
M
E
N
D
M
E
N
T
,
H
O
U
S
I
N
G
E
L
E
M
E
N
T
U
P
D
A
T
E
,
A
N
D
A
S
S
O
C
I
A
T
E
D
R
E
Z
O
N
I
N
G
D
R
A
F
T
E
I
R
CI
T
Y
O
F
C
U
P
E
R
T
I
N
O
EX
E
C
U
T
I
V
E
S
U
M
M
A
R
Y
2-
1
8
JUNE 18, 2014
TAB
L
E
2‐2
SUM
M
A
R
Y
OF
IMP
A
C
T
S
AN
D
MIT
I
G
A
T
I
O
N
MEA
S
U
R
E
S
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
Im
p
a
c
t
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
c
e
Wi
t
h
o
u
t
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
Me
a
s
u
r
e
s
Significance With Mitigation
No
i
s
e
NO
I
S
E
‐1:
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
of
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
wo
u
l
d
no
t
re
s
u
l
t
in
th
e
ex
p
o
s
u
r
e
of
pe
r
s
o
n
s
to
or
ge
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
of
no
i
s
e
le
v
e
l
s
in
ex
c
e
s
s
of
st
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
es
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
e
d
in
th
e
lo
c
a
l
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
Pl
a
n
or
no
i
s
e
or
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
,
or
ap
p
l
i
c
a
b
l
e
st
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
of
ot
h
e
r
ag
e
n
c
i
e
s
.
LT
S
N/
A
LTS
NO
I
S
E
‐2:
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
of
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
wo
u
l
d
no
t
ex
p
o
s
e
pe
r
s
o
n
s
to
or
ge
n
e
r
a
t
e
ex
c
e
s
s
i
v
e
gr
o
u
n
d
‐bo
r
n
e
vi
b
r
a
t
i
o
n
or
gr
o
u
n
d
‐bo
r
n
e
no
i
s
e
le
v
e
l
s
.
LT
S
N/
A
LTS
NO
I
S
E
‐3:
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
of
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
wo
u
l
d
re
s
u
l
t
in
a
su
b
s
t
a
n
t
i
a
l
pe
r
m
a
n
e
n
t
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
in
am
b
i
e
n
t
no
i
s
e
le
v
e
l
s
in
th
e
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
vi
c
i
n
i
t
y
ab
o
v
e
le
v
e
l
s
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
wi
t
h
o
u
t
th
e
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
.
S
No
fe
a
s
i
b
l
e
mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
me
a
s
u
r
e
s
we
r
e
id
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d
.
A
di
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
of
mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
me
a
s
u
r
e
s
co
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d
bu
t
fo
u
n
d
to
be
in
f
e
a
s
i
b
l
e
is
in
c
l
u
d
e
d
in
Ch
a
p
t
e
r
4.
1
0
,
No
i
s
e
,
of
th
i
s
Dr
a
f
t
EI
R
.
SU
NO
I
S
E
‐4:
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
of
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
wo
u
l
d
re
s
u
l
t
in
a
su
b
s
t
a
n
t
i
a
l
te
m
p
o
r
a
r
y
or
pe
r
i
o
d
i
c
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
in
am
b
i
e
n
t
no
i
s
e
le
v
e
l
s
in
th
e
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
vi
c
i
n
i
t
y
ab
o
v
e
le
v
e
l
s
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
wi
t
h
o
u
t
th
e
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
.
LT
S
N/
A
LTS
NO
I
S
E
‐5:
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
of
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
,
in
co
m
b
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
wi
t
h
pa
s
t
,
pr
e
s
e
n
t
,
an
d
re
a
s
o
n
a
b
l
y
fo
r
e
s
e
e
a
b
l
e
pr
o
j
e
c
t
s
,
wo
u
l
d
re
s
u
l
t
in
si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
im
p
a
c
t
s
wi
t
h
re
s
p
e
c
t
to
no
i
s
e
.
SU
N/
A
SU
Po
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
an
d
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
PO
P
‐1:
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
of
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
wo
u
l
d
no
t
in
d
u
c
e
su
b
s
t
a
n
t
i
a
l
po
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
gr
o
w
t
h
in
an
ar
e
a
,
ei
t
h
e
r
di
r
e
c
t
l
y
(f
o
r
ex
a
m
p
l
e
,
by
pr
o
p
o
s
i
n
g
ne
w
ho
m
e
s
an
d
bu
s
i
n
e
s
s
e
s
)
or
in
d
i
r
e
c
t
l
y
(f
o
r
ex
a
m
p
l
e
,
th
r
o
u
g
h
ex
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
of
ro
a
d
s
or
ot
h
e
r
in
f
r
a
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
)
.
LT
S
N/
A
LTS
PO
P
‐2:
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
of
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
wo
u
l
d
no
t
di
s
p
l
a
c
e
su
b
s
t
a
n
t
i
a
l
nu
m
b
e
r
s
of
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
ho
u
s
i
n
g
un
i
t
s
,
ne
c
e
s
s
i
t
a
t
i
n
g
th
e
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
of
re
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
ho
u
s
i
n
g
el
s
e
w
h
e
r
e
.
LT
S
N/
A
LTS
GE
N
E
R
A
L
P
L
A
N
A
M
E
N
D
M
E
N
T
,
H
O
U
S
I
N
G
E
L
E
M
E
N
T
U
P
D
A
T
E
,
A
N
D
A
S
S
O
C
I
A
T
E
D
R
E
Z
O
N
I
N
G
D
R
A
F
T
E
I
R
CITY OF CUPERTINO
EX
E
C
U
T
I
V
E
S
U
M
M
A
R
Y
PL
A
C
E
W
O
R
K
S
2-19
TAB
L
E
2‐2
SUM
M
A
R
Y
OF
IMP
A
C
T
S
AN
D
MIT
I
G
A
T
I
O
N
MEA
S
U
R
E
S
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
Im
p
a
c
t
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
c
e
Wi
t
h
o
u
t
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
Me
a
s
u
r
e
s
Significance With Mitigation
PO
P
‐3:
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
of
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
wo
u
l
d
no
t
di
s
p
l
a
c
e
su
b
s
t
a
n
t
i
a
l
nu
m
b
e
r
s
of
pe
o
p
l
e
,
ne
c
e
s
s
i
t
a
t
i
n
g
th
e
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
of
re
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
ho
u
s
i
n
g
el
s
e
w
h
e
r
e
.
LT
S
N/
A
LTS
PO
P
‐4:
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
of
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
,
in
co
m
b
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
wi
t
h
pa
s
t
,
pr
e
s
e
n
t
,
an
d
re
a
s
o
n
a
b
l
y
fo
r
e
s
e
e
a
b
l
e
pr
o
j
e
c
t
s
,
wo
u
l
d
re
s
u
l
t
in
le
s
s
th
a
n
si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
im
p
a
c
t
s
wi
t
h
re
s
p
e
c
t
to
po
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
an
d
ho
u
s
i
n
g
.
LT
S
N/
A
LTS
Pu
b
l
i
c
Se
r
v
i
c
e
s
an
d
Re
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
PS
‐1:
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
of
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
wo
u
l
d
no
t
re
s
u
l
t
in
th
e
pr
o
v
i
s
i
o
n
of
or
ne
e
d
fo
r
ne
w
or
ph
y
s
i
c
a
l
l
y
al
t
e
r
e
d
fi
r
e
pr
o
t
e
c
t
i
o
n
fa
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
,
th
e
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
or
op
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
of
wh
i
c
h
co
u
l
d
ca
u
s
e
si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
en
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
im
p
a
c
t
s
.
LT
S
N/
A
LTS
PS
‐2:
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
of
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
,
in
co
m
b
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
wi
t
h
pa
s
t
,
pr
e
s
e
n
t
,
an
d
re
a
s
o
n
a
b
l
y
fo
r
e
s
e
e
a
b
l
e
pr
o
j
e
c
t
s
,
wo
u
l
d
no
t
re
s
u
l
t
in
si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
im
p
a
c
t
s
wi
t
h
re
s
p
e
c
t
to
fi
r
e
pr
o
t
e
c
t
i
o
n
se
r
v
i
c
e
.
LT
S
N/
A
LTS
PS
‐3:
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
of
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
wo
u
l
d
no
t
re
s
u
l
t
in
th
e
pr
o
v
i
s
i
o
n
of
or
ne
e
d
fo
r
ne
w
or
ph
y
s
i
c
a
l
l
y
al
t
e
r
e
d
po
l
i
c
e
pr
o
t
e
c
t
i
o
n
fa
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
,
th
e
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
or
op
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
of
wh
i
c
h
co
u
l
d
ca
u
s
e
si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
en
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
im
p
a
c
t
s
.
LT
S
N/
A
LTS
PS
‐4:
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
of
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
,
in
co
m
b
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
wi
t
h
pa
s
t
,
pr
e
s
e
n
t
,
an
d
re
a
s
o
n
a
b
l
y
fo
r
e
s
e
e
a
b
l
e
pr
o
j
e
c
t
s
,
wo
u
l
d
re
s
u
l
t
in
le
s
s
th
a
n
si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
im
p
a
c
t
s
wi
t
h
re
s
p
e
c
t
to
po
l
i
c
e
pr
o
t
e
c
t
i
o
n
se
r
v
i
c
e
.
LT
S
N/
A
LTS
PS
‐5:
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
of
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
wo
u
l
d
no
t
re
s
u
l
t
in
th
e
pr
o
v
i
s
i
o
n
of
or
ne
e
d
fo
r
ne
w
or
ph
y
s
i
c
a
l
l
y
al
t
e
r
e
d
sc
h
o
o
l
fa
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
,
th
e
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
or
op
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
of
wh
i
c
h
co
u
l
d
ca
u
s
e
si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
en
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
im
p
a
c
t
s
.
LT
S
N/
A
LTS
PS
‐6:
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
of
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
,
in
co
m
b
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
wi
t
h
pa
s
t
,
pr
e
s
e
n
t
,
an
d
re
a
s
o
n
a
b
l
y
fo
r
e
s
e
e
a
b
l
e
pr
o
j
e
c
t
s
,
wo
u
l
d
re
s
u
l
t
in
le
s
s
th
a
n
si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
im
p
a
c
t
s
wi
t
h
re
s
p
e
c
t
to
sc
h
o
o
l
se
r
v
i
c
e
.
LT
S
N/
A
LTS
GE
N
E
R
A
L
P
L
A
N
A
M
E
N
D
M
E
N
T
,
H
O
U
S
I
N
G
E
L
E
M
E
N
T
U
P
D
A
T
E
,
A
N
D
A
S
S
O
C
I
A
T
E
D
R
E
Z
O
N
I
N
G
D
R
A
F
T
E
I
R
CI
T
Y
O
F
C
U
P
E
R
T
I
N
O
EX
E
C
U
T
I
V
E
S
U
M
M
A
R
Y
2-
2
0
JUNE 18, 2014
TAB
L
E
2‐2
SUM
M
A
R
Y
OF
IMP
A
C
T
S
AN
D
MIT
I
G
A
T
I
O
N
MEA
S
U
R
E
S
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
Im
p
a
c
t
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
c
e
Wi
t
h
o
u
t
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
Me
a
s
u
r
e
s
Significance With Mitigation
PS
‐7:
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
of
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
wo
u
l
d
no
t
re
s
u
l
t
in
th
e
pr
o
v
i
s
i
o
n
of
or
ne
e
d
fo
r
ne
w
or
ph
y
s
i
c
a
l
l
y
al
t
e
r
e
d
li
b
r
a
r
y
fa
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
,
th
e
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
or
op
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
of
wh
i
c
h
co
u
l
d
ca
u
s
e
si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
en
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
im
p
a
c
t
s
.
LT
S
N/
A
LTS
PS
‐8:
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
of
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
,
in
co
m
b
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
wi
t
h
pa
s
t
,
pr
e
s
e
n
t
,
an
d
re
a
s
o
n
a
b
l
y
fo
r
e
s
e
e
a
b
l
e
pr
o
j
e
c
t
s
,
wo
u
l
d
re
s
u
l
t
in
le
s
s
th
a
n
si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
im
p
a
c
t
s
wi
t
h
re
s
p
e
c
t
to
li
b
r
a
r
i
e
s
.
LT
S
N/
A
LTS
PS
‐9:
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
of
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
wo
u
l
d
no
t
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
th
e
us
e
of
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
an
d
re
g
i
o
n
a
l
pa
r
k
s
or
ot
h
e
r
re
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
fa
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
,
su
c
h
th
a
t
su
b
s
t
a
n
t
i
a
l
ph
y
s
i
c
a
l
de
t
e
r
i
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
of
th
e
fa
c
i
l
i
t
y
wo
u
l
d
oc
c
u
r
,
or
be
ac
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
e
d
.
LT
S
N/
A
LTS
PS
‐10
:
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
of
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
wo
u
l
d
in
c
l
u
d
e
or
re
q
u
i
r
e
th
e
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
or
ex
p
a
n
s
i
o
n
of
re
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
fa
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
,
wh
i
c
h
mi
g
h
t
ha
v
e
an
ad
v
e
r
s
e
ph
y
s
i
c
a
l
ef
f
e
c
t
on
th
e
en
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
.
LT
S
N/
A
LTS
PS
‐11
:
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
of
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
,
in
co
m
b
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
wi
t
h
pa
s
t
,
pr
e
s
e
n
t
,
an
d
re
a
s
o
n
a
b
l
y
fo
r
e
s
e
e
a
b
l
e
pr
o
j
e
c
t
s
,
wo
u
l
d
re
s
u
l
t
in
le
s
s
th
a
n
si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
im
p
a
c
t
s
wi
t
h
re
s
p
e
c
t
to
pa
r
k
s
an
d
re
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
fa
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
.
LT
S
N/
A
LTS
Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
an
d
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
TR
A
F
‐1:
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
of
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
wo
u
l
d
co
n
f
l
i
c
t
wi
t
h
an
ap
p
l
i
c
a
b
l
e
pl
a
n
,
or
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
or
po
l
i
c
y
es
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
i
n
g
me
a
s
u
r
e
s
of
ef
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
n
e
s
s
fo
r
th
e
pe
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
of
th
e
ci
r
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
sy
s
t
e
m
,
ta
k
i
n
g
in
t
o
ac
c
o
u
n
t
al
l
mo
d
e
s
of
tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
in
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
ma
s
s
tr
a
n
s
i
t
an
d
no
n
‐mo
t
o
r
i
z
e
d
tr
a
v
e
l
an
d
re
l
e
v
a
n
t
co
m
p
o
n
e
n
t
s
of
th
e
ci
r
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
sy
s
t
e
m
,
in
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
bu
t
no
t
li
m
i
t
e
d
to
in
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
,
st
r
e
e
t
s
,
hi
g
h
w
a
y
s
an
d
fr
e
e
w
a
y
s
,
pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
an
d
bi
c
y
c
l
e
pa
t
h
s
,
an
d
ma
s
s
tr
a
n
s
i
t
.
S
TR
A
F
‐1:
Th
e
Ci
t
y
of
Cu
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
sh
a
l
l
co
m
m
i
t
to
pr
e
p
a
r
i
n
g
and
im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
i
n
g
a Tr
a
f
f
i
c
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
Fe
e
Pr
o
g
r
a
m
to
gu
a
r
a
n
t
e
e
fu
n
d
i
n
g
for
ro
a
d
w
a
y
an
d
in
f
r
a
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
th
a
t
ar
e
ne
c
e
s
s
a
r
y
to
mi
t
i
g
a
t
e
im
p
a
c
t
s
fr
o
m
fu
t
u
r
e
pr
o
j
e
c
t
s
ba
s
e
d
on
th
e
th
e
n
cu
r
r
e
n
t
City
st
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
.
As
pa
r
t
of
th
e
pr
e
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
of
th
e
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
Fee
Pr
o
g
r
a
m
,
th
e
Ci
t
y
sh
a
l
l
al
s
o
co
m
m
i
t
to
pr
e
p
a
r
i
n
g
a
"n
e
x
u
s
"
st
u
d
y
that
wi
l
l
se
r
v
e
as
th
e
ba
s
i
s
fo
r
re
q
u
i
r
i
n
g
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
im
p
a
c
t
fe
e
s
un
d
e
r
AB
16
0
0
le
g
i
s
l
a
t
i
o
n
,
as
co
d
i
f
i
e
d
by
Ca
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
Co
d
e
Go
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t
Section
66
0
0
0
et
se
q
.
,
to
su
p
p
o
r
t
im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
of
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
.
The
es
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
e
d
pr
o
c
e
d
u
r
e
s
un
d
e
r
AB
16
0
0
re
q
u
i
r
e
th
a
t
a
"r
e
a
s
o
n
a
b
l
e
re
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
h
i
p
"
or
ne
x
u
s
ex
i
s
t
be
t
w
e
e
n
th
e
tr
a
f
f
i
c
im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
and
fa
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
re
q
u
i
r
e
d
to
mi
t
i
g
a
t
e
th
e
tr
a
f
f
i
c
im
p
a
c
t
s
of
ne
w
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
pu
r
s
u
a
n
t
to
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
.
Th
e
fo
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
ex
a
m
p
l
e
s
of
traffic SU
GE
N
E
R
A
L
P
L
A
N
A
M
E
N
D
M
E
N
T
,
H
O
U
S
I
N
G
E
L
E
M
E
N
T
U
P
D
A
T
E
,
A
N
D
A
S
S
O
C
I
A
T
E
D
R
E
Z
O
N
I
N
G
D
R
A
F
T
E
I
R
CITY OF CUPERTINO
EX
E
C
U
T
I
V
E
S
U
M
M
A
R
Y
PL
A
C
E
W
O
R
K
S
2-21
TAB
L
E
2‐2
SUM
M
A
R
Y
OF
IMP
A
C
T
S
AN
D
MIT
I
G
A
T
I
O
N
MEA
S
U
R
E
S
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
Im
p
a
c
t
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
c
e
Wi
t
h
o
u
t
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
Me
a
s
u
r
e
s
Significance With Mitigation
im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
an
d
fa
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
wo
u
l
d
re
d
u
c
e
im
p
a
c
t
s
to
ac
c
e
p
t
a
b
l
e
level of
se
r
v
i
c
e
st
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
an
d
th
e
s
e
,
am
o
n
g
ot
h
e
r
im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
,
co
u
l
d
be
in
c
l
u
d
e
d
in
th
e
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
im
p
a
c
t
fe
e
s
ne
x
u
s
st
u
d
y
:
SR
85
No
r
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
Ra
m
p
s
an
d
St
e
v
e
n
s
Cr
e
e
k
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
(#
2
)
:
An
ex
c
l
u
s
i
v
e
le
f
t
‐tu
r
n
la
n
e
fo
r
th
e
no
r
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
le
g
of
th
e
in
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
(f
r
e
e
w
a
y
off‐
ra
m
p
)
at
th
e
in
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
of
SR
85
an
d
St
e
v
e
n
s
Cr
e
e
k
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
would
re
s
u
l
t
in
on
e
le
f
t
‐tu
r
n
la
n
e
,
on
e
al
l
‐mo
v
e
m
e
n
t
la
n
e
,
an
d
on
e
ri
g
h
t
turn
la
n
e
.
Th
e
ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
la
n
e
co
u
l
d
be
ad
d
e
d
wi
t
h
i
n
th
e
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
Caltrans
ri
g
h
t
‐of
‐wa
y
.
St
e
l
l
i
n
g
Ro
a
d
an
d
St
e
v
e
n
s
Cr
e
e
k
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
(#
3
)
:
Th
e
ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
of
a second
ex
c
l
u
s
i
v
e
le
f
t
‐tu
r
n
la
n
e
fo
r
th
e
ea
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
le
g
of
th
e
in
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
from
St
e
v
e
n
s
Cr
e
e
k
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
to
no
r
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
St
e
l
l
i
n
g
Ro
a
d
,
wh
i
c
h
co
u
l
d
be
ac
c
o
m
p
l
i
s
h
e
d
by
re
w
o
r
k
i
n
g
th
e
me
d
i
a
n
.
Ri
g
h
t
tu
r
n
s
wo
u
l
d
sh
a
r
e
the
bi
k
e
la
n
e
.
Su
n
n
y
v
a
l
e
‐Sa
r
a
t
o
g
a
Ro
a
d
/
D
e
An
z
a
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
an
d
Ho
m
e
s
t
e
a
d
Ro
a
d
(#5):
Wi
d
e
n
De
An
z
a
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
to
fo
u
r
la
n
e
s
in
ea
c
h
di
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
or the
in
s
t
a
l
l
a
t
i
o
n
of
tr
i
p
l
e
le
f
t
‐tu
r
n
la
n
e
s
.
De
An
z
a
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
an
d
I‐28
0
No
r
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
Ra
m
p
(#
6
)
:
Re
s
t
r
i
p
i
n
g
of De
An
z
a
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
in
th
e
so
u
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
di
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
to
pr
o
v
i
d
e
ro
o
m
fo
r
right
tu
r
n
ve
h
i
c
l
e
s
to
be
se
p
a
r
a
t
e
d
fr
o
m
th
r
o
u
g
h
tr
a
f
f
i
c
ma
y
be
re
q
u
i
r
e
d
.
The
bi
k
e
la
n
e
wo
u
l
d
be
ma
i
n
t
a
i
n
e
d
,
an
d
ri
g
h
t
tu
r
n
s
wo
u
l
d
oc
c
u
r
fr
o
m
the
bi
k
e
la
n
e
.
Th
e
ri
g
h
t
tu
r
n
s
wo
u
l
d
co
n
t
i
n
u
e
to
be
co
n
t
r
o
l
l
e
d
by
th
e
signal
an
d
wo
u
l
d
ne
e
d
to
yi
e
l
d
to
pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
s
.
Pa
i
n
t
i
n
g
a
bi
k
e
bo
x
at
th
e
front
of
th
e
la
n
e
to
pr
o
v
i
d
e
sp
a
c
e
fo
r
bi
k
e
s
wa
i
t
at
re
d
li
g
h
t
s
ma
y
en
h
a
n
c
e
the
bi
c
y
c
l
e
ex
p
e
r
i
e
n
c
e
.
De
An
z
a
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
an
d
St
e
v
e
n
s
Cr
e
e
k
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
(#
8
)
:
Restripe
we
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
St
e
v
e
n
s
Cr
e
e
k
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
to
pr
o
v
i
d
e
ro
o
m
fo
r
ri
g
h
t
turn
ve
h
i
c
l
e
s
to
be
se
p
a
r
a
t
e
d
fr
o
m
th
r
o
u
g
h
ve
h
i
c
l
e
s
ma
y
be
re
q
u
i
r
e
d
.
The
ri
g
h
t
tu
r
n
ve
h
i
c
l
e
s
wi
l
l
sh
a
r
e
th
e
bi
k
e
la
n
e
an
d
wi
l
l
st
i
l
l
be
co
n
t
r
o
l
l
e
d
by
th
e
tr
a
f
f
i
c
si
g
n
a
l
.
Pa
i
n
t
a
bi
k
e
bo
x
at
th
e
fr
o
n
t
of
th
e
la
n
e
to
provide
bi
k
e
s
a
pl
a
c
e
to
wa
i
t
at
re
d
li
g
h
t
s
.
Th
e
pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
cr
o
s
s
i
n
g
s
wi
l
l
not be
af
f
e
c
t
e
d
ma
y
en
h
a
n
c
e
th
e
bi
c
y
c
l
i
n
g
ex
p
e
r
i
e
n
c
e
.
De
An
z
a
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
an
d
Mc
C
l
e
l
l
a
n
Ro
a
d
/
P
a
c
i
f
i
c
a
Dr
i
v
e
(#
9
)
:
Re
a
l
i
g
n
the
in
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
th
a
t
is
cu
r
r
e
n
t
l
y
of
f
s
e
t
re
s
u
l
t
i
n
g
in
in
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
si
g
n
a
l
timing
su
c
h
th
a
t
th
e
Mc
C
l
e
l
l
a
n
Ro
a
d
an
d
Pa
c
i
f
i
c
a
Dr
i
v
e
le
g
s
ar
e
ac
r
o
s
s
from
GE
N
E
R
A
L
P
L
A
N
A
M
E
N
D
M
E
N
T
,
H
O
U
S
I
N
G
E
L
E
M
E
N
T
U
P
D
A
T
E
,
A
N
D
A
S
S
O
C
I
A
T
E
D
R
E
Z
O
N
I
N
G
D
R
A
F
T
E
I
R
CI
T
Y
O
F
C
U
P
E
R
T
I
N
O
EX
E
C
U
T
I
V
E
S
U
M
M
A
R
Y
2-
2
2
JUNE 18, 2014
TAB
L
E
2‐2
SUM
M
A
R
Y
OF
IMP
A
C
T
S
AN
D
MIT
I
G
A
T
I
O
N
MEA
S
U
R
E
S
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
Im
p
a
c
t
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
c
e
Wi
t
h
o
u
t
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
Me
a
s
u
r
e
s
Significance With Mitigation
ea
c
h
ot
h
e
r
ma
y
be
re
q
u
i
r
e
d
.
In
ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
,
do
u
b
l
e
le
f
t
tu
r
n
la
n
e
s
may be
re
q
u
i
r
e
d
to
be
ad
d
e
d
to
De
An
z
a
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
wi
t
h
se
c
t
i
o
n
s
of
double
la
n
e
s
on
Mc
C
l
e
l
l
a
n
Ro
a
d
an
d
Pa
c
i
f
i
c
a
Dr
i
v
e
to
re
c
e
i
v
e
th
e
do
u
b
l
e
left
tu
r
n
la
n
e
s
.
Th
e
s
e
im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
wi
l
l
re
q
u
i
r
e
th
e
ac
q
u
i
s
i
t
i
o
n
of
ri
g
h
t
‐of‐
wa
y
an
d
de
m
o
l
i
t
i
o
n
of
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
.
Ho
w
e
v
e
r
,
some
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
ri
g
h
t
‐of
‐wa
y
co
u
l
d
be
ab
a
n
d
o
n
e
d
,
wh
i
c
h
wo
u
l
d
re
d
u
c
e
the net
ri
g
h
t
‐of
‐wa
y
ta
k
e
.
Wo
l
f
e
Ro
a
d
an
d
Ho
m
e
s
t
e
a
d
Ro
a
d
(#
1
6
)
:
Th
e
ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
of
a third
so
u
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
th
r
o
u
g
h
la
n
e
to
th
e
so
u
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
ap
p
r
o
a
c
h
of the
in
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
of
Wo
l
f
e
Ro
a
d
an
d
Ho
m
e
s
t
e
a
d
Ro
a
d
ma
y
be
re
q
u
i
r
e
d
,
as
we
l
l
as
th
e
ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
of
a
so
u
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
ex
c
l
u
s
i
v
e
ri
g
h
t
‐tu
r
n
la
n
e
.
Three
so
u
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
re
c
e
i
v
i
n
g
la
n
e
s
on
th
e
so
u
t
h
si
d
e
of
th
e
in
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
cu
r
r
e
n
t
l
y
ex
i
s
t
.
An
ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
we
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
th
r
o
u
g
h
la
n
e
fo
r
a
total of
th
r
e
e
th
r
o
u
g
h
‐mo
v
e
m
e
n
t
la
n
e
s
,
an
ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
re
c
e
i
v
i
n
g
la
n
e
on
Ho
m
e
s
t
e
a
d
we
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
to
re
c
e
i
v
e
th
e
ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
th
r
o
u
g
h
la
n
e
,
as
well as
th
e
ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
of
a
we
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
ex
c
l
u
s
i
v
e
ri
g
h
t
‐tu
r
n
la
n
e
ma
y
be
re
q
u
i
r
e
d
.
Th
i
s
wi
l
l
re
q
u
i
r
e
wi
d
e
n
i
n
g
Ho
m
e
s
t
e
a
d
Ro
a
d
.
An
ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
ea
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
th
r
o
u
g
h
la
n
e
fo
r
a to
t
a
l
of
th
r
e
e
th
r
o
u
g
h
‐mo
v
e
m
e
n
t
la
n
e
s
,
an
ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
re
c
e
i
v
i
n
g
la
n
e
on
Ho
m
e
s
t
e
a
d
ea
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
to
re
c
e
i
v
e
th
e
ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
th
r
o
u
g
h
la
n
e
,
as
we
l
l
as
th
e
ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
of
an
ea
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
ex
c
l
u
s
i
v
e
le
f
t
‐turn
la
n
e
fo
r
a
to
t
a
l
of
tw
o
le
f
t
‐tu
r
n
la
n
e
s
ma
y
be
re
q
u
i
r
e
d
.
These
im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
wi
l
l
re
q
u
i
r
e
th
e
ac
q
u
i
s
i
t
i
o
n
of
ri
g
h
t
‐of
‐wa
y
and
de
m
o
l
i
t
i
o
n
of
pa
r
k
i
n
g
ar
e
a
s
.
Wo
l
f
e
Ro
a
d
an
d
I‐28
0
No
r
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
Ra
m
p
(#
1
8
)
:
An
ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
no
r
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
th
r
o
u
g
h
la
n
e
fo
r
a
to
t
a
l
of
th
r
e
e
th
r
o
u
g
h
‐mo
v
e
m
e
n
t
lanes
ma
y
be
re
q
u
i
r
e
d
.
Th
i
s
wi
l
l
re
q
u
i
r
e
wi
d
e
n
i
n
g
th
e
Wo
l
f
e
Road
ov
e
r
c
r
o
s
s
i
n
g
.
Th
e
la
n
e
ne
e
d
s
to
be
ex
t
e
n
d
e
d
no
r
t
h
of
th
e
in
t
e
r
c
h
a
n
g
e
so
th
a
t
th
e
r
e
ar
e
a
co
n
t
i
n
u
o
u
s
th
r
e
e
la
n
e
s
no
r
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
.
Ri
g
h
t
‐of‐way
ac
q
u
i
s
i
t
i
o
n
ma
y
be
re
q
u
i
r
e
d
.
In
ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
to
wi
d
e
n
i
n
g
th
e
ov
e
r
c
r
o
s
s
i
n
g
,
th
e
Ci
t
y
ma
y
wi
s
h
to
pu
r
s
u
e
a
re
d
e
s
i
g
n
of
th
e
in
t
e
r
c
h
a
n
g
e
to
go
from a
pa
r
t
i
a
l
cl
o
v
e
r
l
e
a
f
de
s
i
g
n
to
a di
a
m
o
n
d
de
s
i
g
n
.
Th
i
s
co
u
l
d
he
l
p
wi
t
h
heavy
vo
l
u
m
e
s
in
th
e
ri
g
h
t
la
n
e
,
wh
i
c
h
co
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
e
s
to
th
e
le
v
e
l
‐of
‐service
de
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y
.
Wo
l
f
e
Ro
a
d
an
d
I‐28
0
So
u
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
Ra
m
p
(#
1
9
)
:
An
ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
th
r
o
u
g
h
la
n
e
fo
r
a
to
t
a
l
of
th
r
e
e
th
r
o
u
g
h
‐mo
v
e
m
e
n
t
la
n
e
s
fo
r
th
e
no
r
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
GE
N
E
R
A
L
P
L
A
N
A
M
E
N
D
M
E
N
T
,
H
O
U
S
I
N
G
E
L
E
M
E
N
T
U
P
D
A
T
E
,
A
N
D
A
S
S
O
C
I
A
T
E
D
R
E
Z
O
N
I
N
G
D
R
A
F
T
E
I
R
CITY OF CUPERTINO
EX
E
C
U
T
I
V
E
S
U
M
M
A
R
Y
PL
A
C
E
W
O
R
K
S
2-23
TAB
L
E
2‐2
SUM
M
A
R
Y
OF
IMP
A
C
T
S
AN
D
MIT
I
G
A
T
I
O
N
MEA
S
U
R
E
S
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
Im
p
a
c
t
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
c
e
Wi
t
h
o
u
t
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
Me
a
s
u
r
e
s
Significance With Mitigation
le
g
of
th
e
in
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
at
th
e
Wo
l
f
e
Ro
a
d
an
d
I‐28
0
So
u
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
Ramp
ma
y
be
re
q
u
i
r
e
d
.
Th
i
s
ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
no
r
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
th
r
o
u
g
h
la
n
e
would
re
q
u
i
r
e
wi
d
e
n
i
n
g
to
th
e
fr
e
e
w
a
y
ov
e
r
c
r
o
s
s
i
n
g
.
In
ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
to
wi
d
e
n
i
n
g
th
e
ov
e
r
c
r
o
s
s
i
n
g
,
th
e
Ci
t
y
ma
y
wi
s
h
to
pu
r
s
u
e
a
re
d
e
s
i
g
n
of the
in
t
e
r
c
h
a
n
g
e
to
go
fr
o
m
a
pa
r
t
i
a
l
cl
o
v
e
r
l
e
a
f
de
s
i
g
n
to
a
di
a
m
o
n
d
design.
Th
i
s
co
u
l
d
he
l
p
wi
t
h
th
e
pr
o
b
l
e
m
of
he
a
v
y
vo
l
u
m
e
in
th
e
ri
g
h
t
lane,
wh
i
c
h
co
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
e
s
to
th
e
le
v
e
l
of
se
r
v
i
c
e
de
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y
.
Wo
l
f
e
Ro
a
d
/
M
i
l
l
e
r
Av
e
n
u
e
an
d
St
e
v
e
n
s
Cr
e
e
k
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
(#
2
1
)
:
The
re
s
t
r
i
p
i
n
g
of
th
e
we
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
le
g
of
th
e
in
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
to
pr
o
v
i
d
e
ro
o
m
so
th
a
t
ri
g
h
t
tu
r
n
ve
h
i
c
l
e
s
ca
n
be
se
p
a
r
a
t
e
d
fr
o
m
th
r
o
u
g
h
ve
h
i
c
l
e
s
may be
re
q
u
i
r
e
d
.
Ri
g
h
t
tu
r
n
ve
h
i
c
l
e
s
wo
u
l
d
sh
a
r
e
th
e
bi
k
e
la
n
e
.
Ri
g
h
t
turn
ve
h
i
c
l
e
s
wo
u
l
d
st
i
l
l
be
co
n
t
r
o
l
l
e
d
by
th
e
si
g
n
a
l
,
an
d
pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
cr
o
s
s
i
n
g
s
wo
u
l
d
no
t
be
af
f
e
c
t
e
d
.
Pa
i
n
t
a
bi
k
e
bo
x
at
th
e
fr
o
n
t
of
th
e
lane to
pr
o
v
i
d
e
bi
k
e
s
a
pl
a
c
e
to
wa
i
t
at
re
d
li
g
h
t
s
ma
y
en
h
a
n
c
e
th
e
bi
c
y
c
l
i
n
g
ex
p
e
r
i
e
n
c
e
.
No
r
t
h
Ta
n
t
a
u
Av
e
n
u
e
/
Q
u
a
i
l
Av
e
n
u
e
an
d
Ho
m
e
s
t
e
a
d
Ro
a
d
(#24):
Re
s
t
r
i
p
i
n
g
of
th
e
so
u
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
le
g
of
th
e
in
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
(Q
u
a
i
l
Av
e
n
u
e
)
to
pr
o
v
i
d
e
a
se
p
a
r
a
t
e
le
f
t
tu
r
n
la
n
e
ma
y
be
re
q
u
i
r
e
d
.
Th
i
s
wi
l
l
re
q
u
i
r
e
the
re
m
o
v
a
l
of
on
‐st
r
e
e
t
pa
r
k
i
n
g
ne
a
r
th
e
in
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
.
Th
e
le
v
e
l
‐of
‐service
ca
l
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
sh
o
w
th
a
t
wi
t
h
im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
of
th
e
s
e
im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
,
the
in
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
wo
u
l
d
op
e
r
a
t
e
at
an
ac
c
e
p
t
a
b
l
e
LO
S
D.
Ta
n
t
a
u
Av
e
n
u
e
an
d
St
e
v
e
n
s
Cr
e
e
k
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
(#
2
7
)
:
Th
e
ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
of a
se
p
a
r
a
t
e
le
f
t
‐tu
r
n
la
n
e
to
no
r
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
Ta
n
t
a
u
Av
e
n
u
e
ma
y
be
re
q
u
i
r
e
d
.
Ri
g
h
t
‐of
‐wa
y
ac
q
u
i
s
i
t
i
o
n
an
d
de
m
o
l
i
t
i
o
n
of
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
wo
u
l
d
be
re
q
u
i
r
e
d
.
St
e
v
e
n
s
Cr
e
e
k
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
an
d
I‐28
0
SB
Ra
m
p
s
/
C
a
l
v
e
r
t
Dr
i
v
e
(#
2
9
)
:
Make
th
e
ea
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
to
so
u
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
ri
g
h
t
tu
r
n
a
fr
e
e
mo
v
e
m
e
n
t
.
Th
i
s
would
re
q
u
i
r
e
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
an
is
l
a
n
d
an
d
se
p
a
r
a
t
i
n
g
th
e
ri
g
h
t
tu
r
n
fr
o
m
signal
co
n
t
r
o
l
.
It
al
s
o
wo
u
l
d
re
q
u
i
r
e
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
a
th
i
r
d
so
u
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
la
n
e
on
Ca
l
v
e
r
t
Dr
i
v
e
to
re
c
e
i
v
e
th
e
ri
g
h
t
tu
r
n
tr
a
f
f
i
c
.
St
e
v
e
n
s
Cr
e
e
k
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
an
d
Ag
i
l
e
n
t
Te
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
i
e
s
Dr
i
v
e
w
a
y
(#
3
0
)
:
The
re
s
t
r
i
p
i
n
g
of
th
e
we
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
le
g
of
th
e
in
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
to
pr
o
v
i
d
e
ro
o
m
so
th
a
t
ri
g
h
t
tu
r
n
ve
h
i
c
l
e
s
ca
n
be
se
p
a
r
a
t
e
d
fr
o
m
th
r
o
u
g
h
ve
h
i
c
l
e
s
may be
re
q
u
i
r
e
d
.
Ri
g
h
t
tu
r
n
ve
h
i
c
l
e
s
wo
u
l
d
sh
a
r
e
th
e
bi
k
e
la
n
e
.
Ri
g
h
t
turn
ve
h
i
c
l
e
s
wo
u
l
d
st
i
l
l
be
co
n
t
r
o
l
l
e
d
by
th
e
si
g
n
a
l
,
an
d
pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
cr
o
s
s
i
n
g
s
GE
N
E
R
A
L
P
L
A
N
A
M
E
N
D
M
E
N
T
,
H
O
U
S
I
N
G
E
L
E
M
E
N
T
U
P
D
A
T
E
,
A
N
D
A
S
S
O
C
I
A
T
E
D
R
E
Z
O
N
I
N
G
D
R
A
F
T
E
I
R
CI
T
Y
O
F
C
U
P
E
R
T
I
N
O
EX
E
C
U
T
I
V
E
S
U
M
M
A
R
Y
2-
2
4
JUNE 18, 2014
TAB
L
E
2‐2
SUM
M
A
R
Y
OF
IMP
A
C
T
S
AN
D
MIT
I
G
A
T
I
O
N
MEA
S
U
R
E
S
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
Im
p
a
c
t
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
c
e
Wi
t
h
o
u
t
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
Me
a
s
u
r
e
s
Significance With Mitigation
wo
u
l
d
no
t
be
af
f
e
c
t
e
d
.
Pa
i
n
t
a
bi
k
e
bo
x
at
th
e
fr
o
n
t
of
th
e
lane to
pr
o
v
i
d
e
bi
k
e
s
a
pl
a
c
e
to
wa
i
t
at
re
d
li
g
h
t
s
ma
y
en
h
a
n
c
e
th
e
bi
c
y
c
l
i
n
g
ex
p
e
r
i
e
n
c
e
.
La
w
r
e
n
c
e
Ex
p
r
e
s
s
w
a
y
So
u
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
Ra
m
p
an
d
St
e
v
e
n
s
Cr
e
e
k
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
(C
M
P
,
Co
u
n
t
y
)
(#
3
1
)
:
Th
e
ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
of
a
se
c
o
n
d
ri
g
h
t
‐tu
r
n
la
n
e
for the
so
u
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
le
g
of
th
e
in
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
at
th
e
La
w
r
e
n
c
e
Ex
p
r
e
s
s
w
a
y
So
u
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
Ra
m
p
an
d
St
e
v
e
n
s
Cr
e
e
k
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
ma
y
be
re
q
u
i
r
e
d
.
Both
la
n
e
s
wo
u
l
d
ne
e
d
to
be
co
n
t
r
o
l
l
e
d
by
th
e
si
g
n
a
l
,
an
d
di
s
a
l
l
o
w
ri
g
h
t
turns
on
re
d
.
Ri
g
h
t
‐of
‐wa
y
ac
q
u
i
s
i
t
i
o
n
ma
y
be
re
q
u
i
r
e
d
.
La
w
r
e
n
c
e
Ex
p
r
e
s
s
w
a
y
No
r
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
Ra
m
p
an
d
St
e
v
e
n
s
Cr
e
e
k
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
(C
M
P
,
Co
u
n
t
y
)
(#
3
2
)
:
Re
d
e
s
i
g
n
of
th
e
no
r
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
le
g
of
th
e
in
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
at
th
e
La
w
r
e
n
c
e
Ex
p
r
e
s
s
w
a
y
No
r
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
Ra
m
p
an
d
St
e
v
e
n
s
Creek
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
to
pr
o
v
i
d
e
on
e
th
r
o
u
g
h
‐mo
v
e
m
e
n
t
la
n
e
,
an
d
on
e
ex
c
l
u
s
i
v
e
ri
g
h
t
‐tu
r
n
la
n
e
ma
y
be
re
q
u
i
r
e
d
.
Ri
g
h
t
‐of
‐wa
y
ac
q
u
i
s
i
t
i
o
n
wo
u
l
d
be
re
q
u
i
r
e
d
.
Th
e
fe
e
s
sh
a
l
l
be
as
s
e
s
s
e
d
wh
e
n
th
e
r
e
is
ne
w
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
,
an
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
in
sq
u
a
r
e
fo
o
t
a
g
e
in
an
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
,
or
th
e
co
n
v
e
r
s
i
o
n
of
existing
sq
u
a
r
e
fo
o
t
a
g
e
to
a
mo
r
e
in
t
e
n
s
i
v
e
us
e
.
Th
e
fe
e
s
co
l
l
e
c
t
e
d
sh
a
l
l
be
ap
p
l
i
e
d
to
w
a
r
d
ci
r
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
an
d
ri
g
h
t
‐of
‐wa
y
ac
q
u
i
s
i
t
i
o
n
.
Th
e
fe
e
s
sh
a
l
l
be
ca
l
c
u
l
a
t
e
d
by
mu
l
t
i
p
l
y
i
n
g
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
sq
u
a
r
e
fo
o
t
a
g
e
,
dw
e
l
l
i
n
g
un
i
t
,
or
ho
t
e
l
ro
o
m
by
th
e
ap
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
ra
t
e
.
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
fe
e
s
sh
a
l
l
be
in
c
l
u
d
e
d
wi
t
h
an
y
ot
h
e
r
ap
p
l
i
c
a
b
l
e
fe
e
s
pa
y
a
b
l
e
at
th
e
time
th
e
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
pe
r
m
i
t
is
is
s
u
e
d
.
Th
e
Ci
t
y
sh
a
l
l
us
e
th
e
tr
a
f
f
i
c
mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
fees
to
fu
n
d
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
(o
r
to
re
c
o
u
p
fe
e
s
ad
v
a
n
c
e
d
to
fu
n
d
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
)
of
th
e
tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
id
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d
ab
o
v
e
,
am
o
n
g
other
th
i
n
g
s
th
a
t
at
th
e
ti
m
e
of
po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
fu
t
u
r
e
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
may be
wa
r
r
a
n
t
e
d
to
mi
t
i
g
a
t
e
tr
a
f
f
i
c
im
p
a
c
t
s
.
TR
A
F
‐2:
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
of
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
wo
u
l
d
co
n
f
l
i
c
t
wi
t
h
an
ap
p
l
i
c
a
b
l
e
co
n
g
e
s
t
i
o
n
ma
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
pr
o
g
r
a
m
,
in
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
,
bu
t
no
t
li
m
i
t
e
d
to
,
le
v
e
l
of
se
r
v
i
c
e
st
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
an
d
tr
a
v
e
l
de
m
a
n
d
me
a
s
u
r
e
s
,
or
ot
h
e
r
st
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
es
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
e
d
by
th
e
co
u
n
t
y
co
n
g
e
s
t
i
o
n
ma
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
ag
e
n
c
y
fo
r
de
s
i
g
n
a
t
e
d
ro
a
d
s
or
hi
g
h
w
a
y
s
.
SU
Se
e
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
Me
a
s
u
r
e
s
un
d
e
r
TR
A
F
‐1.
SU
GE
N
E
R
A
L
P
L
A
N
A
M
E
N
D
M
E
N
T
,
H
O
U
S
I
N
G
E
L
E
M
E
N
T
U
P
D
A
T
E
,
A
N
D
A
S
S
O
C
I
A
T
E
D
R
E
Z
O
N
I
N
G
D
R
A
F
T
E
I
R
CITY OF CUPERTINO
EX
E
C
U
T
I
V
E
S
U
M
M
A
R
Y
PL
A
C
E
W
O
R
K
S
2-25
TAB
L
E
2‐2
SUM
M
A
R
Y
OF
IMP
A
C
T
S
AN
D
MIT
I
G
A
T
I
O
N
MEA
S
U
R
E
S
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
Im
p
a
c
t
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
c
e
Wi
t
h
o
u
t
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
Me
a
s
u
r
e
s
Significance With Mitigation
TR
A
F
‐3:
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
of
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
wo
u
l
d
no
t
su
b
s
t
a
n
t
i
a
l
l
y
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
ha
z
a
r
d
s
du
e
to
a
de
s
i
g
n
fe
a
t
u
r
e
(e
.
g
.
sh
a
r
p
cu
r
v
e
s
or
da
n
g
e
r
o
u
s
in
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
)
or
in
c
o
m
p
a
t
i
b
l
e
us
e
s
(e
.
g
.
fa
r
m
eq
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
)
.
LT
S
N/
A
LTS
TR
A
F
‐4:
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
of
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
wo
u
l
d
no
t
re
s
u
l
t
in
in
a
d
e
q
u
a
t
e
em
e
r
g
e
n
c
y
ac
c
e
s
s
.
LT
S
N/
A
LTS
TR
A
F
‐5:
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
of
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
wo
u
l
d
no
t
co
n
f
l
i
c
t
wi
t
h
ad
o
p
t
e
d
po
l
i
c
i
e
s
,
pl
a
n
s
,
or
pr
o
g
r
a
m
s
re
g
a
r
d
i
n
g
pu
b
l
i
c
tr
a
n
s
i
t
,
bi
c
y
c
l
e
,
or
pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
fa
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
,
or
ot
h
e
r
w
i
s
e
de
c
r
e
a
s
e
th
e
pe
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
or
sa
f
e
t
y
of
su
c
h
fa
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
.
LT
S
N/
A
LTS
TR
A
F
‐6:
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
of
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
,
in
co
m
b
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
wi
t
h
pa
s
t
,
pr
e
s
e
n
t
,
an
d
re
a
s
o
n
a
b
l
y
fo
r
e
s
e
e
a
b
l
e
pr
o
j
e
c
t
s
,
wo
u
l
d
re
s
u
l
t
in
ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
l
y
co
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
b
l
e
im
p
a
c
t
s
.
SU
Se
e
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
Me
a
s
u
r
e
TR
A
F
‐1.
SU
Ut
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
an
d
Se
r
v
i
c
e
Sy
s
t
e
m
s
UT
I
L
‐1:
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
of
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
wo
u
l
d
ha
v
e
su
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
wa
t
e
r
su
p
p
l
i
e
s
av
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
to
se
r
v
e
th
e
pr
o
j
e
c
t
fr
o
m
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
en
t
i
t
l
e
m
e
n
t
s
an
d
re
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
,
an
d
ne
w
or
ex
p
a
n
d
e
d
en
t
i
t
l
e
m
e
n
t
s
ar
e
no
t
ne
e
d
e
d
.
LT
S
N/
A
LTS
UT
I
L
‐2:
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
of
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
wo
u
l
d
no
t
re
q
u
i
r
e
or
re
s
u
l
t
in
th
e
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
of
ne
w
wa
t
e
r
fa
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
or
ex
p
a
n
s
i
o
n
of
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
fa
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
,
th
e
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
of
wh
i
c
h
wo
u
l
d
ca
u
s
e
si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
en
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
ef
f
e
c
t
s
.
LT
S
N/
A
LTS
UT
I
L
‐3:
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
of
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
,
in
co
m
b
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
wi
t
h
pa
s
t
,
pr
e
s
e
n
t
,
an
d
re
a
s
o
n
a
b
l
y
fo
r
e
s
e
e
a
b
l
e
pr
o
j
e
c
t
s
,
wo
u
l
d
no
t
re
s
u
l
t
in
si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
im
p
a
c
t
s
wi
t
h
re
s
p
e
c
t
to
wa
t
e
r
su
p
p
l
y
.
LT
S
N/
A
LTS
UT
I
L
‐4:
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
s
of
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
wo
u
l
d
no
t
ex
c
e
e
d
wa
s
t
e
w
a
t
e
r
tr
e
a
t
m
e
n
t
re
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
of
th
e
ap
p
l
i
c
a
b
l
e
Re
g
i
o
n
a
l
Wa
t
e
r
Qu
a
l
i
t
y
Co
n
t
r
o
l
Bo
a
r
d
.
LT
S
N/
A
LTS
UT
I
L
‐5:
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
of
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
wo
u
l
d
no
t
re
q
u
i
r
e
or
re
s
u
l
t
in
th
e
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
of
ne
w
wa
s
t
e
w
a
t
e
r
tr
e
a
t
m
e
n
t
fa
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
or
ex
p
a
n
s
i
o
n
of
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
fa
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
,
th
e
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
of
wh
i
c
h
co
u
l
d
ca
u
s
e
si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
en
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
LT
S
N/
A
LTS
GE
N
E
R
A
L
P
L
A
N
A
M
E
N
D
M
E
N
T
,
H
O
U
S
I
N
G
E
L
E
M
E
N
T
U
P
D
A
T
E
,
A
N
D
A
S
S
O
C
I
A
T
E
D
R
E
Z
O
N
I
N
G
D
R
A
F
T
E
I
R
CI
T
Y
O
F
C
U
P
E
R
T
I
N
O
EX
E
C
U
T
I
V
E
S
U
M
M
A
R
Y
2-
2
6
JUNE 18, 2014
TAB
L
E
2‐2
SUM
M
A
R
Y
OF
IMP
A
C
T
S
AN
D
MIT
I
G
A
T
I
O
N
MEA
S
U
R
E
S
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
Im
p
a
c
t
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
c
e
Wi
t
h
o
u
t
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
Me
a
s
u
r
e
s
Significance With Mitigation
ef
f
e
c
t
s
.
UT
I
L
‐6:
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
of
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
wo
u
l
d
re
s
u
l
t
in
a
de
t
e
r
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
by
th
e
wa
s
t
e
w
a
t
e
r
tr
e
a
t
m
e
n
t
pr
o
v
i
d
e
r
,
wh
i
c
h
se
r
v
e
s
,
or
ma
y
se
r
v
e
th
e
pr
o
j
e
c
t
,
th
a
t
it
do
e
s
no
t
ha
v
e
ad
e
q
u
a
t
e
ca
p
a
c
i
t
y
to
se
r
v
e
th
e
pr
o
j
e
c
t
’
s
pr
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
de
m
a
n
d
in
ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
to
th
e
pr
o
v
i
d
e
r
’
s
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
co
m
m
i
t
m
e
n
t
s
.
S
UT
I
L
‐6a
:
Th
e
Ci
t
y
sh
a
l
l
wo
r
k
wi
t
h
th
e
Cu
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
Sa
n
i
t
a
r
y
Di
s
t
r
i
c
t
to
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
th
e
av
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
ci
t
y
w
i
d
e
tr
e
a
t
m
e
n
t
an
d
tr
a
n
s
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
ca
p
a
c
i
t
y
to
8.
6
5
mi
l
l
i
o
n
ga
l
l
o
n
s
pe
r
da
y
,
or
to
a
le
s
s
e
r
th
r
e
s
h
o
l
d
if
st
u
d
i
e
s
ju
s
t
i
f
y
i
n
g
re
d
u
c
e
d
wa
s
t
e
w
a
t
e
r
ge
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
ra
t
e
s
ar
e
ap
p
r
o
v
e
d
by
CS
D
as
de
s
c
r
i
b
e
d
in
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
Me
a
s
u
r
e
UT
I
L
‐6c
.
UT
I
L
‐6b
:
Th
e
Ci
t
y
sh
a
l
l
wo
r
k
to
es
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
a
sy
s
t
e
m
in
which a
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
an
d
tr
a
c
k
i
n
g
sy
s
t
e
m
to
ta
b
u
l
a
t
e
cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
s
in
pr
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
wa
s
t
e
w
a
t
e
r
ge
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
fr
o
m
ap
p
r
o
v
e
d
projects
fo
r
co
m
p
a
r
i
s
o
n
to
th
e
Cu
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
Sa
n
i
t
a
r
y
Di
s
t
r
i
c
t
’
s
tr
e
a
t
m
e
n
t
capacity
th
r
e
s
h
o
l
d
wi
t
h
Sa
n
Jo
s
e
/
S
a
n
t
a
Cl
a
r
a
Wa
t
e
r
Po
l
l
u
t
i
o
n
Co
n
t
r
o
l
Plant is
pr
e
p
a
r
e
d
an
d
im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
e
d
.
If
it
is
an
t
i
c
i
p
a
t
e
d
th
a
t
wi
t
h
ap
p
r
o
v
a
l
of a
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
pr
o
j
e
c
t
th
e
ac
t
u
a
l
sy
s
t
e
m
di
s
c
h
a
r
g
e
wo
u
l
d
ex
c
e
e
d
the
co
n
t
r
a
c
t
u
a
l
tr
e
a
t
m
e
n
t
th
r
e
s
h
o
l
d
,
no
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
pe
r
m
i
t
s
fo
r
su
c
h
project
sh
a
l
l
be
is
s
u
e
d
pr
i
o
r
to
in
c
r
e
a
s
i
n
g
th
e
av
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
ci
t
y
w
i
d
e
co
n
t
r
a
c
t
u
a
l
tr
e
a
t
m
e
n
t
an
d
tr
a
n
s
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
ca
p
a
c
i
t
y
as
de
s
c
r
i
b
e
d
in
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
Measure
UT
I
L
‐6a
.
UT
I
L
‐6c
:
Th
e
Ci
t
y
sh
a
l
l
wo
r
k
wi
t
h
th
e
Cu
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
Sa
n
i
t
a
r
y
Di
s
t
r
i
c
t
to
pr
e
p
a
r
e
a
st
u
d
y
to
de
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
a
mo
r
e
cu
r
r
e
n
t
es
t
i
m
a
t
e
of the
wa
s
t
e
w
a
t
e
r
ge
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
ra
t
e
s
th
a
t
re
f
l
e
c
t
th
e
ac
t
u
a
l
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
to be
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
e
d
as
pa
r
t
of
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
.
Th
e
st
u
d
y
co
u
l
d
include
de
t
e
r
m
i
n
i
n
g
ho
w
th
e
gr
e
e
n
/
L
E
E
D
ce
r
t
i
f
i
e
d
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
in
th
e
Ci
t
y
reduce
wa
s
t
e
w
a
t
e
r
de
m
a
n
d
s
.
LTS
UT
I
L
‐7:
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
of
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
,
in
co
m
b
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
wi
t
h
pa
s
t
,
pr
e
s
e
n
t
,
an
d
re
a
s
o
n
a
b
l
y
fo
r
e
s
e
e
a
b
l
e
pr
o
j
e
c
t
s
,
wo
u
l
d
no
t
re
s
u
l
t
in
a
si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
im
p
a
c
t
s
wi
t
h
re
s
p
e
c
t
to
wa
s
t
e
w
a
t
e
r
tr
e
a
t
m
e
n
t
.
LT
S
Se
e
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
Me
a
s
u
r
e
s
UT
I
L
‐6a
,
UT
I
L
‐6b
,
an
d
UT
I
L
‐6c
.
LTS
UT
I
L
‐8:
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
of
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
wo
u
l
d
no
t
be
se
r
v
e
d
by
a
la
n
d
f
i
l
l
(
s
)
wi
t
h
su
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
pe
r
m
i
t
t
e
d
ca
p
a
c
i
t
y
to
ac
c
o
m
m
o
d
a
t
e
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
’
s
so
l
i
d
wa
s
t
e
di
s
p
o
s
a
l
ne
e
d
s
.
S
UT
I
L
‐8:
Th
e
Ci
t
y
sh
a
l
l
co
n
t
i
n
u
e
it
s
cu
r
r
e
n
t
re
c
y
c
l
i
n
g
or
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
s
an
d
zero‐
wa
s
t
e
po
l
i
c
i
e
s
in
an
ef
f
o
r
t
to
fu
r
t
h
e
r
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
it
s
di
v
e
r
s
i
o
n
ra
t
e
an
d
lower
it
s
pe
r
ca
p
i
t
a
di
s
p
o
s
a
l
ra
t
e
.
In
ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
,
th
e
Ci
t
y
sh
a
l
l
mo
n
i
t
o
r
so
l
i
d
waste
ge
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
vo
l
u
m
e
s
in
re
l
a
t
i
o
n
to
ca
p
a
c
i
t
i
e
s
at
re
c
e
i
v
i
n
g
la
n
d
f
i
l
l
sites to LTS
GE
N
E
R
A
L
P
L
A
N
A
M
E
N
D
M
E
N
T
,
H
O
U
S
I
N
G
E
L
E
M
E
N
T
U
P
D
A
T
E
,
A
N
D
A
S
S
O
C
I
A
T
E
D
R
E
Z
O
N
I
N
G
D
R
A
F
T
E
I
R
CITY OF CUPERTINO
EX
E
C
U
T
I
V
E
S
U
M
M
A
R
Y
PL
A
C
E
W
O
R
K
S
2-27
TAB
L
E
2‐2
SUM
M
A
R
Y
OF
IMP
A
C
T
S
AN
D
MIT
I
G
A
T
I
O
N
MEA
S
U
R
E
S
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
Im
p
a
c
t
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
c
e
Wi
t
h
o
u
t
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
Me
a
s
u
r
e
s
Significance With Mitigation
en
s
u
r
e
th
a
t
su
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
ca
p
a
c
i
t
y
ex
i
s
t
s
to
ac
c
o
m
m
o
d
a
t
e
fu
t
u
r
e
growth.
Th
e
Ci
t
y
sh
a
l
l
se
e
k
ne
w
la
n
d
f
i
l
l
si
t
e
s
to
re
p
l
a
c
e
th
e
Al
t
a
m
o
n
t
an
d
Newby
Is
l
a
n
d
la
n
d
f
i
l
l
s
,
at
su
c
h
ti
m
e
th
a
t
th
e
s
e
la
n
d
f
i
l
l
s
ar
e
cl
o
s
e
d
.
UT
I
L
‐9:
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
of
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
wo
u
l
d
no
t
be
ou
t
of
co
m
p
l
i
a
n
c
e
wi
t
h
fe
d
e
r
a
l
,
St
a
t
e
,
an
d
lo
c
a
l
st
a
t
u
e
s
an
d
re
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
re
l
a
t
e
d
to
so
l
i
d
wa
s
t
e
.
LT
S
N/
A
LTS
UT
I
L
‐10
:
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
of
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
,
in
co
m
b
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
wi
t
h
pa
s
t
,
pr
e
s
e
n
t
,
an
d
re
a
s
o
n
a
b
l
y
fo
r
e
s
e
e
a
b
l
e
pr
o
j
e
c
t
s
,
wo
u
l
d
re
s
u
l
t
in
si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
im
p
a
c
t
s
wi
t
h
re
s
p
e
c
t
to
so
l
i
d
wa
s
t
e
.
LT
S
N/
A
LTS
UT
I
L
‐11
:
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
of
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
wo
u
l
d
no
t
re
s
u
l
t
in
a
su
b
s
t
a
n
t
i
a
l
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
in
na
t
u
r
a
l
ga
s
an
d
el
e
c
t
r
i
c
a
l
se
r
v
i
c
e
de
m
a
n
d
s
,
an
d
wo
u
l
d
no
t
re
q
u
i
r
e
ne
w
en
e
r
g
y
su
p
p
l
y
fa
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
an
d
di
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
in
f
r
a
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
or
ca
p
a
c
i
t
y
en
h
a
n
c
i
n
g
al
t
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
to
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
fa
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
.
LT
S
N/
A
LTS
GE
N
E
R
A
L
P
L
A
N
A
M
E
N
D
M
E
N
T
,
H
O
U
S
I
N
G
E
L
E
M
E
N
T
U
P
D
A
T
E
,
A
N
D
A
S
S
O
C
I
A
T
E
D
R
E
Z
O
N
I
N
G
D
R
A
F
T
E
I
R
CI
T
Y
O
F
C
U
P
E
R
T
I
N
O
EX
E
C
U
T
I
V
E
S
U
M
M
A
R
Y
2-
2
8
JUNE 18, 2014
PLACEWORKS 3-1
3. Project Description
This chapter of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) describes the proposed General Plan
Amendment, Housing Element Update, and associated Rezoning (together referred to as the “proposed
Project” or “Project”). It also describes the potential future development associated with the proposed
Project.
This project description provides general background about the City of Cupertino and the proposed Project,
and provides detailed descriptions of the following five distinct Project Components:
1. Special Areas Along Major Transportation Corridors Including Gateways and Nodes
2. Study Areas
3. Other Special Areas Including Neighborhoods and Non-Residential/Mixed-Use Special Areas
4. Housing Element Sites
5. General Plan Land Use Map and, Zoning Map and Ordinance Amendments
3.1 BACKGROUND
Every city and county in California is required to have an adopted comprehensive long-range general plan
for the physical development of the county or city and, in some cases, land outside the city or county
boundaries.1 It is the community’s overarching policy document that defines a vision for future change and
sets the “ground rules” for locating and designing new projects, expanding the local economy, conserving
resources, improving public services and safety, and fostering community health. The General Plan, which
includes a vision, guiding principles, goals, policies, and strategies, functions as the City’s primary land use
regulatory tool. It is Cupertino’s constitution for future change and must be used as the basis for all
planning-related decisions made by City staff, the Planning Commission, and the City Council.
The City’s current General Plan was adopted in 2005 and extends through 2020. The General Plan covers a
wide variety of topics, ranging from urban design and mobility, to public health and safety. The elements of
the General Plan include the following:
Section 2: Land Use/Community Design
Section 3: Housing
Section 4: Circulation
Section 5: Environmental Resources/Sustainability
Section 6: Health and Safety
1 California Government Code Section 65300.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3-2 JUNE 18, 2014
All specific plans, master plans, and zoning in the city must be consistent with the General Plan. Similarly,
all land-use development approvals and environmental decisions made by the City Council must be
consistent with the General Plan. The General Plan itself, however, does not approve or entitle any
development project. Property owners have control over when they wish to propose a project, and final
development approval decisions are made on a project-by-project basis by City staff, the Design Review
Committee, the Planning Commission, and/or the City Council.
3.2 OVERVIEW
The City of Cupertino has undertaken a community-based planning process to review land use alternatives
as part of a focused General Plan Amendment. Proposed alternatives include options for city-wide
development allocations (office, commercial, hotel, and residential), as well as building heights and densities
for Major Mixed-Use Special Areas, which include Gateways and Nodes, seven Study Areas, Other Special
Areas including Neighborhoods and Non-Residential/Mixed-Use Special Areas.
The proposed land use alternative and changes to General Plan policies and strategies would require map
and text amendments to the 2000-2020 General Plan. A comprehensive list of policy changes is provided in
Appendix I, Proposed General Plan Policy Amendments, of this Draft EIR. The comprehensive list is
provided with new text shown in underline and deleted text shown in strikethrough. In conjunction with
the policy amendments, Chapter 19.144 (Development Agreements) of the City’s Municipal Code will be
amended to codify the provisions of the proposed Community Benefits Program Policy.
The City is also updating the General Plan’s Housing Element to accommodate the Regional Housing Needs
Allocation (RHNA) for the 2014–2022 planning period and meet its fair-share housing obligation of 1,064
units. As part of this process, Chapter 19.56 (Density Bonus) in Title 19 (Zoning) of the City’s Municipal
Code will be amended to be consistent with the current 2007–2014 Housing Element Program 11 (Density
Bonus Program). Chapter 19.76 (Public Building (BA), Quasi-Public Building (BQ) and Transportation (T)
Zones) also in Title 19 (Zoning) of the City’s Municipal Code would be amended to ensure conformance
with SB 2 requirements pertaining to the permanent emergency shelters. Furthermore, Program 15 of the
Housing Element addresses the potential loss of rental housing and displacement of lower and moderate
income households due to new development. Finally, Chapter 19.20 (Permitted, Conditional and Excluded
Uses in Agricultural and Residential Zones) and Chapter 19.92 (Park and Recreation) of the Zoning
Ordinance would also be amended to be consistent with the State Employee Housing Act with respect to
farmworker housing and employee housing. Under the proposed Project, the City is also considering
refining existing policies to respond to the outcome of recent court rulings regarding Below-Market-Rate
programs that cities had adopted. The proposed Project would also include changes to the General Plan
Land Use Map, Zoning Ordinance and Zoning map for consistency as a result of changes to Housing
Element policies that are required by State Law,2 or as adopted by the City Council as a result of the Project,
2 Specific State Law includes, but is not limited to, the Federal Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988, California’s Fair Employment
and Housing Act, and the State’s Housing Element law.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PLACEWORKS 3-3
and as a result of bringing non-conforming land uses into conformance with the General Plan and/or
Zoning Ordinance. In addition, changes to the General Plan text and figures are proposed to include the
identification of new neighborhood areas, and the minor reformatting, reorganization and addition of
clarifying or descriptive language to the General Plan. This may include the reorganization of policies within
existing Sections (Elements) of the General Plan and the reorganization of policies in a newly created
Section for the purposes of consolidating policies related to Public Utilities, Infrastructure and Services. It
should be noted that specific General Plan policy numbers referenced in this Draft EIR are based on the
matrix provided in Appendix I, Proposed General Plan Policy Amendments, of this Draft EIR. The policy
numbers are anticipated to change once the proposed reformatting and reorganization of the General Plan is
implemented. Other changes include adding the Seven Springs Ranch to the City’s list of Historically
Significant Resources, changing the process for calculating residential density3 and creating new
neighborhoods.
3.3 CUPERTINO LOCATION AND SETTING
Cupertino is a suburban city of 10.9 square miles located on the southern portion of the San Francisco
peninsula, in Santa Clara County. The city is located approximately 36 miles southeast of downtown San
Francisco and eight miles south of downtown San Jose. As shown on Figure 3-1, the cities of Los Altos and
Sunnyvale are adjacent to the northern city boundaries while the cities of Santa Clara and San Jose lie to the
east and Saratoga lies to the south of Cupertino. Unincorporated areas of Santa Clara County form the
western and portions of the southern boundary of the city. The city is accessed by Interstate 280, which
functions as a major east/west regional connector and State Route 85, which functions as the main
north/south regional connector. Cupertino is served by the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
(VTA) bus system, and has 11 bus routes4 operating throughout various locations in the City, including
several stops along De Anza Boulevard and Stevens Creek Boulevard. The VTA bus system provides local and
regional transportation to the greater Silicon Valley, including San Jose and Sunnyvale. In addition, the VTA
is contemplating a Bus Rapid Transit line along Stevens Creek Boulevard which is a major east/west
connector located in the city.
3.4 PROJECT STUDY AREA
The State of California encourages cities to look beyond their borders when undertaking the sort of
comprehensive planning required of a General Plan. For this reason, the General Plan delineates two areas
known as the urban service area boundary and the Sphere of Influence (SOI) boundary. The urban service
area is predominantly coterminous with the current city boundary; however, the SOI area extends beyond
these boundaries. These locations are shown on Figure 3-2.
3 All residential density under existing conditions was calculated at gross density and net density for the proposed Project. This is discussed
under Section 3.7.4, Housing Element Sites, in this chapter.
4 Santa Clara VTA, Bus Routes by City: Cupertino, http://www.vta.org/getting-around/schedules/by-city, accessed on March 11,
2014.
280
280
880
680
85
85
237
17
87
101
PaloAlto
Fremont
SanJose
SantaClara
Sunnyvale
Mountain
View
LosAltos
LosAltos
Hills
Milpitas
Campbell
Los
Gatos
Saratoga
SANMATEO
COUNTY
ALAMEDA
COUNTY
SANTA
CLARA
COUNTY
SANTA
CRUZ
COUNTY
Cupertino
Oakland
Berkeley
Palo
Alto
Fremont
SanJose
Santa
Clara
Sunny-
vale
Mt.
View
Los
Altos
Menlo
Park
Milpitas
Hayward
Dublin
Redwood
City
SanMateo
Daly
City
Union
City
Campbell
Los
Gatos
Saratoga
ALAMEDA
COUNTY
CITY&
COUNTY
OF
SAN
FRANCISCO
SANMATEO
COUNTY
SANTA
CLARA
COUNTY
CONTRACOSTACOUNTY
MARIN
COUNTY
SANTACRUZ
COUNTY
San
Francisco
Bay
Pacific
Ocean
Cupertino
00.5 12345Miles
Legend
CityBoundary
UrbanServiceAreaBoundary
UnincorporatedAreasWithin
BoundaryAgreementLine
2-2 Land Use/Community Design
City of Cupertino General Plan
Figure2-A. Cupertino Regional Location
Regional Location PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PLACEWORKS
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING PROJECT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Figure 3-1Regional and Vicinity Map
Source: City of Cupertino 2000-2020 General Plan.
2.Landscaping Treatment.Accentuate
the edges with landscaping and road pat-
terns thatannounce entry into a di er-
ent space.
3. New Development.Review properties
next to community entry points when
they are developed or redeveloped for
opportunities to reect the gateway
concept.
Urban ServiceArea
The City must focus its resources and
energies on places where its residents already
live, work, shop and play. The City desires to
grow for the next 20 years within its existing
urban service area. The City’s long-term
growth boundary de nes the area where the
City intends to expand its services over the
next 20 to 30 years. Thus the current urban
service area boundary is coterminous with
the City’s long-term growth boundary. This
2-8 Land Use/Community Design
City of Cupertino General Plan
FO
O
T
H
I
L
L
B
L
V
D
ST
E
L
L
I
N
G
R
D
De
A
N
Z
A
B
L
V
D
HOMESTEADROAD
WO
L
F
E
R
D
STEVENSCREEKBLVD
BL
A
N
E
Y
A
V
E
EV
A
R
E
L
L
I
M
BOLLINGERRD
McCLELLAN
ROAD
RAINBOW DRIVE
BU
B
B
R
O
A
D
PROSPECTROAD
85
280
TA
N
T
A
U
AVE
Stevens Creek
Reservoir
Unincorporated Areas within
Urban Service Area
City Boundary
Urban Service Area Boundary
(5 Yr. Growth)
Sphere of Influence (25 Yr. Growth)
Boundary Agreement Line
Unincorporated Areas
Legend
SunnyvaleLosAltos
Santa Clara
San Jose
Saratoga
01000
0500
20003000
0 0.5 1Mile
1000
Feet
Meters
PLACEWORKS
Figure 3-2Project Study Area
Source: City of Cupertino 2000-2020 General Plan.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING PROJECT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3-6 JUNE 18, 2014
The Cupertino SOI includes incorporated city lands and those areas which may be considered for future
annexation by the City. The City does not propose to annex any of this area as part of this Project. In 2013
the population of Cupertino was approximately 58,302 people and 21,399 households with an average
household size of 2.83 people.5
3.5 PROJECT OBJECTIVES
The primary objectives of the proposed Project are to: 1) replenish, re-allocate, and increase citywide office,
commercial, hotel, and residential development allocations in order to plan for anticipated future growth
while, sustaining the community’s character, goals, and objectives; 2) consolidate development requests by
several property owners for amendments to the General Plan, by reviewing seven Study Areas; and 3)
provide a full range of housing to meet the needs of all segments of the city’s population.
The City has also drafted a 2040 Community Vision and Guiding Principles as part of the overall Project.
This document builds upon the framework of the current General Plan’s vision, goals, and guiding
principles, and reflects the community’s desires for Cupertino’s future.
The proposed Project is based on the vision for the city 1) 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, mixed-use “Heart of the City;” and 2) to 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.
The objectives of the proposed Project are as follows:
Emphasize employment and a mix of economic development opportunities by replenishing, re-
allocating, 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.
5 The population and average household size is from the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), Data for Bay Area Housing
Elements table, January 2014. The primary source for this data is the U.S. Census Bureau. ABAG utilized 2000 and 2010 Census files, 2007-
2011 American Community Survey 5-year data files, and to a limited extent, the 2009-2011 ACS 3-year files, 2005-2009 Comprehensive
Housing Affordability Strategy data based on the 2005-2009 ACS 5-year data product, and California Department of Finance, Demographic
Research Unit E-5 tables. The number of households is provided by the City of Cupertino.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PLACEWORKS 3-7
Creating opportunities for mixed-use development consistent with Regional Sustainable Communities
Strategies for greenhouse gas emissions reductions as required by SB375.
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.
3.6 PLANNING PROCESS
Cupertino is facing many regional growth demands. It is also undergoing a transformation from a traditional
suburban residential community to one that has more public gathering spaces, shopping and entertainment
choices, and jobs within an urban core. How the City allocates growth through the General Plan is critical in
determining the type of community Cupertino will be in the future. Cupertino has historically had more
jobs than housing. When this imbalance is multiplied across other adjacent cities, there are regional
consequences that include high housing costs, sprawl into outlying areas, congestion of the transportation
system, and increased air pollution.
The City’s current 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). Currently,
allocations are geographically assigned in certain
neighborhoods, commercial and employment centers,
so that private development fulfills 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. The current General Plan
allows for a total city-wide buildout through year 2020
of 9,470,005 office square feet; 4,430,982 commercial
square feet; 1,429 hotel rooms; and 23,294 residential
units. The buildout numbers consist of existing and
entitled allocations, plus the remaining development
TABLE 3‐1 REMAINING CITY‐WIDE DEVELOPMENT
ALLOCATION
Category Remaining Allocation
Officea 540,231 sf
Commercialb 701,413 sf
Hotel 339 rooms
Residential 1,895 units
Note: sf = square feet
a. 523,118 sf is for Major Employers (e.g. larger corporate
headquarters).
b. 695,629 sf is for the Heart of the City Specific Plan Area.
Source: City of Cupertino.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3-8 JUNE 18, 2014
allocation balance available for construction. Table 3-1 shows the remaining development allocation as of
March 2014.
As a result of several recent approvals of projects, including Apple Campus 2, 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. The City Council expressed concern that future development
projects, which would benefit retail sales and employment growth in the city, would not have sufficient
available development allocation necessary to move forward through the 2020 Horizon year of the current
General Plan. Accordingly, in the summer of 2012, the City Council directed staff to evaluate ways to
replenish citywide office, commercial, and hotel development allocation to ensure the City’s economic
needs and goals are met.
During this time, the City was approached by several property owners, including some owners within the
Vallco Shopping District, about potential General Plan amendments to allow development of their
properties. In order to comprehensively evaluate citywide needs and individual sites, the City Council
directed staff in early 2013 to combine these individual projects into one comprehensive General Plan
Amendment.
The current General Plan Land Use Map, shown on Figure 3-3, identifies the locations where each land use
designation is applied citywide. It is a geographic tool that, in concert with the Land Use Designations,
establishes the policy framework for regulating development throughout Cupertino. The proposed
development allocation increases would require an amendment to the General Plan and the Land Use Map.
In addition, in November 2013 the City initiated a process to update the State-mandated Housing Element
of the General Plan. The Housing Element, which is a required component of the General Plan, identifies
appropriate locations and policies for future housing in Cupertino. The City Council decided to combine the
Housing Element Update with the General Plan Amendment process so the City and community could fully
evaluate and discuss mobility, urban design, economic development, and housing options in one
comprehensive outreach and planning process.
The General Plan Amendment process has involved extensive community discussions and input provided
during several public meetings, workshops, study sessions, and through online comment forms and surveys.
For a detailed summary of the community discussion, see the Concept Alternatives Report, the Community
Workshop 1 Summary and the Mobility Concepts Summary included as Appendix B, Community
Discussion Summaries, of this Draft EIR. While the proposed Project considers citywide land use, urban
design, mobility, and economic development choices, it 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 proposed 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 since the rest of the city encompasses single-family residential
neighborhoods.
!!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!
!!
!!
!
!!
!
!!
!
!!
!!
!
!!
!
!!
!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!
!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!!!!!
!
!
!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!
HOMESTEAD ROAD
SPECIAL CENTER
SOUTH VALLCO PARK
SPECIAL CENTER
CITY
CENTER
SPECIAL
CENTER
NORTH DE ANZA BOULEVARD
SPECIAL CENTER
De Anza CollegeMONTA VISTA
SPECIAL CENTER
FAIRGROVE
SPECIAL CENTER
OAK VALLEY
SPECIAL CENTER
Regnart
Canyon
Stevens Creek Reservoir
Cemetary
Subject to 5-20 Acre S/D Formula upon
Residential Development
Inspiration Heights
Note: Land use densities for lands located outside
the urban service area shall be consistent with
residential densities established by the County of
Santa Clara General Plan.
Urban Service Area
Rancho
San Antonio
County Park
Urban
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
A
r
e
a
BUBB ROAD
SPECIAL CENTER
DE
A
N
Z
A
B
O
U
L
E
V
A
R
D
LA
W
R
E
N
C
E
E
X
P
R
E
S
S
W
A
Y
STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD
FO
O
T
H
I
L
L
B
O
U
L
E
V
A
R
D
PROSPECT ROAD
TA
N
T
A
U
A
V
E
N
U
E
RAINBOW DRIVE
BU
B
B
R
O
A
D
ST
ELL
I
N
G
R
O
A
D
ST
E
V
EN
S
C
A
N
Y
O
N
R
OA
D
McCLELLAN ROAD
Stev
e
ns
Cree
k
Regnart Creek
Cal
a
b
a
z
a
s
Creek
Sa
r
a
t
o
g
a
Cr
e
e
k
Perm
e
n
e
n
t
e
C
r
e
e
k
#
#
#
BL
A
N
E
Y
A
V
EN
U
E
BOLLING ER ROAD
HOMESTEAD ROAD
MI
L
L
ER A
V
EN
UE
WO
L
F
E
R
O
A
D
Sp
h
e
r
e
o
f
I
n
f
l
u
e
n
c
e
Private OS
Private
Recreation
Private
OS
Hanson Quarry
BU
B
B
R
O
A
D
ST
E
LL
IN
G
RO
A
D
M cCLE L LAN R
O
A
D
Former Quarry
STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD
DE
A
N
Z
A
B
O
U
L
E
V
A
R
D
BL
A
N
E
Y
AV
EN
U
E
ST
E
LL
I
N
G
R
O
A
D
HOMESTEAD ROAD
#
#
See Policy 2-21
Strategy 3
#
§¨¦ 280
§¨¦ 280
STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD
VOSS AVENUE
McCLELL
A
N
R
O
A
D
Stev
e
n
s
Cre
e
k
RAINBOW DRIVE
DE
A
N
Z
A
B
O
U
L
E
V
A
R
D
BOLLI
N
G
E
R
R
O
A
D
PACIFICA DRIVE
SILVERADO AVENUE
TO
R
R
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
PO
RT
A
L
A
V
EN
UE
LAZANEO DRIVE
MERRITT DRIVE
ALVES DRIVE
WO
L
F
E
R
O
A
D
PR
U
N
E
R
I
D
G
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
TA
N
T
A
U
A
V
E
N
UE
VALLCO PARKWAY
NORTH VALLCO PARK
SPECIAL CENTER
HEART OF THE CITY
SPECIFIC PLAN AREA
Reg
n
a
r
t
Cree
k
BARNHART AVENUE JO
H
N
S
O
N
A
V
E
N
UE
FIN
C
H
AVE
N
U
E
EA
S
T E
S
TA
T
E
S
D
RIVE
RODRIGUES AVENUE
FALLENLEAF LANE
RE G N AR T R OA D
COLUMBUS AVENUE
HYANNISPORT AVENUE
PALM AVENUE
BY
R
N
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
OR
A
N
G
E
A
V
EN
U
E
IM
P
E
R
I
A
L
A
V
E
N
U
E
PA
S
A
D
E
N
A
A
V
E
N
U
E
PHAR
L
A
P
D
R
I
VE
BAR R ANCA
D
R IVE
CRIS
T
O
REY
D
R
I
V
E
GREENLEAF DRIVE
VALLEY GREEN DRIVE
WHEATON DRIVE
85
!!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!
!!
!!
!
!!
!
!!
!
!!
!!
!
!!
!
!!
!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!
!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!!!!!
!
!
!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!
HOMESTEAD ROAD
SPECIAL CENTER
SOUTH VALLCO PARK
SPECIAL CENTER
CITY
CENTER
SPECIAL
CENTER
NORTH DE ANZA BOULEVARD
SPECIAL CENTER
De Anza CollegeMONTA VISTA
SPECIAL CENTER
FAIRGROVE
SPECIAL CENTER
OAK VALLEY
SPECIAL CENTER
Regnart
Canyon
Stevens Creek Reservoir
Cemetary
Subject to 5-20 Acre S/D Formula upon
Residential Development
Inspiration Heights
Note: Land use densities for lands located outside
the urban service area shall be consistent with
residential densities established by the County of
Santa Clara General Plan.
Urban Service Area
Rancho
San Antonio
County Park
Urban
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
A
r
e
a
BUBB ROAD
SPECIAL CENTER
DE
A
N
Z
A
B
O
U
L
E
V
A
R
D
LA
W
R
E
N
C
E
E
X
P
R
E
S
S
W
A
Y
STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD
FO
O
T
H
I
L
L
B
O
U
L
E
V
A
R
D
PROSPECT ROAD
TA
N
T
A
U
A
V
E
N
U
E
RAINBOW DRIVE
BU
B
B
R
O
A
D
ST
ELL
I
N
G
R
O
A
D
ST
E
V
EN
S
C
A
N
Y
O
N
R
OA
D
McCLELLAN ROAD
Stev
e
ns
Cree
k
Regnart Creek
Cal
a
b
a
z
a
s
Creek
Sa
r
a
t
o
g
a
Cr
e
e
k
Perm
e
n
e
n
t
e
C
r
e
e
k
#
#
#
BL
A
N
E
Y
A
V
EN
U
E
BOLLING ER ROAD
HOMESTEAD ROAD
MI
L
L
ER A
V
EN
UE
WO
L
F
E
R
O
A
D
Sp
h
e
r
e
o
f
I
n
f
l
u
e
n
c
e
Private OS
Private
Recreation
Private
OS
Hanson Quarry
BU
B
B
R
O
A
D
ST
E
LL
IN
G
RO
A
D
M cCLE L LAN R
O
A
D
Former Quarry
STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD
DE
A
N
Z
A
B
O
U
L
E
V
A
R
D
BL
A
N
E
Y
AV
EN
U
E
ST
E
LL
I
N
G
R
O
A
D
HOMESTEAD ROAD
#
#
See Policy 2-21
Strategy 3
#
§¨¦ 280
§¨¦ 280
STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD
VOSS AVENUE
McCLELL
A
N
R
O
A
D
Stev
e
n
s
Cre
e
k
RAINBOW DRIVE
DE
A
N
Z
A
B
O
U
L
E
V
A
R
D
BOLLI
N
G
E
R
R
O
A
D
PACIFICA DRIVE
SILVERADO AVENUE
TO
R
R
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
PO
RT
A
L
A
V
EN
UE
LAZANEO DRIVE
MERRITT DRIVE
ALVES DRIVE
WO
L
F
E
R
O
A
D
PR
U
N
E
R
I
D
G
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
TA
N
T
A
U
A
V
E
N
UE
VALLCO PARKWAY
NORTH VALLCO PARK
SPECIAL CENTER
HEART OF THE CITY
SPECIFIC PLAN AREA
Reg
n
a
r
t
Cree
k
BARNHART AVENUE JO
H
N
S
O
N
A
V
E
N
UE
FIN
C
H
AVE
N
U
E
EA
S
T E
S
TA
T
E
S
D
RIVE
RODRIGUES AVENUE
FALLENLEAF LANE
RE G N AR T R OA D
COLUMBUS AVENUE
HYANNISPORT AVENUE
PALM AVENUE
BY
R
N
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
OR
A
N
G
E
A
V
EN
U
E
IM
P
E
R
I
A
L
A
V
E
N
U
E
PA
S
A
D
E
N
A
A
V
E
N
U
E
PHAR
L
A
P
D
R
I
VE
BAR R ANCA
D
R IVE
CRIS
T
O
REY
D
R
I
V
E
GREENLEAF DRIVE
VALLEY GREEN DRIVE
WHEATON DRIVE
85
Prepared by the Community Development Department
Adopted: November 15, 2005
Amended: November 15th, 2011
0.75
Miles
Neighborhood Commercial / Residential
Residential (0-4.4 DU/Gr. Ac.)
Residential (4.4-12 DU/Gr. Ac.)
Residential (4.4-7.7 DU/Gr. Ac.)
Monta Vista Land Use Designations
Low Density (1-6 DU/Gr. Ac.) Rancho Rinconada
High Density (20-35 DU/Gr. Ac.)
Low Density (1-5 DU/Gr. Ac.)
Medium / High Density (10-20 DU/Gr. Ac.)
Low / Medium Density (5-10 DU/Gr. Ac.)
Very Low Density (1/2 Acre Slope Density Formula)
Very Low Density (5-20 Acre Slope Density Formula)
Very Low Density (Slope Density Formula)
Residential Land Use Designations
Commercial / Office / Residential
Commercial / Residential
Industrial / Residential
Office / Industrial / Commercial / Residential
Non-Residential Land Use Designations
Industrial / Residential / Commercial
Quasi-Public / Institutional Overlay
Parks and Open Space
Public Facilities
Quasi-Public / Institutional
Transportation
Riparian Corridor
Urban Service Area
Special Center Boundaries
Creeks
Sphere of Influence
Legend
!!!!Heart of the City Specific Plan Area
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!
!
!
!
!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!HOMESTEAD ROADSPECIAL CENTER SOUTH VALLCO PARKSPECIAL CENTER
CITY
CENTER
SPECIAL
CENTER
NORTH DE ANZA BOULEVARDSPECIAL CENTER
De Anza CollegeMONTA VISTA
SPECIAL CENTER
FAIRGROVE
SPECIAL CENTER
OAK VALLEYSPECIAL CENTER
Regnart
Canyon
Stevens Creek Reservoir
CemetarySubject to 5-20 Acre S/D Formula uponResidential Development
Inspiration Heights
Note: Land use densities for lands located outside
the urban service area shall be consistent with
residential densities established by the County of
Santa Clara General Plan.
Urban Service Area
RanchoSan AntonioCounty Park
Urban
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
A
r
e
a
BUBB ROAD
SPECIAL CENTER
DE
A
N
Z
A
B
O
U
L
E
V
A
R
D
LA
W
R
E
N
C
E
E
X
P
R
E
S
S
W
A
Y
STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD
FO
O
T
H
I
L
L
B
O
U
L
E
V
A
R
D
PROSPECT ROAD
TA
N
T
A
U
A
V
E
N
U
E
RAINBOW DRIVE
BU
B
B
R
O
A
D
ST
ELL
I
N
G
R
O
A
D
ST
E
V
EN
S
C
A
N
Y
O
N
R
OA
D
McCLELLAN ROAD
Stev
e
ns
Cree
k
Regnart Creek
Cal
a
b
a
z
a
s
Creek
Sa
r
a
t
o
g
a
Cr
e
e
k
Per
m
e
n
e
n
t
e
C
r
e
e
k
###
BL
A
N
E
Y
A
V
EN
U
E
BOLLING ER ROAD
HOMESTEAD ROAD
MI
L
L
ER
A
V
EN
UE
WO
L
F
E
R
O
A
D
Sp
h
e
r
e
o
f
I
n
f
l
u
e
n
c
e
Private OS
Private
Recreation
Private
OS
Hanson Quarry
BU
B
B
R
O
A
D
ST
E
L
L
IN
G
RO
A
D
M cCLE L LAN R
O
A
D
Former Quarry
STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD
DE ANZA BOULEVARD BLANEY AVENUESTELLING ROADHOMESTEAD ROAD#
#
See Policy 2-21
Strategy 3
#
§¨¦ 280 §¨¦ 280
STEVE NS CREEK BOUL EVARD
VOSS AVENUE
McCLELL
A
N
R
O
A
D
Ste
v
e
n
s
Cre
e
k
RAINBOW DRIVE
DE
A
N
Z
A
B
O
U
L
E
V
A
R
D
BOLL
I
N
G
E
R
R
O
A
D
PA CIFICA DRIVE
SILVERADO AVENUE
TO
R
R
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
PORTAL AVENUELAZANEO DRIVE MERRITT DRIVEALVES DRIVE WOLFE ROAD PRUNERIDGE AVENUE TANTAU AVENUEVALLCO PARKWAYNORTH VALLCO PARKSPECIAL CENTER
HEART OF THE CITY
SPECIFIC PLAN AREA
Reg
n
a
r
t
Cre
e
k
BARNHART AVENUE JO
H
N
S
O
N
A
V
E
N
UE
FI
N
C
H
A
VE
N
U
E
EA
S
T E
S
TA
T
E
S
D
RI
VE
RODRIGUES AVENUE
FALLENLEAF LANE
RE G N AR T R OA D
COLUMBUS AVENU E
HYANNISPORT AVEN UE
PALM AVENUE
BY
R
N
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
OR
A
N
G
E
A
V
EN
U
E
IM
P
E
R
I
A
L
A
V
E
N
U
E
PA
S
A
D
E
N
A
A
V
E
N
U
E
PHAR
L
A
P
D
R
I
VEBARRANCA D R IVECRISTO REY DRIVE GREENLEAF DRIVEVALLEY GREEN DRIVE WHEA TON DRIVE
85
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!
!
!
!
!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!HOMESTEAD ROADSPECIAL CENTER SOUTH VALLCO PARKSPECIAL CENTER
CITY
CENTER
SPECIAL
CENTER
NORTH DE ANZA BOULEVARDSPECIAL CENTER
De Anza CollegeMONTA VISTA
SPECIAL CENTER
FAIRGROVE
SPECIAL CENTER
OAK VALLEYSPECIAL CENTER
Regnart
Canyon
Stevens Creek Reservoir
CemetarySubject to 5-20 Acre S/D Formula uponResidential Development
Inspiration Heights
Note: Land use densities for lands located outside
the urban service area shall be consistent with
residential densities established by the County of
Santa Clara General Plan.
Urban Service Area
RanchoSan AntonioCounty Park
Urban
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
A
r
e
a
BUBB ROAD
SPECIAL CENTER
DE
A
N
Z
A
B
O
U
L
E
V
A
R
D
LA
W
R
E
N
C
E
E
X
P
R
E
S
S
W
A
Y
STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD
FO
O
T
H
I
L
L
B
O
U
L
E
V
A
R
D
PROSPECT ROAD
TA
N
T
A
U
A
V
E
N
U
E
RAINBOW DRIVE
BU
B
B
R
O
A
D
ST
ELL
I
N
G
R
O
A
D
ST
E
V
EN
S
C
A
N
Y
O
N
R
OA
D
McCLELLAN ROAD
Stev
e
ns
Cree
k
Regnart Creek
Cal
a
b
a
z
a
s
Creek
Sa
r
a
t
o
g
a
Cr
e
e
k
Per
m
e
n
e
n
t
e
C
r
e
e
k
###
BL
A
N
E
Y
A
V
EN
U
E
BOLLING ER ROAD
HOMESTEAD ROAD
MI
L
L
ER
A
V
EN
UE
WO
L
F
E
R
O
A
D
Sp
h
e
r
e
o
f
I
n
f
l
u
e
n
c
e
Private OS
Private
Recreation
Private
OS
Hanson Quarry
BU
B
B
R
O
A
D
ST
E
L
L
IN
G
RO
A
D
M cCLE L LAN R
O
A
D
Former Quarry
STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD
DE ANZA BOULEVARD BLANEY AVENUESTELLING ROADHOMESTEAD ROAD#
#
See Policy 2-21
Strategy 3
#
§¨¦ 280 §¨¦ 280
STEVE NS CREEK BOUL EVARD
VOSS AVENUE
McCLELL
A
N
R
O
A
D
Ste
v
e
n
s
Cre
e
k
RAINBOW DRIVE
DE
A
N
Z
A
B
O
U
L
E
V
A
R
D
BOLL
I
N
G
E
R
R
O
A
D
PA CIFICA DRIVE
SILVERADO AVENUE
TO
R
R
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
PORTAL AVENUELAZANEO DRIVE MERRITT DRIVEALVES DRIVE WOLFE ROAD PRUNERIDGE AVENUE TANTAU AVENUEVALLCO PARKWAYNORTH VALLCO PARKSPECIAL CENTER
HEART OF THE CITY
SPECIFIC PLAN AREA
Reg
n
a
r
t
Cre
e
k
BARNHART AVENUE JO
H
N
S
O
N
A
V
E
N
UE
FI
N
C
H
A
VE
N
U
E
EA
S
T E
S
TA
T
E
S
D
RI
VE
RODRIGUES AVENUE
FALLENLEAF LANE
RE G N AR T R OA D
COLUMBUS AVENU E
HYANNISPORT AVEN UE
PALM AVENUE
BY
R
N
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
OR
A
N
G
E
A
V
EN
U
E
IM
P
E
R
I
A
L
A
V
E
N
U
E
PA
S
A
D
E
N
A
A
V
E
N
U
E
PHAR
L
A
P
D
R
I
VEBARRANCA D R IVECRISTO REY DRIVE GREENLEAF DRIVEVALLEY GREEN DRIVE WHEA TON DRIVE
85
0.75
Miles
Neighborhood Commercial / Residential
Residential (0-4.4 DU/Gr. Ac.)
Residential (4.4-12 DU/Gr. Ac.)
Residential (4.4-7.7 DU/Gr. Ac.)
Monta Vista Land Use Designations
Low Density (1-6 DU/Gr. Ac.) Rancho Rinconada
High Density (20-35 DU/Gr. Ac.)
Low Density (1-5 DU/Gr. Ac.)
Medium / High Density (10-20 DU/Gr. Ac.)
Low / Medium Density (5-10 DU/Gr. Ac.)
Very Low Density (1/2 Acre Slope Density Formula)
Very Low Density (5-20 Acre Slope Density Formula)
Very Low Density (Slope Density Formula)
Residential Land Use Designations
Commercial / Office / Residential
Commercial / Residential
Industrial / Residential
Office / Industrial / Commercial / Residential
Non-Residential Land Use Designations
Industrial / Residential / Commercial
Quasi-Public / Institutional Overlay
Parks and Open Space
Public Facilities
Quasi-Public / Institutional
Transportation
Riparian Corridor
Urban Service Area
Special Center Boundaries
Creeks
Sphere of Influence
!!!!Heart of the City Specific Plan Area
PLACEWORKS
Figure 3-32000-2020 General Plan Land Use Map
0
Scale (Miles)
.75
Source: City of Cupertino 2000-2020 General Plan.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING PROJECT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PLACEWORKS 3-11
Special Areas identified along major transportation corridors in the city, which are each described in greater
detail below, include the Homestead, North Vallco Park, Heart of the City, North De Anza, and South De
Anza Special Areas.
The City has also held several public workshops and study sessions to discuss the Housing Element Update
and to identify and select potential housing sites to meet the City’s RHNA allocation of 1,064 units,
including workshops and study sessions on January 23, February 12, and March 4, 2014. The final selection
of these Housing Element Sites will be completed by the City Council following completion of
environmental analysis of these sites.
3.7 PROJECT COMPONENTS
As previously stated, the proposed Project has the following five distinct Project Components that include
specific locations throughout the city. Out of the five Project Components, the first four listed would
involve increased development allocation land uses, and the fifth component would involve revisions to the
General Plan Land Use Map and Zoning Ordinance and Map for consistency and for revisions required by
State law.
The Project component locations are primarily developed with existing uses, and as a result, potential
future development under the proposed Project would consist largely of either redevelopment of existing
buildings, selective demolition of existing structures and replacement with new construction, or new infill
development adjacent to existing uses. Each Project component is described in detail, including both text
and graphic references, with regard to the existing conditions and proposed revisions in the following
sections:
Section 3.7.1 Special Areas including City Gateways and Nodes along major transportation corridors
Section 3.7.2 Study Areas
Section 3.7.3 Other Special Areas including Neighborhoods and Non-Residential/Mixed-Use Special
Areas
Section 3.7.4 Housing Element Sites
Section 3.7.5 General Plan Land Use Map, and Zoning Ordinance and Map Amendments
The buildout of the potential future development associated within identified locations is based on a horizon
year of 2040; therefore, this EIR analyzes growth occurring between 2014 and 2040, a 26-year buildout
horizon. The 2040 horizon year is generally consistent with other key planning documents, including Plan
Bay Area, which is the Bay Area’s Regional Transpor tation Plan (RTP)/Sustainable Community Strategy
(SCS).6 The Plan Bay Area is the long-range integrated transportation and land-use/housing strategy through
2040 for the San Francisco Bay Area pursuant to Senate Bill 375, the Sustainable Communities and Climate
6 Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), 2013. Plan Bay Area, Strategy
for a Sustainable Region. March (adopted July 18).
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3-12 JUNE 18, 2014
Protection Act.7 Table 3-2 provides a summary of the total development allocation projections, reflecting all
of the Project Components combined. As shown in this table, the projected new growth for the 2040
horizon year includes 4,040,231 square feet of office space, 1,343,679 square feet of commercial space,
1,339 hotel rooms and 4,421 residential units. The proposed Project could result in up to 12,9988 new
residents and 16,855 new jobs.9 Under the proposed Project, the total 2040 buildout10 would be comprised
of the following:
Office: 12,970,005 square feet
Commercial: 5,073,248 square feet
Hotel: 2,429 rooms
Residential: 25,820 units
Population: 71,30011
Jobs: 44,24212
TABLE 3‐2 SUMMARY – ALL PROJECT COMPONENTS DEVELOPMENT ALLOCATIONS
Remaining
Allocation
Proposed
Project Difference
Special Areas including Gateways /Nodes along major transportation corridors, Study Areas and Housing Element Sitesa
Office 17,113 sf 3,290,000 sf + 3,272,887 sf
Commercial 695,629 sf 1,250,000 sf + 554,371 sf
Hotel 339 room 1,339 rooms + 1,000 rooms
Residential 1,416 units 3,900 units + 2,484 units
Other Special Areas including Neighborhoods and Non‐Residential/Mixed‐Use Special Areas and Housing Element Sitesb
Office 523,118 sf 750,231 sf + 227,113 sf
Commercial 5,784 sf 93,679 sf + 87,895 sf
Hotel 0 rooms 0 rooms 0 rooms
Residential 479 units 521 units + 42 units
7 The Act to amend Sections 65080, 65400, 65583, 65584.01, 65584.02, 65584.04, 65587, and 65588 of, and to add Sections
14522.1, 14522.2, and 65080.01 to, the Government Code, and to amend Section 21061.3 of, to add Section 21159.28 to, and to add Chapter
4.2 (commencing with Section 21155) to Division 13 of, the Public Resources Code, relating to environmental quality.
8 Population is calculated by 4,421 units times 2.94 persons per household, which is the ABAG 2040 estimated generation rate.
9 Jobs are calculated applying the City’s generation rates as follows; 4,040,231 square feet of office allocation divided by 300 square
feet equals 13,467 jobs; 1,343,679 square feet of commercial allocation divided by 450 square feet equals 2,986 jobs; and 1,339 hotel rooms at
.3 jobs per room equals 402 jobs for a total of 16,855 jobs.
10 2040 Buildout numbers are the existing conditions plus the proposed Project.
11 Potential future population is discussed in detail in Chapter 4.11, Population and Housing, of this Draft EIR.
12 Potential future jobs are discussed in detail in Chapter 4.11, Population and Housing, of this Draft EIR.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PLACEWORKS 3-13
TABLE 3‐2 SUMMARY – ALL PROJECT COMPONENTS DEVELOPMENT ALLOCATIONS
Remaining
Allocation
Proposed
Project Difference
Total Built / Approved
Office 8,929,774 sf 540,231 sf 4,040,231 sf + 3,500,000 sf
Commercial 3,729,569 sf 701,413 sf 1,343,679 sf + 642,266 sfc
Hotel 1,090 rooms 339 rooms 1,339 rooms + 1,000 rooms
Residential 21,399 units 1,895 units 4,421 units + 2,526 units
Note: sf = square feet
a. Includes Homestead, North Vallco Park, Heart of the City, North De Anza, and South De Anza Major Mixed‐Use Special Areas.
b. Includes Bubb Road Mixed‐Use Special Area, Monta Vista Village, Other Commercial/Mixed‐Use Special Areas, Other Neighborhoods, Major Employers
Category, and Housing Element Sites.
c. Net new commercial is not proposed. This number assumes that the existing Vallco Shopping Mall square footage (1,267,601 sf) will be demolished and
will go back into the City‐wide commercial allocation pool. A total of 625,335 sf would be reserved for a future project in the Vallco district.
Source: City of Cupertino, 2014.
Under Section 15064(d) of the CEQA Guidelines, “In evaluating the significance of the environmental effect
of a project, the Lead Agency shall consider direct physical changes in the environment which may be caused
by the project and reasonably foreseeable indirect physical changes in the environment which may be caused
by the project.” The buildout projections represent the City’s projection of “reasonably foreseeable”
development that could occur over the next 26 years under the General Plan and are used as the basis for
the EIR’s environmental assessment. As described above in Section 3.1, Background, the City allocates
development potential to project applicants on a project-by-project basis. As part of the proposed Project,
additional building height and residential density increases would be contingent upon future development
projects in Cupertino providing community benefits. While the proposed Project is a General Plan and no
specific projects are currently proposed, it is important to analyze the impacts of the proposed building
height and dwelling unit’s density increases that could occur during the 26-year buildout horizon. Therefore,
unlike a project EIR this document is a Program-EIR. Consistent with CEQA, all future projects proposed
under the newly adopted General Plan, other than those that qualify for an exemption, would have to
undergo project-level environmental review to ensure that any project-level impacts of the future project
proposed on specific sites are disclosed and mitigated, if feasible.
General Plan Policy 2-23.A, Community Benefits Program, states that at the discretion of the City Council
and as indicated in certain land use policies, the City Council may approve heights different from the
maximum base height standard in Gateways and Nodes identified in the Special Areas Map, if a project
includes a retail component and provides community benefits.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3-14 JUNE 18, 2014
The community benefits, above and beyond project related benefits/requirements, that can be proposed by
developers and agreed upon by the City include:
1. Transportation and Mobility Improvements
Funding towards and/or create new or expanded bicycle and pedestrian facilities above those
required by the project to mitigate project impacts;
Contributions toward facilities, transit improvements and/or amenities including adaptive traffic
signal management systems, above those required by the project to mitigate project impacts; or
Contributions toward ongoing operation and maintenance of community shuttles (to move people
around to key commercial centers) above that which might be required by the project to mitigate
project impacts.
2. Schools and Education
Funding to the City towards facilities and/or operations benefitting the school district, above that
required by the project to mitigate project impacts;
Public education facilities within a project;
Teacher housing; or
Contributions toward tax revenue generators specifically for education.
3. Affordable Housing above and beyond Below Market Rate (BMR) requirements:
Affordable housing within a project;
Land to build an affordable housing project; or
Funding to build, buy or renovate an affordable housing project.
4. Public, Art, and Cultural Facilities
Funding toward and/or construction of a new community senior, teen or youth facility,
Funding toward and/or construction of a community gathering space (e.g. conference space or
cultural center) or a museum.
5. Parks and Open Space
Funding towards new or expanded publicly accessible but privately maintained parkland; or
New park and/or open space with a project (including rooftop parks open to the public).
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PLACEWORKS 3-15
3.7.1 SPECIAL AREAS ALONG MAJOR TRANSPORTATION
CORRIDORS INCLUDING GATEWAYS AND NODES
The majority of the proposed Project is located in the city’s Special Centers as identified in the current
General Plan. The current General Plan includes residential and non-residential Special Centers within
specific locations. As shown on Figure 3-4, these Special Centers include Neighborhood Centers,
Commercial Centers, Employment Centers and Education/Cultural Centers are in defined geographical
locations. Under the proposed Project, these Special Centers will be renamed to become Special Areas. The
Project includes five distinct Special Areas with specific Gateways and Nodes along major transportation
corridors in the City, as shown in Figure 3-5. Section 3.7.3, Other Special Areas including Neighborhoods
and Non-Residential/Mixed-Use Special Areas, of this chapter, describes the areas of the proposed Project
that are outside of the five Special Areas along transportation corridors.
The Special Areas, Gateways and Nodes are designated locations in the City that foster sustainable
development practices, including, but not limited to, locating high-density residential and employment
growth near major transportation and transit corridors, concentrating development on infill sites, and
promote multi-modal (e.g. bike, pedestrian, transit) transportation opportunities. Each of the Special Areas
currently and under the proposed Project consists of a mix of residential, commercial, office space, and
hotel rooms.
The Gateways and Nodes located within some of the 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.
Additional height may be approved at the Gateways and Nodes if a development meets certain criteria (e.g.
includes a retail component, is away from residential neighborhoods and/or is near freeways) and provides
community benefits as described above to the satisfaction of City Council. If development is proposed in
areas that abut single-family residential development, the development is expected to maintain an
appropriate setback to mitigate impacts.
2-19Community Development
City of Cupertino General Plan
FO
O
T
H
I
L
L
B
L
V
D
ST
E
L
L
I
N
G
R
D
De
A
N
Z
A
B
L
V
D
HOMESTEADROAD
WO
L
F
E
R
D
PRUNERID
G
E
AVE
STEVENSCREEKBLVD
BL
A
N
E
Y
A
V
E
MI
L
L
E
R
A
V
E
BOLLINGERRD
McCLELLANRD
RAINBOW DRIVE
BU
B
B
R
O
A
D
PROSPECTRD
85
280
TA
N
T
A
U
AVE
StevensCreek
Reservoir
OakValley
MontaVista
DeAnzaCollege
Fairgrove
VallcoParkNorth
VallcoParkSouth
HeartoftheCity
SpecificPlan
HomesteadRoad
SouthDeAnzaBoulevard
CityCenter
NorthDeAnzaBoulevard
BubbRoad
Legend
Sunnyvale
SantaClara
SanJose
01000
0500
20003000
0 0.5 1Mile
1000
Feet
Meters
CityBoundary
HeartoftheCityBoundary
UrbanServiceAreaBoundary
SphereofInfluence
BoundaryAgreementLine
UnincorporatedAreas
NeighborhoodCenter
CommercialCenter
EmploymentCenter
Education/CulturalCenter
LosAltos
PLACEWORKS
Figure 3-42000-2020 General Plan Special Centers
Source: City of Cupertino 2000-2020 General Plan.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING PROJECT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
City of Sunnyvale
%&'(280
|ÿ85
City of San Jose
City of
Santa
Clara
Santa Clara
County
Santa Clara
County
City of
Los Altos
City of Saratoga
Stelling Gateway North De Anza Gateway North Vallco Park Gateway
South Vallco ParkGateway East
City CenterNode
NorthCrossroadsNode
Oaks Gateway
South Vallco ParkGateway West
De AnzaCollegeNode
Civic CenterNode
CommunityRecreationNode
S
B
L
A
N
E
Y
A
V
E
B O L LI N G E R RD
N
S
T
E
L
L
I
N
G
R
D
B
U
B
B
R
D
NTANTAU
AVE
S
D
E
A
N
Z
A
B
L
V
D
BL
A
N
E
Y
A
V
E
FO
O
T
H
I
L
L
B
L
V
D
N
FOOTHILL
BLVD
RAINBOW DR
S
ST
E
L
L
I
N
G
R
D
HOMESTEAD RD
P R U N ERIDGE AVE
M
I
L
L
ER
AVE
STEVENS CREEK BLVD
S
TANTAUAVE
G
R
A
N
T
R
D
N
D
E
A
N
Z
A
B
L
V
D
N
BLANEY
AVE
P R OS PE C T RD
MCCLELLAN RD
N
W
O
L
F
E
R
D
S
W
O
L
F
E
R
D
Mixed-Use Special AreasHomestead Special AreaNorth Vallco Park Special AreaHeart of the City Special AreaNorth De Anza Special AreaSouth De Anza Special AreaCity Gateways/NodesCity Boundary
Figure 3-5Special Areas Along Major Transportation Corridors, Including Gateways and Nodes
Source: City of Cupertino, 2013; MIG, Inc, 2014; PlaceWorks, 2014.
PROJECT DESCRIPTIONCITY OF CUPERTINOGENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING PROJECT
0 0.5 10.25
Miles
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3-18 JUNE 18, 2014
The boundaries and proposed changes within each key Gateway and Node are described in detail below
under the specific Special Area it is located within. Table 3-3 shows the existing and proposed development
allocation of all Special Areas combined.
TABLE 3‐3 EXISTING AND PROPOSED MAJOR MIXED‐USE SPECIAL AREA COMBINED DEVELOPMENT ALLOCATION
Remaining Allocation Proposed Difference
Office 17,113 sf 3,290,000 sf + 3,272,887 sf
Commercial 695,629 sf 1,250,000 sf + 554,371 sf
Hotel 339 room 1,339 rooms + 1,000 rooms
Residential 1,416 units 3,900 units + 2,484 units
Note: sf = square feet
Source: City of Cupertino, 2014.
3.7.1.1 HOMESTEAD SPECIAL AREA
Existing Conditions
As shown on Figure 3-6, the Homestead Special Area includes areas just within Cupertino’s northern city
boundary. This mixed-use Special Area consists of the area on the south side of Homestead Road between a
portion of the city’s eastern boundaries with the City of Sunnyvale (approximately one-quarter-mile east of
North Blaney Avenue) to a portion of the city’s western boundary with the City of Sunnyvale (approxi-
mately 600 feet west of North Stelling Road).
The Homestead Special Area includes properties on the north side of Homestead Road close to its
intersection with North De Anza Boulevard, bounded by the City’s northern border with the City of
Sunnyvale. North of the shared city boundary, the City of Sunnyvale has some single-family homes, a
commercial center, several four-plexes and apartment complexes.
This Special Area includes the current Homestead Special Center as described in the current General Plan
and shown on Figure 3-4.
!(!(!(!(
!(!(
!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(
!(!(
!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(
!(!(
!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(
City of Sunnyvale
%&'(280
FrancoPark
Stelling Gateway
North De Anza Gateway
")4
")3")1
N
B
L
A
N
E
Y
A
V
E
B
L
A
N
E
Y
A
V
E
N
S
T
E
L
L
I
N
G
R
D
HOMESTEAD RD
N
D
E
A
N
Z
A
B
L
V
D
FR
A
N
C
O
C
T
HO
L
L
E
N
B
E
C
K
A
V
E
HomesteadHigh School
Garden GateElementary
L.P. CollinsElementarySchool
LawsonMiddleSchool
!(12!(17
Maximum Residential DensityNone5 dwelling units per acre10 dwelling units per acre15 dwelling units per acre20 dwelling units per acre35 dwelling units per acre
Mixed-Use Special AreasCity Gateways/NodesStudy AreasHousing Element Sites
!(Bus StopsSchoolsCity Boundary
PROJECT DESCRIPTIONCITY OF CUPERTINOGENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING PROJECT
Figure 3-6Proposed Homestead Special Areas
Source: City of Cupertino, 2013; MIG, Inc, 2014; PlaceWorks, 2014.
05001,000250
Feet
3
3
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3-20 JUNE 18, 2014
The Homestead Special Area includes commercial uses and several low, medium, and high-density
residential neighborhoods. The Homestead High School is located within this Special Area and other schools
within close proximity of this Special Area include Garden Gate Elementary School and Cupertino Middle
School. Franco Park, a neighborhood park, is located within the Homestead Special Area at the corner of
Franco Court and Homestead Road, as shown in Figure 3-6, and although located in the City of Sunnyvale
jurisdiction, Ortega Park is located approximately one-half mile north of the Homestead Special Area.
Two bus stops serve this Special Area, with stops located north of Homestead Road on the corner of North
Saratoga Sunnyvale Road/East Homestead Road, and one stop on the corner of North De Anza Boulevard
and Homestead Road.
As shown in Table 3-4, the Homestead Special Area currently has no remaining development allocation for
office, commercial, or hotel, but has existing capacity for up to 184 residential units.
TABLE 3‐4 EXISTING AND PROPOSED HOMESTEAD SPECIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Development Allocation Maximum Density Maximum Height
Remaining Proposed Difference Existing Proposed Existing Proposed
Office 0 sf 50,000 sf + 50,000 sf
30 feet
45 feete
30 feet
45 feetd Commercial 0 sf 250,000 sf + 250,000 sf
Hotel 0 rooms 300 rooms + 300 rooms
Residential 184 units 530 units + 346 units
10 du/aca
15 du/acb
20 du/acc
35 du/acd
35 du/ac 30 feet
45 feete
30 feet
45 feetd
Stelling Gateway N/A 15 du/ace
35 du/acf 35 du/ac 30 feetg
45 feetf
45 feet
60 feetg
North De Anza
Gateway N/A 35 du/ac 35 du/ac 45 feet
60 feet
75 feeth
85 feeti
145 feetk
Note: sf = square feet, du/ac = dwelling units per acre, N/A = not applicable.
a. townhomes between North Blaney Avenue and Blue Jay Drive.
b. apartments and townhomes between Blue Jay Drive and North De Anza Boulevard, and condos/apartments on the north side of Homestead Road
between North De Anza Boulevard and Franco Court/Forge Way.
c. everything on south side of Homestead Road between North De Anza Boulevard and Sunnyvale city boundary , except the condos at the terminus of
Franco Court on Celeste Circle along I‐280, which is 20 du/ac.
d. south side of Homestead Road between North De Anza Boulevard and North Stelling Road.
e. commercially zoned properties on the west side of North Stelling Road.
f. east side of North Stelling Road.
g. west side of North Stelling Road
h.with retail.
i. Housing Element Site 10 (The Hamptons) only.
k. with retail and community benefits at Study Area 1 (Cupertino Inn and Goodyear Tire).
Source: City of Cupertino, 2014.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PLACEWORKS 3-21
Proposed Project
Under the proposed Project, the boundaries of the existing Homestead Road Special Center in the current
General Plan would be expanded to coincide with the proposed Homestead Special Area. The Homestead
Special Area would continue to be a predominantly residential area with low-rise neighborhood commercial
centers. Homestead Road would be improved with new pedestrian crossings at North De Anza Boulevard,
North Blaney Avenue, Wolfe Road, and Tantau Avenue.
The Homestead Special Area also includes Study Area 1 (Cupertino Inn and Goodyear Tire), Study Area 3
(PG&E) and Study Area 4 (Mirapath). These Study Areas are described in more detail below in Sections
3.7.2.1, 3.7.2.3, and 3.7.2.4, respectively.
This Special Area also includes Housing Element Site 12 (Homestead Lanes and Adjacency) and Housing
Element Site 17 (Homestead Road – IntraHealth/Office/Tennis Courts), which are discussed in Sections
3.7.4.12 and 3.7.4.17, respectively. As shown on Figure 3-6, the portion of the Homestead Special Area,
west of North De Anza Boulevard, includes two gateways as follows:
Stelling Gateway: This Gateway includes properties on the south side of Homestead Road, bounded
by The Markham Apartments to the east and the south on the east side of North Stelling Road; and the
city boundary with the City of Sunnyvale to the west (approximately 600 feet west of North Stelling
Road). This Gateway was identified at the community workshops as an area where some increased
height and mixed-use, including residential development, may be appropriate. As shown in Table 3-4,
the proposed residential density range at this location would remain 20 to 35 dwelling units per acre
(du/ac) on the east of South Stelling Road but would change from 15 du/ac to 35 du/ac on the west
site of South Stelling Road and building heights would range from 45 feet to 60 feet. This Gateway is
coterminous with Housing Element Site 12 (Homestead Lanes and Adjacency) and Housing Element
Site 17 (Homestead Road – IntraHealth/Office/Tennis Courts), which are discussed in more detail
below in Sections 3.7.4.12 and 3.7.4.17, respectively.
North De Anza Gateway: This Gateway is coterminous with Study Area 1 (Cupertino Inn and
Goodyear Tire), at the northwest corner of the North De Anza Boulevard and I-280 intersection. These
have been identified at the community workshops as an area where some increased heights may be
acceptable due to its proximity to the freeway and distance from single-family residential uses. As shown
in Table 3-4, the proposed density range at this location would remain 35 du/ac and building heights
would range from 60 feet up to 145 feet. The maximum height would be up to 145 feet if a project
includes a retail component and provides community benefits on the Cupertino Inn and Goodyear Tire
sites.
As shown in Table 3-4, under the proposed Project, this Special Area would result in increased office,
commercial, hotel, and residential allocations, with no changes to the currently permitted residential
density range but with changes to the permitted building heights in the Stelling and North De Anza Gateway
areas.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3-22 JUNE 18, 2014
3.7.1.2 NORTH VALLCO PARK SPECIAL AREA
Existing Conditions
The North Vallco Park Special Area is a major north/south connector that includes office, commercial, and
hotel uses. The North Vallco Park Special Area is coterminous with the existing Vallco Park North Special
Center as shown on Figure 3-4, which encompasses properties north of I-280, south of Homestead Road,
west of the city’s shared boundary with the City of Santa Clara, and the properties on the west side of Wolfe
Road but east of the shared city boundary with the City of Sunnyvale. As shown on Figure 3-6, this Special
Area includes the recently approved Apple Campus 2 project.
This Special Area includes the 342-unit multi-family housing (The Hamptons) development and surface
parking lots.
There are no schools in the immediate area. However, Cupertino High School and Sedgwick Elementary
School in the Cupertino Union School District are located about one mile to the south, while Laurelwood
Elementary School in the Santa Clara Unified School District is located to the north east in the City of Santa
Clara, also about 1.5 miles away.
Parks in the vicinity include Portal Park to the southwest, Jenny Strand Park to the southeast, and Westwood
Oak Park is to the east.
Access to and from this Site is provided by six bus stops, including three stops along Pruneridge Avenue, and
three stops on North Wolfe Road. Under the Apple 2 development two bus stops between Pruneridge
Avenue and East Homestead Road would be consolidated into one location, north of Pruneridge Avenue,
between the two existing bus stops.
As shown in Table 3-5, this Special Area currently has no remaining development allocation for office,
commercial, or hotel, but does have capacity for up to 297 residential units.
Proposed Project
Under the proposed Project, the North Vallco Park Special Area would be retained as an employment area of
office and light industrial activities, with neighborhood commercial uses. This Special Area would continue
to be a predominantly office, hotel and residential area with a series of low- to mid-rise neighborhood
mixed-use centers. Additionally, Wolfe Road would include bike lanes and improved pedestrian crossings at
Homestead Road. Residential density would continue to be permitted up to 25 du/ac. Maximum Building
Height would be 60 feet or higher for specific gateways as described below. As shown on Figure 3-7, the
western portion of the North Vallco Park Special Area includes the North Vallco Gateway.
!(!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
City of
Sunnyvale
%&'(280
Apple
Campus 2
Site
275'
City of
Santa Clara
North Vallco Gateway
!(10
HOMESTEAD RD
N
W
O
L
F
E
R
D
N
T
A
N
T
A
U
A
V
E
P
R
U
N
E
R
I
D
G
E
A
V
E
")5
PROJECT DESCRIPTIONCITY OF CUPERTINOGENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING PROJECT
Figure 3-7Proposed North Vallco Park Special Area
Source: City of Cupertino, 2013; MIG, Inc, 2014; PlaceWorks, 2014.
0250500125
Feet
Maximum Residential DensityNone25 dwelling units per acre110 dwelling units per acreApple Campus 2 SiteMixed-Use Special AreasCity Gateways/NodesStudy AreasHousing Element Site
!(Bus StopsCity Boundary
3
3
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3-24 JUNE 18, 2014
The North Vallco Gateway consists of the properties on the west side of North Wolfe Road, bounded by I-
280 to the south and Homestead Road to the north, and Housing Element Site 10 (The Hamptons) at the
northeast corner of North Wolfe Road and I-280. Housing Element Site 10 (The Hamptons) is discussed in
more detail below in Section 3.7.4.10. The width of the Gateway on the west side of North Wolfe Road is
proposed at approximately 275 feet wide (the width of the Duke of Edinburgh and Hilton Garden Inn sites
fronting Wolfe Road).
The North Vallco Gateway includes approximately 275 feet of the Study Area 5 (Cupertino Village) in the
easternmost corner. This area was identified at the community workshops as an area where some increased
heights may be acceptable due to its proximity to the freeway and the Apple Campus 2, currently under
development. As shown in Table 3-5 below, the proposed density in this Gateway would remain 25 du/ac
(with the exception of Housing Element Site 10 (The Hamptons), at 110 du/ac). Building heights would
range from 60 feet to up to 130 feet with retail development and community benefits described above.
Study Area 5 (Cupertino Village) is described in more detail under Section 3.7.2.5 further below in this
chapter.
As shown in Table 3-5, under the proposed Project this Special Area would receive increased office,
commercial, hotel, and residential allocations, with no changes to the current permitted residential density,
with the exception of density increases at the proposed Housing Element Site 10, discussed in Section
3.7.4.10, and no changes to the building height limits, with the exception of height increases in the North
Vallco Gateway area.
TABLE 3‐5 EXISTING AND PROPOSED NORTH VALLCO SPECIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Development Allocation Maximum Density Maximum Height
Remaining Proposed Difference Existing Proposed Existing Proposed
Office 0 sf 90,000 sf + 90,000 sf
60 feet 60 feet Commercial 0 sf 100,000 sf + 100,000 sf
Hotel 0 sf 300 rooms + 300 rooms
Residential 297 units 825 units + 528 units 25 du/ac 25 du/aca 60 feet 60 feet
North Vallco
Gateway 25 du/ac 25 du/aca 60 feet
60 feeta
75 feetb
130 feetc
Note: sf = square feet, du/ac = du/ac
a. except certain Housing Element Sites that have different densities as described under Section 3.8.3, Housing Element Sites
b. with retail, except that retail is not required for up to 75 foot heights on the east side of Wolfe Road
c. with retail and community benefits in the Duke of Edinburgh and Courtyard Marriot site
Source: City of Cupertino, 2014.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PLACEWORKS 3-25
3.7.1.3 HEART OF THE CITY SPECIAL AREA
Existing Conditions
This Special Area includes many of the city’s largest commercial, office, mixed-use, and residential uses
along Stevens Creek Boulevard. It also encompasses the Vallco Shopping District. As shown on Figure 3-8,
this Special Area consists of the area currently delineated in the Heart of the City Specific Plan. This Special
Area includes properties along Stevens Creek Boulevard between SR 85 on the west and the city’s eastern
boundary near the Lawrence Expressway, and properties along portions of Stelling Road and De Anza
Boulevard (from Alves Drive on the north to Scofield Drive on the south). This Special Area contains the
following Special Centers defined in the current General Plan:
Heart of the City Special Area;
West Stevens Creek (between SR 85 and Stelling Road)
Crossroads (between Stelling Road and De Anza Boulevard)
Central Stevens Creek (between De Anza Boulevard east and Portal Avenue)
East Stevens Creek (between Portal Avenue and eastern City limits)
Vallco Park South,
South De Anza Boulevard (east and west of South De Anza Boulevard roughly between Scofield Avenue
and Bollinger Road), and
City Center.
The Heart of the City Special Area is in close proximity to several schools, parks, and bus stops. The
following is a list of nearby schools and parks within (denoted with an *) and surrounding the Special Area,
as shown on Figure 3-8:
Schools
Homestead High School
Garden Gate Elementary School
Lawson Middle School
L.P. Collins Elementary School
De Anza College*
William Faria Elementary School
St. Joseph Cupertino School
Bethel Lutheran School
Cupertino High School (more than one-half
mile)
Hyde Middle School
Eaton Elementary School (more than one-half
mile)
Parks
Jollyman Park
Library Field*
Memorial Park*
Cali Mill Park*
Wilson Park
Creekside Park
Portal Park
City of
Sunnyvale
City of
Santa
Clara
City of
Sunny-
vale
St. Joseph Cupertino School
|ÿ85
%&'(280
OaksGateway NorthCrossroadsNode
City Center Node
South Vallco ParkGateway West South Vallco ParkGateway East
De AnzaCollege Node
CivicCenterNode
CommunityRecreationNode
HydeMiddleSchool
CupertinoHigh School
BethelLutheranSchool
SedgwickElementarySchoolEatonElementarySchool
De AnzaCollege
FariaElementarySchool
KennedyMiddleSchool
Garden GateElementary
L.P. CollinsElementarySchool
LawsonMiddleSchool
")7
")6
")2
N
S
T
E
L
L
I
N
G
R
D
S
B
L
A
N
E
Y
A
V
E
N
B
L
A
N
E
Y
A
V
E
N
BLANEY
AVE
BU BBRD
S
D
E
A
N
Z
A
B
L
V
D
STEVENS CREEK BLVD
M
I
L
L
E
R
A
V
E
S
S
T
E
L
L
I
N
G
R
D
N
D
E
A
N
Z
A
B
L
V
D
STANTAU
AVE
N
W
O
L
F
E
R
D
VALLCO PKWY
MA
R
Y
AV
E
NTANTAU
AVE
MemorialPark
JollymanPark
Cali MillPlaza
LibraryField
WilsonPark
CreeksidePark
PortalPark
!(1
!(2 !(3 !(4
!(5
!(11
!(13
!(14!(15
!(18
!(19
Maximum Residential DensityNone10 dwelling units per acre20 dwelling units per acre25 dwelling units per acre35 dwelling units per acre40 dwelling units per acre
Mixed-Use Special AreasCity Gateways/NodesStudy AreasHousing Element SitesParksSchoolsCity Boundary
PROJECT DESCRIPTIONCITY OF CUPERTINOGENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING PROJECT
Figure 3-8Proposed Heart of the City Special Area
Source: City of Cupertino, 2013; MIG, Inc, 2014; PlaceWorks, 2014.
0 1,000 2,000500
Feet
3
3
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PLACEWORKS 3-27
As described in Table 3-6, this Special Area has some remaining office, commercial, hotel, and residential
development allocations.
TABLE 3‐6 EXISTING AND PROPOSED HEART OF THE CITY SPECIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Development Allocation Maximum Density Maximum Height
Remaining Proposed Difference Existing Proposed Existing Proposed
Office 17,113 sf 2,700,000 sf + 2,682,887 sf
45 feet
60 feetc 45 feet Commercial 695,629 sf 750,000 sf + 54,371 sf
Hotel 339 rooms 639 rooms + 300 rooms
Residential 608 units 2,100 units + 1,492 units 25 du/aca 25 du/ac 45 feet
60 feetc 45 feet
Stevens Creek and
85 Gateway 25 du/ac 35 du/ac 45 feet 60 feet
75 feetd
North Crossroads
Node 25 du/ac 40 du/ac 45 feet 60 feet
75 feetd
City Center Node 25 du/ac 25 du/ac 45 feet
75 feet
90 feetd
110 feete
South Vallco Park
Gateway West 35 du/acb 35 du/ac 45 feet
60 feetc
60 feet
75 feetd
85 feetf
South Vallco Park
Gateway East 35 du/acb 35 du/ac 45 feet
60 feetc
75 feet
90 feetd
160 feetg
De Anza College
Node
Community
Recreation Node
Civic Center Node 45 feet 45 feet
Note: sf = square feet, du/ac = dwelling units per acre
a. except where otherwise indicated in the current General Plan
b. South Vallco area
c. South Vallco area with retail
d. with retail
e. with retail and community benefits in the surface parking lot along Stevens Creek Boulevard and existing parking garage to the rear
f. along Stevens Creek Boulevard and Wolfe Road with retail and community benefits
g. with retail and community benefits on the east side of Wolfe Road bounded by I‐280 to the north, Vallco Parkway to the south, and Perimeter Road to
the east
Source: City of Cupertino, 2014.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3-28 JUNE 18, 2014
Proposed Project
Under the proposed Project, the Heart of the City Special Center would be renamed the Heart of the City
Special Area and would remain the core commercial corridor in Cupertino, with a series of commercial and
office developments (except development at nodes and gateways may be of an increased intensity). Stevens
Creek Boulevard would be improved with new pedestrian crossings at major intersections. In particular, the
South Vallco Park Gateway areas would be redeveloped as a “retail boulevard” similar to Santana Row in San
Jose, with a mix of office, retail, hotel, and residential uses. Wolfe Road would include bike lanes and
improved pedestrian crossings at Homestead Road and Stevens Creek Boulevard and also includes housing
development in a mixed-use format with retail and/or office uses.
A majority of the commercial development allocation would be devoted to enhancing activity in the major
activity centers. Mixed commercial and residential development would be allowed if the development is
well designed, financially beneficial to Cupertino, provides community amenities and is pedestrian-oriented.
The Heart of the City Specific Plan would continue to be the primary implementation tool for the City to
use to guide future development in this Special Area.
As shown on Figure 3-8, the Heart of the City Special Area includes the following Gateways and Nodes:
Oaks Gateway: This Gateway would consist of the current Oaks Shopping Center on the north side of
Stevens Creek Boulevard between SR 85 and Mary Avenue. This was identified at the community
workshops as an area where some increased height and mixed-use development may be appropriate due
to the proximity to the freeway and distance from single-family neighborhoods. This is also potential
Housing Element Site 18 (The Oaks Shopping Center), which is discussed in more detail below in
Section 3.7.4.18. As shown in Table 3-6, the proposed density at this location would be 35 du/ac and
building heights would range from 60 feet to 75 feet.
North Crossroads Node: This Node consists of the north side of Stevens Creek Boulevard between
North De Anza Boulevard and North Stelling Road, with the exception of the Abundant Life Church
site, since it abuts single-family residential uses. The North Crossroads Node includes Study Area 7
(Stevens Creek Office Center). Input from the community workshops noted that this Node is ideal for
active commercial space and increased heights along Stevens Creek Boulevard, similar to the existing
Peet’s coffee shop and Panera restaurant development located in this Node. Study Area 7 (Stevens Creek
Office Center) includes two potential Housing Element Sites 14 (Marina Plaza) and 15 (Stevens Creek
Office Center), which are discussed in more detail below in Sections 3.7.4.14 and 3.7.4.15,
respectively. As shown in Table 3-6, the proposed density at this location would be 25 to 40 du/ac and
building heights would range from 60 feet up to 75 feet with retail development.
City Center Node: This Node would be approximately half the size of the existing City Center Special
Center and would be bounded by Stevens Creek Boulevard to the north; South De Anza Boulevard to
the west; Rodrigues Avenue to the south; and Torre Avenue to the east. The rest of the existing City
Center Special Center would be re-characterized as the Civic Center Node. Due to the height of the
existing buildings in the City Center Node, the input from community workshops ranged from not
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PLACEWORKS 3-29
allowing any increased heights to allowing some increase in heights. As shown in Table 3-6, the proposed
density at this location would remain 20 to 25 du/ac and building heights would range from 75 feet to
up to 90 feet with retail development and up to 110 feet with retail development and community
benefits.
South Vallco Park Gateway West: This Gateway consists of the west side of North Wolfe Road south
of the I-280 freeway within the current South Vallco Park Special Center. This is generally bounded by I-
280 to the north; Perimeter Road to the west; and Stevens Creek Boulevard to the south. The South
Vallco Park Gateway West includes a portion of the Study Area 6 (Vallco Shopping District). Heights
directly along Stevens Creek Boulevard and Wolfe Road are proposed to be increased to reflect a
developer’s request as well as input from community workshops due to distance from single-family
development. As shown in Table 3-6, the proposed density at this location would remain 35 du/ac and
building heights would range from 60 feet to up to 75 with retail development and up to 85 feet with
retail development and community benefits along Stevens Creek Boulevard and North Wolfe Road. This
Gateway is as also a portion of Housing Element Site 11 (Vallco Shopping District except Rosebowl),
which is discussed in more detail below in Section 3.7.4.11
South Vallco Park Gateway East: This Gateway consists of the east side of North Wolfe Road south
of the I-280 freeway. This is generally bounded by I-280 to the north; Stevens Creek Boulevard to the
south; and Tantau Avenue to the east. This Gateway has been identified in community workshops as an
area where increased heights may be acceptable if appropriate community benefits were provided, due
to its proximity to the freeway and distance from existing single-family neighborhoods. Therefore,
heights reflect the workshop comments and a developer’s request. The South Vallco Park Gateway East
includes a portion of the Study Area 6 (Vallco Shopping District). As shown in Table 3-6, the proposed
density at this location would remain 35 du/ac and building heights would range from 75 feet to 90 feet
with retail development and up to 160 feet with retail development and community benefits. The
Gateway is being considered part of Housing Element Site 11 (Vallco Shopping District except
Rosebowl), which is discussed in more detail below in Section 3.7.4.11.
De Anza College Node: This Node includes De Anza College, which is a community college. This
Node is in the southwest corner of the Special Area south of Stevens Creek Boulevard. It is bounded by
SR 85 to the west and Stevens Creek Boulevard to the north. De Anza College also provides a venue for
bringing the community together for meetings and citywide celebrations. Under the proposed Project,
small commercial activities and housing would be encouraged in addition to traditional college
functions. Land uses that are not traditionally considered part of a college to be built at De Anza College
would be allowed under the Project. Such land uses would further integrate the campus into the
community, provide facilities and services not offered in the city or alleviate impacts created by the
college.
Community Recreation Node: This Node includes the Memorial Park, the Senior Center, the
Sports Center and the Quinlan Community Center.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3-30 JUNE 18, 2014
Civic Center Node: This Node would be maintained and enhanced as a vibrant, community gathering
place. It would be comprised of public facilities, office, commercial and some residential uses. Under
the proposed Project, the design guidelines in the Heart of the City Specific Plan including building, site
plan and landscape design would be applied to future development in this Node. For properties with
frontages exclusively on De Anza Boulevard, implementation of the Heart of the City Landscape
Setback standards would not be required. The maximum height would be 45 feet. As shown in Table 3-6,
under the proposed Project, this Special Area would result in increased office, commercial, hotel and
residential allocations. The permitted residential density would remain unchanged except where density
is proposed to increase in the Oaks Gateway from 25 du/ac to 35 du/ac and in the North Crossroads
Node from 25 du/ac to 40 du/ac. Proposed building height increases ranging from 60 feet to 160 feet
would occur in the identified Gateways and Nodes in this Special Area. As previously discussed, the City
Center Node encompasses Study Area 2 (City Center). Study Area 6 (Vallco Shopping District) and
Study Area 7 (Stevens Creek Office Center) are also located in this Special Area. These Study Areas are
described in more detail below in Sections 3.7.2.2, 3.7.2.6, and 3.7.2.7, respectively. In addition, this
Special Area includes potential Housing Element Sites 1 (Shan Restaurant), 2 (Arya/Scandanavian
Design), 3 (United Furniture/East of East Estates Drive), 4 (Barry Swenson), 5 (Glenbrook
Apartments), 13 (Loree Shopping Center), and 19 (Cypress Building Association and Hall Property),
which are discussed in more detail below in Section 3.7.4, Housing Element Sites.
3.7.1.4 NORTH DE ANZA SPECIAL AREA
Existing Conditions
The North De Anza Special Area is a major north/south connector that includes many office and
commercial uses. As shown on Figure 3-9, the North De Anza Special Area consists of the North De Anza
Boulevard Special Center boundaries in the current General Plan. This Special Area generally includes North
De Anza Boulevard between Alves Drive to the south and I-280 to the north, including portions of Valley
Green Drive, Mariani Avenue, Bandley Drive, and Lazaneo Drive.
As shown in Figure 3-9, the North De Anza Special Area is located directly adjacent to Lawson Middle
School, and just north of St. Joseph Cupertino School. Other schools in the vicinity include L.P. Collins
Elementary School, Garden Gate Elementary School, and Homestead High School. Portal Park and
Memorial Park are located in the general vicinity, to the southeast and southwest of the Special Area,
respectively. Four bus stops along North De Anza Boulevard serve the Special Area, as shown on Figure 3-8.
As shown in Table 3-7, the North De Anza Special Area currently has no remaining development allocation
for office, commercial, or hotel, but does have capacity for up to 97 residential units for a potential Housing
Element Site located in this Special Area.
!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(
!(!(
!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(
City of
Sunnyvale%&'(280
")7
MARIANI AV E
N
B
L
A
N
E
Y
A
V
E
S
D
E
A
N
Z
A
B
L
V
D
LAZANEO DR
ALVES DR
STEVENS CREEK BLVD
N
D
E
A
N
Z
A
B
L
V
D
S
S
T
E
L
L
I
N
G
R
D
BA N DLEY
DR
N
S
T
E
L
L
I
N
G
R
D
MemorialPark
Cali MillPlaza
PortalPark
FariaElementarySchool
HomesteadHigh School
Garden GateElementary
L.P. CollinsElementarySchool
St. JosephCupertinoSchool
LawsonMiddleSchool
!(6
!(6
!(7
PLACEWORKS
Maximum Residential Density25 dwelling units per acreMixed-Use Special Areas
Study AreasHousing Element Sites
!(Bus StopsParksSchoolsCity Boundary
PROJECT DESCRIPTIONCITY OF CUPERTINOGENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING PROJECT
Figure 3-9Proposed North De Anza Special Area
Source: City of Cupertino, 2013; MIG, Inc, 2014; PlaceWorks, 2014.
0 5001,000250
Feet 3
3
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3-32 JUNE 18, 2014
Proposed Project
Under the proposed Project, the North De Anza Special Area would remain an office area consisting of mid-
rise buildings. Additionally, De Anza Boulevard would be improved with new bike lanes and pedestrian
crossings at Homestead Road and Stevens Creek Boulevard. As shown in Table 3-7, under the proposed
Project, this Special Area would result in increased office, commercial, and hotel allocations, and increased
residential units, with no changes to the current permitted residential density and an increase in the
permitted building heights from 45 feet to 75 feet. This Special Area includes potential Housing Element
Site 7 (Carl Berg Property), which as discussed in more detail below in Section 3.7.4.7, is an existing
Housing Element Site.
TABLE 3‐7 EXISTING AND PROPOSED NORTH DE ANZA SPECIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Development Allocation Maximum Density Maximum Height
Remaining Proposed Difference Existing Proposed Existing Proposed
Office 0 sf 400,000 sf + 400,000 sf
45 feet 75 feet Commercial 0 sf 25,000 sf + 25,000 sf
Hotel 0 rooms 100 rooms + 100 rooms
Residential 97 units 170 units + 73 units 25 du/ac 25 du/ac 45 feet 75 feet
Note: sf = square feet , du/ac = dwelling units per acre
Source: City of Cupertino, 2014.
3.7.1.5 SOUTH DE ANZA SPECIAL AREA
Existing Conditions
The South De Anza Special Area is a north/south corridor that includes smaller-scale commercial, office,
and residential uses. As shown on Figure 3-9, this Special Area is divided by the shared city boundaries of
City of San Jose. This northern portion of this Special Area consists of the South De Anza Boulevard Special
Center boundaries in the current General Plan. Figure 3-4, above, shows the boundaries of the current
General Plan Special Centers. South De Anza Boulevard is generally bounded by Scofield Drive to the north
and Bollinger Road to the south, north of SR 85. This Special Area also includes the portion of the city
known as the South Saratoga-Sunnyvale Conceptual Plan area which is located on the west side of South De
Anza Boulevard between Rainbow Drive and Prospect Road. The northern portion of this Special Area is
located west of the Cupertino Community Hall, which also includes a park that could serve this Special
Area. Additionally, Jollyman and Wilson Parks are all located within close proximity. Access to and from this
Special Area is provided by six bus stops, as shown in Figure 3-10. Schools near this Special Area include
Eaton Elementary School to the southeast, De Anza College and William Faria Elementary School to the
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PLACEWORKS 3-33
west, Lawson Middle School and Collins Elementary School are the northeast, and St. Joseph’s of Cupertino
School to the north.
The southern portion of this Special Area includes the Santa County Clara Sheriff’s Office within its
boundaries, and is served by five bus stops along South De Anza Boulevard. Although not within the
boundaries of this Special Area, Hoover Park is located to the west, Three Oaks Park is located to the
northwest, and Calabazas Park, in San Jose, is located to the northeast of this Special Area. Regnart
Elementary School in Cupertino is located to the northwest. Blue Hills Elementary School in the City of
Saratoga, John Muir and Meyerholz Elementary Schools in San Jose are located to the southeast and
northeast, respectively.
As shown in Table 3-8, the South De Anza Special Area currently has no remaining development allocation
for office, commercial, or hotel, but does have capacity for up to 230 residential units.
TABLE 3‐8 EXISTING AND PROPOSED SOUTH DE ANZA SPECIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Development Allocation Maximum Density Maximum Height
Remaining Proposed Difference Existing Proposed Existing Proposed
Office 0 sf 50,000 + 50,000
30 feet 30 feet Commercial 0 sf 125,000 + 125,000
Hotel 0 rooms 0 rooms 0 rooms
Residential 230 units 275 units + 45 units 15 du/aca
25 du/acb 25 du/acc 30 feet 30 feet
Note: sf = square feet , du/ac = dwelling units per acre
a. South of State Route 85.
b. Between Heart of the City properties and Bollinger Road on the west side of De Anza Boulevard.
c. Except certain Housing Element Sites that have different densities as described in Section 3.7.3.
Source: City of Cupertino, 2014.
Proposed Project
Under the proposed Project, the South De Anza Special Area would remain a mixed-use area with industrial
office uses south of Stevens Creek Boulevard. A small realignment of the boundary would be made to align
an existing office development on Pacifica Avenue into the Special Area. The land use designation of this
development currently allows the same land uses allowed by the South De Anza Conceptual Plan that
governs the northern portion of this Special Area. As shown in Table 3-8, under the proposed Project this
Special Area would result in increased office, commercial, and hotel allocations, and increased residential
units, with an increase in the density from 5 to 15 du/ac to 25 du/ac in the southern portion of this Special
Area. This Special Area also includes Housing Element Site 16 (Summerwinds and Granite Rock) at a higher
density of 40 du/ac but no change in the permitted building heights. Housing Element Site 16
(Summerwinds and Granite Rock) is discussed in more detail below in Section 3.7.4.16.
!(!(
!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(
City of San Jose
S
D
E
A
N
Z
A
B
L
V
D
BOLLI
N
G
E
R
R
D
MCCLELLAN RD
SCOFIELD DR ")2
JollymanPark
Cali MillPlaza
LibraryField
FariaElementarySchool
!(
!(
!(
!(
City of San Jose
|ÿ85
City of Saratoga
PROSPECT RD
S
D
E
A
N
Z
A
B
L
V
D
RAINBOW DR
ThreeOaks Park
HooverPark
!(16
City of
San Jose
|ÿ85
City of
San Jose
|ÿ85
PROJECT DESCRIPTIONCITY OF CUPERTINOGENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING PROJECT
Figure 3-10Proposed South De Anza Special Area
Source: City of Cupertino, 2013; MIG, Inc, 2014; PlaceWorks, 2014.
0 500 1,000250
Feet
Maximum Residential Density25 dwelling units per acre40 dwelling units per acreMixed-Use Sepcial AreasStudy AreasHousing Element Sites
!(Bus StopsParksCity Boundary
3
3
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PLACEWORKS 3-35
3.7.2 STUDY AREAS
Under the proposed Project, seven Study Areas located within the five Major Mixed-Use Special Areas
represent approximately 121 acres of land within Cupertino with the potential for new or repurposed uses.
The seven Study Areas include:
1. Cupertino Inn and Goodyear Tire
2. City Center
3. PG&E
4. Mirapath
5. Cupertino Village
6. Vallco Shopping District
7. Stevens Creek Office Center
These Study Areas are locations in Cupertino where property owners have expressed interest in height or
development allocation changes, and where more intense development could be located to meet economic
development or housing goals within existing Special Areas. Study Area 3 (PG&E) and Study Area 6 (Vallco
Shopping District) were selected to be studied by the City Council. Some of the Study Area locations are
also proposed Housing Element Sites. These are discussed in Section 3.7.4. Housing Element Sites. As
shown in Figure 3-11, the seven Study Areas are dispersed throughout the city in locations currently
developed with commercial, office, parking, mixed-use, quasi-public and light industrial land uses. Table 3-9
shows a summary of the total proposed development allocation for the Study Areas.
TABLE 3‐9 EXISTING STUDY AREA COMBINED DEVELOPMENT ALLOCATION
Residential Proposed
Hotel 126 rooms
Residential 423 units
Non‐Residential
General Commercial (CG) 8,232 sf
Mixed‐Use Planned Development (MUPD) 1,835,614 sf
Quasi‐Public Building (QPB) 74,845 sf
Light Industrial (LI) 16,768 sf
Total Square Feet 1,935,459 sf
Total Acres 121.12 acres
Note: sf = square feet
Source: City of Cupertino, 2014.
%&'(280
|ÿ85
City of Sunnyvale
")4
")3
")7
")1 ")5
")6
")2
S
B
L
A
N
E
Y
A
V
E
N
B
L
A
N
E
Y
A
V
E
B
L
A
N
E
Y
A
V
E
N
S
T
E
L
L
I
N
G
R
D
B
U
B
B
R
D
NTANTAU
AVE
MCCLELLAN RD
S
D
E
A
N
Z
A
B
L
V
D
M
I
L
L
E
R
A
V
E
STEVENS CREEK BLVD
S
S
T
E
L
L
I
N
G
R
D
HOMESTEAD RD
P RUN E R I D G E AVE
STANTAUAVE
N
D
E
A
N
Z
A
B
L
V
D
HO
L
L
E
N
B
E
C
K
A
V
E
S
W
O
L
F
E
R
D
N
W
O
L
F
E
R
D
CupertinoHighSchool
BethelLutheranSchool
SedgwickElementarySchoolEaton ElementarySchool
De AnzaCollege
FariaElementarySchool
LincolnElementary
HomesteadHigh School
Garden GateElementary
L.P. CollinsElementarySchool
St. JosephCupertinoSchool
LawsonMiddleSchool
MemorialPark
CaliMillPlaza
LibraryField
WilsonPark
CreeksidePark
PortalPark
FrancoPark
PROJECT DESCRIPTIONCITY OF CUPERTINOGENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING PROJECT
Figure 3-11Study Area Locations
Source: City of Cupertino, 2013; MIG, Inc, 2014; PlaceWorks, 2014.
05001,000250
Feet
Study AreasParksSchoolsCity Boundary
3
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PLACEWORKS 3-37
The following discussion provides a detailed description of each of the seven Study Areas including the
existing and anticipated changes under the proposed Project.
3.7.2.1 STUDY AREA 1 (CUPERTINO INN AND GOODYEAR TIRE)
Existing Conditions
Study Area 1 (Cupertino Inn and Goodyear Tire) is located within the Homestead Special Area. As shown on
Figure 3-11, Study Area 1 (Cupertino Inn and Goodyear Tire) is near the Homestead Square Shopping
Center, immediately adjacent to the I-280 Exit/Entrance on De Anza Boulevard.
This Study Area includes: the Cupertino Inn, a full service boutique business hotel with event facilities and
125 rooms; and the Goodyear Tire store, an auto service center offering tire, oil change, and other
automotive care services. This Study Area is served by one bus stop, located north of the Goodyear Tire
store, as shown on Figure 3-12. Franco Park is located to the northeast. Homestead High School and Garden
Gate Elementary School are both located to the west of this Study Area.
This Study Area is near large residential developments to the east and west. Also, the northwest portion of
the Study Area, near the Goodyear property, shares a property line with the Homestead Square Shopping
Center, where a new Safeway supermarket, Rite Aid clothing store, Ulta Beauty salon, and other
commercial businesses are located. The I-280 Freeway acts as a physical barrier between the southern edge
of this study area and the multi-family residential building and public storage facilities located to the south of
the Study Area while North De Anza Boulevard acts as a physical barrier between the eastern edge of the
Study Area and the multi-family residential development across the street.
Both the Cupertino Inn and Goodyear Tire businesses are have current General Plan land use designations of
Commercial/Residential (C/R); the Cupertino Inn is zoned as Planned Development General Commercial
(P(CG)), while Goodyear Tire is zoned General Commercial with special development conditions (CG-rg).
Proposed Project
As shown in Table 3-10, under the proposed Project, Study Area 1 (Cupertino Inn and Goodyear Tire)
would retain a hotel and would add a new 250-room hotel and conference facility at the Goodyear Tire site.
The maximum height would be 75 feet with a retail component or up to 145 feet if a project includes a
retail component and provides community benefits. The General Plan designation and Zoning designation
would remain the same, with the exception of the Goodyear Tire site, which would change to P(CG) to be
consistent with the Cupertino Inn site.
!(!(!(
!(
%&'(280
Homestead SquareShopping Center
FO
R
G
E
W
A
Y
NO
R
T
H
H
U
R
S
T
D
R
VIA VOLANTE
VI
A
P
A
V
I
S
O
VIA NAPO
L
I
VIA PORT
O
F
I
N
O
VIA PALA
M
O
S
BL
U
E
J
A
Y
D
R
N
D
E
A
N
Z
A
B
L
V
D
FR
A
N
C
O
C
T
HOMESTEAD RD
FrancoPark
1
2
PROJECT DESCRIPTIONCITY OF CUPERTINOGENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING PROJECT
Figure 3-12Study Area 1 (Cupertino Inn and Goodyear Tire)
Source: City of Cupertino, 2013; MIG, Inc, 2014; PlaceWorks, 2014; ESRI, 2010.
0 200 400100
Feet
1 Parcel ID NumbersStudy Area
!(Bus StopsCity Boundary
GE
N
E
R
A
L
P
L
A
N
A
M
E
N
D
M
E
N
T
,
H
O
U
S
I
N
G
E
L
E
M
E
N
T
U
P
D
A
T
E
,
A
N
D
A
S
S
O
C
I
A
T
E
D
R
E
Z
O
N
I
N
G
D
R
A
F
T
E
I
R
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PR
O
J
E
C
T
D
E
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
PL
A
C
E
W
O
R
K
S
3-39
TAB
L
E
3‐10
STU
D
Y
ARE
A
1 (C
UP
E
R
T
I
N
O
INN
AN
D
GOO
D
Y
E
A
R
TIR
E
) EXI
S
T
I
N
G
AN
D
PRO
P
O
S
E
D
DEV
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T
STA
N
D
A
R
D
S
Ma
p
#
Te
n
a
n
t
/ Us
e
Ad
d
r
e
s
s
AP
N
Pa
r
c
e
l
Si
z
e
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
Si
z
e
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
Pl
a
n
Zo
n
i
n
g
Ma
x
i
m
u
m
De
n
s
i
t
y
Maximum Height
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Existing Proposed
1
Cu
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
In
n
10
8
8
9
No
r
t
h
De
An
z
a
Bl
v
d
.
32
6
‐10
‐05
8
1.
9
8
ac
12
6
ro
o
m
s
C/
R
C/
R
P(
C
G
)
P(
C
G
)
35
du
/
a
c
35
du/ac 45 feet 60 feet 75 feeta
2
Go
o
d
y
e
a
r
Ti
r
e
10
9
3
1
No
r
t
h
De
An
z
a
Bl
v
d
.
32
6
‐10
‐06
1
1.
2
3
ac
8,
3
2
3
sf
C/
R
C/
R
CG
‐r
P(
C
G
)
35
du
/
a
c
35
du/ac 45 feet 60 feet 75 feeta 145 feetb
To
t
a
l
Ac
r
e
s
3.
2
1
ac
No
t
e
:
sf
= sq
u
a
r
e
fe
e
t
,
ac
= ac
r
e
s
,
du
/
a
c
= dw
e
l
l
i
n
g
un
i
t
s
pe
r
ac
r
e
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
Pl
a
n
De
s
i
g
n
a
t
i
o
n
s
:
C/
R
= Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
/
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
,
Zo
n
i
n
g
de
s
i
g
n
a
t
i
o
n
s
:
P(
C
G
)
= Pl
a
n
n
e
d
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
,
CG
‐rg
= Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
wi
t
h
sp
e
c
i
a
l
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
st
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
a.
wi
t
h
re
t
a
i
l
b.
wi
t
h
re
t
a
i
l
an
d
co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
be
n
e
f
i
t
s
So
u
r
c
e
:
Ci
t
y
of
Cu
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
,
20
1
4
.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3-40 JUNE 18, 2014
3.7.2.2 STUDY AREA 2 (CITY CENTER)
Existing Conditions
Study Area 2 (City Center) is located within the Heart of the City Specific Plan and the proposed Heart of
the City Special Area. As shown on Figure 3-13, this Study Area is near the city’s major intersection of
Stevens Creek and De Anza Boulevards.
This Study Area is composed of the City Center Towers, Cupertino Park, City Center Apartments, Park
Center Apartments, a surface parking lot, a private open space with amphitheater, and structured parking. It
includes a variety of mixed-use development offering residential, office, and commercial space.
Study Area 2 is surrounded by various existing uses: hotel, high-technology offices, general retail,
restaurants, multi-family residences, and adjacent to the proposed Civic Center Node, which would include
Cupertino City Hall, Santa Clara County Library, Cupertino branch, Library Fields and the block between
Rodriguez Avenue on the north, Torre Avenue to the east, Pacifica Avenue on the south and North De Anza
Boulevard on the west.
This Study Area is served by four bus stops and an existing private open space area, as indicated on Figure 3-
13. The Cupertino City Hall is located approximately one block south of the Study Area on Torre Avenue.
This Study Area has a General Plan land use designation of Commercial/Office/Residential (C/O/R), and
is zoned Planned Development with General Commercial, Professional Office, and Residential (P(CG, OP,
Res)).
Proposed Project
Under the proposed Project, Study Area 2 (City Center) would include a new 415,000-square-foot office
building along with the addition of four levels to an existing above-ground garage. As shown in Table 3-11,
residential densities would remain unchanged at 25 du/ac. The maximum height would be 75 feet, 90 feet
with retail development or up to 110 feet if a project includes a retail component and provides community
benefits.
!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(
RA
N
D
Y
L
N
VI
S
T
A
D
R
DANU
B
E
D
R
P
I
N
NTAGE
PKW
Y
SCOFIELD DR
SUNRISE DR
CALI AVE
AL
L
E
Y
R O D R I G U E S A V E
T O R REAVE
S
D
E
A
N
Z
A
B
L
V
D
N I L E D R
MAC AD AM LN
ANN CT
STEVENS CREEK BLVD
St. JosephCupertinoSchool
CaliMillPlaza
3
5
7
2
1
6
4
PROJECT DESCRIPTIONCITY OF CUPERTINOGENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING PROJECT
Figure 3-13Study Area 2 (City Center)
Source: City of Cupertino, 2013; MIG, Inc, 2014; PlaceWorks, 2014; ESRI, 2010.
015030075
Feet
1 Parcel ID NumbersStudy Area
!(Bus StopsSchoolsParks
GE
N
E
R
A
L
P
L
A
N
A
M
E
N
D
M
E
N
T
,
H
O
U
S
I
N
G
E
L
E
M
E
N
T
U
P
D
A
T
E
,
A
N
D
A
S
S
O
C
I
A
T
E
D
R
E
Z
O
N
I
N
G
D
R
A
F
T
E
I
R
CI
T
Y
O
F
C
U
P
E
R
T
I
N
O
PR
O
J
E
C
T
D
E
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
3-
4
2
JUNE 18, 2014
TAB
L
E
3‐11
STU
D
Y
ARE
A
2 (C
IT
Y
CEN
T
E
R
) EXI
S
T
I
N
G
AN
D
PRO
P
O
S
E
D
DEV
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T
STA
N
D
A
R
D
S
Ma
p
#
Te
n
a
n
t
/ Us
e
Ad
d
r
e
s
s
AP
N
Pa
r
c
e
l
Si
z
e
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
Si
z
e
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
Pl
a
n
Zo
n
i
n
g
Ma
x
i
m
u
m
De
n
s
i
t
y
Maximum Height
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Existing Proposed
1
Ci
t
y
Ce
n
t
e
r
To
w
e
r
s
(N
)
20
4
0
0
St
e
v
e
n
s
Cr
e
e
k
Bl
v
d
.
36
9
‐01
‐02
8
0.
8
4
ac
16
9
,
4
2
6
sf
C/
O
/
R
C/
O
/
R
P(
C
G
,
OP
,
Re
s
)
P(
C
G
,
OP
,
Re
s
)
25
du
/
a
c
25
du/ac 8 stories 75 feet 90 feeta
2
Ci
t
y
Ce
n
t
e
r
To
w
e
r
s
(S
)
20
4
5
0
St
e
v
e
n
s
Cr
e
e
k
Bl
v
d
.
36
9
‐01
‐02
7
0.
8
4
ac
16
9
,
8
5
1
sf
C/
O
/
R
C/
O
/
R
P(
C
G
,
OP
,
Re
s
)
P(
C
G
,
OP
,
Re
s
)
25
du
/
a
c
25
du/ac 8 stories 75 feet 90 feeta
3
Pa
r
k
Ci
t
y
Ap
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
s
20
3
8
0
St
e
v
e
n
s
Cr
e
e
k
Bl
v
d
.
36
9
‐01
‐02
6
1.
6
7
ac
12
0
un
i
t
s
C/
O
/
R
C/
O
/
R
P(
C
G
,
OP
,
Re
s
)
P(
C
G
,
OP
,
Re
s
)
25
du
/
a
c
25
du/ac 3 stories 75 feet 90 feeta
4
Ci
t
y
Ce
n
t
e
r
Ap
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
s
an
d
Pa
r
k
i
n
g
Ga
r
a
g
e
20
3
5
0
St
e
v
e
n
s
Cr
e
e
k
Bl
v
d
.
36
9
‐01
‐99
6
1.
8
7
ac
99
un
i
t
s
C/
O
/
R
C/
O
/
R
P(
C
G
,
OP
,
Re
s
)
P(
C
G
,
OP
,
Re
s
)
25
du
/
a
c
25
du/ac 6 stories 75 feet 90 feeta 110 feetb
5
Pa
r
k
i
n
g
Lo
t
N/
A
36
9
‐01
‐02
2
1.
5
8
ac
N/
A
C/
O
/
R
C/
O
/
R
P(
C
G
,
OP
,
Re
s
)
P(
C
G
,
OP
,
Re
s
)
25
du
/
a
c
25
du/ac N/A 75 feet 90 feeta 110 feetb
6
Gr
e
e
n
Sp
a
c
e
/
I
n
t
e
r
n
a
l
St
r
e
e
t
N/
A
36
9
‐01
‐02
3
5.
3
5
ac
N/
A
C/
O
/
R
C/
O
/
R
P(
C
G
,
OP
,
Re
s
)
P(
C
G
,
OP
,
Re
s
)
25
du
/
a
c
25
du/ac N/A N/A
7
In
t
e
r
n
a
l
St
r
e
e
t
N/
A
36
9
‐01
‐99
5
0.
3
6
ac
N/
A
C/
O
/
R
C/
O
/
R
P(
C
G
,
OP
,
Re
s
)
P(
C
G
,
OP
,
Re
s
)
25
du
/
a
c
25
du/ac N/A N/A
To
t
a
l
12
.
5
1
ac
33
9
,
2
7
7
sf
21
9
un
i
t
s
No
t
e
:
sf
= sq
u
a
r
e
fe
e
t
,
ac
= ac
r
e
s
,
du
/
a
c
= dw
e
l
l
i
n
g
un
i
t
s
pe
r
ac
r
e
,
N/
A
= no
t
ap
p
l
i
c
a
b
l
e
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
Pl
a
n
De
s
i
g
n
a
t
i
o
n
s
:
C/
O
/
R
= Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
/
O
f
f
i
c
e
/
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
Zo
n
i
n
g
de
s
i
g
n
a
t
i
o
n
s
:
P(
C
G
,
OP
,
Re
s
)
= Mi
x
e
d
‐Us
e
Pl
a
n
n
e
d
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
wi
t
h
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
,
ge
n
e
r
a
l
co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
,
an
d
pr
o
f
e
s
s
i
o
n
a
l
of
f
i
c
e
us
e
s
a.
Wi
t
h
re
t
a
i
l
.
b.
Wi
t
h
re
t
a
i
l
an
d
co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
be
n
e
f
i
t
s
.
So
u
r
c
e
:
Ci
t
y
of
Cu
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
,
20
1
4
.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PLACEWORKS 3-43
3.7.2.3 STUDY AREA 3 (PG&E)
Existing Conditions
Study Area 3 (PG&E) is within the Homestead Special Area. As shown on Figure 3-14, this Study Area is a
large parcel between North Blaney Avenue and I-280.
Currently, this Study Area is maintained and owned by Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E), and includes a
regional customer service center, training facilities, storage areas, and extensive equipment staging areas and
a small sub-station.
This Study Area includes extensive surface parking lots and vacant area. The current PG&E property is
surrounded by single-family residential cluster development, a commercial strip mall and a day care facility
located in the City of Sunnyvale. Across Homestead Road to the north and directly east of this Study Area,
there are existing single-family homes located in the City of Sunnyvale.
There are no parks, bus stops, or schools in the immediate vicinity of this Study Area.
Study Area 3 (PG&E) is designated as Quasi-Public/Institutional (QP/IN) General Plan Land Use and zoned
as Quasi-Public Building (BQ).
Proposed Project
As shown in Table 3-12, under the proposed Project, this Study Area would change to the Quasi-
Public/Institutional/Commercial (QP/IN/C) General Plan land use designation. The added Commercial
(C) designation would allow commercial development on this Site that could support a retail store/center
in the future. The Zoning designation would also be amended to Quasi-Public Building/General
Commercial (BQ/CG).
Because this Study Area borders Study Area 4 (Mirapath) discussed below, in the case of complete
redevelopment, it is intended that both sites will be master planned in order to ensure cohesive
development.
!(!(
!(!(
!(!(
City of
Sunnyvale
PG&EServiceCenter
Mirapath
Gochi JapaneseFusion Tapas
New WorldCDC212New YorkPizza
City ofSunnyvale
%&'(280
HOMESTEAD RD
LI
N
N
E
T
L
N
LUCILLE AVE
C
R
O
W
N
C
T
N
O
R
T
H
S
K
Y
S
Q
NO
R
T
H
P
O
I
N
T
W
A
Y
C
A
N
A
R
Y
D
R
LANGPORT DR
PARNELL PL
E
A
G
L
E
D
R
LONDONDERRY DR
OLIVEWOOD ST
NO
R
T
H
O
A
K
S
Q
LAMBETH CT
LIVERPOOL WAY
SHETLANDPL
LA
R
R
Y
W
A
Y
RA
N
D
Y
L
N
V
I
L
L
A
D
E
A
N
Z
A
AV
E
BL
U
E
J
A
Y
D
R
BL
A
N
E
Y
A
V
E
HERONAVE
N
BLANEY
AVE
MA
R
T
I
N
A
V
E
M A R I A N I DR
LA
R
K
L
N
1
PROJECT DESCRIPTIONCITY OF CUPERTINOGENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING PROJECT
Figure 3-14Study Area 3 (PG&E)
Source: City of Cupertino, 2013; MIG, Inc, 2014; PlaceWorks, 2014; ESRI, 2010.
0200400100
Feet
1 Parcel ID Numbers
!(Bus StopsStudy AreaCity Boundary
GE
N
E
R
A
L
P
L
A
N
A
M
E
N
D
M
E
N
T
,
H
O
U
S
I
N
G
E
L
E
M
E
N
T
U
P
D
A
T
E
,
A
N
D
A
S
S
O
C
I
A
T
E
D
R
E
Z
O
N
I
N
G
D
R
A
F
T
E
I
R
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PR
O
J
E
C
T
D
E
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
PL
A
C
E
W
O
R
K
S
3-45
TAB
L
E
3‐12
STU
D
Y
ARE
A
3 (P
G
&
E
)
EXI
S
T
I
N
G
AN
D
PRO
P
O
S
E
D
DEV
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T
STA
N
D
A
R
D
S
Ma
p
#
Te
n
a
n
t
/
Us
e
Ad
d
r
e
s
s
AP
N
Pa
r
c
e
l
Si
z
e
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
Si
z
e
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
Pl
a
n
Zo
n
i
n
g
Ma
x
i
m
u
m
De
n
s
i
t
y
Maximum Height
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Existing Proposed
1
PG
&
E
10
9
0
0
No
r
t
h
Bl
a
n
e
y
Av
e
31
6
‐03
‐04
5
21
.
9
1
a
c
74
,
8
4
5
sf
QP
/
I
N
QP
/
I
N
/
C
BQ
BQ
/
C
G
N/
A
N/
A
1 story 30 feet
No
t
e
:
sf
= sq
u
a
r
e
fe
e
t
,
ac
= ac
r
e
s
,
du
/
a
c
= dw
e
l
l
i
n
g
un
i
t
s
pe
r
ac
r
e
, N/
A
= no
t
ap
p
l
i
c
a
b
l
e
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
Pl
a
n
De
s
i
g
n
a
t
i
o
n
s
:
QP
/
I
N
= Qu
a
s
i
‐Pu
b
l
i
c
/
I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n
a
l
,
QP
/
I
N
/
C
= Qu
a
s
i
‐Pu
b
l
i
c
/
I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n
a
l
/
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
Zo
n
i
n
g
de
s
i
g
n
a
t
i
o
n
s
:
BQ
= Qu
a
s
i
‐Pu
b
l
i
c
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
,
BQ
/
C
G
= Qu
a
s
i
‐Pu
b
l
i
c
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
/
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
So
u
r
c
e
:
Ci
t
y
of
Cu
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
,
20
1
4
.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3-46 JUNE 18, 2014
3.7.2.4 STUDY AREA 4 (MIRAPATH)
Existing Conditions
Study Area 4 (Mirapath) is within the Homestead Special Area. As shown on Figure 3-15, this Study Area is
on one small parcel comprising the Mirapath office building and surface parking fronting North Blaney
Avenue. Mirapath is a data center and lab infrastructure provider.
This Study Area is located in the middle of the block on North Blaney Avenue between Homestead Road and
I-280 Freeway. Along with the Mirapath office space, a real estate firm occupies another office within the
same building.
Immediately surrounding this Study Area are low- to medium-density residential uses and some other
commercial and industrial land uses, including architects’ and chiropractors’ offices, as well as a karaoke bar
and a restaurant. Study Area 4 (Mirapath) is immediately north of the Study Area 3 (PG&E).
There are no bus stops in the immediate vicinity of this Study Area. L.P. Collins Elementary School is
located to the south adjacent to Portal Park.
This Study Area currently has a land use designation of Industrial/Residential (I/R) and is zoned as Light
Industrial with special development conditions (ML-fa).13 It is anticipated that when Study Area 3 develops,
this site would also develop.
Proposed Project
As shown in Table 3-13, this Study Area would have a General Plan land use designation of Industrial/
Residential/Commercial (I/R/C) and would be rezoned to Planned Development with Light Industrial and
General Commercial uses or P(ML/CG), which would accommodate the currently allowed light industrial
uses. This designation would provide commercial uses with flexibility in the setback standards to
accommodate appropriate development of the site. No changes are proposed to the height allowances for
the property.
As described above, because this Study Area borders Study Area 3 (PG&E), in the case of complete
redevelopment, it is intended that both sites will be master planned in order to ensure cohesive
development.
13 fa is an old sub-zoning designation from the 1960s that refers to special development conditions that apply to future buildings to be
developed at that location, which are now built. The sub-zoning designation addressed lot coverage and driveway width.
PG&EServiceCenter
Gochi JapaneseFusion Tapas
New WorldCDC
212New YorkPizza
NO
R
T
H
S
H
O
R
E
S
Q
NORTHRIDGE D R
HOMESTEAD RD
NORTHWIND SQ
NORTHFORDEDR
N ORT HC R E ST S
Q
N
BLANEY
AVE
NO
R
T
H
V
I
E
W
S
Q
N O R TH FIELD SQ
1
PROJECT DESCRIPTIONCITY OF CUPERTINOGENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING PROJECT
Figure 3-15Study Area 4 (Mirapath)
Source: City of Cupertino, 2013; MIG, Inc, 2014; PlaceWorks, 2014; ESRI, 2010.
010020050
Feet
1 Parcel ID NumbersStudy Area
!(Bus StopsCity Boundary
GE
N
E
R
A
L
P
L
A
N
A
M
E
N
D
M
E
N
T
,
H
O
U
S
I
N
G
E
L
E
M
E
N
T
U
P
D
A
T
E
,
A
N
D
A
S
S
O
C
I
A
T
E
D
R
E
Z
O
N
I
N
G
D
R
A
F
T
E
I
R
CI
T
Y
O
F
C
U
P
E
R
T
I
N
O
PR
O
J
E
C
T
D
E
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
3-
4
8
JUNE 18, 2014
TAB
L
E
3‐13
STU
D
Y
ARE
A
4 (M
IR
A
P
A
T
H
) EXI
S
T
I
N
G
AN
D
PRO
P
O
S
E
D
DEV
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T
STA
N
D
A
R
D
S
Ma
p
#
Te
n
a
n
t
/
Us
e
Ad
d
r
e
s
s
AP
N
Pa
r
c
e
l
Si
z
e
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
Si
z
e
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
Pl
a
n
Zo
n
i
n
g
Ma
x
i
m
u
m
De
n
s
i
t
y
Maximum Height
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Existing Proposed
1
Mi
r
a
p
a
t
h
10
9
5
0
No
r
t
h
Bl
a
n
e
y
Av
e
31
6
‐03
‐04
1
0.
9
8
ac
16
,
7
6
8
sf
I/
R
I/
R
/
C
ML
‐fa
ML
/
C
G
N/
A
35
du
/
a
c
2 stories 30 feet
No
t
e
:
sf
= sq
u
a
r
e
fe
e
t
,
ac
= ac
r
e
s
,
du
/
a
c
= dw
e
l
l
i
n
g
un
i
t
s
pe
r
ac
r
e
,
N/
A
= no
t
ap
p
l
i
c
a
b
l
e
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
Pl
a
n
De
s
i
g
n
a
t
i
o
n
s
:
I/
R
= In
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
/
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
,
I/
R
/
C
= In
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
/
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
/
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
Zo
n
i
n
g
de
s
i
g
n
a
t
i
o
n
s
:
ML
‐fa
= Li
g
h
t
In
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
wi
t
h
sp
e
c
i
a
l
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
ML
/
C
G
= Li
g
h
t
In
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
/
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
So
u
r
c
e
:
Ci
t
y
of
Cu
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
,
20
1
4
.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PLACEWORKS 3-49
3.7.2.5 STUDY AREA 5 (CUPERTINO VILLAGE)
Existing Conditions
Study Area 5 (Cupertino Village) is located immediately adjacent to the Apple Campus 2 site on Homestead
Road, and is within the North Vallco Special Area. As shown on Figure 3-16, this Study Area is located in a
block bounded by Homestead Road to the north, North Wolfe Road to the east, Linnet Lane to the west,
and Pruneridge Avenue to the south.
This Study Area is located west of North Wolfe Road between Pruneridge Avenue and Homestead Road,
across from the Apple Campus 2 site, and is within the existing Vallco Park North Special Center and the
newly identified North Vallco Park Special Area described above in Section 3.6.1.2. This Study Area includes
the whole block north of Pruneridge Avenue except the northwest corner, where the Good Samaritan
United Methodist Church is located, and southwest corner, where the Arioso Apartment Complex is
located. This Study Area includes a large surface parking lot, which serves 40 different commercial
businesses within the block, including specialty retail stores, restaurants, professional offices, and financial
services. Immediately south of this Study Area is a bulk of the Arioso Apartment Complex, as well as Hilton
Garden Inn Cupertino and Courtyard Marriott. This Study Area has single-family development located
immediately to the west and single family development with some commercial development immediately to
the north located in the City of Sunnyvale. This Study Area has ongoing construction to accommodate a
previously entitled project with approximately 25,000 square feet of commercial development with
associated parking in a parking structure. Other than the Apple Campus 2 site, which is currently under
construction, this Study Area is largely surrounded by residential development, including both multi-family
residential development and single family houses.
This Study Area has five bus stops in the vicinity located along North Wolfe Road, as shown on Figure 3-16.
There are no parks or schools in the immediate vicinity of the Study Area.
This Study Area is currently has a Commercial/Office/Residential (C/O/R) General Plan land use
designation and is zoned as Planned Development with General Commercial and Residential uses (P(CG,
Res)).
Proposed Project
As shown in Table 3-14, under the proposed Project, Study Area 5 (Cupertino Village) would include
potential for redevelopment including mixed-use hotel, retail, and residential projects. The maximum height
would be 60 feet, up to 75 feet with retail development or up to 130 feet if it falls within the North Vallco
Gateway area if a project includes a retail component and provides community benefits. There are no
proposed changes to the General Plan land use designation; however, the Zoning designation would be
amended to Planned Development with General Commercial, Professional Office, and Residential uses
(P(CG, OP, Res)) to accommodate office uses.
City of
Sunnyvale
Gochi JapaneseFusion Tapas
City ofSunnyvale
Good SamaritanUnited Methodist Church
Apple 2CampusSite
%&'(280
1 2
1
3
HOMESTEAD RD
LI
N
N
E
T
L
N
NI
G
H
T
I
N
G
A
L
E
A
V
E
PARNELL PL
LO N D ON D E R RY DR LORNE WAY
PRU
NERID
G
E
AVE
OLIVEWOOD ST
KI
LL
D
E
E
R
CT
M
E
A
D
O
W
LAR K LN
S
W
O
L
F
E
R
D
N
W
O
L
F
E
R
D
SHETLANDPL
HERONAVE
MA
R
T
I
N
A
V
E
LA
R
K
L
N
PROJECT DESCRIPTIONCITY OF CUPERTINOGENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING PROJECT
Figure 3-16Study Area 5 (Cupertino Village)
Source: City of Cupertino, 2013; MIG, Inc, 2014; PlaceWorks, 2014; ESRI, 2010.
0250500125
Feet
1 Parcel ID NumbersStudy AreaCity Boundary
GE
N
E
R
A
L
P
L
A
N
A
M
E
N
D
M
E
N
T
,
H
O
U
S
I
N
G
E
L
E
M
E
N
T
U
P
D
A
T
E
,
A
N
D
A
S
S
O
C
I
A
T
E
D
R
E
Z
O
N
I
N
G
D
R
A
F
T
E
I
R
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PR
O
J
E
C
T
D
E
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
PL
A
C
E
W
O
R
K
S
3-51
TAB
L
E
3‐14
STU
D
Y
ARE
A
5 (C
UP
E
R
T
I
N
O
VIL
L
A
G
E
) EXI
S
T
I
N
G
AN
D
PRO
P
O
S
E
D
DEV
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T
STA
N
D
A
R
D
S
Ma
p
#
Te
n
a
n
t
/ Us
e
Ad
d
r
e
s
s
AP
N
Pa
r
c
e
l
Si
z
e
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
Si
z
e
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
Pl
a
n
Zo
n
i
n
g
Ma
x
i
m
u
m
Density Maximum Height
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Existing Proposed
1
St
a
r
b
u
c
k
s
/
Ba
n
k
of
th
e
We
s
t
11
1
1
1
No
r
t
h
Wo
l
f
e
Ro
a
d
31
6
‐05
‐07
2
0.
5
4
ac
5,
8
4
9
sf
C/
O
/
R
C/
O
/
R
P(
C
G
,
Re
s
)
P(
C
G
,
OP
,
Re
s
)
25
du
/
a
c
25
du/ac 1 story 60 feet 75 feeta
2
Cu
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
Vi
l
l
a
g
e
Sh
o
p
p
i
n
g
Ce
n
t
e
r
10
8
6
9
No
r
t
h
Wo
l
f
e
Ro
a
d
31
6
‐05
‐05
0
31
6
‐05
‐05
1
31
6
‐05
‐05
2
31
6
‐05
‐05
3
31
6
‐05
‐05
6
10
.
2
5
ac
93
,
2
0
0
sf
C/
O
/
R
C/
O
/
R
P(
C
G
,
Re
s
)
P(
C
G
,
OP
,
Re
s
)
25
du
/
a
c
25
du/ac 1 story 60 feet 75 feetb
3
Du
k
e
of
Ed
i
n
b
u
r
g
h
Pu
b
/
Re
s
t
a
u
r
a
n
t
/
Of
f
i
c
e
Us
e
s
10
8
0
1
No
r
t
h
Wo
l
f
e
Ro
a
d
31
6
‐45
‐01
7
1.
7
2
ac
14
,
0
9
6
sf
C/
O
/
R
C/
O
/
R
P(
C
G
,
Re
s
)
P(
C
G
,
OP
,
Re
s
)
25
du
/
a
c
25
du/ac 1 story 60 feet 75 feeta 130 feetc
To
t
a
l
12
.
5
1
ac
11
3
,
1
4
5
sf
No
t
e
:
sf
= sq
u
a
r
e
fe
e
t
,
ac
= ac
r
e
s
,
du
= dw
e
l
l
i
n
g
un
i
t
s
pe
r
ac
r
e
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
Pl
a
n
De
s
i
g
n
a
t
i
o
n
s
:
C/
O
/
R
= Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
/
O
f
f
i
c
e
/
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
,
Zo
n
i
n
g
de
s
i
g
n
a
t
i
o
n
s
:
P(
C
G
,
Re
s
)
= Pl
a
n
n
e
d
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
,
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
,
P(
C
G
,
OP
,
Re
s
)
= Mi
x
e
d
‐Us
e
Pl
a
n
n
e
d
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
(G
e
n
e
r
a
l
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
,
Pr
o
f
e
s
s
i
o
n
a
l
Of
f
i
c
e
,
Residential)
a.
wi
t
h
re
t
a
i
l
b.
al
o
n
g
Wo
l
f
e
Ro
a
d
on
l
y
fo
r
a 27
5
‐fo
o
t
wi
d
e
po
r
t
i
o
n
al
o
n
g
Wo
l
f
e
Ro
a
d
c.
wi
t
h
re
t
a
i
l
an
d
co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
be
n
e
f
i
t
s
wi
t
h
i
n
th
e
No
r
t
h
Va
l
l
c
o
Ga
t
e
w
a
y
ar
e
a
So
u
r
c
e
:
Ci
t
y
of
Cu
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
,
20
1
4
.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3-52 JUNE 18, 2014
3.7.2.6 STUDY AREA 6 (VALLCO SHOPPING DISTRICT)
Existing Conditions
Study Area 6 (Vallco Shopping District) is would be located within the South Vallco Park Gateway East and
West within the Heart of the City Special Area and is part of the Heart of the City Specific Plan area. As
shown in Figure 3-17, the Study Area is bounded by the I-280 to the north, portions of North Wolfe Road
and Perimeter Road to the east, Stevens Creek Boulevard to the south, and another portion of Perimeter
Road to the west. Currently, this Study Area is physically separated by North Wolfe Road, but connected via
an elevated bridge. This Study Area is considered the city’s regional shopping district and consists of many
retail stores, including major national retailers, such as Macy’s, Sears, and JC Penney. The Vallco Shopping
District also houses one of two movie theatres in the city, AMC Cupertino. Along with major retailers, there
are numerous restaurants, including national chain restaurants and high-end restaurants and a newly
constructed mixed use development with 204 multi-family units and 45,000 square feet of commercial
development. The Vallco Shopping District is surrounded with commercial uses to the south-east and south-
west of the site and office/industrial uses to the east. Single family residential development is located to the
west of the Study Area while there is a mixed-use multi-family development with 107 residential units
(Metropolitan) and a mixed-use office, commercial and residential (120 units) development (Main Street)
planned to the south-east of the Study Area. This Study Area includes nine bus stops providing public
transportation to and from the Study Area, as shown on Figure 3-17, and lies east of L.P. Collins Elementary
School and Portal Park, and to the northwest of Cupertino High School.
This Study Area is within the Commercial/Residential (C/R) General Plan land use designation and zoned
as Planned Development Regional Shopping (P(Regional Shopping)).
Proposed Project
Under the proposed Project, Study Area 6 (Vallco Shopping District) would include a major redesign of the
Vallco Shopping Mall area to create a “downtown” for Cupertino. Proposed uses would include commercial,
office, residential, public/quasi-public, and hotel. A majority of this Study Area is also a potential Housing
Element Site 11 (Vallco Shopping District except Rosebowl). In South Vallco Park Gateway West, maximum
heights would be 60 feet or up to 85 feet, if a project features a retail component and provides community
benefits. See Table 3-15 for a description of height allowanced by parcel.
In South Vallco Park Gateway East, maximum height would be 75 feet or up to 160 feet if a project includes
a retail component and provides community benefits. See Table 3-15 for a description of height allowanced
by parcel. As shown below in Table 3-15, zoning would be amended to Planned Development, Regional
Shopping, Professional Office, and Residential (P(Regional Shopping, OP, Res)) to allow for research and
development offices and residential uses. Further, the General Plan designations would be changed to
Commercial/Office/Residential (C/O/R) to allow for office uses in addition to commercial and residential
uses, which are the existing designations.
!(!(
!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(
!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(
%&'(280
APN: 316-45-017
%&'(280
City ofSanta Clara
4
8
2
5
13
14
1011
1512
9
1
16
6 7
17
3
P R U N E R I D G E A V E
S
B
L
A
N
E
Y
A
V
E
N
B
L
A
N
E
Y
A
V
E
AMHERST DR
G IA N NINIDR
MI
L
L
E
R
A
V
E
MERRITT DR
LI
N
N
E
T
L
N
FOREST AVE
STEVENS CREEK BLVD
CY
P
R
E
S
S
D
R
ME
A
D
O
W
A
V
E
WHEATON DR
AUBURN DR
ANCOCK DR
APPLE TREE LN
HO
W
A
R
D
D
R
HU
B
B
A
R
D
A
V
E
BIXBY DR
PEAR TREE LN
CEDAR TREE LN DRAKE DR
LO
W
E
L
L
D
R
N
W
O
L
F
E
R
D
OLIVEWOOD ST
C
A
R
O
L
L
E
E
D
R
BALDWIN DR
M
A
C
K
ENZ
IE
DR
VAL
L
C
O
P
K
W
Y
SHETLANDPL
C R AF T DR
V
I
L
L
A
D
E
A
N
Z
A
AVE
SHASTA DR
ST
E
R
N
A
V
E
JU
D
Y
A
V
E
BR
E
T
A
V
E
MELODY LN
PR
U
N
E
T
R
E
E
L
N
CH
E
R
R
Y
T
R
E
E
L
N
BEEKMAN PL
NO
R
W
I
C
H
A
V
E
RA
N
D
Y
L
N
FI
N
C
H
A
V
E
BL
A
N
E
Y
A
V
E
S
P
O
R
T
A
L
A
V
E
N
P
O
R
T
A
L
A
V
E
PL
U
M
T
R
E
E
L
N
S
T
A
N
T
A
U
A
V
E
B AY WO OD
D
R
E E
S
T
A
T
E
S
D
R
N
T
A
N
T
A
U
A
V
E
DE
N
I
S
O
N
A
V
E
CO
L
B
Y
A
V
E
RIDGE V IEW
CT
MY
E
R
P
L
CupertinoHigh SchoolBethelLutheran School
L.P. CollinsElementarySchool
PortalPark
PROJECT DESCRIPTIONCITY OF CUPERTINOGENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING PROJECT
Figure 3-17Study Area 6 (Vallco Shopping District)
Source: City of Cupertino, 2013; MIG, Inc, 2014; PlaceWorks, 2014; ESRI, 2010.
05001,000250
Feet
1 Parcel ID NumbersStudy Area
!(Bus StopsSchoolsParksCity Boundary
GE
N
E
R
A
L
P
L
A
N
A
M
E
N
D
M
E
N
T
,
H
O
U
S
I
N
G
E
L
E
M
E
N
T
U
P
D
A
T
E
,
A
N
D
A
S
S
O
C
I
A
T
E
D
R
E
Z
O
N
I
N
G
D
R
A
F
T
E
I
R
CI
T
Y
O
F
C
U
P
E
R
T
I
N
O
PR
O
J
E
C
T
D
E
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
3-
5
4
JUNE 18, 2014
TAB
L
E
3‐15
STU
D
Y
ARE
A
6 (V
AL
L
C
O
SHO
P
P
I
N
G
DIS
T
R
I
C
T
) EXI
S
T
I
N
G
AN
D
PRO
P
O
S
E
D
DEV
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T
STA
N
D
A
R
D
S
Ma
p
#
Te
n
a
n
t
/ Us
e
Ad
d
r
e
s
s
AP
N
Pa
r
c
e
l
Si
z
e
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
Si
z
e
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
Pl
a
n
Zo
n
i
n
g
Ma
x
i
m
u
m
Density Maximum Height
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Existing Proposed
1
AM
C
Th
e
a
t
e
r
10
1
2
3
No
r
t
h
Wo
l
f
e
Ro
a
d
31
6
‐20
‐10
3
1.
8
5
ac
93
,
3
3
2
sf
C/
R
C/
O
/
R
P(
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
Sh
o
p
p
i
n
g
)
P(
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
Sh
o
p
p
i
n
g
,
OP
,
Re
s
)
35
du
/
a
c
35
du/ac 60 feet 60 feet 75 feeta 85 feetb
2
Be
n
i
h
a
n
a
’
s
/
Bo
w
l
m
o
r
20
7
4
Va
l
l
c
o
Fa
s
h
i
o
n
Pa
r
k
31
6
‐20
‐10
0
3.
9
8
ac
44
2
,
8
1
3
sf
C/
R
C/
O
/
R
P(
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
Sh
o
p
p
i
n
g
)
P(
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
Sh
o
p
p
i
n
g
,
OP
,
Re
s
)
35
du
/
a
c
35
du/ac 60 feet 75 feet 90 feeta 160 feetc
3
Dy
n
a
s
t
y
Re
s
t
a
u
r
a
n
t
10
1
2
3
No
r
t
h
Wo
l
f
e
Ro
a
d
31
6
‐20
‐10
5
C/
R
C/
O
/
R
P(
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
Sh
o
p
p
i
n
g
)
P(
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
Sh
o
p
p
i
n
g
,
OP
,
Re
s
)
35
du
/
a
c
35
du/ac 60 feet 60 feet 75 feeta 85 feetb
4
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
Ma
l
l
10
1
2
3
No
r
t
h
Wo
l
f
e
Ro
a
d
31
6
‐20
‐10
7
31
6
‐20
‐08
1
C/
R
C/
O
/
R
P(
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
Sh
o
p
p
i
n
g
)
P(
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
Sh
o
p
p
i
n
g
,
OP
,
Re
s
)
35
du
/
a
c
35
du/ac 60 feet 60 feet 75 feeta 85 feetb
5
Pa
r
k
i
n
g
Ga
r
a
g
e
N/
A
31
6
‐20
‐10
7
5.
4
4
ac
69
8
sp
a
c
e
s
C/
R
C/
O
/
R
P(
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
Sh
o
p
p
i
n
g
)
P(
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
Sh
o
p
p
i
n
g
,
OP
,
Re
s
)
35
du
/
a
c
35
du/ac 60 feet 60 feet 75 feeta
6
Pa
r
k
i
n
g
Ga
r
a
g
e
N/
A
31
6
‐20
‐10
6
3.
2
5
ac
70
9
sp
a
c
e
s
C/
R
C/
O
/
R
P(
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
Sh
o
p
p
i
n
g
)
P(
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
Sh
o
p
p
i
n
g
,
OP
,
Re
s
)
35
du
/
a
c
35
du/ac 60 feet 60 feet 75 feeta
7
TG
I
Fr
i
d
a
y
’
s
10
3
4
3
No
r
t
h
Wo
l
f
e
Ro
a
d
31
6
‐20
‐10
4
1.
0
0
ac
8,
9
6
0
sf
C/
R
C/
O
/
R
P(
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
Sh
o
p
p
i
n
g
)
P(
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
Sh
o
p
p
i
n
g
,
OP
,
Re
s
)
35
du
/
a
c
35
du/ac 60 feet 60 feet 75 feeta 85 feetb
8
Al
e
x
a
n
d
e
r
’
s
St
e
a
k
h
o
u
s
e
10
3
3
0
No
r
t
h
Wo
l
f
e
Ro
a
d
31
6
‐20
‐09
9
0.
8
6
ac
10
,
2
4
3
sf
C/
R
C/
O
/
R
P(
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
Sh
o
p
p
i
n
g
)
P(
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
Sh
o
p
p
i
n
g
,
OP
,
Re
s
)
35
du
/
a
c
35
du/ac 60 feet 75 feet 90 feeta 160 feetc
9
Ma
c
y
’
s
10
3
3
3
Wo
l
f
e
Ro
a
d
31
6
‐20
‐10
1
4.
5
7
ac
17
6
,
9
6
2
sf
C/
R
C/
O
/
R
P(
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
Sh
o
p
p
i
n
g
)
P(
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
Sh
o
p
p
i
n
g
,
OP
,
Re
s
)
35
du
/
a
c
35
du/ac 60 feet 60 feet 75 feeta
10
Se
a
r
s
St
o
r
e
/
Ba
y
Cl
u
b
10
1
0
1
No
r
t
h
Wo
l
f
e
Ro
a
d
31
6
‐20
‐08
0
7.
6
4
ac
25
7
,
5
4
8
sf
C/
R
C/
O
/
R
P(
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
Sh
o
p
p
i
n
g
)
P(
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
Sh
o
p
p
i
n
g
,
OP
,
Re
s
)
35
du
/
a
c
35
du/ac 60 feet 60 feet 75 feeta 85 feetd
11
Au
t
o
Ce
n
t
e
r
10
1
0
1
No
r
t
h
Wo
l
f
e
Ro
a
d
31
6
‐20
‐08
2
4.
7
8
ac
15
,
5
5
6
sf
C/
R
C/
O
/
R
P(
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
Sh
o
p
p
i
n
g
)
P(
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
Sh
o
p
p
i
n
g
,
OP
,
Re
s
)
35
du
/
a
c
35
du/ac 60 feet 60 feet 75 feeta 85 feete
GE
N
E
R
A
L
P
L
A
N
A
M
E
N
D
M
E
N
T
,
H
O
U
S
I
N
G
E
L
E
M
E
N
T
U
P
D
A
T
E
,
A
N
D
A
S
S
O
C
I
A
T
E
D
R
E
Z
O
N
I
N
G
D
R
A
F
T
E
I
R
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PR
O
J
E
C
T
D
E
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
PL
A
C
E
W
O
R
K
S
3-55
TAB
L
E
3‐15
STU
D
Y
ARE
A
6 (V
AL
L
C
O
SHO
P
P
I
N
G
DIS
T
R
I
C
T
) EXI
S
T
I
N
G
AN
D
PRO
P
O
S
E
D
DEV
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T
STA
N
D
A
R
D
S
Ma
p
#
Te
n
a
n
t
/ Us
e
Ad
d
r
e
s
s
AP
N
Pa
r
c
e
l
Si
z
e
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
Si
z
e
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
Pl
a
n
Zo
n
i
n
g
Ma
x
i
m
u
m
Density Maximum Height
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Existing Proposed
12
Pa
r
k
i
n
g
Ga
r
a
g
e
N/
A
31
6
‐20
‐08
1
3.
6
8
ac
41
8
sp
a
c
e
s
C/
R
C/
O
/
R
P(
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
Sh
o
p
p
i
n
g
)
P(
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
Sh
o
p
p
i
n
g
,
OP
,
Re
s
)
35
du
/
a
c
35
du/ac 60 feet 60 feet 75 feeta
13
JC
Pe
n
n
e
y
10
1
5
0
No
r
t
h
Wo
l
f
e
Ro
a
d
31
6
‐20
‐09
4
10
.
0
8
ac
20
2
,
3
6
0
sf
C/
R
C/
O
/
R
P(
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
Sh
o
p
p
i
n
g
)
P(
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
Sh
o
p
p
i
n
g
,
OP
,
Re
s
)
35
du
/
a
c
35
du/ac 60 feet 75 feet 90 feeta 160 feetc
14
Pa
r
k
i
n
g
Ga
r
a
g
e
N/
A
31
6
‐20
‐09
5
2.
7
3
ac
72
5
sp
a
c
e
s
C/
R
C/
O
/
R
P(
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
Sh
o
p
p
i
n
g
)
P(
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
Sh
o
p
p
i
n
g
,
OP
,
Re
s
)
35
du
/
a
c
35
du/ac 60 feet 75 feet 90 feeta 160 feetc
15
Ro
s
e
Bo
w
l
Mi
x
e
d
‐Us
e
10
0
8
8
N.
Wo
l
f
e
Ro
a
d
31
6
‐20
‐10
8
5.
8
5
ac
59
,
8
2
7
sf
20
4
un
i
t
s
C/
R
C/
R
P(
C
G
,
OP
,
ML
,
Re
s
)
P(
C
G
,
OP
,
ML
,
Re
s
)
35
du
/
a
c
35
du/ac 60 feet 75 feet 90 feeta
16
KC
R
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
N/
A
31
6
‐20
‐09
2
2.
1
2
ac
va
c
a
n
t
C/
R
C/
O
/
R
P(
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
Sh
o
p
p
i
n
g
)
P(
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
Sh
o
p
p
i
n
g
,
OP
,
Re
s
)
35
du
/
a
c
35
du/ac N/A 75 feet 90 feeta 160 feetc
17
Si
m
e
o
n
N/
A
31
6
‐20
‐08
8
5.
1
8
ac
va
c
a
n
t
C/
R
C/
O
/
R
P(
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
Sh
o
p
p
i
n
g
)
P(
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
Sh
o
p
p
i
n
g
,
OP
,
Re
s
)
35
du
/
a
c
35
du/ac N/A 60 feet 75 feeta
To
t
a
l
63
.
0
1
ac
1,
2
6
7
,
6
0
1
sf
2,
5
5
0
pa
r
k
i
n
g
ga
r
a
g
e
sp
a
c
e
s
(d
o
e
s
no
t
in
c
l
u
d
e
su
r
f
a
c
e
sp
a
c
e
s
)
20
4
un
i
t
s
No
t
e
:
sf
= sq
u
a
r
e
fe
e
t
,
ac
= ac
r
e
s
,
du
/
a
c
= dw
e
l
l
i
n
g
un
i
t
s
pe
r
ac
r
e
,
N/
A
= no
t
ap
p
l
i
c
a
b
l
e
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
Pl
a
n
De
s
i
g
n
a
t
i
o
n
s
:
C/
O
/
R
= Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
/
O
f
f
i
c
e
/
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
,
C/
R
= Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
/
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
Zo
n
i
n
g
de
s
i
g
n
a
t
i
o
n
s
:
P(
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
Sh
o
p
p
i
n
g
)
= Pl
a
n
n
e
d
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
,
P(
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
Sh
o
p
p
i
n
g
,
OP
,
Re
s
)
= Pl
a
n
n
e
d
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
Re
g
i
o
n
a
l
Sh
o
p
p
i
n
g
,
Pl
a
n
n
e
d
Of
f
i
c
e
,
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
:
a.
wi
t
h
re
t
a
i
l
.
b.
al
o
n
g
Wo
l
f
e
Ro
a
d
wi
t
h
re
t
a
i
l
an
d
co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
be
n
e
f
i
t
s
.
c.
wi
t
h
re
t
a
i
l
an
d
co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
be
n
e
f
i
t
s
.
d.
al
o
n
g
St
e
v
e
n
s
Cr
e
e
k
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
an
d
Wo
l
f
e
Ro
a
d
wi
t
h
re
t
a
i
l
an
d
co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
be
n
e
f
i
t
s
.
e.
al
o
n
g
St
e
v
e
n
s
Cr
e
e
k
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
wi
t
h
re
t
a
i
l
an
d
co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
be
n
e
f
i
t
s
.
So
u
r
c
e
:
Ci
t
y
of
Cu
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
,
20
1
4
.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3-56 JUNE 18, 2014
3.7.2.7 STUDY AREA 7 (STEVENS CREEK OFFICE CENTER)
Existing Conditions
Study Area 7 (Stevens Creek Office Center) is located within the Heart of the City Special Area. As shown
on Figure 3-18, this Study Area is located on Stevens Creek Boulevard, mid-block between Stelling Road
and Saich Way. It is bounded by Alves Drive to the north and Stevens Creek Boulevard to the south, and by
Whole Foods Market, Abundant Life Church to the west and single-family residences to the northwest;
Saich Way is located approximately 115 feet to the east of the Study Area’s eastern boundary.
This Study Area would be located in the North Crossroads Node within the Heart of the City Special Area,
one of the major commercial areas in the city, with major retailers like Target, Whole Food Market, and
Staples, among others, located nearby. To the east of Study Area 7 (Stevens Creek Office Center), a new
16,000-square-foot retail project (Saich Way Station) entitled in mid-2013 will begin construction in
Spring/Summer 2014. Cupertino Sports Center (a City-run athletic club), Memorial Park (the only park in
the city where major community events occur), and the Senior Center are only a block away from this Site.
De Anza College is less than a half block away from the Study Area.
Within the Study Area, most of the building area is occupied with medical and research and development
offices and a few commercial uses, including Peet’s Coffee and Tea and Panera Bread over four parcels for a
total of 6.99 acres. There are three bus stops in the vicinity of the Study Area, as shown on Figure 3-18,
including the closest bus stop located on Saich Way.
This Study Area is currently within the Commercial/Office/Residential (C/O/R) General Plan land use
designation and zoned as Planned Development with General Commercial and Residential uses (P(CG,
Res)) with a residential density allowed of 25 du/ac.
Proposed Project
As shown in Table 3-16, under the proposed Project, Study Area 7 (Stevens Creek Office Center) could
include new hotel, commercial, and residential mixed-use development with a maximum height of 60 feet,
or up to 75 feet if a project includes a retail component. Most of this Study Area (except Peet’s Coffee and
Panera Bread) is also being considered as Housing Element Site 15 (Stevens Creek Office Center), which is
discussed in more detail below in Section 3.7.4.15.
There would be no changes to the General Plan land use destination; however, the Zoning designation
would be amended to Planned Development with General Commercial, Professional Offices and
Residential uses (P(CG, OP, Res)). The allowed residential density on this Study Area would be increased to
allow for up to 40 du/ac.
!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(
!(!(
!(!(!(!(
TargetHappy DaysChildDevelopment
WholeFoodsMarket
Abundant Life Church
Future Saich WayStation Retail Project
2
1
UN
I
T
E
D
P
L
BANDLEY D R
FREEDOM DR
ALVES DR
CHRISTENSEN DR
P AR K CI RCLEGL
E
N
C
O
E
D
R
PATRIOT WAY
SENATE
WAY
STEVENS CREEK BLVD
LAZANEO DR
PA
R
K
C
I
R
C
L
E
E
PA
R
K
C
I
R
C
L
E
W
S
S
T
E
L
L
I
N
G
R
D
BE
A
R
D
O
N
D
R
SA
I
C
H
W
A
Y
N
S
T
E
L
L
I
N
G
R
D
ELENDA DR
BI
A
N
C
H
I
W
A
Y
De AnzaCollege
!(14!(15
PROJECT DESCRIPTIONCITY OF CUPERTINOGENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING PROJECT
Figure 3-18Study Area 7 (Stevens Creek Office Center)
Source: City of Cupertino, 2013; MIG, Inc, 2014; PlaceWorks, 2014; ESRI, 2010.
0200400100
Feet
Study AreaHousing Site
!(Bus StopsSchools
3
1 Parcel ID Numbers
GE
N
E
R
A
L
P
L
A
N
A
M
E
N
D
M
E
N
T
,
H
O
U
S
I
N
G
E
L
E
M
E
N
T
U
P
D
A
T
E
,
A
N
D
A
S
S
O
C
I
A
T
E
D
R
E
Z
O
N
I
N
G
D
R
A
F
T
E
I
R
CI
T
Y
O
F
C
U
P
E
R
T
I
N
O
PR
O
J
E
C
T
D
E
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
3-
5
8
JUNE 18, 2014
TAB
L
E
3‐16
STU
D
Y
ARE
A
7 (S
TE
V
E
N
S
CRE
E
K
OFF
I
C
E
CEN
T
E
R
) EXI
S
T
I
N
G
AN
D
PRO
P
O
S
E
D
DEV
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T
STA
N
D
A
R
D
S
Ma
p
#
Te
n
a
n
t
/ Us
e
Ad
d
r
e
s
s
AP
N
Pa
r
c
e
l
Si
z
e
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
Si
z
e
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
Pl
a
n
Zo
n
i
n
g
Ma
x
i
m
u
m
De
n
s
i
t
y
Maximum Height
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Existing Proposed
1
Pa
n
e
r
a
Br
e
a
d
/
Pe
e
t
’
s
Co
f
f
e
e
20
8
0
7
St
e
v
e
n
s
Cr
e
e
k
Bl
v
d
.
32
6
‐32
‐05
1
0.
6
8
ac
7,
1
0
0
sf
C/
O
/
R
C/
O
/
R
P(
C
G
,
Re
s
)
P (C
G
,
OP
,
Re
s
)
25
du
/
a
c
40
du
/
a
c
2 stories 60 feet 75 feeta
2
St
e
v
e
n
s
Cr
e
e
k
Of
f
i
c
e
Ce
n
t
e
r
20
8
8
3
/ 20
8
1
3
/
20
8
3
3
St
e
v
e
n
s
Cr
e
e
k
Bl
v
d
.
32
6
‐32
‐05
0
32
6
‐32
‐05
2
32
6
‐32
‐05
3
6.
3
1
ac
10
8
,
4
9
1
sf
C/
O
/
R
C/
O
/
R
P(
C
G
,
Re
s
)
P (C
G
,
OP
,
Re
s
)
25
du
/
a
c
40
du
/
a
c
1 story 60 feet 75 feeta
To
t
a
l
6.
9
9
ac
11
5
,
5
9
1
sf
No
t
e
:
sf
= sq
u
a
r
e
fe
e
t
,
ac
= ac
r
e
s
,
du
/
a
c
= dw
e
l
l
i
n
g
un
i
t
s
pe
r
ac
r
e
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
Pl
a
n
De
s
i
g
n
a
t
i
o
n
s
:
C/
O
/
R
= Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
/
O
f
f
i
c
e
/
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
,
Zo
n
i
n
g
de
s
i
g
n
a
t
i
o
n
s
:
P(
C
G
,
Re
s
)
= Pl
a
n
n
e
d
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
(C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
,
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
)
a.
wi
t
h
re
t
a
i
l
So
u
r
c
e
:
Ci
t
y
of
Cu
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
,
20
1
4
.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PLACEWORKS 3-59
3.7.3 OTHER SPECIAL AREAS INCLUDING NEIGHBORHOODS AND
NON-RESIDENTIAL/MIXED-USE SPECIAL AREAS
Existing Conditions
The current General Plan includes residential and non-residential Special Centers within specific locations.
As shown on Figure 3-4 above, these Special Centers include Neighborhood Centers, Commercial Centers,
Employment Centers and Education/Cultural Centers in defined geographical locations. The current
General Plan also includes a development allocation category referred to as Major Employers, which is
geographically non-specific and reserved for companies with sales offices and corporate headquarters in
Cupertino.
Neighborhood Centers identified in the current General Plan include the Monta Vista, Oak Valley, and
Fairgrove neighborhoods. The Education/Cultural Center includes the De Anza College. The Employment
Centers under the current General Plan include Bubb Road, North De Anza Boulevard, City Center and
Vallco Park North. The Commercial Centers include Homestead Road, South De Anza, Heart of the City
Specific Plan and Vallco Park South.
Proposed Project
Figure 3-19 illustrates the proposed Other Special Areas including Neighborhoods and Non-
Residential/Mixed-Use Special Areas under the proposed Project.
City of Sunnyvale
%&'(280
|ÿ85
City of San Jose
City of
Santa Clara
Santa Clara
County
Santa Clara
County
City of
Los Altos
City of Saratoga
|ÿ85
City of Sunnyvale
1
2
73 6
5
4
HOMESTEAD
VILLA
OAK
VALLEY CRESTON-PHARLAP
MONTA
VISTA
NORTH
MONTA
VISTA
VILLAGE
JOLLYMAN
RANCHO
RINCONADA
FAIR
GROVE
NORTH
BLANEY
GARDEN
GATE
INSPIRATION
HEIGHTS
MONTA
VISTA
SOUTH
SOUTH
BLANEY
S
B
L
A
N
E
Y
A
V
E
B O LL I N G E R RD
N
STELLING
RD
B
U
B
B
R
D
NTANTAU
AVE
S
DE
ANZA
BLVD
BLANEY
AVE
FOOTHILL
BLVD
N
FOOTHILL
BLVD
RAINBOW DR
S
STE
L
L
I
N
G
R
D
HOMESTEAD RD
PR U N ERIDGE AVE
M
I
L
L
ER
AVE
STEVENS CREEK BLVD
S
TANTAU
AVE
G
R
A
N
T
R
D
N
DE
ANZA
BLVD N
BLANEY
AVE
P RO S P ECT RD
MCCLELLAN RD
HO
L
L
E
N
B
E
C
K
A
V
E
N
WOLFE
RD
PROJECT DESCRIPTIONCITY OF CUPERTINOGENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING PROJECT
Figure 3-19Other Special Areas including Neighborhoods and Non-Residential/Mixed-Use Special Areas
Source: City of Cupertino, 2013; MIG, Inc, 2014; PlaceWorks, 2014.
0 0.5 10.25
Miles
Other Special AreasBubb Road Special AreaMonta Vista Village NeighborhoodParks
1. West side of Stevens Canyon Rd. across from McClellan Rd. (Housing Site 9)2. Foothill Blvd. and Stevens Creek Blvd. (Housing Site 8)3. Homestead Rd. near Foothill Blvd. (Homestead Crossing Shopping Center)4. NW Corner of Bollinger Rd. and Blaney Ave. (Pacific Rim Shopping Center)5. Southeast Corner of McClellan Rd. and Bubb Rd. (7-11)6. Homestead Rd. between Homestead High and west of Norada (7-11)7. Northeast corner of Homestead Rd. and SR 85 (gas station)
Other NeighborhoodsOther Non-Residential Mixed-Use Special Areas
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PLACEWORKS 3-61
Under the proposed Project, no land use or zoning designation changes would occur to the Oak Valley and
Fairgrove neighborhoods or the Education/Cultural Center. However, new neighborhood names and
boundaries would be made to the Other Neighborhood and the declassification of Educational/Cultural
Center would occur under the proposed Project. However, these changes are purely related to the text
changes of the General Plan and boundary change on the Land Use Map, and would not change the
allowable land uses or increase development potential. There is no further discussion of these changes are
included in this EIR.
The majority of the proposed changes to the existing Commercial Centers and Employment Centers shown
on Figure 3-19 would occur in the Special Areas previously discussed in detail in Section 3.7.1, Special Areas
Along Major Transportation Corridors Including Gateways and Nodes, with the exception of the Bubb Road
Special Area, which is discussed below.
The proposed Project includes changes to areas referred to as Other Neighborhoods and Other
Commercial/Mixed-Use Special Areas that include residential and commercial areas that are outside the
boundaries of the five Special Areas Along Major Transportation Corridors.
The following discussion includes a description of the existing conditions and proposed changes to the
Monta Vista Neighborhood, the Bubb Road Special Area, Other Neighborhoods and Other Non-Residential
Mixed-Use Special Areas, including renaming these locations from Special Centers to Special Areas and the
identification of specific Neighborhoods. Changes to the geographically non-specific ‘Major Employers’
development allocation category are also discussed below.
3.7.3.1 MONTA VISTA VILLAGE NEIGHBORHOOD
Existing Conditions
The Monta Vista Village Neighborhood was a farming and second home community since the later 1800s and
is now a residential, commercial, and industrial neighborhood.14 As shown on Figure 3-19, this
neighborhood is centrally located in Cupertino. As shown in Table 3-17, there is no remaining development
allocation for office space or hotel rooms; however, there is commercial allocation of 5,784 square feet and
residential allocation for up to 94 units at 12 du/ac. The maximum height in this neighborhood is 30 feet.
14 City of Cupertino, 2005 General Plan, page 2-20.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3-62 JUNE 18, 2014
TABLE 3‐17 MONTA VISTA VILLAGE NEIGHBORHOOD EXISTING AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Development Allocation Maximum Density Height
Remaining Proposed Difference Existing Proposed Existing Proposed
Office 0 sf 15,231 sf + 15,231 sf
30 feet 30 feet Commercial 5,784 sf 12,895 sf + 18,679 sf
Hotel 0 rooms 0 rooms 0 rooms
Residential 74 units 27 units + 101 units 12 du/ac 12 du/ac 30 feet 30 feet
Note: sf = square feet, ac = acres, du = dwelling units per acre
Source: City of Cupertino, 2014.
Proposed Project
As shown in Table 3-17, under the proposed Project, the Monta Vista Village would remain at a residential
density of 12 du/ac for all areas except the area that currently has a residential density of 7.7-12 du/ac, and
an additional 101 units would be permitted in this area. Additional development allocation in this
neighborhood includes an increase of 15,231 square feet for office, and an increase of 18,679 square feet
(12,895 square feet net increase) for commercial uses.
The General Plan land use designation for the area between Granada Avenue and Olive Avenue, east and
west of Pasadena Avenue would change to a density range of 10-15 du/ac and the zoning designation would
change from Planned Residential (P(Res 7.7-12)) to P(Res 10-15). This change is proposed to reflect the
existing development pattern in the neighborhood of four-plexes and tri-plexes to retain the development
potential of the properties in that area.
3.7.3.2 BUBB ROAD SPECIAL AREA
Existing Conditions
As shown on Figure 3-19, the Bubb Road Special Area is located along Bubb Road and Results Way and is
generally bounded by Stevens Creek Boulevard to the north, McClellan Road to the south, SR 85 to the
east, and the Monta Vista Village Neighborhood to the west. This Special Area consists primarily of light
industrial and office uses, and serves as an employment center.15 There is currently no remaining
development allocation for office and commercial uses; however, there is residential allocation for up to 94
units at 20 du/ac. The maximum height allowed in this Special Area is 45 feet.
15 City of Cupertino,2000-2020 General Plan, Figure 2-B.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PLACEWORKS 3-63
Proposed Project
As shown in Table 3-18, under the proposed Project the Bubb Road Special Area would remain at 20 du/ac,
but no new residential units would be allocated in this area because the existing 94 unit residential allocation
will be re-allocated to other areas of the city more appropriate for residential development.16 Additional
development allocation in this Special Area would be 100,000 square feet for office uses. There are no
proposed General Plan land use designations or Zoning designation changes for this Special Area under the
proposed Project.
TABLE 3‐18 BUBB ROAD SPECIAL AREA EXISTING AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Development Allocation Maximum Density Height
Remaining Proposed Difference Existing Proposed Existing Proposed
Office 0 sf 0 sf 0 sf
45 feet 45 feet Commercial 0 sf 100,000 sf +100,000 sf
Hotel 0 rooms 0 rooms 0 rooms
Residential 94 units 0 units ‐94 units 20 du/ac 20 du/ac 45 feet 45 feet
Note: sf = square feet, ac = acres, du = dwelling units per acre
Source: City of Cupertino, 2014.
3.7.3.3 OTHER NEIGHBORHOODS
Existing Conditions
As shown on Figure 3-19, the Other Neighborhood are dispersed across the majority of the city. Other
Neighborhoods generally consist of residential areas not located in Non-Residential/Mixed-Use Special
Areas. The existing development allocation in the Other Neighborhoods is 241 residential units. The
maximum height is 30 feet. The density varies from 1 to 35 du/ac depending on the location.
Proposed Project
As previously discussed, under the proposed Project, no land use or zoning designation changes would occur
to the existing Oak Valley and Fairgrove neighborhoods; however, new neighborhood names and boundaries
16 As shown in Table 3-2, the remaining total residential allocation is 479 units throughout the Bubb Road Special Areas The proposed
Project includes 521 units, which is an increase of 42 additional residential units in the Special Area. This increase results from 50 proposed
units in the Other Non-Residential/Mixed-Use Special Areas, 27 proposed units in the Monta Vista Village and 59 proposed units in the Other
Neighborhood Special Areas for a total of 136 proposed units. The 136 proposed units minus the 94 currently permitted in the Bubb Road
Special Area equals 42 new units in the Special Areas.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3-64 JUNE 18, 2014
would be established under the proposed Project. The new neighborhood names are commonly used by the
residents of Cupertino, and this process will formalize the neighborhood names and define their boundaries
on a map. No new development potential would occur as result of the new names or boundary
identification.
The proposed names of the Neighborhood Special Areas include:
1. Creston
2. Oak Valley
3. Fairgrove
4. Monta Vista Village
5. Monta Vista North
6. Monta Vista South
7. Pharlap
8. Inspiration Heights
9. Jollyman
10. Garden Gate
11. North Blaney
12. South Blaney
13. Rancho Rinconada
Under the proposed Project, an additional 59 residential units would be permitted in the Zoning
designations described above for a total of 300 units. The existing density and height standards would remain
the same under the proposed Project. There are no proposed General Plan land use designations or Zoning
designation changes for the Other Neighborhoods under the proposed Project.
3.7.3.4 OTHER NON-RESIDENTIAL MIXED-USE SPECIAL AREAS
Existing Conditions
The proposed Project includes Commercial Centers that are dispersed throughout the city and outside the
boundaries of the existing Special Centers. These Other Commercial Centers are composed of properties/
areas where mixed-use office and commercial developments with some properties where housing might be
allowed. As shown in Table 3-19, there is no remaining office commercial or hotel room development
allocation at these locations; however, there is a remaining residential allocation of 70 units at 15 du/ac and
the maximum permitted height is 30 feet.
Proposed Project
Under the proposed Project, as shown in Table 3-19, a maximum of 10,000 square feet of office uses,
75,000 square feet of commercial uses and 120 residential units would be permitted throughout these
locations. The Other Commercial Centers category would be reclassified as Other Non-residential/Mixed-
Use Special Areas. There are no changes to the permitted residential density or building heights under the
proposed Project, with the exception of Housing Element Site 8 (Bateh Bros.) and Housing Element Site 9
(Foothill at McClellan Center – Foothill Market), which would increase residential density to 35 du/ac and
25 dwelling units respectively.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PLACEWORKS 3-65
TABLE 3‐19 OTHER NON‐RESIDENTIAL/MIXED‐USE SPECIAL AREAS EXISTING AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS
Development Allocation Density Height
Existing Proposed Difference Existing Proposed Existing Proposed
Office 0 sf 10,000 sf 10,000 sf
30 feet 30 feet Commercial 0 sf 75,000 sf 75,000 sf
Hotel 0 rooms 0 rooms 0 rooms
Residential 70 units 50 units 120 units 15 du/aca 15 du/aca 30 feet 30 feet
Note: sf = square feet, ac = acres, du = dwelling units per acre
a. Except certain Housing Element Sites with different densities
Source: City of Cupertino, 2014.
3.7.3.5 MAJOR EMPLOYERS
Existing Conditions
Major Employers is a development allocation category under the current General Plan that is reserved for
companies with sales offices and corporate headquarters in Cupertino. The existing development allocation
for Major Employers is 523,118 square feet of office use. There is no commercial, hotel, or residential
allocation remaining for this category.
Proposed Project
Under the proposed Project, an additional development allocation of 101,882 square feet of office use
would be permitted in the Major Employers development allocation category, for a total of 625,000 square
feet of office use at Project buildout.
3.7.4 HOUSING ELEMENT SITES
As previously stated, the proposed Project includes a comprehensive update to the City’s Housing Element
in compliance with State law.17 State law requires that each city and county update its Housing Element on a
pre-determined cycle. For this cycle, the City’s Housing Element Update must be adopted by January 31,
2015, not including a 120-day grace period. If the adoption deadline is met, the planning period for this
cycle extends from adoption to January 31, 2023, or eight years. However, if the deadline is not met, the
City must update the Housing Element again in 2019, or every four years. The proposed Housing Element’s
17 California Government Code Section 65580 through 65589.8.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3-66 JUNE 18, 2014
policies and programs are intended to guide the City’s housing efforts through the 2014 to 2022 Housing
Element period.18 Under State housing law, the General Plan Housing Element must:
Identify and analyze goals, policies, quantified objectives, financial resources, and scheduled programs to
maintain, preserve, improve, and develop housing.
Include an assessment of existing and projected housing needs for all income levels.
Identify adequate sites that will be zoned and available within the 2015 to 2023 RHNA cycle to meet
the City’s RHNA for all income levels.
Be submitted for Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for review and
comment.
The RHNA is an estimate of projected needed housing units throughout the State and is based on
Department of Finance population projections and regional population forecasts. The RHNA estimates are
also correlated with long-term regional transportation plans. The HCD allocates the RHNA to each region.
In the Bay Area, the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), the regional planning agency, is tasked
with the responsibility of developing a regional housing plan—with a RHNA for each jurisdiction—to meet
existing and future housing needs.
The RHNA identifies Cupertino’s housing needs by income levels. As shown in Table 3-20, the income levels
are separated into four categories: very low, low, moderate, and above moderate. The City’s housing needs
allocation for the period of 2014 to 2022 is 1,064 new housing units. 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, to satisfy the RHNA under existing zoning and
land use policy. The HCD generally requires jurisdictions to show a surplus of sites/units in order to
guarantee that the City could realistically accommodate the RHNA allocations.
TABLE 3‐20 CITY OF CUPERTINO REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ALLOCATION (RHNA)
Income Group RHNA
Very Low (Up to 50 Percent of Area Median Income) 356
Low (Between 51 and 80 Percent of Area Median Income) 207
Moderate (Between 81 and 120 Percent of Area Median Income) 231
Above Moderate (Above 120 Percent of Area Median Income) 270
Total 1,064
Note: The California Department of Housing and Community Development sets income limits for each of these income categories for
every county in California. More information is available at: http://www.hcd.ca.gov/hpd/hrc/rep/state/incNote.html.
Source: ABAG, Regional Housing Need Plan, San Francisco Bay Area: 2014‐2022.
18 The RHNA cycle is offset slightly and covers the period from 2014 to 2022.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PLACEWORKS 3-67
The proposed and required housing would occur within the city boundaries and would not extend into the
Cupertino SOI. The locations of the potential housing sites are listed in Table 3-21 and shown on Figure
3-20. The suitability of the sites was determined by: applying the HCD Site Criteria, the Sustainable
Communities Strategy/Plan Bay Area criteria regarding what makes a desirable housing site in the ABAG
region, and the current General Plan; and through an extensive process involving community workshops,
public comment, review by the City’s Housing Commission and Planning Commission, and then direction
provided by the Cupertino City Council. Figures 3-21 through 3-39 show an aerial photograph of each of
the potential housing sites and their adjacent land uses.
As stated above, the HCD generally requires jurisdictions to show a surplus of sites/units in order to
guarantee that the City could realistically accommodate the RHNA allocation. As shown in Table 3-21, the
development of all 19 potential housing sites under the proposed Project would result in a net increase in
housing in Cupertino of 3,477 new residential units between 2014 and 2040. However, the maximum
number for the residential allocation would be 4,421 units, a net new development of 2,526 units above the
current General Plan buildout numbers.
In the context of planning, residential density is the amount of residential units within a given area. The City
currently calculates residential density as “gross” density, which is the number of units divided by the acreage
of the entire area. Under the proposed Project, the City would change the process of calculating residential
density to “net” density, which is the number of units divided by the acreage of residential land. The
residential density under the proposed Project as described in this chapter has been calculated by net
density.
GE
N
E
R
A
L
P
L
A
N
A
M
E
N
D
M
E
N
T
,
H
O
U
S
I
N
G
E
L
E
M
E
N
T
U
P
D
A
T
E
,
A
N
D
A
S
S
O
C
I
A
T
E
D
R
E
Z
O
N
I
N
G
D
R
A
F
T
E
I
R
CI
T
Y
O
F
C
U
P
E
R
T
I
N
O
PR
O
J
E
C
T
D
E
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
3-
6
8
JUNE 18, 2014
TAB
L
E
3‐21
HOU
S
I
N
G
ELE
M
E
N
T
SIT
E
S
EXI
S
T
I
N
G
AN
D
PRO
P
O
S
E
D
DEV
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T
STA
N
D
A
R
D
S
Si
t
e
#
Ad
d
r
e
s
s
AP
N
Lo
t
Ar
e
a
(a
c
r
e
s
)
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
Us
e
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
Pl
a
n
Zo
n
i
n
g
Ma
x
i
m
u
m
De
n
s
i
t
y
(d
u
/
a
c
)
Capacity (du/ac)
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Existing Realistic Yield Net
1
20
0
0
7
St
e
v
e
n
s
Cr
e
e
k
Bl
v
d
.
31
6
‐23
‐09
3
1.
7
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
C/
O
/
R
C/
O
/
R
P(
C
G
,
Re
s
)
P(
C
G
,
Re
s
)
25
25
0 36 36
10
0
4
1
N.
Bl
a
n
e
y
Av
e
31
6
‐23
‐03
6
20
0
2
1
St
e
v
e
n
s
Cr
e
e
k
Bl
v
d
.
31
6
‐23
‐03
3
2
19
9
3
0
St
e
v
e
n
s
Cr
e
e
k
Bl
v
d
.
36
9
‐05
‐00
9
2.
8
3
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
C/
O
/
R
C/
O
/
R
P(
C
G
,
Re
s
)
P(
C
G
,
Re
s
)
25
25
0 58 58
19
9
3
6
St
e
v
e
n
s
Cr
e
e
k
Bl
v
d
.
36
9
‐05
‐01
0
19
9
0
0
St
e
v
e
n
s
Cr
e
e
k
Bl
v
d
.
36
9
‐05
‐03
8
3
10
0
2
5
Ea
s
t
Es
t
a
t
e
s
36
9
‐06
‐00
2
4.
8
6
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
C/
O
/
R
C/
O
/
R
P(
C
G
,
Re
s
)
P(
C
G
,
Re
s
)
25
25
0 103 103
10
0
7
5
Ea
s
t
Es
t
a
t
e
s
36
9
‐06
‐00
3
10
0
7
5
Ea
s
t
Es
t
a
t
e
s
36
9
‐06
‐00
4
19
5
4
1
Ri
c
h
w
o
o
d
Dr
.
36
9
‐06
‐00
5
19
5
5
0
St
e
v
e
n
s
Cr
e
e
k
Bl
v
d
.
36
9
‐06
‐00
7
10
0
5
5
Mi
l
l
e
r
Av
e
.
36
9
‐06
‐01
1
4
19
1
6
0
St
e
v
e
n
s
Cr
e
e
k
Bl
v
d
.
37
5
‐07
‐00
1
0.
5
5
Va
c
a
n
t
C/
O
/
R
C/
O
/
R
P(
C
G
,
Re
s
)
P(
C
G
,
Re
s
)
25
25
0 11 11
5
10
1
6
0
Pa
r
k
w
o
o
d
32
6
‐27
‐03
6
31
.
3
4
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
Me
d
/
H
i
g
h
De
n
s
i
t
y
(1
0
‐20
du
/
a
c
)
Me
d
/
H
i
g
h
De
n
s
i
t
y
(1
0
‐20
du
/
a
c
)
R3
(
1
0
‐20
)
R3
(
1
0
‐20
)
20
20
517 610 93
21
2
9
7
Pa
r
k
w
o
o
d
32
6
‐27
‐03
7
6
20
8
0
0
Va
l
l
e
y
Gr
e
e
n
Dr
.
32
6
‐09
‐04
0
27
.
1
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
Me
d
/
H
i
g
h
De
n
s
i
t
y
(1
0
‐20
du
/
a
c
)
Me
d
/
H
i
g
h
De
n
s
i
t
y
(1
0
‐20
du
/
a
c
)
R3
R3
20
20
468 530 62
20
9
7
5
Va
l
l
e
y
Gr
e
e
n
Dr
.
32
6
‐09
‐04
1
20
9
9
0
Va
l
l
e
y
Gr
e
e
n
Dr
.
32
6
‐09
‐05
3
20
8
0
0
Va
l
l
e
y
Gr
e
e
n
Dr
.
32
6
‐09
‐05
4
20
8
7
5
Va
l
l
e
y
Gr
e
e
n
Dr
.
32
6
‐09
‐06
4
7
20
7
0
5
Va
l
l
e
y
Gr
e
e
n
Dr
.
32
6
‐10
‐04
6
7.
9
8
Of
f
i
c
e
Li
g
h
t
In
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
O/
I
/
C
/
R
O/
I
/
C
/
R
P(
C
G
,
ML
,
Re
s
)
P(
C
G
,
ML
,
Re
s
)
25
25
0 169 169
GE
N
E
R
A
L
P
L
A
N
A
M
E
N
D
M
E
N
T
,
H
O
U
S
I
N
G
E
L
E
M
E
N
T
U
P
D
A
T
E
,
A
N
D
A
S
S
O
C
I
A
T
E
D
R
E
Z
O
N
I
N
G
D
R
A
F
T
E
I
R
CITY OF CUPERTINO PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PL
A
C
E
W
O
R
K
S
3-69
TAB
L
E
3‐21
HOU
S
I
N
G
ELE
M
E
N
T
SIT
E
S
EXI
S
T
I
N
G
AN
D
PRO
P
O
S
E
D
DEV
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T
STA
N
D
A
R
D
S
Si
t
e
#
Ad
d
r
e
s
s
AP
N
Lo
t
Ar
e
a
(a
c
r
e
s
)
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
Us
e
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
Pl
a
n
Zo
n
i
n
g
Ma
x
i
m
u
m
De
n
s
i
t
y
(d
u
/
a
c
)
Capacity (du/ac)
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Existing Realistic Yield Net
8
22
6
9
0
St
e
v
e
n
s
Cr
e
e
k
Bl
v
d
.
Va
r
i
o
u
s
0.
6
7
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
C/
R
C/
R
P(
C
G
)
P(
C
G
,
Re
s
)
15
35
0 19 19
9
10
6
2
5
S.
Fo
o
t
h
i
l
l
Bl
v
d
.
34
2
‐16
‐08
7
1.
3
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
C/
R
C/
R
P(
C
G
)
P(
C
G
,
Re
s
)
15
25
0 27 27
10
19
5
0
0
Pr
u
n
e
r
i
d
g
e
Av
e
.
31
6
‐06
‐03
2
12
.
4
4
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
Hi
g
h
De
n
s
i
t
y
(2
0
‐35
DU
/
G
r
Ac
)
Hi
g
h
De
n
s
i
t
y
(G
r
e
a
t
e
r
th
a
n
35
du
/
a
c
)
P(
R
e
s
)
‐70
P(
R
e
s
)
25
11
0
342 1,162 820
19
5
0
0
Pr
u
n
e
r
i
d
g
e
Av
e
.
31
6
‐06
‐03
7
11
10
1
2
3
N.
Wo
l
f
e
Rd
.
Va
r
i
o
u
s
47
.
8
3
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
C/
‐/R
C/
O
/
R
P(
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
Sh
o
p
p
i
n
g
)
P(
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
Sh
o
p
p
i
n
g
,
OP
,
Re
s
)
35
35
0 800 800
10
1
5
0
N.
Wo
l
f
e
Rd
.
N.
Wo
l
f
e
Rd
31
6
‐20
‐09
2
12
20
9
1
6
Ho
m
e
s
t
e
a
d
Rd
.
32
6
‐09
‐05
2
5.
1
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
C/
R
C/
R
P(
C
G
)
P (C
G
,
Re
s
)
35
35
0 151 151
20
9
5
6
Ho
m
e
s
t
e
a
d
Rd
.
32
6
‐09
‐06
1
P(
C
G
)
20
9
9
0
Ho
m
e
s
t
e
a
d
Rd
.
32
6
‐09
‐06
0
P(
R
e
c
,
En
t
)
10
9
9
0
N.
St
e
l
l
i
n
g
Rd
.
32
6
‐09
‐05
1
P(
R
e
c
,
En
t
)
13
10
0
2
9
Ju
d
y
Av
e
.
37
5
‐07
‐04
6
1.
2
9
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
C/
O
/
R
C/
O
/
R
P(
C
G
,
Re
s
)
P(
C
G
,
Re
s
)
25
25
0 27 27
19
0
6
0
St
e
v
e
n
s
Cr
e
e
k
Bl
v
d
.
37
5
‐07
‐04
5
14
10
1
1
8
Ba
n
d
l
e
y
Av
e
.
32
6
‐34
‐06
6
6.
8
6
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
C/
O
/
R
C/
O
/
R
P(
C
G
,
Re
s
)
P(
C
G
,
Re
s
)
25
40
0 232 232
15
20
8
2
3
St
e
v
e
n
s
Cr
e
e
k
Bl
v
d
.
32
6
‐32
‐05
3
6.
3
1
Of
f
i
c
e
C/
O
/
R
C/
O
/
R
P(
C
G
,
Re
s
)
P(
C
G
,
OP
,
Re
s
)
25
40
0 214 214
16
14
7
1
S.
De
An
z
a
Bl
v
d
.
36
6
‐19
‐05
5
4.
4
6
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
C/
O
/
R
C/
O
/
R
P(
C
G
,
Re
s
5‐
15
)
P(
C
G
,
Re
s
)
15
40
0 154 154
14
9
1
S.
De
An
z
a
Bl
v
d
.
36
6
‐19
‐05
3
15
0
5
S.
De
An
z
a
Bl
v
d
.
36
6
‐19
‐05
4
14
5
1
S.
De
An
z
a
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
36
6
‐19
‐04
4
GE
N
E
R
A
L
P
L
A
N
A
M
E
N
D
M
E
N
T
,
H
O
U
S
I
N
G
E
L
E
M
E
N
T
U
P
D
A
T
E
,
A
N
D
A
S
S
O
C
I
A
T
E
D
R
E
Z
O
N
I
N
G
D
R
A
F
T
E
I
R
CI
T
Y
O
F
C
U
P
E
R
T
I
N
O
PR
O
J
E
C
T
D
E
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
3-
7
0
JUNE 18, 2014
TAB
L
E
3‐21
HOU
S
I
N
G
ELE
M
E
N
T
SIT
E
S
EXI
S
T
I
N
G
AN
D
PRO
P
O
S
E
D
DEV
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T
STA
N
D
A
R
D
S
Si
t
e
#
Ad
d
r
e
s
s
AP
N
Lo
t
Ar
e
a
(a
c
r
e
s
)
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
Us
e
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
Pl
a
n
Zo
n
i
n
g
Ma
x
i
m
u
m
De
n
s
i
t
y
(d
u
/
a
c
)
Capacity (du/ac)
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Existing Realistic Yield Net
17
21
0
2
0
,
21
0
4
0
,
21
0
6
0
,
21
0
7
0
Ho
m
e
s
t
e
a
d
Rd
.
32
6
‐07
‐02
0
5.
4
2
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
Of
f
i
c
e
C/
R
C/
R
P(
C
G
)
P(
C
G
,
Re
s
)
15
35
0 161 161
32
6
‐07
‐03
6
32
6
‐07
‐02
2
32
6
‐07
‐03
4
32
6
‐07
‐03
3
32
6
‐07
‐03
2
18
21
2
5
5
St
e
v
e
n
s
Cr
e
e
k
Bl
v
d
.
32
6
‐27
‐03
9
7.
9
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
C/
O
/
R
C/
O
/
R
P(
C
G
)
P(
C
G
,
OP
,
Re
s
)
25
35
0 235 235
32
6
‐27
‐99
9
32
6
‐27
‐04
1
32
6
‐27
‐04
0
19
19
2
0
0
St
e
v
e
n
s
Cr
e
e
k
Bl
v
d
.
37
5
‐06
‐00
5
4.
9
8
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
Of
f
i
c
e
C/
O
/
R
C/
O
/
R
P(
C
G
,
Re
s
)
P(
C
G
,
Re
s
)
25
25
0 105 105
19
2
2
0
St
e
v
e
n
s
Cr
e
e
k
Bl
v
d
.
37
5
‐06
‐00
7
19
2
8
0
St
e
v
e
n
s
Cr
e
e
k
Bl
v
d
.
37
5
‐06
‐00
6
TO
T
A
L
18
1
.
0
4
1,327 4,804a 3,477
No
t
e
s
:
AP
N
= As
s
e
s
s
o
r
’
s
Pa
r
c
e
l
Nu
m
b
e
r
,
du
/
a
c
= dw
e
l
l
i
n
g
un
i
t
s
pe
r
ac
r
e
Zo
n
i
n
g
Ac
r
o
n
y
m
s
:
P = Mi
x
e
d
‐Us
e
Pl
a
n
n
e
d
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
,
CG
= Ge
n
e
r
a
l
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
,
Re
s
= Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
,
OP
= Of
f
i
c
e
/
P
l
a
n
n
e
d
Of
f
i
c
e
:
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
Pl
a
n
Ac
r
o
n
y
m
s
:
C/
R
= Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
/
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
,
C/
O
/
R
= Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
/
O
f
f
i
c
e
/
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
a.
Wh
i
l
e
th
i
s
ta
b
l
e
sh
o
w
s
a re
a
l
i
s
t
i
c
yi
e
l
d
of
4,
8
0
4
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
un
i
t
s
,
as
sh
o
w
n
in
Ta
b
l
e
3‐2 in
Se
c
t
i
o
n
3.
7
of
th
i
s
ch
a
p
t
e
r
,
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
in
c
l
u
d
e
s
a ma
x
i
m
u
m
of
4,
4
2
1
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
un
i
t
s
.
The housing sites in this table are being
ev
a
l
u
a
t
e
d
in
th
i
s
Dr
a
f
t
EI
R
to
pr
o
v
i
d
e
a br
o
a
d
ev
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
to
ai
d
in
th
e
Ci
t
y
’
s
ul
t
i
m
a
t
e
se
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
of
ho
u
s
i
n
g
si
t
e
s
to
be
in
c
l
u
d
e
d
in
th
e
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
El
e
m
e
n
t
.
Th
e
ma
x
i
m
u
m
ho
u
s
i
n
g
th
a
t
wo
u
l
d
be
permitted under the proposed Project is
4,
4
2
1
un
i
t
s
.
So
u
r
c
e
:
Ci
t
y
of
Cu
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
,
20
1
4
.
City of Sunnyvale
%&'(280
|ÿ85
City of San Jose
City of
Santa Clara
Santa Clara
County
City of
Los Altos
Santa
Clara
County
!(1
!(2
!(3 !(4
!(5
!(6 !(7
!(8
!(9
!(10
!(11
!(12
!(13
!(14!(15
!(16
!(17
!(18
!(19
S
B
L
A
N
E
Y
A
V
E
N
B
L
A
N
E
Y
A
V
E
B O L L I N G ER RD
N
S
T
E
L
L
I
N
G
R
D
B
U
B
B
R
D
NTANTAU
AVE
S
D
E
A
N
Z
A
B
L
V
D
BL
A
N
E
Y
A
V
E
N
FOOTHILL
BLVD
RAINBOW DR
S
S
T
E
L
L
I
N
G
R
D
H OME STE AD RD
PR U N E RIDGE AVE
MI
L
L
E
R
A
V
E
STEVENS CREEK BLVD
S
TANTAU
AVE
G
R
A
N
T
R
D
N
D
E
A
N
Z
A
B
L
V
D
P R O SP E CT RD
MCCLELLAN RD
N
W
O
L
F
E
R
D
S
W
O
L
F
E
R
D
Monta VistaRecreationCenter/Park
LindaVista Park
Deep CliffGolf Course
McClellanRanchPreserve
BlackberryFarm Park
SomersetSquarePark
VarianPark MemorialPark
ThreeOaks Park
HooverPark
JollymanPark
CaliMillPlaza
LibraryField
WilsonPark CreeksidePark
PortalPark
SterlingBarnhartPark
FrancoPark
Potential Housing SitesParksCity Boundary
PROJECT DESCRIPTIONCITY OF CUPERTINOGENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING PROJECT
Figure 3-20Potential Housing Sites
Source: City of Cupertino, 2013; MIG, Inc, 2014; PlaceWorks, 2014; ESRI, 2010.
0 0.5 10.25
Miles
!(16
3
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3-72 JUNE 18, 2014
3.7.4.1 HOUSING ELEMENT SITE 1 (SHAN RESTAURANT)
Existing Conditions
Housing Element Site 1 (Shan Restaurant) is located within the Heart of the City Special Area, as shown in
Figure 3-21. This Housing Element Site is located on the northwest corner of Stevens Creek Boulevard and
North Blaney Avenue, one parcel to the east of the former University of San Francisco (USF) South Bay
Regional Campus.
The Site comprises three parcels totaling approximately 1.7 acres, is designated under the current General
Plan as Commercial/Office/Retail (C/O/R), and is zoned Planned Development with General
Commercial, and Residential (P(CG, Res)). The maximum residential density currently permitted at this
Site is 25 du/ac, with a maximum height of 45 feet.
The largest parcel (1.35 acres) at this Site is currently occupied with a restaurant and a large surface parking
lot. Over the last few years, a number of businesses have unsuccessfully operated at this Site. This Site is
located along one of the major Special Areas in Cupertino, in close proximity to services and public
transportation.
The large parcel in this Site was included in the 2007 Housing Element. To improve site potential and allow
for better site design and integration of future projects, two smaller, additional parcels have been added to
the original site. The two smaller parcels are occupied with a dance studio and a convenience store. The
large parcels and the smaller parcel occupied by the convenience store are under common ownership.
This Housing Element Site is generally surrounded by commercial, office, and residential uses. L.P. Collins
Elementary School and Portal Park are located two blocks north of this Site.
Proposed Project
Under the proposed Project, there would be no changes to the General Plan land use designation, zoning, or
density. However, maximum height would remain 45 feet. As shown in Table 3-21, future development
under the proposed Project could result in up to 36 net residential units.
!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(
VISTA CT
BIXBY DR
MC
L
A
R
E
N
P
L
WHEATON DR
CHAVOYA DR
RI
E
D
E
L
P
L
BI
L
I
C
H
P
L
S
B
L
A
N
E
Y
A
V
E
VI
S
T
A
D
R
MY
E
R
P
L
TO
R
R
E
A
V
E
M
E
L
L
O
P
L
C
A
R
O
L
L
E
E
D
R
CO
L
B
Y
A
V
E
N
B
L
A
N
E
Y
A
V
E
RA
N
D
Y
L
N
STEVENS CREEK BLVD
PortalPark
!(1
Housing Element Site
!(Bus StopsParks
PROJECT DESCRIPTIONCITY OF CUPERTINOGENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING PROJECT
Figure 3-21Housing Element Site 1 (Shan Restaurant)
Source: City of Cupertino, 2013; MIG, Inc, 2014; PlaceWorks, 2014; ESRI, 2010.
0200400100
Feet
3
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3-74 JUNE 18, 2014
3.7.4.2 HOUSING ELEMENT SITE 2 (ARYA/SCANDINAVIAN DESIGN)
Existing Conditions
Housing Element Site 2 (Arya/Scandinavian Design) is located within the Heart of the City Special Area, as
shown in Figure 3-22. This Site is generally located near the southeast corner of Stevens Creek Boulevard
between South Blaney Avenue and South Portal Avenue.
This Site comprises three parcels totaling approximately 2.83 acres, are designated as
Commercial/Office/Retail (C/O/R) under the current General Plan, and are zoned Planned Development
with General Commercial and Residential (P(CG, Res)). The maximum residential density currently
permitted at this Site is 25 du/ac, with a maximum height of 45 feet.
The two smaller parcels on the west side of this Site are currently occupied with a 1955 restaurant building
and an adjoining surface parking lot which are under common ownership. There has been substantial
turnover of businesses at this Site, indicating the difficult nature of the Site for commercial use in its existing
form.
The larger parcel on the east side of the Site is currently used as a commercial building built in 1975 with
surface parking and is occupied by Scandinavian Designs furniture store. The building is set back from
Stevens Creek Boulevard and is configured specifically for a furniture store. Due to the unique configuration
of this Site and building, future re-tenanting for commercial uses other than a furniture store would be
difficult. The structure is bordering on economically difficult and has high potential for turnover.
Surrounding land uses include commercial, office, and residential. This Housing Element Site was included
in the 2007 Housing Element.
This Housing Element Site is located along Stevens Creek Boulevard, a major transportation corridor in
Cupertino, in close proximity to services and public transportation.
Wilson Park is located approximately two blocks south of the Site and Portal Park just north of the Site.
Cupertino High School and Bethel Lutheran School are located in the vicinity, approximately three-quarters
mile from this Site. There is one bus stop on Stevens Creek Boulevard near this Site.
Proposed Project
Under the proposed Project, there would be no changes to the General Plan land use designation, zoning, or
density. As shown in Table 3-21, future development under the proposed Project could result in up to 58
new residential units.
!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(
AV
O
C
A
D
O
P
L
BIXBY DR
S
B
L
A
N
E
Y
A
V
E
S
P
O
R
T
A
L
A
V
E
ME
L
L
O
P
L
N
P
O
R
T
A
L
A
V
E
N
B
L
A
N
E
Y
A
V
E
PRICE AVE
STEVENS CREEK BLVD
!(2
Housing Element Site
!(Bus Stops
PROJECT DESCRIPTIONCITY OF CUPERTINOGENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING PROJECT
Figure 3-22Housing Element Site 2 (Arya/Scandinavian Design)
Source: City of Cupertino, 2013; MIG, Inc, 2014; PlaceWorks, 2014; ESRI, 2010.
015030075
Feet
3
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3-76 JUNE 18, 2014
3.7.4.3 HOUSING ELEMENT SITE 3 (UNITED FURNITURE/EAST OF EAST ESTATES
DRIVE)
Existing Conditions
Housing Element Site 3 (United Furniture/East of East Estates Drive) is located within the Heart of the
City Special Area, as shown in Figure 3-23. This Site is located at the southwest corner of Stevens Creek
Boulevard and Miller Avenue and includes the properties on both sides of Estates Drive north of Richwood
Drive.
This Site comprises six parcels totaling approximately 4.86 acres, is designated as
Commercial/Office/Retail (C/O/R) under the current General Plan, and is zoned Planned Development
with General Commercial and Residential (P(CG, Res)). The maximum residential density currently
permitted at this Site is 25 du/ac, with a maximum height of 45 feet.
This Site is currently occupied with commercial uses and is generally surrounded by commercial, office, and
residential uses. The three parcels on the west side of Estates Drive are occupied by an older strip mall with
a mix of occupied and vacant retail spaces. The strip mall was built in 1960. The three parcels are held in
common ownership and lot consolidation would not be necessary.
The parcels on the west side of Estates Drive were included in the 2007 Housing Element as a housing site.
Given the high level of expressed developer interest in this Site, three additional parcels on the east side of
Estates Drive are added to the original Site. The three parcels are currently used for commercial purposes
and are occupied by a gas station, a restaurant and a dental office.
Housing Element Site 3 (United Furniture/East of East Estates Drive) is one of the top redevelopment
opportunities in the city due to its prime location on Stevens Creek Boulevard. Future development on this
large Site could capture a portion of the road for a cohesive development and benefit from its prime
location at the city’s core.
This Site is located across the street from the city’s largest shopping center, enjoys easy freeway access, and
is located in an area that is best served by public transportation in the city. This Housing Element Site is also
located next to existing residential neighborhoods. The Vallco Shopping Mall is located directly across
Stevens Creek Boulevard to the north, and is also Study Area 6 (Vallco Shopping District). Cupertino High
School and Bethel Lutheran School are located approximately one and one half blocks east of this Site.
Developers have consistently expressed interest in redeveloping this Site.
Proposed Project
Under the proposed Project, there would be no changes to the General Plan land use designation, zoning, or
density. As shown in Table 3-21, future development under the proposed Project could result in up to 103
net residential units.
!(!(!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(!(!(
!(!(
!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(
WHEATON DR
RICHWOOD CT
VIC
K
S
B
U
R
G
D
R
BIXBY DR
M
I
L
L
E
R
A
V
E
WINTERGREEN DR
SORENSON AVE
CO
L
D
H
A
R
B
O
R
A
V
E
N
W
O
L
F
E
R
D
FI
N
C
H
A
V
E
PE
R
I
M
E
T
E
R
R
D
CRAF
T
D
R
RIC
H
W
O
O
D
D
R
E E
S
T
A
T
E
S
D
R
STEVENS CREEK BLVD
CupertinoHigh SchoolBethelLutheranSchool
Wilson Park
!(3
Housing Element Site
!(Bus StopsParksSchools
PROJECT DESCRIPTIONCITY OF CUPERTINOGENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING PROJECT
Figure 3-23Housing Element Site 3 (United Furniture/East of East Estates Drive)
Source: City of Cupertino, 2013; MIG, Inc, 2014; PlaceWorks, 2014; ESRI, 2010.
0200400100
Feet
3
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3-78 JUNE 18, 2014
3.7.4.4 HOUSING ELEMENT SITE 4 (BARRY SWENSON)
Existing Conditions
Housing Element Site 4 (Barry Swenson) is located within the Heart of the City Special Area, as shown in
Figure 3-24. This Site is located along the south side of Stevens Creek Boulevard, mid-block between Finch
Avenue and North Tantau Avenue.
This Housing Element Site has one parcel totaling approximately 0.55 acres, is designated as
Commercial/Office/Retail (C/O/R) under the current General Plan, and is zoned Planned Development
with General Commercial and Residential (P(CG, Res)). The maximum residential density currently
permitted at this Site is 25 du/ac, with a maximum height of 45 feet. Although the Site is relatively small
(approximately half an acre) its location on Stevens Creek Boulevard and in the Heart of the City District
supports relatively dense multifamily residential development.
Housing Element Site 4 (Barry Swenson) is currently vacant and is located adjacent to Housing Element Site
19 (Cypress Building Association/Hall property). This Housing Element Site is located along one of the
major transportation corridors in Cupertino, in close proximity to services and public transportation. The
Site is located across the street from the 17.4-acre Main Street mixed-use project that is currently under
development. Main Street is a high intensity development expected to be a major community focal point.
The owner of this Site has expressed interest in developing for a residential use, including affordable
products. This Housing Element Site was included in the 2007 Housing Element.
Generally, this Housing Element Site is surrounded by commercial, office, and residential uses. Additionally,
the Vallco Shopping Mall is located directly across Stevens Creek Boulevard to the north, which is also Study
Area 6 (Vallco Shopping District). Cupertino High School is located less than one-quarter mile to the south.
Proposed Project
Under the proposed Project, there would be no changes to the General Plan land use designation, zoning, or
density. As shown in Table 3-21, future development under the proposed Project could result in up to 11 net
residential units.
!(!(!(
!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(
COZETTE LN
ANNE LN
N
T
A
N
T
A
U
A
V
E
SORENSON AVE
FI
N
C
H
A
V
E
CRAFT DR
S
T
A
N
T
A
U
A
V
E
JU
D
Y
A
V
E
BR
E
T
A
V
E
STEVENS CREEK BLVD
CupertinoHigh School
BethelLutheranSchool
!(4
Housing Element Site
!(Bus Stops
SchoolsCity Boundary
PROJECT DESCRIPTIONCITY OF CUPERTINOGENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING PROJECT
Figure 3-24Housing Element Site 4 (Barry Swenson)
Source: City of Cupertino, 2013; MIG, Inc, 2014; PlaceWorks, 2014; ESRI, 2010.
015030075
Feet
3
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3-80 JUNE 18, 2014
3.7.4.5 HOUSING ELEMENT SITE 5 (GLENBROOK APARTMENTS)
Existing Conditions
Housing Element Site 5 (Glenbrook Apartments) is located within the Heart of the City Special Area at its
northwestern most boundary, as shown in Figure 3-25. This Site is located east of SR 85 and is accessed by
Mary Avenue. This Housing Element Site is also directly adjacent to Cupertino Memorial Park.
This Housing Element Site comprises two parcels totaling approximately 31.34 acres, is designated as
Medium to High Density (10 to 20 du/ac) under the current General Plan, and is zoned as Multi-Family
Residential (R3(10-20)). The maximum residential density currently permitted at this Site is 20 du/ac,
with a maximum height of 45 feet.
This Housing Element Site contains the Glenbrook Apartments. Spanning across 31.3 acres, the Site can
accommodate 626 units under existing zoning, which allows for a density of 20 dwelling units to the acre.
However, the Glenbrook Apartments only contains 517 units, resulting in additional potential for up to 109
residential units. Assuming Glenbrook Apartments is able to achieve 85 percent of this Site’s remaining
capacity, the realistic yield for Site 5 is 93 new units. Similar to the Biltmore Apartments, Glenbrook
Apartments has large areas of land dedicated to carpor ts. As was done in the Biltmore development, the
carport areas can be converted to ground floor parking with new units above. Additional units could be
constructed without affecting existing residential units at this Site.
This Housing Element Site was recommended to be a Housing Element Site by members of the public
during the last housing element cycle and the community supports the expansion of the Glenbrook
Apartments.
This Housing Element Site is generally surrounded by single- and multi-family residential uses.
Proposed Project
Under the proposed Project, there would be no changes to the General Plan land use designation, zoning, or
density. As shown in Table 3-21, future development under the proposed Project could result in up to 93
new residential units.
!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(
!(!(
|ÿ85
AN
S
ON
A
V
E
GRAND
A
V
E
UNIVERSITY WAY
FIT ZGER
A
L
D
D
R
AN
N
A
R
B
O
R
A
V
E
ALVES DR
N
O
E
L
A
V
E
AN
T
O
N
W
A
Y
P
E
N
I
N
S
U
L
A
A
V
E
PATRIOT WAY
G LEN PL
C HR I STEN SE N DR
AL
H
A
M
B
R
A
A
V
E
L A UR ET TA DR
E
M
P
I
R
E
A
V
E
S
T
O
K
E
S
A
V
E
HAZELBROOK DR
S
A
N
T
A
C
L
A
R
A
A
V
E
RUMFORD DR
MARY AVE
PAR K W O O D D R
MemorialPark
!(5
Housing Element Site
!(Bus StopsParks
PROJECT DESCRIPTIONCITY OF CUPERTINOGENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING PROJECT
Figure 3-25Housing Element Site 5 (Glenbrook Apartments)
Source: City of Cupertino, 2013; MIG, Inc, 2014; PlaceWorks, 2014; ESRI, 2010.
0 250 500125
Feet
3
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3-82 JUNE 18, 2014
3.7.4.6 HOUSING ELEMENT SITE 6 (THE VILLAGES APARTMENTS)
Existing Conditions
Housing Element Site 6 (The Villages Apartments) is not located within a Special Area but is located in the
Garden Gate Neighborhood. It is situated directly south of the Homestead Special Area on the south side of
I-280, and directly west of the North De Anza Special Area to the west of Housing Element Site (Carl Berg
Property) as shown on Figure 3-26. This Site is located along North Stelling Road as it crosses I-280.
This Site has five parcels totaling approximately 27.1 acres, is designated as Medium to High Density (10 to
20 du/ac) under the current General Plan, and is zoned Multi-Family Residential (R3). The maximum
residential density currently permitted at this Site is 20 du/ac, with a maximum height of 30 feet.
This Housing Element Site is currently occupied with high-density residential uses totaling 468 units and is
generally surrounded by single- and multi-family housing, along with some commercial uses to the east of
this Site. Similar to the Glenbrook Apartments site, the Villages of Cupertino is not built to the maximum
allowable density. The property can accommodate a total of 542 units under existing zoning. Currently the
development contains 468 units, allowing for up to 74 additional units to be built. Assuming the Villages of
Cupertino is able to achieve 85 percent of the Site’s remaining capacity, the realistic yield for this Housing
Element Site is 62 new units.
The Villages of Cupertino have large green spaces that exceed the City’s open space requirements that can
be developed with new units. The Villa Serra development expanded in this way by constructing units on
surplus open space and recreation areas. This Housing Element Site was recommended as a potential
Housing Element Site by members of the public during the last housing element cycle and the community
supports the expansion of the Villages of Cupertino.
Proposed Project
Under the proposed Project, there would be no changes to the General Plan land use designation, zoning, or
density. As shown in Table 3-21, future development under the proposed Project could result in up to 62 net
residential units.
!(!(
!(!(!(!(
!(!(
!(!(!(!(
!(!(
!(!(!(
!(
%&'(280
HA
L
E
P
L
GA
R
D
E
N
A
C
T
GL
E
N
C
O
E
D
R
BE
A
R
D
O
N
D
R
AN
N
A
R
B
O
R
A
V
E
ACADIA CT
GARDENA DR
N OR A NDA
D
R
MARIANI AVE
VALLEY GR EEN DR
GRENOLA DR
B
A
N
D
L
E
Y
D
R
N
S
T
E
L
L
I
N
G
R
D
CELESTE CIR
GREENLEAF DR
D U N B AR DR
HomesteadHigh School
Garden GateElementary
!(6
!(6
Housing Element Site
!(Bus Stops
SchoolsCity Boundary
PROJECT DESCRIPTIONCITY OF CUPERTINOGENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING PROJECT
Figure 3-26Housing Element Site 6 (The Villages Apartments)
Source: City of Cupertino, 2013; MIG, Inc, 2014; PlaceWorks, 2014; ESRI, 2010.
0250500125
Feet
3
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3-84 JUNE 18, 2014
3.7.4.7 HOUSING ELEMENT SITE 7 (CARL BERG PROPERTY)
Existing Conditions
Housing Element Site 7 (Carl Berg Property) is located within the North De Anza Boulevard Special Area,
as shown on Figure 3-27. This Site is located on Valley Green Drive, approximately 375 feet west of North
De Anza Boulevard.
This Site has one parcel totaling approximately 7.98 acres, has a General Plan land use designation of
Office/Industrial/Commercial/Residential (O/I/C/R), and is zoned as Planned Development with
General Commercial, Light Industrial and Residential (P(CG, ML, Res)). The maximum residential density
currently permitted at this Housing Element Site is 25 du/ac with a maximum height of 45 feet.
This Site is generally surrounded by residential, office, and commercial uses.
This Housing Element Site, which was built on in 1975, currently has light industrial (research and office)
uses with a large amount of surface parking. The potential residential capacity of this Site may provide a
strong economic incentive for future redevelopment of this Site.
This Housing Element Site is ideal for housing because it is adjacent to an existing residential neighborhood,
including newer multifamily residential development across the street. Additionally, the Site is accessible to
neighborhood amenities, including an elementary school and restaurant and retail uses. This Site was
included in the 2007 Housing Element.
Proposed Project
Under the proposed Project, there would be no changes to the designation, zoning, or density. As shown in
Table 3-21, future development under the proposed Project could result in up to 169 new residential units.
The maximum height would be 75 feet.
!(!(!(
%&'(280
MARIANI AVE
BE
A
R
D
O
N
D
R
VIA PALA
M
O
S
ACADIA CT
CELESTE CIR
VA
L
L
E
Y
G
R
E
E
N
D
R
B
A
N
D
L
E
Y
D
R
GREENLEAF DR
IN
F
I
N
I
T
E
L
O
O
P
N
D
E
A
N
Z
A
B
L
V
D
!(7
Housing Element Site
!(Bus Stops
City Boundary
PROJECT DESCRIPTIONCITY OF CUPERTINOGENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING PROJECT
Figure 3-27Housing Element Site 7 (Carl Berg Property)
Source: City of Cupertino, 2013; MIG, Inc, 2014; PlaceWorks, 2014; ESRI, 2010.
0200400100
Feet
3
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3-86 JUNE 18, 2014
3.7.4.8 HOUSING ELEMENT SITE 8 (BATEH BROS.)
Existing Conditions
Housing Element Site 8 (Bateh Bros.) is located outside of the Special Areas and Study Areas. This Site is
identified as an Other Commercial Center in the current General Plan as shown on Figure 3-28.The Site is
located on the southwest corner of the Stevens Creek Boulevard and Foothill Boulevard.
This Site has three parcels totaling .67 acre, is designated as Commercial/Residential (C/R) under the
current General Plan, and is zoned as Planned Development with General Commercial (P(CG)). The
maximum residential density currently permitted on the Site is 15 du/ac, with a maximum height of 30
feet.
This Housing Element Site is partially developed with a convenience store. The majority of the Site is
unimproved and only partially unpaved. The property owner has expressed interest in redeveloping the
property, including residential units. This Site’s location on City's west side was recommended by the public
as a way to distribute housing throughout the city.
This Site is surrounded by residential uses to the west and south and has existing commercial developments
to the east. There is an existing residential cluster development and commercial development to the north
of the Site.
Monta Vista Park is located approximately one-quarter mile to the south of this Site. The nearest schools to
this Housing Element Site are the Monta Vista High School, Stevens Creek Elementary School and Lincoln
Elementary School. The Santa Clara County Fire Department’s Monta Vista Fire Station is less than one
block away from the Site on Stevens Creek Boulevard.
Proposed Project
Under the proposed Project, the site would be re-designated as an Other Non-Residential/Mixed-Use
Special Area within the Inspiration Heights Neighborhood.
There would be no changes to the General Plan land use designation; however, the Zoning designation
would be amended to Planned Development with General Commercial and Residential P(CG, Res) to allow
for residential uses, and density would be increased to 35 du/ac. The maximum height would remain at 30
feet. As shown in Table 3-21, future development under the proposed Project could result in up to 19 net
residential units.
!(!(
!(!(
!(!(
LO
N
G
O
A
K
L
N
SILVER OAK CT
SI
L
V
E
R
O
A
K
L
N
QUEENS OAK CT
N
F
O
O
T
H
I
L
L
B
L
V
D
J
A
N
I
C
E
A
V
E
STEVENS CREEK BLVD
PR
A
D
O
V
I
S
T
A
R
D
CAMINO
VISTA
DR
FO
O
T
H
I
L
L
B
L
V
D
RAMONA CT
!(8
Housing Element Site
!(Bus Stops
PROJECT DESCRIPTIONCITY OF CUPERTINOGENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING PROJECT
Figure 3-28Housing Element Site 8 (Bateh Bros.)
Source: City of Cupertino, 2013; MIG, Inc, 2014; PlaceWorks, 2014; ESRI, 2010.
010020050
Feet
3
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3-88 JUNE 18, 2014
3.7.4.9 HOUSING ELEMENT SITE 9 (FOOTHILL AT MCCLELLAN CENTER –
FOOTHILL MARKET)
Existing Conditions
Housing Element Site 9 (Foothill at McClellan Center – Foothill) is located outside of Special Areas and
Study Areas. This Site is identified as an Other Commercial Center in the current General Plan. As shown on
Figure 3-29, this Site is located on the west side of South Foothill Boulevard near the intersection of Stevens
Canyon Road and St. Andrews Avenue intersection.
This Housing Element Site has one parcel totaling 1.3 acres and is designated as Commercial/Residential
(C/R) under the current General Plan and is zoned Planned Development with General Commercial
(P(CG)). The maximum residential density currently permitted on the Site is 15 du/ac, with a maximum
height of 30 feet.
This Housing Element Site is developed with a single story small commercial strip shopping center and large
surface parking lot and is surrounded by single-family residential uses. Current tenants of the center include
a small convenience market, coffee shop, beauty shop, and a self-service coin laundry wash. This Housing
Element Site has a high potential for redevelopment given the low intensity of uses on this Site and the
property owner’s expressed interest to redevelop. This Site’s location on the City's west side was
recommended by the public as a way to distribute housing throughout the city.
The McClellan Ranch Park is located approximately one-quarter mile to the east and the Monta Vista Park is
located approximately one-quarter mile to the north of the Site. The nearest schools to this housing site
include the Monta Vista High School and the Lincoln Elementary School approximately one-half mile to the
east.
Proposed Project
Under the proposed Project, the site would be identified as an Other Non-Residential/Mixed-Use Special
Area in the Inspiration Heights Neighborhood. There would be no changes to the General Plan land use
designation; however, the Zoning designation would be amended to Planned Development with General
Commercial and Residential (P(CG, Res)) to allow for residential uses. The density would be increased to
25 du/ac and the maximum height would remain 30 feet. As shown in Table 3-21, future development
under the proposed Project could result in up to 27 net residential units.
KINST CT
FO
O
T
H
I
L
L
B
L
V
D
DEEP
CLIFFE
DR
ST
E
V
E
N
S
C
A
N
Y
O
N
R
D
SA
N
L
E
A
N
D
R
O
A
V
E
MCCLELL
A
N
R
D
ST ANDREWS AVE
ME
R
R
I
M
A
N
R
D
S
A
N
T
A
L
U
C
I
A
R
D
!(9
Housing Element Site
PROJECT DESCRIPTIONCITY OF CUPERTINOGENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING PROJECT
Figure 3-29Housing Element Site 9 (Foothill at McClellan Center – Foothill Market)
Source: City of Cupertino, 2013; MIG, Inc, 2014; PlaceWorks, 2014; ESRI, 2010.
010020050
Feet 3
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3-90 JUNE 18, 2014
3.7.4.10 HOUSING ELEMENT SITE 10 (THE HAMPTONS)
Existing Conditions
Housing Element Site 10 (The Hamptons) is located in the North Vallco Park Special Area shown on Figure
3-30. As shown on Figure 3-30, this Site is located at the Pruneridge Avenue/North Wolfe Road intersection
adjacent to the Apple Campus 2, in the northeast part of the city.
This Site has two parcels totaling 12.44 acres, is designated as High Density with up to 20 to 35 dwelling
unit per gross acre (High Density (20-35 du/ac)) under the current General Plan, and is zoned Planned
Development with Residential (P(Res)-70). The maximum residential density currently permitted on the
Site 10 is 25 du/ac, with a maximum height of 60 feet.
This Housing Element Site is currently occupied with a 342-unit multi-family housing development and
surface parking lots. This Site has a strong potential for redevelopment due to expressed property owner
interest to redevelop with higher density residential uses, close proximity to major transportation routes
(freeway) and adjacency to a major new employment center (Apple Campus 2).
This Housing Element Site is surrounded by commercial and office uses to the southeast, and is bounded by
the I-280 off-ramp to the southwest, North Wolfe Road to the west and Pruneridge Avenue to the north and
northeast.
Portal Park is located approximately a one mile to the southwest, Jenny Strand Park is located
approximately three-fourths of a mile to the southeast, and Westwood Oak Park is located approximately a
one-half mile to the east of the Site.
Cupertino High School and Sedgwick Elementary Sc hool in the Cupertino Union School District are
approximately 1.5 miles to the south, while Laurelwood Elementary School in the Santa Clara Unified
School District is located approximately 1.5 miles to the north east in the City of Santa Clara.
Proposed Project
Under the proposed Project, the General Plan land use designation would be changed to High Density with
greater than 35 du/ac (High Density (greater than 35 du/ac)) and the Zoning designation would be
amended to Planned Development with Residential (P(Res)). The permitted residential density would
increase to 110 du/ac and the maximum height would be 85 feet. As shown in Table 3-21, future
development under the proposed Project could result in up to 820 net residential units.
!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
City of
Sunnyvale
HERON AVE
MERRITT DR
SELKIRK PL
PAR KV IE W CT
K
I
LL
DE
ER
CT
AUBURN DR
SHETLAND PL
LA
R
K
L
N
D R AKE DR
LI
N
N
E
T
L
N
N
W
O
L
F
E
R
D
PRU NERIDGEAVE
RIDGEVIEW
CT
!(10
Housing Element Site
!(Bus Stops
City Boundary
PROJECT DESCRIPTIONCITY OF CUPERTINOGENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING PROJECT
Figure 3-30Housing Element Site 10 (The Hamptons)
Source: City of Cupertino, 2013; MIG, Inc, 2014; PlaceWorks, 2014; ESRI, 2010.
0250500125
Feet
3
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3-92 JUNE 18, 2014
3.7.4.11 HOUSING ELEMENT SITE 11 (VALLCO SHOPPING DISTRICT EXCEPT
ROSEBOWL)
Existing Conditions
Housing Element Site 11 (Vallco Shopping District except Rosebowl) is located in the Heart of the City
Special Area and is generally coterminous with Study Area 6 (Vallco Shopping District), with the exception
of the Rosebowl mixed-use development as shown on Figure 3-31. As shown on Figure 3-31, this Site is
bound by Stevens Creek Boulevard to the south and Perimeter Road to the east, west, and north. This Site
has three parcels totaling 47.83 acres, is currently designated as Commercial/ Retail (C/R) under the
current General Plan, and is zoned Planned Development with Regional Shopping (P(Regional Shopping)).
The maximum residential density currently permitted on this Site is 35 du/ac, with a maximum height of
60 feet with retail uses on the ground level.
This Site is currently occupied by commercial buildings and parking that make up a portion of the Vallco
Shopping District. Uses on both sides of Wolfe Road are included in this Site. Current uses include Sears, JC
Penney, Bay Club, AMC Cupertino Square 16, and TGI Fridays. Surface parking lots comprise a large
portion of this Site. This Site has a high potential for redevelopment due to expressed property owner
interest to redevelop and consolidate, high vacancy rates, close proximity to major transportation routes
(freeway), and the potential to provide a considerable number of residential units at this Site. The high
potential development capacity on this Site and the close proximity to two mixed-use projects (Rosebowl
and Main Street) further support redevelopment of the Vallco Shopping Mall, and the inclusion of this Site in
the Housing Element. This Site is surrounded by commercial and residential uses to the west and south.
Portal Park is located approximately a one-quarter mile to the west, Wilson Park is located less than one-half
mile to the southwest, and Creekside Park is located approximately a one-half mile to the south of the Site.
Cupertino High School and Sedgwick Elementary Schools are approximately one-half mile to the south,
while Collins Elementary and Lawson Middle are located to the west. For additional information on this Site
and the surrounding uses see the discussion on Study Area 6 (Vallco Shopping District) in Section 3.7.2.6.
Proposed Project
Under the proposed Project, the General Plan land use designation would be changed from Commercial/
Residential (C/R) to Commercial/Office/Residential (C/O/R) and the Zoning designation would be
changed from Planned Development with Regional Shopping (P(Regional Shopping) to Planned
Development with Regional Shopping, Professional Office, and Residential (P(Regional Shopping, OP, Res))
to allow for professional offices and residential uses. The permitted residential density would remain 35
du/ac, and the maximum height would be 160 feet in the area bounded by I-280 to the north, Vallco
Parkway to the south, and Perimeter Road to the east if future development includes a retail component and
provides community benefits. As shown in Table 3-21, future development under the proposed Project
could result in up to 800 net residential units.
!(!(
!(!(
!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(
!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(
City of
Sunnyvale
City of
Santa Clara
City of
Sunnyvale
%&'(280
ANNE LN
MY
E
R
P
L
CA
L
V
E
R
T
D
R
LI
N
N
E
T
L
N
MI
L
L
E
R
A
V
E
C
A
R
O
L
L
E
E
D
R
DAWSON
DR
BALDWIN DR
HUDSOND R
EESTATES
DR
AUBURN DR
DEODARA
DR
S
T
A
N
T
A
U
A
V
E
C R AF T DR
BAY WOOD D
R
ST
E
R
N
A
V
E
LA
H
E
R
R
A
N
D
R
JU
D
Y
A
V
E
BR
E
T
A
V
E
GIANNINIDRV
I
L
L
A
D
E
A
N
Z
A
AVE
N
B
L
A
N
E
Y
A
V
E
SHASTA DR
H
O
WAR
D
DR
DRAKEDR H U B B A R D A V E
MELODY LN
PLUM
TREE
LN
PR
U
N
E
T
R
E
E
L
N
FINCHAVE
BEEKMAN PL
ANCOCK DR
NO
R
W
I
C
H
A
V
E
VALLCO PK WY
DE
N
I
S
O
N
A
V
E
CO
L
B
Y
A
V
E
STEVENS CREEK BLVD
N
W
O
L
F
E
R
D
PRUNERIDGEAVE
RI
D
G
E
V
I
E
W
C
T
NTANTAU
AVE
PERIME T E R R D
CupertinoHigh School
L.P. CollinsElementarySchool
PortalPark
!(11
Housing Element Site
!(Bus StopsParksSchoolsCity Boundary
PROJECT DESCRIPTIONCITY OF CUPERTINOGENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING PROJECT
Figure 3-31Housing Element Site 11 (Vallco Shopping District Except Rosebowl)
Source: City of Cupertino, 2013; MIG, Inc, 2014; PlaceWorks, 2014; ESRI, 2010.
0450900225
Feet
3
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3-94 JUNE 18, 2014
3.7.4.12 HOUSING ELEMENT SITE 12 (HOMESTEAD LANES AND ADJACENCY)
Existing Conditions
Housing Element Site 12 (Homestead Lanes and Adjacency) is located in the Homestead Special Area and
the Stelling Gateway as shown on Figure 3-32. As shown on Figure 3-32, this Site is bounded by the
Markham Apartments to the east; additional apartments and I-280 to the south; and the City’s boundary
with the City of Sunnyvale to the west (approximately 600 feet west of North Stelling Road).
This Site has four parcels totaling 5.1 acres, is designated as Commercial/Retail (C/R) under the current
General Plan, and is zoned Planned Development with General Commercial, Recreation and Entertainment
(P(CG, Rec, Ent))The maximum residential density currently permitted on the Site is 35 du/ac, with a
maximum height of 45 feet.
This Housing Element Site is currently occupied by a strip mall commercial center and surface parking. The
Homestead Bowl bowling alley is the primary site tenant. Additional Site tenants include various small scale
restaurants and a nail shop. The northwest corner of the Site is occupied by a McDonalds Restaurant. This
Housing Element Site represents a strong redevelopment opportunity as a mixed-use site based on the
deferred maintenance on the primary Site, the close proximity to a major transportation route (freeway),
the low intensity and marginal nature of most of the current uses, and its corner location.
Franco Park is located a block to the east and Serra Park in Sunnyvale is located less than one-half mile to
the northwest.
Nimitz Elementary School in Sunnyvale is located less than one mile to the north, Garden Elementary
School located approximately one-half mile to the southwest, Cupertino Middle School is located
approximately 1 mile to the northwest, and Homestead High School is approximately one-quarter mile to
the west.
Proposed Project
Under the proposed Project, there would be no changes to the General Plan land use designation; however,
the Zoning designation would be amended to Planned Development with General Commercial and
Residential (P(CG, Res)) to allow for residential uses. The permitted residential density would remain at 35
du/ac and the maximum height would be 60 feet with a retail component. As shown in Table 3-21, future
development under the proposed Project could result in up to 151 net residential units.
!(!(!(
!(
!(!(!(!(
!(!(
City of Sunnyvale
%&'(280%&'(280
ON
T
A
R
I
O
D
R
FORGE
WAY
NE
W
B
R
U
N
S
W
I
C
K
A
V
E
C E LE ST E C I R
HO
L
L
E
N
B
E
C
K
A
V
E
LA GRANDE DR
N
S
T
E
L
L
I
N
G
R
D
FR
A
N
C
O
C
T
HOMESTEAD RD
N O R AN DA
DR
HomesteadHigh School
FrancoPark
!(12
Housing Element Site
!(Bus StopsParksSchoolsCity Boundary
PROJECT DESCRIPTIONCITY OF CUPERTINOGENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING PROJECT
Figure 3-32Housing Element Site 12 (Homestead Lanes and Adjacency)
Source: City of Cupertino, 2013; MIG, Inc, 2014; PlaceWorks, 2014; ESRI, 2010.
0 250 500125
Feet
3
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3-96 JUNE 18, 2014
3.7.4.13 HOUSING ELEMENT SITE 13 (LOREE SHOPPING CENTER)
Existing Conditions
Housing Element Site 13 (Loree Shopping Center) is located within the Heart of the City Special Area at its
eastern most boundary and on the border of the City of Santa Clara, as shown in Figure 3-33. This Site
fronts Stevens Creek Boulevard and is bounded on the west by North Tantau Avenue and on the east by Judy
Avenue.
This Site has two parcels totaling approximately 1.29 acres, is designated as Commercial/Office/Retail
(C/O/R) under the current General Plan, and is zoned as Planned Development with General Commercial
and Residential (P(CG, Res)). The maximum residential density currently permitted at this Site is 25
du/ac, with a maximum height of 45 feet.
This Housing Element Site is occupied by strip mall commercial center built in 1952. It has a mix of
occupied and vacant retail spaces. Current tenants include restaurants and an insurance office. This Site is
located on the opposite corner from the 17.4-acre Main Street mixed-use project that is currently under
development. Main Street is a future high intensity development expected to be major community focal
point. Minor cosmetic improvements have been made in recent years but the center generally has high
turnover rates. This Housing Element Site is held in common ownership and lot consolidation would not be
necessary for redevelopment. This Housing Element Site was included in the 2007 Housing Element.
This Housing Element Site is located along one of the major Special Areas in Cupertino, in close proximity
to services and public transportation. Additionally, the Vallco Shopping Mall is located one block west of this
Site, which is also Study Area 6 (Vallco Shopping District). Study Area 6 (Vallco Shopping District) is
discussed in Section 3.7.2.6 above.
Cupertino High School and Bethel Lutheran School are located approximately 1.5 blocks southwest of this
Site.
Proposed Project
Under the proposed Project, there would be no changes to the General Plan land use designation, zoning, or
density. As shown in Table 3-2, future development under the proposed Project could result in up to 27 net
residential units.
!(!(!(
!(!(!(
City of
Santa Clara
ANNE LN
N
T
A
N
T
A
U
A
V
E
S
T
A
N
T
A
U
A
V
E
STEVENS CREEK BLVD
JU
D
Y
A
V
E
BR
E
T
A
V
E
CupertinoHigh School
!(13
Housing Element Site
!(Bus Stops
SchoolsCity Boundary
PROJECT DESCRIPTIONCITY OF CUPERTINOGENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING PROJECT
Figure 3-33Housing Element Site 13 (Loree Shopping Center)
Source: City of Cupertino, 2013; MIG, Inc, 2014; PlaceWorks, 2014; ESRI, 2010.
010020050
Feet
3
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3-98 JUNE 18, 2014
3.7.4.14 HOUSING ELEMENT SITE 14 (MARINA PLAZA)
Existing Conditions
Housing Element Site 14 (Marina Plaza) is located in the Heart of the City Special Area shown on Figure 3-
34. As shown on Figure 3-34, this Site is located at the intersection of Bandley Drive and Alves Drive near
the Stevens Creek Boulevard and North De Anza Boulevard intersection.
This Site contains one parcel totaling 6.86 acres, is designated as Commercial/Office/Retail (C/O/R)
under the current General Plan, and is zoned Planned Development with General Commercial and
Residential (P(CG, Res)). The maximum residential density currently permitted on the Site is 25 du/ac,
with a maximum height of 45 feet.
This Site is currently occupied with a single-story commercial strip mall and surface parking lot. The
primary shopping center tenant is an ethnic grocery store. This Site is considered underutilized given its
prime location at one of the major intersections and along one of the major Special Areas in Cupertino, in
close proximity to services and public transportation.
The location and configuration of the Site allows for access from Stevens Creek Boulevard, North De Anza
Boulevard, Bandley Drive and Alves Drive. The property owner has expressed interest in redeveloping the
Site.
This Housing Element Site is surrounded by commercial and office uses. Wilson and Portal Parks are located
approximately three-quarters of a mile to the southeast and northeast of the Site, respectively. Other parks
near the Site include Memorial Park, Cali Mill Plaza and Franco Park.
Cupertino High School and Sedgwick Elementary Schools are approximately 1.4 mile to the southeast and
Lawson Middle School and Collins Elementary School are approximately one-half mile to the north east.
William Faria Elementary School is located approximately .4 mile to the southwest, and. Garden Gate
Elementary School is located approximately .7 mile to the northwest. The potential Eaton Elementary
School is located in proximity to the Site.
Proposed Project
Under the proposed Project, there would be no changes to the General Plan land use designation or zoning.
The permitted residential density would be increased to 40 du/ac and the maximum height would increase
to 60 feet or 75 feet with retail development. As shown in Table 3-21, future development under the
proposed Project could result in up to 232 net residential units.
!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(!(!(
P AR K C I RC LE
CALI AVE
SCOFIELD DR
PA
R
K
C
I
R
C
L
E
E
PAR
K
C
I
RC
LE
W
S
D
E
A
N
Z
A
B
L
V
D
MI
N
E
R
P
L
PARLE
T
T
P
L
BE
A
R
D
O
N
D
R
ALVES DR
N
D
E
A
N
Z
A
B
L
V
D
SA
I
C
H
W
A
Y
BAN D LEY DR
STEVENS CREEK BLVD
P ARISH PL
St. JosephCupertinoSchool
CaliMillPlaza
!(14
Housing Element Site
!(Bus StopsParksSchoolsCity Boundary
PROJECT DESCRIPTIONCITY OF CUPERTINOGENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING PROJECT
Figure 3-34Housing Element Site 14 (Marina Plaza)
Source: City of Cupertino, 2013; MIG, Inc, 2014; PlaceWorks, 2014; ESRI, 2010.
0200400100
Feet
3
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3-100 JUNE 18, 2014
3.7.4.15 HOUSING ELEMENT SITE 15 (STEVENS CREEK OFFICE CENTER)
Existing Conditions
Housing Element Site 15 (Stevens Creek Office Center) is located in the North Crossroads Node within the
Heart of the City Special Area and it is encompassed within Study Area 7 (Stevens Creek Office Center) on
Figure 3-35. As shown on Figure 3-35, this Site is on Stevens Creek Boulevard between Stelling Road and
Saich Way. It is bounded by Alves Drive to the north, Stevens Creek Boulevard to the south, and Whole
Foods Market to the west; the eastern edge of this Site is formed by the boundaries of properties along Saich
Way.
This Site comprises one parcel totaling 6.31 acres. This Site is within the Commercial/Office/ Residential
(C/O/R) General Plan land use designation and zoned as Planned Development with General Commercial
and Residential (P(CG, Res)) with a maximum residential density of 25 du/ac and height limit of 45 feet.
This Housing Element Site is occupied by commercial and office buildings with various commercial and a
few medical and professional office tenants. This Site is located along one of the major Special Areas in
Cupertino, in close proximity to services and public transportation. The property owner has expressed
interest in redeveloping the Site and adding a residential component.
For more details on this Site and it surroundings see Study Area 7 (Stevens Creek Office Center) described
in Section 3.7.2.7 above.
Proposed Project
Under the proposed Project, there would be no changes to the General Plan land use designation, but the
Zoning Designation would be amended to General Commercial, Professional Office and Residential (P(CG,
OP, Res)). The permitted residential density would be increased to 40 du/ac and the maximum height
would increase to 60 feet or 75 feet with a retail component. As shown in Table 3-21, future development
under the proposed Project could result in up to 214 net residential units.
!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(
!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(!(!(
SENATE
WAY
GL
E
N
C
O
E
D
R
BI
A
N
C
H
I
W
A
Y
LA
U
R
E
T
T
A
D
R
PA
R
K
C
I
R
C
L
E
E
PA
R
K
C
I
R
C
L
E
W
PATRIOT WAY
AN
T
O
N
W
A
Y
ELENDA DR
CHRISTENSEN DR LAZANEO DR
BE
A
R
D
O
N
D
R
S
S
T
E
L
L
I
N
G
R
D
N
D
E
A
N
Z
A
B
L
V
D
SA
I
C
H
W
A
Y
BAN D LEYDR
N
S
T
E
L
L
I
N
G
R
D
STEVENS CREEK BLVD
G A R D E N G ATE DR
SCOFIELD DR
ALVES DR
De AnzaCollege
FariaElementarySchool
MemorialPark
CaliMillPlaza
!(15
Housing Element Site
!(Bus StopsParksSchoolsCity Boundary
PROJECT DESCRIPTIONCITY OF CUPERTINOGENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING PROJECT
Figure 3-35Housing Element Site 15 (Stevens Creek Office Center)
Source: City of Cupertino, 2013; MIG, Inc, 2014; PlaceWorks, 2014; ESRI, 2010.
0250500125
Feet
3
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3-102 JUNE 18, 2014
3.7.4.16 HOUSING ELEMENT SITE 16 (SUMMERWINDS & GRANITE ROCK)
Existing Conditions
Housing Element Site 16 (Summerwinds & Granite Rock) is located in the South De Anza Mixed-Use
Special Area. As shown on Figure 3-36, this Site is bounded by South De Anza Boulevard and the
Cupertino/San Jose city boundary to the east, Wildflower Way to the north, the Santa Clara County
Sheriff’s office to the south, and single-family residential to the west.
This Site has five parcels totaling 4.46 acres and is designated as Commercial/Office/Retail (C/O/R)
under the current General Plan and zoned Planned Development with General Commercial and Residential
(P(CG, Res 5-15)). The maximum residential density currently permitted on the Site is 15 du/ac, with a
maximum height of 30 feet.
This Site is currently occupied by a retail sales nursery (Summerwinds Nursery), a retail warehouse facility
for an outdoor materials vendor (Granite Rock), a fast food restaurant, a cabinet store, and surface parking.
This Site is considered underutilized given its large size, the potential residential capacity, and its location
along a major transportation route.
The property owner has expressed interest in redeveloping this Site. Due to the low intensity nature of the
Site, the potential residential capacity of this Site represents a strong financial incentive for redevelopment.
This Site’s location at the southern end of the city also presents an opportunity to distribute future housing
throughout the city.
Hoover Park is located approximately one-quarter mile to the west, Three Oaks Park is located less than
one-half mile to the northwest, and Calabazas Park, in San Jose, is located approximately a one-half mile to
the northeast of the Site.
Monta Vista High School and John F. Kennedy Middle School in Cupertino are located approximately 1.3
miles to the northwest, and Regnart Elementary School in Cupertino is located approximately less than one
mile to the northwest. Blue Hills Elementary School and Meyerholz Elementary Schools in San Jose are less
than one mile to the southeast and northeast, respectively.
Proposed Project
Under the proposed Project, there would be no changes to the General Plan land use designation; however,
the Zoning designation would be amended to Planned Development with General Commercial and
Residential (P(CG, Res)) to allow for residential uses. The permitted residential density would be increased
to 40 du/ac and the maximum height would remain 30 feet. As shown in Table 3-21, future development
under the proposed Project could result in up to 154 net residential units.
!(
!(
!(
!(
City of San Jose
|ÿ85
MURAN O C IR
ROSE
GARDEN
LN
R
A
I
N
BOW DR
BROOKVALE D R
DUCKETT WAY
WATERFORD DR
WILDFLOWER WAY
WILDF
L
O
W
E
R
C
T
NEWCASTLE DR
S
D
E
A
N
Z
A
B
L
V
D
NORMANDY WAY
PEACH BLOSSOM DR
S H A R O N DR
PR
I
M
R
O
S
E
W
A
Y
L E E D S AVE
ORANGE BLOSSOM DR
JA
M
E
S
T
O
W
N
D
R
DONEGAL DR
POPPY
WAY
CHANTEL CT
HooverPark
!(16
Housing Element Site
!(Bus StopsParks
City Boundary
PROJECT DESCRIPTIONCITY OF CUPERTINOGENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING PROJECT
Figure 3-36Housing Element Site 16 (Summerwinds & Granite Rock)
Source: City of Cupertino, 2013; MIG, Inc, 2014; PlaceWorks, 2014; ESRI, 2010.
0 250 500125
Feet
3
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3-104 JUNE 18, 2014
3.7.4.17 HOUSING ELEMENT SITE 17 (HOMESTEAD ROAD – INTRAHEALTH/
OFFICE/TENNIS COURTS)
Existing Conditions
Housing Element Site 17 (Homestead Road – IntraHealth/Office/Tennis Courts) is located at the
southwest corner of Homestead Road and North Stelling Road in the Homestead Mixed-Use Special Area
and the Stelling Gateway as shown on Figure 3-37.
This Site has six parcels totaling 5.42 acres and is designated as Commercial/Retail (C/R) under the
current General Plan and is zoned Planned Development with General Commercial (P(CG)). The
maximum residential density currently permitted on the Site is 15 du/ac. The maximum building height is
30 feet.
This Housing Element Site is currently occupied by various office and commercial buildings, tennis courts
and a church recreation center and parking lot. Portions of the north side of the Site are unimproved and
unpaved. This Site represents a strong redevelopment opportunity as a mixed-use site based on the large size
of this Site, the close proximity to a major transpor tation route (De Anza freeway), the low intensity nature
of most of the current uses, and its corner location.
Franco Park is located a block to the east and Serra Park in Sunnyvale is located less than a one-half mile to
the northwest. Nimitz Elementary School in Sunnyvale is located less than one mile to the north, Garden
Elementary School located approximately one-half mile to the southwest, Cupertino Middle School is
located approximately 1 mile to the northwest, and Homestead High School is approximately one-quarter
mile to the west.
Proposed Project
Under the proposed Project, there would be no changes to the General Plan land use designation; however,
the Zoning designation would be amended to Planned Development with General Commercial and
Residential (P(CG, Res)) to allow for residential uses. The permitted residential density would be increased
to 35 du/ac and the maximum height would increase to 45 feet, or 60 feet with a retail component.
As shown in Table 3-21, future development under the proposed Project could result in up to 161 net
residential units. However, the owner of the church property which includes the tennis courts and parking
parcels has indicated that they are not interested in being a Housing Element site.
!(!(!(
!(!(
!(!(!(!(
!(!(
City of Sunnyvale
%&'(280
!(17
Homestead High School
HOMESTEAD RD
N
S
T
E
L
L
I
N
G
R
D
N
O
R
A
N
D
A
D
R
LA GRANDE DR
KE
N
N
E
W
I
C
K
D
R
HO
L
L
E
N
B
E
C
K
A
V
E
KODIAK CT
NE
W
B
R
U
N
S
W
I
C
K
A
V
E
ON
T
A
R
I
O
D
R
Housing Element Site
!(Bus Stops
SchoolsCity Boundary
PROJECT DESCRIPTIONCITY OF CUPERTINOGENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING PROJECT
Figure 3-37Housing Element Site 17 (Homestead Road – IntraHealth/Office/Tennis Courts)
Source: City of Cupertino, 2013; MIG, Inc, 2014; PlaceWorks, 2014; ESRI, 2010.
0 250 500125
Feet
3
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3-106 JUNE 18, 2014
3.7.4.18 HOUSING ELEMENT SITE 18 (THE OAKS SHOPPING CENTER)
Existing Conditions
Housing Element Site 18 (The Oaks Shopping Center) is located on the north side of Stevens Creek
Boulevard between SR 85 and Mary Avenue in the Hear t of the City Mixed-Use Special Area and the Stevens
Creek and 85 Gateway as shown on Figure 3-38.
This Site has four parcels totaling 7.9 acres, is designated as Commercial/Office/Retail (C/O/R) under the
current General Plan, and is zoned Planned Development with General Commercial and Professional Office
(P(CG, OP)). The maximum residential density currently permitted on the Site is 25 du/ac, with a
maximum height of 45 feet.
This Site is occupied by the Oaks Shopping Center. The center has various small scale commercial and
restaurant tenants and one of the City’s two movie theaters, Blue Light Cinema. The property has
entitlements for a mixed-use office/commercial building and a hotel which expire in September 2014. This
Site presents a strong potential for redevelopment with a mixed-use product including residential units
based on its large size, potential residential capacity, current entitlements and property owner interest,
adjacent freeway access and location adjacent to residential development.
Cupertino Memorial Park is located across the street on Mary Avenue to the east and the Mary Avenue Dog
Park is located to the northwest. The City’s Senior Center is located adjacent to Memorial Park. Garden
Gate Elementary School and Homestead High School are located approximately three-quarters of a mile to
the northeast and north of the Site. Lawson Middle School, Monta Vista High, Lincoln Elementary School
and John F. Kennedy Middle School in Cupertino are in proximity of this Site.
Proposed Project
Under the proposed Project, there would be no changes to the General Plan land use designation; however,
the Zoning designation would be amended to Planned Development with General Commercial, Residential,
and Professional Office (P(CG, Res, OP)) to allow for future mixed-use development including residential
uses. Under the proposed Project, the permitted residential density would be increased to 35 du/ac and
building heights would range from 60 feet to 75 feet with a retail component. As shown in Table 3-21,
future development under the proposed Project could result in up to 235 net residential units.
!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(!(
!(!(!(!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(!(!(!(
!(!(
|ÿ85
N
O
E
L
AV
E
GRAND
A
V
E
SENATE
WAY
UNIVERSITY WAY
LA
U
R
E
T
T
A
D
R
F IT ZGER
A
L
D
D
R
GRANADA AVE
PATRIOT WAY
ALVE S D R
AN
T
O
N
W
A
Y
IM
P
E
R
I
A
L
A
V
E
P
E
N
I
N
S
U
L
A
A
V
E
G L E N PL
CHRISTENSEN DR
AL
H
A
M
B
R
A
A
V
E
E
M
P
I
R
E
A
V
E
S
A
N
T
A
C
L
A
R
A
A
V
E
B
U
B
B
R
D
STEVENS CREEK BLVD
MARY AVE
PARK W O O D D R
De AnzaCollege
MemorialPark
!(18
Housing Element Site
!(Bus StopsParksSchoolsCity Boundary
PROJECT DESCRIPTIONCITY OF CUPERTINOGENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING PROJECT
Figure 3-38Housing Element Site 18 (The Oaks Shopping Center)
Source: City of Cupertino, 2013; MIG, Inc, 2014; PlaceWorks, 2014; ESRI, 2010.
0250500125
Feet
3
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3-108 JUNE 18, 2014
3.7.4.19 HOUSING ELEMENT SITE 19 (CYPRESS BUILDING ASSOCIATION &
HALL PROPERTY)
Existing Conditions
Housing Element Site 19 (Cypress Building Association & Hall Property) is located in the East Stevens
Creek Boulevard area within the in the Heart of the City Special Area as shown on Figure 3-39. As shown on
Figure 3-39, this Site is bounded by Stevens Creek Boulevard to the north, Housing Element Site 4 (Barry
Swenson Site) to the east, commercial uses to the south and Finch Avenue to the west.
This Site comprises three parcels totaling 4.98 acres, is designated as Commercial/Office/Retail (C/O/R)
under the current General Plan, and is zoned Planned Development with General Commercial and
Residential (P(CG,Res)). The maximum residential density currently permitted on the Site is 25 du/ac,
with a maximum height of 45 feet.
This Housing Element Site is currently occupied by one- and two-story commercial and office buildings and
surface parking. Tenants include smaller bank facilities, financial offices, and a private learning center. This
Housing Element Site is located across the street from the 17.4-acre Main Street mixed-use project that is
currently under development.
This Site is underutilized given the potential residential capacity of the Site, its location along the city’s main
thoroughfare, and location across the street from a future high intensity development expected to be major
community focal point. There are two property owners for this Site, which can facilitate future lot
consolidation.
The Vallco Shopping Mall is located one block from the Site to the northwest, which is also Study Area 6
(Vallco Shopping District).
Cupertino High School is located directly adjacent to the Site while Sedgwick Elementary and Hyde Middle
Schools are located less than 1 mile south of this Site. Creekside Park and Wilson Park are located
approximately 1.5 miles to the south-southwest of the Site.
Proposed Project
Under the proposed Project, there would be no changes to the General Plan land use designation or zoning.
The permitted residential density would remain 25 du/ac and the maximum height would remain 45 feet.
As shown in Table 3-21, future development under the proposed Project could result in up to 105 net
residential units.
!(!(!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(!(!(
!(!(!(
!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(!(
City of
Santa
Clara
RICHWOOD CT
COZETTE LN
ANNE LN
N
T
A
N
T
A
U
A
V
E
SORENSON AVE
S
T
A
N
T
A
U
A
V
E
CRAFT DR
FINCHAVE
VALLCO P K W Y
S T E V E N S C R E E K B LVD
JU
D
Y
A
V
E
BR
E
T
A
V
E
CupertinoHigh SchoolBethelLutheranSchool
!(19
Housing Site
!(Bus Stops
SchoolsCity Boundary
PROJECT DESCRIPTIONCITY OF CUPERTINOGENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING PROJECT
Figure 3-39Housing Element Site 19 (Cypress Building Association/Hall Property)
Source: City of Cupertino, 2013; MIG, Inc, 2014; PlaceWorks, 2014; ESRI, 2010.
0 250 500125
Feet
3
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3-110 JUNE 18, 2014
3.7.5 GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP AND ZONING ORDINANCE
AND MAP AMENDMENTS
The proposed Project will also include revisions to the City’s Land Use Map and Zoning Ordinance and Map
for consistency with the General Plan, as a result of changes to Housing Element policies that are required
by State Law,19 or as adopted by the City Council, and by correcting inconsistencies of existing land uses
identified by the City. The Major Mixed-Use Special Areas, Study Areas, Other Special Areas including
Neighborhoods and Non-Residential/Mixed-Use Special Areas and Housing Element Sites described in this
chapter have been identified for their appropriateness for additional commercial, office, hotel, and higher
density housing. The City would rezone and change the land use designations, densities, and height standards
for these sites to allow for the additional land uses as described in this chapter. The following discussion
describes the various revisions that are proposed as part of the Project.
3.7.5.1 OTHER GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING CHANGES
Other changes to the General Plan text and figures, and Zoning Ordinance are proposed to include bringing
sites with inconsistent land use and zoning designations into consistency, the identification of new
neighborhood areas, a new Public Utilities, Infrastructure and Services Element, the minor reformatting,
reorganization and addition of clarifying or descriptive language to the General Plan and the method in
which residential density is calculated. Also, as previously discussed under Section 3.7.3 above, the
declassification of Educational/Cultural Center would occur under the proposed Project, which is purely
related to the text changes of the General Plan and would not change the allowable land use.
General Plan Land Use Map and Zoning Map Conformance
The City has identified specific sites, shown on Figure 3-40, that represent locations where there are
inconsistencies between existing land use and the current General Plan land use designation and/or Zoning
designation for the location. Under the proposed Project, the General Plan or the Zoning Ordinance and/or
Maps will be amended to bring consistency between the existing use and the General Plan land use and/or
Zoning for the location. Table 3-22 lists the parcels with known inconsistencies and shows how the General
Plan and Zoning amendments under the proposed Project will bring these locations into conformance with
the current General Plan. Because these locations are currently developed and the amendments are being
made to reflect the current use on the property, these amendments will not result in new development
potential at these locations.
19 Specific State Law includes, but is not limited to, the Federal Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988, California’s Fair Employment
and Housing Act, and the State’s Housing Element law.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PLACEWORKS 3-111
TABLE 3‐22 GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING ORDINANCE CONFORMANCE SITES
Map
# Address APN
Land Use Zoning
Reason Existing Proposed Existing Proposed
1 10880 Franco Ct. 326‐10‐
055
Industrial/
Residential
Industrial/
Residential
P(Res 10‐
20
Mini‐Stor)
P(Res 10‐
20, ML)
No “Mini‐Stor” zone in
zoning ordinance. Storage is
a permitted use in ML.
2 10710 N. Blaney
Ave.
316‐43‐
008
Low/Medium
Density
(5‐10 du/ac)
Low/Medium
Density
(5‐10 du/ac
P(R2, Mini‐
Stor) P(R2) Parcel is residential only
3 10730 N. Blaney
Ave.
316‐43‐
009
Industrial/
Residential
Industrial/
Residential
P(R2, Mini‐
Stor) P(R2, ML) No “Mini‐Stor” zone in
zoning ordinance. Storage is
a permitted use in ML. 4 10655 Mary Ave. 326‐06‐
050
Industrial/
Residential
Industrial/
Residential
P(BQ, Mini‐
Stor) P(BQ, ML)
5 20644‐20750
Celeste Cir.
326‐58‐
999
Medium/High
Density
(10‐20 du/ac)
Medium/High
Density
(10‐20 du/ac)
P(Res 10‐
20,
Mini‐Stor)
P(Res 10‐
20) Parcels are residential only
6 20653‐20732
Celeste Cir.
326‐58‐
998
7 20662‐20714
Celeste Cir.
326‐58‐
997
8 20680‐20705
Celeste Cir.
326‐58‐
996
9 22560‐22562
Alcalde Rd.
342‐16‐
146
Low Density
(1‐5 du/ac)
Low/Medium
Density
(5‐10 du/ac)
R2‐4.25 R2‐4.25 Density does not support
duplex development
10 22572‐22574
Alcalde Rd.
342‐16‐
095
11 22550 Alcalde Rd. 342‐16‐
147
12 10532‐10534
Merriman Rd.
342‐16‐
094
13 22620‐22630
Alcalde Rd.
342‐16‐
102
14 22632 Alcalde Rd. 342‐16‐
103
15 10591 Merriman
Rd.
342‐16‐
119
16 10593 Merriman
Rd.
342‐16‐
120
17 10598 Santa Lucia
Rd.
342‐16‐
085
18 10588‐10590
Santa Lucia Rd.
342‐16‐
145
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3-112 JUNE 18, 2014
TABLE 3‐22 GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING ORDINANCE CONFORMANCE SITES
Map
# Address APN
Land Use Zoning
Reason Existing Proposed Existing Proposed
19 10620 Santa Lucia
Rd.
342‐16‐
061
20 10690‐10692
Santa Lucia Rd.
342‐16‐
098
21 10642 Merriman
Rd.
342‐16‐
015
22 10632‐10634
Merriman Rd.
342‐16‐
150
23 No address 342‐16‐
104
24 10700 Merriman
Rd.
342‐16‐
101
25 20589 Homestead
Rd.
323‐36‐
019
Quasi‐Public/
Institutional
Quasi‐Public/
Institutional A1‐43 BQ Consistency with GP
26 20425 Silverado
Ave.
369‐39‐
015
Low Density
(1‐5 du/ac)
Commercial/
Residential P(CG) P(CG) Consistency with GP
27 10365 Alpine Dr. 326‐15‐
110
Medium/High
Density
(10‐20 du/ac)
Medium/High
Density
(10‐20 du/ac)
R2‐4.25 R3
Consistency with GP. Was
originally R3, but rezoned to
R2 in 1973 in order to
develop a duplex. Island in a
predominantly R3 zone.
28 10353 Alpine Dr. 326‐15‐
111
Medium/High
Density
(10‐20 du/ac)
Medium/High
Density
(10‐20 du/ac)
R2‐4.25 R3
Consistency with GP. Was
originally R3, but rezoned to
R2 in 1968 in order to
develop a duplex. Island in a
predominantly R3 zone.
29 10381 Alpine Dr. 326‐15‐
108 Medium/High
Density
(10‐20 du/ac)
Medium/High
Density
(10‐20 du/ac)
R2‐4.25 R3 Consistency with GP. Island
in a predominantly R3 zone. 30 10334 Alpine Dr. 326‐15‐
073
31 10141‐10143
Miller Ave.
369‐07‐
002
Low/Medium
Density
(5‐10 du/ac)
Medium/High
Density (10‐
20 du/ac)
R3 R3 Consistency with GP. Site
has existing duplexes.
32 10151‐10153
Miller Ave.
369‐07‐
003
33 10161‐10163
Miller Ave.
369‐07‐
004
34 10191‐10201
Miller Ave.
369‐14‐
018
35 10203 Miller Ave. 369‐14‐
019
36 10211‐10213
Miller Ave.
369‐14‐
020
37 21581 Regnart Rd. 356‐22‐
008
Quasi‐Public/
Institutional
Public
Facilities A1‐43 BA
Consistency with GP.
Historically been a San Jose
water tank.
38 No address 326‐49‐
036
Parks and
Open Space
Parks and
Open Space R1 PR
Consistency with GP.
Currently Somerset Square
Park.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PLACEWORKS 3-113
TABLE 3‐22 GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING ORDINANCE CONFORMANCE SITES
Map
# Address APN
Land Use Zoning
Reason Existing Proposed Existing Proposed
39 1000 S. Stelling Rd. 359‐25‐
049
Parks and
Open Space
Parks and
Open Space R1‐6 PR
Consistency with GP.
Currently part of Jollyman
Park.
40 21530 Stevens
Creek Blvd.
357‐20‐
027
Neighborhood
Commercial/
Residential
Neighborhood
Commercial/
Residential
ML‐rc P(CN)
Consistency with GP and
other adjacent land uses.
Currently a gas station.
41 10981 Franco Ct. 326‐09‐
071
High Density
(20‐35 du/ac)
Parks and
Open Space R3 PR
Currently Franco Park.
Zoning and land use was
never updated.
42 10227 Park Circle
East
326‐32‐
009 Medium/
High Density
(10‐20 du/ac)
No change R2 R3 Consistency with GP. Island
in a predominantly R3 zone. 43 10226 Park Circle
West
326‐32‐
012
44 22120 Stevens
Creek Blvd.
357‐09‐
053
Very Low
Density (Slope
Density
Formula)
Parks and
Open Space A PR Currently part of Blackberry
Farm; City‐owned land.
45 No address 326‐17‐
004
Low Density
(1‐5 du/ac)
Parks and
Open Space R1‐10 PR City owned land across from
Blackberry Farm.
46 22100 Stevens
Creek Blvd.
357‐11‐
029
Residential (0‐
4 du/ac)
Parks and
Open Space R1C PR City owned land and historic
resource.
47
Pruneridge Avenue
to I‐280
Northbound
Ramps
316‐06‐
037
Industrial/
Residential
High Density
Residential
(20 – 35
du/ac)
P(MP) P(Res)
Consistency with the Apple
Campus 2 Project approved
lot line adjustment.
48 21691 Lomita Ave 357‐17‐
023
Residential
(4.4‐12 du/ac)
Residential
(10‐15 du/ac) P(Res) P(Res) To be consistent with
existing densities.
49 10120 Pasadena
Ave
357‐17‐
027
Residential
(4.4‐12 du/ac
Residential
(10‐15 du/ac) P(Res) P(Res) To be consistent with
existing densities.
50 10135‐10141
Pasadena Ave
357‐17‐
046
Residential
(4.4‐12 du/ac)
Residential
(10‐15 du/ac) P(Res) P(Res) To be consistent with
existing densities.
51 21697 Lomita Ave 357‐17‐
092
Residential
(4.4‐12 du/ac)
Residential
(10‐15 du/ac) P(Res) P(Res) To be consistent with
existing densities.
52 21699 Lomita Ave 357‐17‐
093
Residential
(4.4‐12 du/ac)
Residential
(10‐15 du/ac) P(Res) P(Res) To be consistent with
existing densities.
53 10140 Pasadena
Ave
357‐17‐
094
Residential
(4.4‐12 du/ac)
Residential
(10‐15 du/ac) P(Res) P(Res) To be consistent with
existing densities.
54 21695 Lomita Ave 357‐17‐
095
Residential
(4.4‐12 du/ac)
Residential
(10‐15 du/ac) P(Res) P(Res) To be consistent with
existing densities.
55 10130 Pasadena
Ave
357‐17‐
096
Residential
(4.4‐12 du/ac)
Residential
(10‐15 du/ac) P(Res) P(Res) To be consistent with
existing densities.
56 21731 Lomita Ave 357‐17‐
110
Residential
(4.4‐12 du/ac)
Residential
(10‐15 du/ac) P(Res) P(Res) To be consistent with
existing densities.
57 21741 Lomita Ave 357‐17‐
111
Residential
(4.4‐12 du/ac)
Residential
(10‐15 du/ac) P(Res) P(Res) To be consistent with
existing densities.
58 10121 Pasadena
Ave
357‐17‐
119
Residential
(4.4‐12 du/ac)
Residential
(10‐15 du/ac) P(Res) P(Res) To be consistent with
existing densities.
59 10131 Pasadena
Ave
357‐17‐
120
Residential
(4.4‐12 du/ac)
Residential
(10‐15 du/ac) P(Res) P(Res) To be consistent with
existing densities.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3-114 JUNE 18, 2014
TABLE 3‐22 GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING ORDINANCE CONFORMANCE SITES
Map
# Address APN
Land Use Zoning
Reason Existing Proposed Existing Proposed
60
21710‐21740
Lomita Ave and
10181‐10185
Pasadena Ave
357‐18‐
002
Residential
(4.4‐12 du/ac)
Residential
(10‐15 du/ac) P(Res) P(Res)
To be consistent with
existing densities.
61 10190 Pasadena
Ave
357‐18‐
003
Residential
(4.4‐12 du/ac)
Residential
(10‐15 du/ac) P(Res) P(Res) To be consistent with
existing densities.
62 21701‐ 21703
Olive Ave
357‐18‐
019
Residential
(4.4‐12 du/ac)
Residential
(10‐15 du/ac) P(Res) P(Res) To be consistent with
existing densities.
63 10248 Pasadena
Ave
357‐18‐
020
Residential
(4.4‐12 du/ac)
Residential
(10‐15 du/ac) P(Res) P(Res) To be consistent with
existing densities.
64 10200‐10210
Pasadena Ave
357‐18‐
022
Residential
(4.4‐12 du/ac)
Residential
(10‐15 du/ac) P(Res) P(Res) To be consistent with
existing densities.
65 10195 Pasadena
Ave
357‐18‐
023
Residential
(4.4‐12 du/ac)
Residential
(10‐15 du/ac) P(Res) P(Res) To be consistent with
existing densities.
66 10205 Pasadena
Ave
357‐18‐
024
Residential
(4.4‐12 du/ac
Residential
(10‐15 du/ac) P(Res) P(Res) To be consistent with
existing densities.
67 10217‐10223
Pasadena Ave
357‐18‐
025
Residential
(4.4‐12 du/ac)
Residential
(10‐15 du/ac) P(Res) P(Res) To be consistent with
existing densities.
68 21751 Olive Ave 357‐18‐
027
Residential
(4.4‐12 du/ac)
Residential
(10‐15 du/ac) P(Res) P(Res) To be consistent with
existing densities.
69 21761 Olive Ave 357‐18‐
028
Residential
(4.4‐12 du/ac)
Residential
(10‐15 du/ac) P(Res) P(Res) To be consistent with
existing densities.
70 10249 Pasadena
Ave
357‐18‐
037
Residential
(4.4‐12 du/ac)
Residential
(10‐15 du/ac) P(Res) P(Res) To be consistent with
existing densities.
71 10218‐10228
Pasadena Ave
357‐18‐
041
Residential
(4.4‐12 du/ac)
Residential
(10‐15 du/ac) P(Res) P(Res) To be consistent with
existing densities.
72 10232‐10238
Pasadena Ave
357‐18‐
042
Residential
(4.4‐12 du/ac)
Residential
(10‐15 du/ac) P(Res) P(Res) To be consistent with
existing densities.
73 21730‐21738 Olive
Ave
357‐19‐
037
Residential
(4.4‐12 du/ac)
Residential
(10‐15 du/ac) P(Res) P(Res) To be consistent with
existing densities.
74 21750 Olive Ave 357‐19‐
083
Residential
(4.4‐12 du/ac)
Residential
(10‐15 du/ac) P(Res) P(Res) To be consistent with
existing densities.
75 21740‐21744 Olive
Ave
357‐19‐
084
Residential
(4.4‐12 du/ac)
Residential
(10‐15 du/ac) P(Res) P(Res) To be consistent with
existing densities.
76 21700 Olive Ave 357‐21‐
001
Residential
(4.4‐12 du/ac)
Residential
(10‐15 du/ac) P(Res) P(Res) To be consistent with
existing densities.
77 21698 Olive Ave 357‐21‐
002
Residential
(4.4‐12 du/ac)
Residential
(10‐15 du/ac) P(Res) P(Res) To be consistent with
existing densities.
78 21684 Olive Ave 357‐21‐
003
Residential
(4.4‐12 du/ac)
Residential
(10‐15 du/ac) P(Res) P(Res) To be consistent with
existing densities.
79 21682 Olive Ave 357‐21‐
004
Residential
(4.4‐12 du/ac)
Residential
(10‐15 du/ac) P(Res) P(Res) To be consistent with
existing densities.
80 21696 Olive Ave 357‐21‐
005
Residential
(4.4‐12 du/ac)
Residential
(10‐15 du/ac) P(Res) P(Res) To be consistent with
existing densities.
81 21694 Olive Ave 357‐21‐
006
Residential
(4.4‐12 du/ac)
Residential
(10‐15 du/ac) P(Res) P(Res) To be consistent with
existing densities.
82 21692 Olive Ave 357‐21‐
007
Residential
(4.4‐12 du/ac)
Residential
(10‐15 du/ac) P(Res) P(Res) To be consistent with
existing densities.
83 21690 Olive Ave 357‐21‐
008
Residential
(4.4‐12 du/ac)
Residential
(10‐15 du/ac) P(Res) P(Res) To be consistent with
existing densities.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PLACEWORKS 3-115
TABLE 3‐22 GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING ORDINANCE CONFORMANCE SITES
Map
# Address APN
Land Use Zoning
Reason Existing Proposed Existing Proposed
84 21680 Olive Ave 357‐21‐
009
Residential
(4.4‐12 du/ac)
Residential
(10‐15 du/ac) P(Res) P(Res) To be consistent with
existing densities.
85 21678 Olive Ave 357‐21‐
010
Residential
(4.4‐12 du/ac)
Residential
(10‐15 du/ac) P(Res) P(Res) To be consistent with
existing densities.
86 21688 Olive Ave 357‐21‐
011
Residential
(4.4‐12 du/ac)
Residential
(10‐15 du/ac) P(Res) P(Res) To be consistent with
existing densities.
87 21686 Olive Ave 357‐21‐
012
Residential
(4.4‐12 du/ac)
Residential
(10‐15 du/ac) P(Res) P(Res) To be consistent with
existing densities.
88 21676 Olive Ave 357‐21‐
013
Residential
(4.4‐12 du/ac)
Residential
(10‐15 du/ac) P(Res) P(Res)
To be consistent with
existing densities.
89 21674 Olive Ave 357‐21‐
014
Residential
(4.4‐12 du/ac)
Residential
(10‐15 du/ac) P(Res) P(Res) To be consistent with
existing densities.
90 1168 Gardenside
Lane
362‐31
018
Low/Medium
Density
(5‐10 du/ac)
Medium/High
Density
(10‐20 du/ac) P(R3) P(R3)
To be consistent with
existing densities
91 1180 Gardenside
Lane
362‐31
022
Low/Medium
Density
(5‐10 du/ac)
Medium/High
Density
(10‐20 du/ac) P(R3) P(R3)
To be consistent with
existing densities
92
20667 Cleo Ave
362‐31
021
Low/Medium
Density
(5‐10 du/ac)
Medium/High
Density
(10‐20 du/ac) P(R3) P(R3)
To allow development
consistent with the zoning
designation
93
0 Cleo Ave
362‐31
030
Low/Medium
Density
(5‐10 du/ac)
Medium/High
Density
(10‐20 du/ac) P(R3) P(R3)
To allow development
consistent with the zoning
designation
Notes: APN = Assessor’s Parcel Number, du/ac = dwelling units per acre
Zoning Acronyms:
A= Agricultural, A1‐43=(43,000‐square‐foot lot)
R1=Single Family Residential, R1‐6 (6,000‐square‐foot lot), R1‐10 (10,000‐square‐foot lot), R2=Residential Duplex, R2‐4.25 (8,500‐square‐foot lot),
R3=Multiple Family Residential
BQ= Quasi‐Public Building, BA=Public Building
P(CG)=Planned Development General Commercial
PR=Park and Recreation
ML‐rc=Light Industrial
P(MP) = Planned Office Park
P(Res) = Planned Residential
Source: City of Cupertino, Municipal Code, Title 19 (Zoning), 2000‐2005 General Plan, Section 2 (Land Use), 2014.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3-116 JUNE 18, 2014
This page intentionally left blank.
City of
Sunnyvale
%&'(280
|ÿ85
City of San Jose
City of
Los Altos
|ÿ85
City of Sunnyvale
City of
Santa
Clara
Santa Clara
County
!(47
65-70
73-89
71-72
31-36
!(46
61-64
56-59 51-5548-49
90-93
!(41
!(43
!(13
!(19
!(4
!(39
!(22
!(9!(10
!(27
!(14
!(16
!(37
!(11
!(12
!(25
!(17
!(18 !(26
!(44
!(42
!(23
!(38
!(30
!(20
!(3
!(15
!(2
!(28
!(45
!(40
!(24 !(21
!(29
!(6
!(5 !(7
!(1
!(8
!(50
!(60
STEVENS CREEK BLVD
S
B
L
A
N
E
Y
A
V
E
N
B
L
A
N
E
Y
A
V
E
N
S
T
E
L
L
I
N
G
R
D
BUB BRD
N
TANTAU
AVE
S
D
E
A
N
Z
A
B
L
V
D
BOLLINGER RD
BLANEYAVE
PRUNERIDGE AVE
FO
O
T
H
I
L
L
B
L
V
D
N
FOOTHILL
BLVD
S
S
T
E
L
L
I
N
G
R
D
HOMESTEAD RD
M
I
L
L
E
R
A
V
E
S
TANTAUAVE
N
D
E
A
N
Z
A
B
L
V
D
MCCLELLAN RD
N
W
O
L
F
E
R
D
Monta VistaRecreationCenter/Park
LindaVista Park
Deep CliffGolf Course
McClellanRanchPreserve
BlackberryFarm Park
SomersetSquarePark
VarianPark MemorialPark
ThreeOaks Park
JollymanPark
CaliMillPlaza
LibraryField
WilsonPark
CreeksidePark
PortalPark
FrancoPark
PROJECT DESCRIPTIONCITY OF CUPERTINOGENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING PROJECT
Figure 3-40General Plan and Zoning Ordinance Conformance Sites
Source: City of Cupertino, 2013; MIG, Inc, 2014; PlaceWorks, 2014.
0 0.25 0.50.125
Miles
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PLACEWORKS 3-119
New Neighborhoods
New neighborhood names and boundaries would be established under the proposed Project. The new
neighborhood names are commonly used by the residents of Cupertino, and this process will formalize the
neighborhood names and define their boundaries on a map. No new development potential would occur as
result of the new names or boundary identification. The new neighborhood names and boundaries are shown
on Figure 3-19, Other Special Areas including Neighborhoods and Non-Residential/Mixed-Use Special
Areas, and are listed in Section 3.7.3.3, Other Neighborhoods above.
Public Utilities, Infrastructure and Services Element
In order to better organize the General Plan, the City has reorganized the policies within existing Sections
(Elements) of the General Plan and relocated these policies in a newly created Chapter for the purposes of
consolidating policies related to public utilities, infrastructure and services. The policies that will be part of
the proposed Public Utilities, Infrastructure and Services Element are listed in Appendix I, Proposed
General Plan Policy Amendments, of this Draft EIR.
City of Cupertino Historical Register
The Seven Springs Ranch, built in 1866 and located at 11801 Dorothy Anne Way in Cupertino, is listed on
the Office of Historic Preservation Directory Listings. This site has been nominated for inclusion in the
National Register; however, it is not currently listed in either the National Register of Historic Places or the
California Register of Historical Resources. As part of the proposed Project, this site would be added to the
City’s list of Historically Significant Resources. This site is discussed in detail in Chapter 4.5, Cultural
Resources, of this Draft EIR and is shown on Figure 4.4-1, Cultural Resources, as Site 23.
Residential Density
As previously described in Section 3.7.4, Housing Element Sites, under the proposed Project, the City
would change the process of calculating residential density to “net” density, which is the number of units
divided by the acreage of residential land. The residential density under the proposed Project as described in
this chapter has been calculated by net density. For residential sites not considered in this Project, this
change would not result in new development potential in the city.
3.7.5.2 DENSITY BONUS ORDINANCE
Housing Element Program 11 (Density Bonus Ordinance)
Chapter 19.56 (Density Bonus) in Title 19 (Zoning) of the City’s Municipal Code states the intent of the
density bonus ordinance, which is to comply with the State Density Bonus Law, Government Code Section
65915. The State Density Bonus Law provides that a local government shall grant a density bonus and an
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3-120 JUNE 18, 2014
additional concession, or financially equivalent incentive(s), to a developer of a housing development who
agrees to construct a specified percentage of housing for lower income households, very low income
households, or senior citizens. The City’s Density Bonus Program allows for a density bonus and additional
concessions for development of 6 or more units that provide affordable housing for families and seniors.
Possible concessions include:
Reduced parking standards,
Reduced open space requirements,
Reduced setback requirements, and
Approval of mixed-use zoning.
Housing Element Program 12 (Extremely Low Income Housing and Housing for Persons with Special
Needs) outlines the various incentives the City may consider to facilitate affordable housing development,
including the provision of density bonus. However, the City’s existing Density Bonus Ordinance is not
consistent with State law. Housing Element Program 11 (Density Bonus Program) commits the City to
updating the Density Bonus Ordinance concurrent with the Housing Element Update. Under the proposed
Project, the City will revise Chapter 19.56 (Density Bonus) to reflect requirements in State law and ensure
consistency with Housing Element Program 6 (Residential Housing Mitigation Program). The updated
Density Bonus Ordinance will identify the regulatory concessions and incentives that may be considered by
the City in conjunction with a density bonus project. Height increases will not be considered as part of the
incentives, however.
3.7.5.3 HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE 17021.5 AND 17021.6 COMPLIANCE
(EMPLOYEE HOUSING ACT)
Housing Element Program 13 (Employee Housing)
The City currently permits farmworker housing in Agricultural (A) and Agricultural Residential (A-1)
Districts. Under the existing code, farmworker housing is allowed for workers and their families whose
primary employment is incidental and necessary to agricultural operations conducted on the same parcel of
land on which the residences are located. Currently, the City’s Zoning Ordinance does not include a
definition for farmworker housing.
Section 17021.6 of the State Employee Housing Act addresses farmworker housing specifically. The
Employee Housing Act states that any employee housing consisting of no more than 36 beds in group
quarters or 12 units or spaces designed for use by a single family or household shall be deemed an
agricultural land use. The California Health and Safety Code requires that farmworker housing as defined in
Section 17021.6 be permitted in the same manner as other agricultural uses in all zones that permit
agricultural uses. A conditional use permit, zoning variance, or other zoning clearance shall not be required
of employee housing if not required for any other agricultural activity in the same zone. Also, employee
housing located in zoning districts that permit agricultural uses shall not exclude agricultural employees
who do not work on the property where the employee housing is located.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PLACEWORKS 3-121
Under the proposed Project, the City will amend the Zoning Ordinance to be consistent with the State
Employee Housing Act with respect to farmworker housing as follows:
1. A definition of farmworker housing will be established.
2. The following changes will be made to Table 19.20.020 of Chapter 19.20, Permitted, Conditional and
Excluded Uses in Agricultural and Residential Uses, in the Zoning Code:
The stipulation requiring farmworker housing, currently permitted in the A (Agricultural) and A-1
(Agricultural-Residential) zoning district, be occupied solely by workers or families associated with
the farm operations on site will be eliminated from farmworker housing as defined in Section
17021.6, shall be allowed as a conditional use, approved with an administrative conditional use
permit, in the RHS (Residential Hillside) zoning district, consistent with the existing requirement
for an administrative conditional use permit for ‘crop, tree or horticultural farming for commercial
purposes’ in the RHS zone.
3. Table 19.84.020 in Chapter 19.84, Permitted, Conditional And Excluded Uses In Open Space, Park
And Recreation And Private Recreation Zoning Districts, in the Zoning Code , will be amended to
clarify that the Agricultural activities permitted in the PR (Public Park/Recreational) zoning district,
are for educational and recreational purposes, such as community gardens and hobby farms.
Section 17021.5 of the State Employee Housing Act addresses employee housing in general. It specifies that
housing for six or fewer employees must be treated as a single-family use with a residential land use
designation. Such employee housing shall be defined separately and distinctly from a boarding house,
rooming house, hotel, dormitory, or other similar term that implies that the employee housing is a business
run for profit or differs in any other way from a family dwelling. A conditional use permit, zoning variance,
or other zoning clearance shall not be required of employee housing that serves six or fewer employees that
is not required of a family dwelling of the same type in the same zone. Currently, the City’s Zoning
Ordinance does not define or address employee housing. The HCD in the fifth cycle update has consistently
requested that jurisdictions address the provision such housing in the Zoning Code.
Under the proposed Project, the City will amend the Zoning Code to be consistent with the State Employee
Housing Act with respect to employee housing in general as follows:
1. A definition of employee housing will be established.
2. Table 19.20.020 of Chapter 19.20, Permitted, Conditional and Excluded Uses in Agricultural and
Residential Uses, in the Zoning Ordinance will be amended to identify employee housing as a permitted
use in all residential zoning districts.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3-122 JUNE 18, 2014
3.7.5.4 SENATE BILL 2 COMPLIANCE (EMERGENCY SHELTERS)
Housing Element Program 21 (Emergency Shelters)
Senate Bill 2 (SB 2) became effective January 1, 2008 and is intended to clarify and strengthen housing
element law to ensure zoning encourages and facilities emergency shelters and limits the denial of
emergency shelters, transitional, and supportive housing under the Housing Accountability Act.
SB 2 requires every jurisdiction to permit emergency shelters without discretionary approvals in at least one
zoning district in the city. The City amended Chapter 19.76, Public Building (BA), Quasi-Public Building
(BQ) and Transportation (T) Zones of the Zoning Ordinance in 2010 to provide for the siting of emergency
shelters in the BQ zoning districts as a permitted use, which included the following requirements outlined
in Table 19.76.030, Permitted, Conditional, and Excluded Uses in BA, BQ and T Zones:
1. Shelter is located within an existing church structure;
2. The number of occupants does not exceed twenty-five;
3. The hours of operation do not exceed six p.m. to seven a.m.;
4. Adequate supervision is provided;
5. Fire safety regulations are met; and
6. Operation period does not exceed two months in any twelve-month period at any single location.
However, the development standards established in the Zoning Ordinance do not meet State law
requirements for permanent year-round shelters. Specifically, the first requirement listed above, that the
shelter be located within an existing church structure, is a locational requirement not permitted under State
law. Housing Element Program 21 commits the City to amending the Zoning Ordinance concurrent with
the Housing Element Update to remove the condition that an emergency shelter be located within an
existing church structure. Under the proposed Project, the City would revise the Zoning Ordinance to
comply with State law and remove this location requirement: Specifically, the proposed Project would
include a minor change to Chapter 19.76 in Title 19 (Zoning) Table 19.76.030, to remove requirement (a)
Shelter is located within an existing church structure or modify it to “Shelter may be located within an
existing church structure.” No other changes are proposed to be made to this chapter of the Zoning
Ordinance under the proposed Project.
3.7.5.5 RENTAL HOUSING PRESERVATION
Housing Element Program 17 (Rental Housing Preservation Program)
Housing Element Program 17 addresses the potential loss of rental housing and displacement of lower and
moderate income households in multi-family housing due to new development. The City will amend the
existing policy to be compliant with recent legislation and to ensure that displacement does not impact
tenants.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PLACEWORKS 3-123
3.7.5.6 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ORDINANCE
In conjunction with the proposed General Plan policy amendments, Chapter 19.144 (Development
Agreements) of the City’s Municipal Code will be amended to codify the provisions of the proposed
Community Benefits Program Policy.
3.8 PROJECT COMPONENT LOCATION SUMMARY
As described above in Section 3.7, Project Components, the proposed Project includes revisions to the
development allocations for commercial, office, hotel and residential land uses, and development standards
related to density and height at specific locations throughout the city boundaries. Table 3-23 describes the
geographic relationship between the Project Components and Figure 3-41 provides a graphic representation
that shows all of the Project Component locations on one map where potential increases to development
allocations and revisions to development standards would occur under the proposed Project.
3.9 REQUIRED PERMITS AND APPROVALS
The proposed Project will be adopted solely by the City, without permitting by other agencies. However,
following City adoption of the Housing Element as part of the Cupertino General Plan, the HCD will be
asked to review the City’s Housing Element and certify that it complies with State Housing Element law.
The proposed Project does not include any specific development proposals. Future development will need
to conform to applicable Zoning district development and design standards, and be consistent with General
Plan Goals and Policies. Depending on the proposal, a project may be exempt from CEQA review because a
CEQA exemption applies or the approval is ministerial,20 or a project requires further environmental
review and subsequent analysis in a Negative Declaration, Mitigated Negative Declaration, or an
Environmental Impact Report.
20 Projects may be ministerial, which means that they do not require any discretionary review. Building permits will be required for all
structures.
GE
N
E
R
A
L
P
L
A
N
A
M
E
N
D
M
E
N
T
,
H
O
U
S
I
N
G
E
L
E
M
E
N
T
U
P
D
A
T
E
,
A
N
D
A
S
S
O
C
I
A
T
E
D
R
E
Z
O
N
I
N
G
D
R
A
F
T
E
I
R
CI
T
Y
O
F
C
U
P
E
R
T
I
N
O
PR
O
J
E
C
T
D
E
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
3-
1
2
4
JUNE 18, 2014
TAB
L
E
3‐23
PRO
J
E
C
T
COM
P
O
N
E
N
T
LOC
A
T
I
O
N
SUM
M
A
R
Y
Sp
e
c
i
a
l
Ar
e
a
s
Al
o
n
g
Ma
j
o
r
Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
Co
r
r
i
d
o
r
s
Ga
t
e
w
a
y
s
an
d
No
d
e
s
St
u
d
y
Ar
e
a
s
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
El
e
m
e
n
t
Si
t
e
s
Ot
h
e
r
Sp
e
c
i
a
l
Areas including
Ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
s
and Non‐Residential/
Mi
x
e
d
‐Use Special Areas
Ho
m
e
s
t
e
a
d
Sp
e
c
i
a
l
Ar
e
a
St
e
l
l
i
n
g
Ga
t
e
w
a
y
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
Si
t
e
12
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
Si
t
e
17
No
r
t
h
De
An
z
a
Ga
t
e
w
a
y
St
u
d
y
Ar
e
a
1 ‐
Cu
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
In
n
an
d
Go
o
d
y
e
a
r
Ti
r
e
St
u
d
y
Ar
e
a
3 ‐
PG
&
E
St
u
d
y
Ar
e
a
4 ‐
Mi
r
a
p
a
t
h
No
r
t
h
Va
l
l
c
o
Pa
r
k
Sp
e
c
i
a
l
Ar
e
a
No
r
t
h
Va
l
l
c
o
Ga
t
e
w
a
y
St
u
d
y
Ar
e
a
5 ‐
Cu
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
Vi
l
l
a
g
e
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
Si
t
e
10
He
a
r
t
of
th
e
Ci
t
y
Sp
e
c
i
a
l
Ar
e
a
Oa
k
s
Ga
t
e
w
a
y
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
Si
t
e
18
No
r
t
h
Cr
o
s
s
r
o
a
d
s
No
d
e
St
u
d
y
Ar
e
a
7 ‐
St
e
v
e
n
s
Cr
e
e
k
Of
f
i
c
e
Ce
n
t
e
r
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
Si
t
e
15
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
Si
t
e
14
Ci
t
y
Ce
n
t
e
r
No
d
e
St
u
d
y
Ar
e
a
2 ‐
Ci
t
y
Ce
n
t
e
r
So
u
t
h
Va
l
l
c
o
Pa
r
k
Ga
t
e
w
a
y
We
s
t
/
E
a
s
t
St
u
d
y
Ar
e
a
6 ‐
Va
l
l
c
o
Sh
o
p
p
i
n
g
Di
s
t
r
i
c
t
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
Si
t
e
11
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
Si
t
e
1
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
Si
t
e
2
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
Si
t
e
3
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
Si
t
e
4
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
Si
t
e
5
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
Si
t
e
13
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
Si
t
e
19
De
An
z
a
Co
l
l
e
g
e
No
d
e
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
Re
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
No
d
e
Ci
v
i
c
Ce
n
t
e
r
No
d
e
GE
N
E
R
A
L
P
L
A
N
A
M
E
N
D
M
E
N
T
,
H
O
U
S
I
N
G
E
L
E
M
E
N
T
U
P
D
A
T
E
,
A
N
D
A
S
S
O
C
I
A
T
E
D
R
E
Z
O
N
I
N
G
D
R
A
F
T
E
I
R
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PR
O
J
E
C
T
D
E
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
PL
A
C
E
W
O
R
K
S
3-125
TAB
L
E
3‐23
PRO
J
E
C
T
COM
P
O
N
E
N
T
LOC
A
T
I
O
N
SUM
M
A
R
Y
Sp
e
c
i
a
l
Ar
e
a
s
Al
o
n
g
Ma
j
o
r
Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
Co
r
r
i
d
o
r
s
Ga
t
e
w
a
y
s
an
d
No
d
e
s
St
u
d
y
Ar
e
a
s
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
El
e
m
e
n
t
Si
t
e
s
Ot
h
e
r
Sp
e
c
i
a
l
Areas including
Ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
s
and Non‐Residential/
Mi
x
e
d
‐Use Special Areas
No
r
t
h
De
An
z
a
Sp
e
c
i
a
l
Ar
e
a
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
Si
t
e
7
So
u
t
h
De
An
z
a
Sp
e
c
i
a
l
Ar
e
a
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
Si
t
e
16
Ou
t
s
i
d
e
Sp
e
c
i
a
l
Ar
e
a
s
Al
o
n
g
Ma
j
o
r
Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
Co
r
r
i
d
o
r
s
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
Si
t
e
6
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
Si
t
e
8
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
Si
t
e
9
Mo
n
t
a
Vista Village Neighborhood
Bu
b
b
Ro
a
d
Special Area
Ot
h
e
r
Neighborhood Special Areas
Ot
h
e
r
Non‐Residential Mixed‐Use
Sp
e
c
i
a
l
Areas
So
u
r
c
e
:
Ci
t
y
of
Cu
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
,
20
1
4
.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3-126 JUNE 18, 2014
This page intentionally left blank.
City of
Sunnyvale
%&'(280
|ÿ85
City of San Jose
City of
Santa Clara
City of
Los Altos
|ÿ85
City of Sunnyvale
Santa Clara
County
Stelling Gateway
North De Anza Gateway
North Vallco Gateway
South Vallco ParkGateway EastCity Center Node
Oaks Gateway South Vallco ParkGateway West
NorthCrossroadsNode
CommunityRec Node
De AnzaCollege Node Civic Center Node
S
B
L
A
N
E
Y
A
V
E
B O LLI N GE R RD
N
S
T
E
L
L
I
N
G
R
D
B
U
B
B
R
D
NTANTAU
AVE
S
D
E
A
N
Z
A
B
L
V
D
BLANEYAVE
FO
O
T
H
I
L
L
B
L
V
D
N
FOOTHILL
BLVD
RAINBOW DR
S
S
T
E
L
L
I
N
G
R
D
HOMESTEAD RD
PRUNERIDGE AVE
M
I
L
L
E
R
AVE
STEVENS CREEK BLVD
S
TANTAUAVE
G
R
A
N
T
R
D
N
D
E
A
N
Z
A
B
L
V
D
PROSPEC T R D
MCCLELLAN RD
N
W
O
L
F
E
R
D
")4
")3
")7
")1 ")5
")6
")2
!(1
!(2 !(3 !(4
!(5
!(6
!(6 !(7
!(8
!(9
!(10
!(11
!(12
!(13
!(14!(15
!(16
!(17
!(18
!(19
PROJECT DESCRIPTIONCITY OF CUPERTINOGENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING PROJECT
Figure 3-41Project Component Summary Map
Source: City of Cupertino, 2013; MIG, Inc, 2014; PlaceWorks, 2014.
0 0.25 0.50.125
Miles
Mixed-Use Special AreasHomestead Special AreaNorth Vallco Special AreaHeart of the City Special AreaNorth De Anza Special AreaSouth De Anza Special AreaBubb Road Special Area
City Gateways/NodesStudy AreasPotential Housing SitesOther Special AreasCity Boundary
The General Plan and Zoning Conformance Sites are excluded from this figure because no new development potential would occuron these sites as a result of the proposed project.
NOTE:
3
3
PLACEWORKS 4-1
4. Environmental Evaluation
This chapter of the Draft EIR is made up of 14 sub-chapters, which evaluate the direct, indirect, and
cumulative environmental impacts of the proposed Project. In accordance with Appendix G, Environmental
Checklist, and Appendix F, Energy Conservation, of the CEQA Guidelines, the potential environmental
effects of the proposed Project are analyzed for potential significant impacts in the following environmental
issue areas:
Aesthetics
Air Quality
Biological Resources
Cultural Resources
Geology, Soils, and Seismicity
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Hydrology and Water Quality
Land Use and Planning
Noise
Population and Housing
Public Services and Recreation
Transportation and Traffic
Utilities and Service Systems
FORMAT OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
Each sub-chapter is organized into the following sections:
Environmental Setting provides a description of the existing environmental conditions, providing a
baseline against which the impacts of the proposed Project can be compared, and an overview of
federal, State, regional and local laws and regulations relevant to each environmental issue.
Thresholds of Significance refer to the quantitative or qualitative standards, performance levels, or
criteria used to compare the existing setting with and without the proposed Project to determine
whether the impact is significant. These thresholds are based primarily on the CEQA Guidelines, and
also may reflect established health standards, ecological tolerance standards, public service capacity
standards, or guidelines established by agencies or experts.
Impact Discussion gives an overview of the potential impacts of the proposed Project and explains
why impacts were found to be significant or less than significant prior to mitigation. This subsection also
includes a discussion of cumulative impacts to the proposed Project. Impacts and mitigation measures
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
4-2 JUNE 18, 2014
are numbered consecutively within each topical analysis and begin with an acronymic or abbreviated
reference to the impact section. The following symbols are used for individual topics:
AES - Aesthetics
AQ - Air Quality
BIO - Biological Resources
CULT - Cultural Resources
GEO - Geology, Seismicity, and Soils
GHG - Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sustainability
HAZ - Hazards and Hazardous Materials
HYDRO: - Hydrology and Water Quality
LU - Land Use
NOISE - Noise
POP – Population and Housing
PS - Public Services and Recreation
TRAF - Transportation and Traffic
UTIL - Utilities and Service Systems
THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
As noted above, the significance criteria are identified before the impact discussion subsection, under the
subsection, “Thresholds of Significance.” For each impact identified, a level of significance is determined
using the following classifications:
Significant (S) impacts include a description of the circumstances where an established or defined
threshold would be exceeded.
Less-than-significant (LTS) impacts include effects that are noticeable, but do not exceed established or
defined thresholds, or are mitigated below such thresholds.
No impact describes the circumstances where there is no adverse effect on the environment.
For each impact identified as being significant, the EIR identifies mitigation measures to reduce, eliminate,
or avoid the adverse effect. If the mitigation measures would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant
level successfully, this is stated in the EIR. However, significant and unavoidable (SU) impacts are described
where mitigation measures would not diminish these effects to less-than-significant levels.
EVALUATION OF GENERAL PLAN POLICIES
As discussed in Chapter 3, Project Description, of the Draft EIR, a comprehensive list of policy changes is
provided in Appendix I, Proposed General Plan Policy Amendments, of this Draft EIR. The list is provided
with new text shown in underline and deleted text shown in strikethrough. The General Plan Policy changes
include both substantive and non-substantive changes.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
PLACEWORKS 4-3
Substantive policy changes include the addition, removal, or functional revisions (e.g. not purely semantic)
in ways that have the potential to result in a physical impact on the environment. Discussions of how
substantive policy changes may result in adverse physical changes are included in the analyses under each
impact criterion in the Impact Discussion section, in Chapters 4.1 through 4.14 of the Draft EIR.
Amended and new Policies 2-23 through 2-33 of the Land Use/Community Design Element collectively
reflect the changes to land use, development intensity, development allocations, and Special Areas that
constitute the Project Components—as described in detail in Chapter 3, Project Description. The content
of these particular policies is directly integrated with and reflective of the proposed Project as a whole’
therefore, impact discussions for the effects of the proposed Project necessarily encompass analysis the
effects of these particular policies as a whole rather. Therefore, these policies are not analyzed under each
impact criterion in the Impact Discussion section, in Chapters 4.1 through 4.14 of the Draft EIR on a
policy-by-policy basis.
Non-substantive changes include the renumbering of policies or minor text revisions (e.g. changing “in no
way” to “not”), which do not have the potential to result in a physical change to the environment. Where the
only change to the policy involved renumbering, these policies are listed in the Regulatory Framework
section of Chapters 4.1 through 4.14 of the Draft EIR.
CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS
A cumulative impact consists of an impact created as a result of the combination of the project evaluated in
the EIR, together with other reasonably foreseeable projects causing related impacts. Section 15130 of the
CEQA Guidelines requires an EIR to discuss cumulative impacts of a project when the project’s incremental
effect is “cumulatively considerable.” Used in this context, cumulatively considerable means that the
incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of
past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.
In the case of a General Plan, cumulative effects occur when future development under the General Plan is
combined with development in the surrounding areas or in some instances in the entire region.
Where the incremental effect of a project is not “cumulatively considerable,” a lead agency need not
consider that effect significant, but must briefly describe its basis for concluding that the effect is not
cumulatively considerable. The cumulative impacts discussions in Chapters 4.1 through 4.14 explain the
geographic scope of the area affected by each cumulative effect (e.g. immediate project vicinity, city, county,
watershed, or air basin). The geographic area considered for each cumulative impact depends upon the
impact that is being analyzed. For example, in assessing aesthetic impacts, the pertinent geographic study
area is the vicinity of the areas of new development under the proposed Project from which the new
development can be publicly viewed and may contribute to a significant cumulative visual effect. In assessing
macro-scale air quality impacts, on the other hand, all development within the air basin contributes to
regional emissions of criteria pollutants, and basin-wide projections of emissions is the best tool for
determining the cumulative effect.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
4-4 JUNE 18, 2014
Section 15130 of the CEQA Guidelines permits two different methodologies for completion of the
cumulative impact analysis:
The ‘list’ approach permits the use of a list of past, present, and probable future projects producing
related or cumulative impacts, including projects both within and outside the city; and
The ‘projections’ approach allows the use of a summary of projections contained in an adopted plan or
related planning document, such as a regional transportation plan, or in an EIR prepared for such a
plan. The projections may be supplemented with additional information such as regional modeling.
This EIR uses the projections approach and takes into account growth from the proposed 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). In each section of Chapter 4, the cumulative impacts discussion is based on
the cumulative development described in Chapter 6, CEQA-Required Assessment Conclusions, of this Draft
EIR. The following provides a summary of the cumulative impact scope for each impact area:
Aesthetics: The cumulative setting for visual impacts includes potential future development under the
proposed General Pan combined with effects of development on lands adjacent to the city within Los
Altos and Sunnyvale to the north, Santa Clara and San Jose to the east, and Saratoga to the south, and
the unincorporated areas of Santa Clara County to the west and south.
Air Quality: Cumulative air quality impacts could occur from a combination of the proposed Project
combined with regional growth within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin.
Biological Resources: The geographic scope of the cumulative analysis for biological resources
considers the surrounding incorporated and unincorporated lands, and the region.
Cultural Resources: Cumulative impacts to cultural resources could occur from development
planned for under the proposed Project and the region.
Geology, Soils, and Seismicity: Potential cumulative geological impacts could arise from a
combination of the development of the proposed Project together with future development in the
immediate vicinity of the adjoining jurisdictions.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions: The cumulative impact analyses for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions is
related to the ongoing development in the City of Cupertino and the entire region. Because GHG
emissions are not confined to a particular air basin but are dispersed worldwide, the cumulative analysis
focuses on the global impacts.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials: This chapter analyzes potential cumulative hazardous impacts
that could arise from a combination of the development of the proposed Project together with the
regional growth in the immediate vicinity of the Project Study Area.
Hydrology and Water Quality: The geographic context used for the cumulative assessment of water
quality and hydrology impacts is the Calabazas Creek and East Sunnyvale Channel watersheds, which
encompasses the entire Study Area.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
PLACEWORKS 4-5
Land Use and Planning: The geographic context for the cumulative land use and planning effects
occur from potential future development under the General Plan combined with effects of development
on lands adjacent to the city within Los Altos and Sunnyvale to the north, Santa Clara and San Jose to
the east, and Saratoga to the south, and the unincorporated areas of Santa Clara County to the west and
south, and within the region.
Noise: The traffic noise levels are based on cumulative traffic conditions that take into account
cumulative development in the region.
Population and Housing: Impacts from cumulative growth are considered in the context of their
consistency with regional planning efforts.
Public Services and Recreation: Cumulative impacts are considered in the context of the growth
from development under the proposed Project within the city combined with the estimated growth in
the service areas of each service provider.
Transportation and Traffic: The analysis of the proposed Project addresses cumulative impacts to the
transportation network in the City of Cupertino and the surrounding area. Projected 2040 traffic
impacts at General Plan buildout are calculated using data from the City of Cupertino and neighboring
jurisdictions regarding recently approved projects, approved-but-not-constructed projects and future
projects. These data are used to generate trips using industry-standard trip rates and the trips are
manually assigned to the transportation network. This traffic assignment is used as the basis for
cumulative traffic and is refined for growth in Cupertino under the proposed Project. The projected
2040 vehicle miles at General Plan buildout are calculated using data from Santa Clara Valley
Transportation Authority’s Travel Demand Forecast model, which incorporates county and regional
growth projections from ABAG; these data were then adjusted to account for growth in Cupertino
under the proposed Project.
Utilities and Service Systems: Cumulative impacts are considered in the context of the growth
from development under the proposed General Plan within the city combined with the estimated
growth in each utility’s service area.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
4-6 JUNE 18, 2014
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
AESTHETICS
PLACEWORKS 4.1-1
4.1 AESTHETICS
This chapter describes the existing aesthetic character of the City of Cupertino and evaluates the potential
environmental consequences on visual resources from future development that could occur by adopting and
implementing the proposed Project. A summary of the relevant regulatory setting and existing conditions is
followed by a discussion of proposed Project and cumulative impacts. This chapter cross-references several
figures in Chapter 3, Project Description, of this Draft EIR. These figures are denoted with the first number
“3,” which represents Chapter 3 and the second number represents the sequencing of the figure in the
chapter (e.g. Figure 3-1 is the first figure in Chapter 3). Figures that are specific to this chapter begin with
the number “4.1.”
4.1.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
4.1.1.1 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
This section summarizes key State and local regulations related to aesthetics concerning the proposed
Project. There are no federal regulations pertaining to aesthetics that apply to the proposed Project.
State Regulations
California Scenic Highway Program
The California Scenic Highway Program,1administered by the California Department of Transportation
(Caltrans), protects scenic State highway corridors from changes that would diminish the aesthetic value of
lands adjacent to those highways. Caltrans designated the segment of Interstate 280 (I-280) from Santa Clara
County line on the west to Interstate 880 (I-880) on the east as an eligible State Scenic Highway.2 The status
of a proposed State scenic highway changes from “eligible” to officially “designated” when the local governing
body applies to Caltrans for scenic highway approval, adopts a Corridor Protection Program, and receives
notification that the highway has been officially designated a Scenic Highway.3 The City of Cupertino has not
applied to Caltrans for scenic highway approval at the time of drafting this EIR.
California Building Code
The California Building Code (CBC), Part 2 of Title 24 in the California Code of Regulations (CCR), is
based on the International Building Code and combines three types of building standards from three
different origins:
Building standards that have been adopted by State agencies without change from building standards
contained in the International Building Code.
1 Streets and Highways Code Section 260 et seq.
2 California Department of Transportation website, Officially Designated State Scenic Highways, http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/
LandArch/scenic/schwy.htm, accessed April 18, 2014.
3 California Department of Transportation website, Officially Designated State Scenic Highways, http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/
LandArch/scenic/schwy.htm, accessed April 18, 2014.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
AESTHETICS
4.1-2 JUNE 18, 2014
Building standards that have been adopted from the International Building Code to meet California
conditions.
Building standards, authorized by the California legislature, that constitute extensive additions not
covered by the International Building Code that have been adopted to address particular California
concerns.
The CBC includes standards for outdoor lighting that are intended to improve energy efficiency, and to
reduce light pollution and glare by regulating light power and brightness, shielding, and sensor controls.
Local Regulations
City of Cupertino General Plan 2000-2020
The City of Cupertino’s 2000-2020 General Plan contains guiding principles, goals, policies, and
implementation strategies to build a community that serves the needs of its residents, strengthens
neighborhood connections, and enhances the city’s quality of life. Section 2, Land Use/Community Design
Element, serves as the keystone for the General Plan. The Land Use/Community Design Element contains
goals and policies to encourage better connection and integration of uses to make places more inviting and
accessible. Section 2 also provides direction on building form, site design and development standards for
valuable resources such as Cupertino’s hillsides. While the General Plan does not specifically address scenic
corridors or vistas, it recognizes the views of the foothills (i.e. Montebello) and ridgelines of the Santa Cruz
Mountains to the west and other natural features that surround the city as irreplaceable resources.
The General Plan also describes the types of development activities, including design elements and
maximum building height limits, that would be permitted within the Monta Vista Neighborhood Center; the
Homestead, Heart of the City, Stevens Creek Boulevard, and Vallco Park South Commercial Centers, the
North De Anza, Vallco Park North, City Center, and Bubb Road Special Areas.
As part of the proposed Project, some General Plan policies would be amended. Substantive policy changes
under the proposed Project include the addition, removal, or functional revision (e.g. not purely semantic)
of policies in ways that have the potential to result in a physical impact on the environment. Policies of the
2000-2020 General Plan that are relevant to visual resources and were not substantially modified (e.g.
renumbered or minor text change) are listed below in Table 4.1-1. A comprehensive list of policy changes is
provided in Appendix I, Proposed General Plan Policy Amendments, of this Draft EIR. Discussions of how
substantive policy changes may result in adverse physical changes are included in the analyses under each
impact criterion in Section 4.1.3, Impact Discussion, below.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
AESTHETICS
PLACEWORKS 4.1-3
TABLE 4.1‐1 POLICIES AND STRATEGIES OF THE CUPERTINO 2000‐2020 GENERAL PLAN
New Policy
Number
Original Policy
Number
Policies and Strategies
Section 2, Land Use/Community Design
Policy 2‐17 Policy 2‐15 Multi‐Family Residential Design. Maintain a superior living environment for multi‐family
dwellings.
Strategy 1. Relationship to Street. Relate building entrances to the street, utilizing
porches or stoops.
Strategy 2. Provision of Outdoor Areas. Provide outdoor areas, both passive and active,
and generous landscaping to enhance the surroundings for multi‐family residents. Allow
public access to the common outdoor areas whenever possible.
Policy 2‐19 Policy 2‐23 Compatibility of Lot Sizes. Ensure that zoning, subdivision, and lot line adjustment
requests related to lot size or lot design consider the need to preserve neighborhood lot
patterns.
Strategy 1. Minimum Lot Size. Increase the minimum lot size if the proposed new lot size
is smaller than and not compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.
Strategy 2. Flag Lots. Create flag lots in proposed subdivisions when they are the only
reasonable alternative that integrates with the lot pattern in the neighborhood.
Policy 2‐47 Policy 2‐48 Hillside Development Standards. Establish building and development standards that
ensure hillside protection.
Strategy 1. Ordinance Regulations and Development Approvals. Apply ordinance
regulations and development approvals that limit development on ridgelines, hazardous
geological areas and steep slopes. Control colors and materials, and minimize the
illumination of outdoor lighting. Reduce visible building mass through such means as
stepping structures down the hillside, following the natural contours, and limiting the
height and mass of the wall plane facing the valley floor.
Strategy 2. Slope‐Density Formula. Apply a slope‐density formula to very low intensity
residential development in the hillsides. Density shall be calculated based on the foothill
modified, foothill modified 1/2 acre and the 5‐20 acre slope density formulae. Actual lot
sizes and development areas will be determined through zoning ordinances, clustering
and identification of significant natural features and geological constraints.
Policy 2‐48 Policy 2‐49 Previously Designated Very Low Density Semi‐Rural 5‐Acre. Allow certain hillside
properties to develop using a previous General Plan Designation.
Strategy. Properties Designated in 1976 General Plan. Properties previously designated
Very Low‐Density Residential: Semi‐Rural 5‐Acre Slope Density Formula as described in
the amendment to the 1976 General Plan concerning the land use element for the
hillside area may be subdivided utilizing that formula. Properties previously subdivided in
conformance with the Very Low‐Density Residential: Semi‐Rural 5‐Acre Slope Density
Formula have no further subdivision potential for residential purposes.
Policy 2‐51 Policy 2‐52 Rural Improvement Standards in Hillside Areas. Require rural improvement standards in
hillside areas to preserve the rural character of the hillsides.
Strategy 1. Mass Grading in New Construction. Follow natural land contour and avoid
mass grading in new construction, especially in flood hazard or hillside areas. Grading
large, flat areas shall be avoided.
Strategy 2. Retaining Significant Trees. Retain significant specimen trees, especially when
they grow in groves or clusters, and integrate them into the developed site. The
Montebello foothills at the south and west boundaries of the valley floor are a scenic
backdrop to the City, adding to its sense of scale and variety of color. It’s impossible to
guarantee an unobstructed view of the hills from any vantage point, but people should be
able to see the foothills from public gathering places.
Policy 2‐52 Policy 2‐53 Views for Public Facilities. Design and lay out public facilities, particularly public open
spaces, so they include views of the foothills or other nearby natural features, and plan
hillside developments to minimize visual and other impacts on adjacent public open
space.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
AESTHETICS
4.1-4 JUNE 18, 2014
TABLE 4.1‐1 POLICIES AND STRATEGIES OF THE CUPERTINO 2000‐2020 GENERAL PLAN
New Policy
Number
Original Policy
Number
Policies and Strategies
Strategy. Development Near Public Open Space. Remove private driveways and building
sites as far as possible from property boundaries located next to public open space
preserves and parks to enhance the natural open space character and protect plants and
animals.
Policy 2‐68 Policy 2‐62C Community Landmarks. Projects on Landmark Sites shall provide a plaque, reader board
and/or other educational tools on the site to explain the historic significance of the
resource. The plaque shall include the city seal, name of resource, date it was built, a
written description and photograph and shall be placed in a location where the public can
view the information.
Policy 2‐69 Policy 2‐62D Historic Mention/Interest Sites. Encourage agencies that have jurisdiction over the
historical resource to encourage rehabilitation of the resource and provide public access
to foster public awareness and provide educational opportunities. These are sites outside
the City’s jurisdiction, but have contributed to the City’s historic past.
Source: City of Cupertino and the Cupertino 2000‐2020 General Plan.
City of Cupertino Municipal Code
Besides the General Plan, the City of Cupertino Municipal Code is the primary tool that shapes the form
and character of physical development in Cupertino. The Municipal Code contains all ordinances for the
city, and identifies land use categories, site development regulations, and other general provisions that
ensure consistency between the General Plan and proposed development projects. The Municipal Code is
organized by Title, Chapter, and Section. The current Municipal Code is up to date through Ordinance 14-
2117, passed March 18, 2014. The following provisions from the Municipal Code help minimize visual
impacts associated with new development projects:
Chapter 1.09, Nuisance Abatement, addresses nuisance abatement and includes provisions aimed at
protecting the visual quality of the community. This chapter defines aspects that constitute a nuisance,
including “a condition that diminishes property values and degrades the quality of life within the city.”
This chapter requires proper maintenance of buildings and property and the abatement of visual
nuisances to ensure the protection of public health and safety.
Title 19 of the Municipal Code sets forth the City’s Zoning Ordinance, which, among other purposes, is
intended to assure the orderly and beneficial development of the city, attain a desirable balance of
residential and employment opportunities, and promote efficient urban design and arrangement. The
Zoning Ordinance sets forth the standards requiring architectural and site review and stipulating
aesthetic criteria for new development. For instance, a proposed development should ensure
compatibility to adjacent uses in terms of architectural style and building size. Additionally, the Zoning
Ordinance sets forth development standards related to aesthetics including fencing (Chapter 19.48) and
signage (Chapter 19.104).
Under Section 19.168, Architectural and Site Review, the Approval Body, defined as either the
Director of Community Development and his/her designee, the Planning Commission or City
Council depending upon context, is responsible for the review of architectural and site designs of
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
AESTHETICS
PLACEWORKS 4.1-5
buildings within the city to promote and ensure compliance with the goals and objectives identified
in the General Plan. The findings for architectural and site review are as follows:
The proposal, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or
improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general
welfare, or convenience;
The proposal is consistent with the purposes of this [Architectural and Site Review] chapter,
the General Plan, any specific plan, zoning ordinances, applicable planned development permit,
conditional use permits, variances, subdivision maps or other entitlements to use which
regulate the subject property including, but not limited to, adherence to the following specific
criteria:
a. Abrupt changes in building scale should be avoided. A gradual transition related to height
and bulk should be achieved between new and existing buildings.
b. In order to preserve design harmony between new and existing buildings and in order to
preserve and enhance property values, the materials, textures and colors of new buildings
should harmonize with adjacent development by being consistent or compatible with
design and color schemes, and with the future character of the neighborhood and purposes
of the zone in which they are situated. The location, height, and materials of walls, fencing,
hedges, and screen planting should harmonize with adjacent development. Unsightly
storage areas, utility installations, and unsightly elements of parking lots should be
concealed. The planting of ground cover or various types of pavements should be used to
prevent dust and erosion, and the unnecessary destruction of existing healthy trees should
be avoided. Lighting for development should be adequate to meet safety requirements as
specified by the engineering and building departments, and provide shielding to prevent
spill- over light to adjoining property owners.
c. The number, location, color, size, height, lighting and landscaping of outdoor advertising
signs and structures shall minimize traffic hazards and shall positively affect the general
appearance of the neighborhood and harmonize with adjacent development.
d. With respect to new projects within existing residential neighborhoods, new development
should be designed to protect residents from noise, traffic, light and visually intrusive
effects by use of buffering, setbacks, landscaping, walls and other appropriate design
measures.
Title 18, Subdivision Regulations, establishes the standards that regulate and control the division of land
within Cupertino for the preservation of the public safety and general welfare. The ordinance provides
standards to support orderly growth and development, ensure appropriate design and construction,
promote and protect open space, offer adequate traffic circulation, and install necessary infrastructure.
Title 14, Street, Sidewalks and Landscaping, provides development standards related to aesthetics such
as street improvements, encroachments, and use of the City’s right-of-ways, landscaping, and
undergrounding utilities.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
AESTHETICS
4.1-6 JUNE 18, 2014
Heart of the City Specific Plan
The Heart of the City Specific Plan (Specific Plan) provides specific development guidance for Stevens
Creek Boulevard, a major commercial corridor in Cupertino. The proposed Project identifies the Specific
Plan area as the Heart of the City Special Area. The primary aim of the Specific Plan is to create a greater
sense of place and community identity for the city. To accomplish this goal, the Specific Plan provides design
guidelines that promote buildings that create visual interest. In addition, the Specific Plan focuses on
aesthetics to ensure the corridor communicates good character and form.
North Vallco Master Plan
The North Vallco Master Plan has not been formally adopted by the City Council and thus the proposed
project is not bound by its objectives and policies. The North Vallco Master Plan is discussed here for
informational purposes only. One of the key objectives of the North Vallco Master Plan is to enhance the
urban design of the North Vallco area such that it is more cohesive and recognizable. Similar to the General
Plan, the Master Plan seeks to develop distinctive gateways around the edges of the Master Plan area while
preserving the mature trees that are located along the major roads in the area. Sustainable landscaping and
public art are also promoted as means to enhance the aesthetic character of the area.
South Vallco Master Plan
The South Vallco Master Plan (SVMP) is a coordinated framework for the development of commercial
properties located in the South Vallco area, or as described in the proposed Project, the South Vallco
Gateway East, and South Vallco Gateway West within the Heart of the City Special Area. As development
under the SVMP occurs, the city envisions achievement of the following benefits:
Area revitalization;
Aesthetic coordination;
Property connectivity;
Roadway infrastructure optimization; and
Identity recognition.
The SVMP also establishes the following policies to ensure that the community character and aesthetics of
the area are realized.
Policy 4.1. Establish consistent, pedestrian friendly landscape and streetscape to promote a downtown
and Main Street style setting.
Policy 4.2. Identify the style and design features for lighting, street furniture, and way finding to
promote a consistent aesthetic.
Policy 4.3. Enhance and supplement current landscaped areas with quality landscaping.
Policy 4.4. Support a variety of architectural styles, heights, massing, and uses to create an eclectic Main
Street style character.
Policy 4.5. Support gateway features, signage, and/or monuments.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
AESTHETICS
PLACEWORKS 4.1-7
Policy 4.6. Include native vegetation and drought tolerant landscaping.
Monta Vista Design Guidelines
The Monta Vista Design Guidelines (Guidelines) refine and implement the policies of the current General
Plan by outlining building design details, landscaping treatment, signage, and public improvement details for
the Monta Vista Commercial Area. The Monta Vista Commercial Area portion of the Monta Vista Village
Neighborhood is considered to be “Downtown Monta Vista” and is located to the north and south of Stevens
Creek Boulevard between State Route 85 (SR 85) on the east and Byrne Avenue to the west (see Figure 3-
19). The guidelines describe the responsibility of property owners and applicants presenting new
development proposals, redevelopment proposals, and public improvement activity. Future development in
this area would be required to comply with the applicable design standards outlined in the Guidelines. The
Guidelines outline the activities that trigger improvement requirements, or conformance with the design
standards. In some cases, changes in land use activity may trigger one or more of the other improvements,
including, but not limited to, landscaping, public, and signage improvements.
Conceptual Plans
The South De Anza and South De Anza Boulevard, and South Sunnyvale-Saratoga Conceptual Plans delineate
the guidelines for development, redevelopment, and change of use for properties and businesses located in
these areas of Cupertino. These Conceptual Plans set forth conditions implementing all of the relevant
policies of the Cupertino General Plan relating to development and establishes limits to ensure future
development blends with and enhances the existing development pattern within these areas.
4.1.1.2 EXISTING CONDITIONS
Visual Character
Over the past century, Cupertino has transformed from a town of ranches and estate-scale vineyards
surrounded by fruit orchards into a city balanced with a mix of development types and uses. Today, the city
is largely built out and is positioned between the built environments of Los Altos and Sunnyvale to the
northwest and north; Santa Clara and San Jose to the northeast and east; Saratoga to the south, and
unincorporated areas (Santa Clara Valley) of Santa Clara County to the west and south.
Generally, Cupertino can be described as a community undergoing changes to reflect the dynamics of a
modern suburb. This is evident as one travels from the large-lot residential uses in the western foothills to
the east of SR 85, where the urban form is composed of smaller-lot residential buildings, school and junior
college campuses, distinct commercial and industrial centers, and major high-tech and corporate facilities.
While most of the city is dominated by single-family development, multi-story, mixed-use developments are
more prominent along the city’s major arterials and near highways. In particular, the more urban, higher-
density developments are located near the Stevens Creek Boulevard/De Anza Boulevard and Stevens Creek
Boulevard/North Wolfe Road intersections.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
AESTHETICS
4.1-8 JUNE 18, 2014
The proposed Project, which consists of five key components known as the “Project Components,” is
distributed throughout the city see (Figure 3-41). The topography of the Project Component sites and the
surrounding vicinity is essentially flat because the city lies in the west-central part of the Santa Clara Valley,
which has a broad, mostly flush alluvial plain that extends southward from San Francisco Bay. Though not
necessarily a dominant visual characteristic from most areas of the city, the foothills and ridgelines of the
Santa Cruz Mountains serve as a scenic backdrop.
The following discusses the existing conditions of the Project Components. A general description is
provided for the Special Areas as they cover a larger geographic area of the city; however, the Study Areas
and Housing Element Sites are discussed on a site-by-site basis.
Special Areas along Major Transportation Corridors Including Gateways and
Nodes
The five Special Areas, including the Gateways/ Nodes represent key locations in the city where intensified
development could occur under the proposed Project. The Special Areas are shown on Figure 3-4, of this
Draft EIR. The Special Areas include major arterials in the city, near freeways, capturing the Cupertino’s
most cultural and economic cores. The Special Areas also includes a variety of uses, including office,
commercial, industrial, and residential..
Existing densities in these areas range from 5 to 35 dwelling units per acre while existing building heights
range from single story to 120 feet. Generally, development in the Special Areas is composed of single-story,
strip-mall development accompanied by large surface parking lots along the street. In many cases, newer
development orients towards the street, presumably in an attempt to create a stronger street frontage and an
inviting environment for pedestrians.
Three out of the five Special Areas include Gateways and Nodes that 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. Allowable building heights range from 30 to 60
feet.
Homestead Special Area
The Homestead Special Area, which would be located within Cupertino’s northern city limits, is a mixed-
use corridor which consists of commercial uses and several low, medium and high density residential
neighborhoods. This Special Area would include the Stelling Gateway and the North De Anza Gateway.
The Homestead Special Area encompasses the Homestead Square Shopping Center, an identified Special
Center in the current General Plan. The current General Plan describes commercial centers as areas in the
city that offer a variety of goods and services directly to residents in the neighborhoods or the larger region.
Under current General Plan Policy 2-31 (Homestead Road), the City is required to create an integrated,
mixed-use commercial and housing village along Homestead Road, consisting of three integrated areas. Each
area will be master planned, with special attention to the interconnectivity of these areas.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
AESTHETICS
PLACEWORKS 4.1-9
North Vallco Park Special Area
The North Vallco Park Special Area is a major north/south connector, adjacent to the Apple Campus 2
project. The Vallco Park North Employment Center, an identified Special Center in the current General
Plan, encompasses this Special Area. The North Vallco Park Special Area would include the North Vallco
Gateway. Under current General Plan Policy 2-35 (Vallco Park North) the City is required to retain Vallco
Park North as an employment area of predominately office and light industrial activities, with neighborhood
commercial uses.
Heart of the City Special Area
The Heart of the City Special Area includes many of the city’s largest commercial, office, mixed-use, and
residential uses along Stevens Creek Boulevard. It also encompasses the Vallco Shopping District. As shown
on Figure 3-8, this Special Area would be coterminous with the boundaries of the current Heart of the City
Specific Plan Special Center. Under current General Plan Policy 2-27 (Heart of the City), the City is
required to create a positive and memorable image along Stevens Creek Boulevard of mixed use
development, enhanced activity nodes, and safe and efficient circulation and access for all modes of
transportation.
The Heart of the City Special Area would include four of the eight identified key Gateways and Nodes.
Oaks Gateway, which consists of the current Oaks Shopping Center on the north side of Stevens Creek
Boulevard between Highway 85 and Mary Avenue.
The North Crossroads node consists of the north side of Stevens Creek Boulevard between North De
Anza Boulevard and North Stelling Road.
The City Center sub-area, which under current General Plan Policy 2-34 (City Center), the City is
required to maintain and enhance as a moderate-scale, medium density, mixed use district that will
provide community identity and activity and will support retail uses in the Crossroads Area.
The South Vallco Gateway, which is coterminous with the boundaries of the current South Vallco Park
Special Center. Under current General Plan Policy 2-30 (Vallco Park South), the City is required to
retain and enhance Vallco Park South as a large-scale commercial area that is a regional center for
commercial (including hotel), office, and entertainment uses with supporting residential development.
North De Anza Special Area
The North De Anza Special Area would encompass the North De Anza Boulevard Employment Center, an
identified Special Center in the current General Plan which is a major north/south corridor that includes
many office and commercial uses. Under current General Plan Policy 2-33 (North De Anza Boulevard) the
City is required to maintain and enhance North De Anza Boulevard as a regional employment center with
supporting commercial and residential land uses.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
AESTHETICS
4.1-10 JUNE 18, 2014
South De Anza Special Area
The South De Anza Special Area would encompass the South De Anza Commercial Area, an identified
Special Center in the current General Plan which is also a north/south corridor that includes smaller-scale
commercial, office and residential uses. This Special Area is split into two sub-areas:
South De Anza North would be bounded by the Hear t of the City Special Area to the north and the
shared city boundaries of City of San Jose to the south.
South De Anza South would be bounded by the shared city boundaries of San Jose to the south and east.
Study Areas
Under the proposed Project, seven Study Areas located within the five Special Areas represent
approximately 121 acres of land within Cupertino with the potential for new or repurposed uses. The seven
Study Areas are shown on Figure 3-11.
Study Area 1 (Cupertino Inn and Goodyear Tire)
Study Area 1 (Cupertino Inn and Goodyear Tire) is coterminous with the North De Anza Gateway and is
located in the Homestead Special Area as shown on Figure 3-5. This Study Area is bounded by I-280 to the
south, the Homestead Square Shopping Center to the north, Aviare Apartments to the east, and a multi-
family development (the Markham) and Franco Park to the west. This Study Area is currently developed
with the Cupertino Inn and Goodyear Tire, which are surrounded by 1- to 3-story buildings.
The Cupertino Inn is accessed by North De Anza Boulevard and is immediately adjacent to the I-280
northbound on-ramp. The Inn is a four-story building with perimeter parking. The Inn shares its western
boundary with the adjacent storage facility (see Figure 3-12).
The Goodyear Tire property is a single-story structure that is also accessed by North De Anza Boulevard.
The Goodyear Tire is north of the Cupertino Inn and immediately east of the Homestead Square Shopping
Center, which houses a single-story structure with a large surface parking lot. Similar to the Cupertino Inn,
Goodyear Tire is west of the Aviare Apartments, a 2-story residential development located between
Homestead Road to the north, and I-280 to the south. Goodyear Tire provides an access point, at the
northeast corner of the Study Area, to the Homestead Square Shopping Center.
Study Area 2 (City Center)
Located in the Heart of the City Special Area and the Heart of the City Specific Plan area, Study Area 2
(City Center) is located within the City Center Node as shown on Figure 3-8. This Study Area is composed
of the City Center Towers, Cali Mill Plaza (a privately owned and maintained, but publicly accessible park),
City Center Apartments, Park Center Apartments, a surface parking lot, a private open space with
amphitheater, and structured parking. It includes a variety of mixed-use development offering residential,
office, and commercial space. Study Area 2 (City Center) is surrounded by various existing uses: hotel, high-
technology offices, general retail, restaurants, multi-family condominium residences, and the Civic Center
Node, which would include the Cupertino City Hall, Santa Clara County Library, Cupertino branch, and a
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
AESTHETICS
PLACEWORKS 4.1-11
variety of existing uses: multi-family condominiums, townhomes, and low-rise offices. Most multi-story
structures in this Study Area are articulated and include stepbacks and breaks in massing.
In addition to the Study Area, the City Center Node comprises of the following:
Montebello, an 8-story, owner-occupied multi-family residential development with 206 units and
approximately 7,000 square feet of retail development to the west,
Cypress Hotel, an 8-story hotel with conference facilities and a restaurant to the west,
Armadillo Willy’s, a restaurant,
Two 4-story office buildings currently occupied by Apple to the east,
A 4-story office building occupied by Seagate Technology, southwest of the Study Site,
A 3-story office building occupied by Amazon Lab 126 south of the Study Site with a large surface
parking lot, and
A commercial building occupied by Chase Bank, south of the Study Area.
The area north (north of Stevens Creek Boulevard) of the City Center Node contains of a strip-mall with
retail and commercial uses as well as a couple of 2-story office buildings. Similarly, the area west of the
Study Area (west of De Anza Boulevard) also contains a single-story strip-mall. The areas east and south of
the City Center Node generally consist of office and multi-family residential development ranging from 1 to
4 stories (see Figure 3-13).
Additionally, Study Area 2 has extensive vegetation along the pubic rights of way in accordance with the
requirements of the Heart of the City Specific Plan. The buildings are stepped back from the street and
appear to have been designed with the interface of the project with the community in mind. Cali Mill Plaza
is also designed aesthetically and is of community-wide significance due to its location at the Cupertino
Crossroads.
Study Area 3 (PG&E)
Study Area 3 (PG&E) is located within the Homestead Special Area shown on Figure 3-6. This Study Area is
composed of a large parcel between Homestead Road and I-280, east of Blaney Avenue. Currently, Study
Area 3 (PG&E) is maintained and owned by Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E).
This Study Area includes single story-buildings situated across extensive surface parking lots and a large
vacant area in the northern portion of this Site. This Study Area is screened by trees and vegetation along I-
280 to the south and North Blaney Avenue to west. Additionally, the southern-portion of this Study Area is
at a lower grade than North Blaney Avenue, whic h further limits views into this Study Area.
Generally, this Study Area is surrounded by a single-family residential development to the north and east
located in the City of Sunnyvale, a single-story commercial strip mall to the north-west and a townhome
development (North Point) to the west (see Figure 3-14).
Study Area 4 (Mirapath)
Study Area 4 (Mirapath) is located within the Homestead Special Area and is in the middle of the block on
North Blaney Avenue, between Homestead Road and I-280 Freeway. This Study Area is comprised of one
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
AESTHETICS
4.1-12 JUNE 18, 2014
small parcel comprising the Mirapath office building and two surface parking lots, one fronting North
Blaney Avenue and the other located in the rear. The Mirapath office building is a 2-story building. The front
portion of the building is 1-story, and the rear half of the building, moving east of North Blaney Avenue, is a
2-story building. It is anticipated that this Study Area will develop at the same time that Study Area 3
(PG&E) gets redeveloped.
Study Area 4 (Mirapath) is immediately north-west of Study Area 3 (PG&E). So similar to Study Area 3
(PG&E), Study Area 4 (Mirapath) is generally surrounded by a single-family residential development to the
north and east located in the City of Sunnyvale, a single-story commercial strip mall and a townhome
development (North Point) located to the west (see Figure 3-15).
Study Area 5 (Cupertino Village)
Study Area 5 (Cupertino Village) is located within the North Vallco Park Special Area shown on Figure 3-7.
This Study Area is bounded by Homestead Road to the north, North Wolfe Road to the east, Linnet Lane to
the west, and Pruneridge Avenue to the south. The Study Area includes the whole block except the
northwest corner, where the Good Samaritan United Methodist Church is located and southwest corner,
where a portion of the Arioso Apartment Complex is located.
Study Area 5 contains large surface parking lots, which serves 40 different commercial businesses housed in
six, 1- to 2-story buildings distributed across the block.
Other than the Apple Campus 2 site, Study Area 5 is currently under construction, this Study Area is largely
surrounded by residential development, including both multi-family residential development and single
family houses.. Single-family cluster developments are located to the north and west of this Study Area. The
3-story Arioso Apartment community and 4-story Hilton Garden Inn are located immediately south of this
Study Area. The apartment community and hotel share circulation and access points with this Study Area. In
addition, Housing Element Site 10 (The Hamptons), a 3-story apartment community with podium parking,
is located southeast of this Study Area, across the Hilton Garden Inn.
Currently, two, 1-story retail pads with approximately 24,000 square feet and a 250-space, 2-story parking
structure entitled in 2008 are under construction. One retail pad will be located on the east side of this
Study Area, along Wolfe Road near the Duke of Edinburgh site. The second retail pad will be located directly
behind the first retail pad, and the parking structure will be located along the west side of the Study Area,
near Linnet Lane (see Figure 3-16).
Study Area 6 (Vallco Shopping District)
Study Area 6 (Vallco Shopping District) is located within the Heart of the City Special Area and the Heart of
the City Specific Plan area (see Figure 3-8). This Study Area comprises of the South Vallco sub-area. This
Study Area is considered the city’s regional shopping district and consists of many retail stores, including
major national retailers such as Macy’s, Sears, and JC Penney. This Study Area also houses one of the two
movie theaters in the City and a number of restaurants. Currently, this Study Area includes large amounts of
parking, both surface and structured. Although the multi-story buildings and parking structures are
physically separated by North Wolfe Road, an elevated enclosed bridge connects the western and eastern-
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
AESTHETICS
PLACEWORKS 4.1-13
portions of the Vallco Shopping Mall. This Study Area is bounded by the I-280 Freeway to the north,
portions of North Wolfe Road and Perimeter Road to the east, Stevens Creek Boulevard to the south, and
another portion of Perimeter Road to the west.
This Study Area is generally surrounded by single-family housing to the west. 2-story office buildings
coupled with expansive surface parking lots and vacant land, where construction of the recently-approved
Main Street development is underway, are located east of this Study Area. A new, 3-story mixed-use
development and 2- to 3-story office buildings are immediately south of this Study Area. In addition,
commercial strip malls and 1- to 2-story office buildings are located near this Study Area (see Figure 3-17).
Study Area 7 (Stevens Creek Office Center)
Study Area 7 (Stevens Creek Office Center) is located within the North Crossroads Node, which is part of
the Heart of the City Special Area (see Figure 3-8). Study Area 7 is located on Stevens Creek Boulevard,
mid-block between Stelling Road and Saich Way. It is bounded by Alves Drive to the north and Stevens
Creek Boulevard to the south, and by Whole Foods Market, Abundant Life Church, a small lot single-family
development, and the City’s Community Center (Quinlan Community Center) to the west.
This Study Area is located in one of the major commercial areas in the city, and is surrounded by big-box
development. A new 16,000 square foot retail project (Saich Way Station), located east of this Study Area,
will begin construction in Spring/Summer 2014. In addition, a Target store is located across Saich Way. A
recently renovated shopping center, The Cupertino Crossroads, is located across Stevens Creek Boulevard.
This Study Area provides ample surface parking along its perimeter to serve its commercial uses and medical
and professional offices. Panera Bread and Peet’s Coffee and Tea, the most recent development, provides an
active-street frontage that is inviting to pedestrians. The buildings in this Study Area range between 1- to 2-
stories.
Other Special Areas including Neighborhoods and Non-Residential/Mixed-Use
Special Areas
The current General Plan includes residential and non-residential Special Centers within specific locations.
As shown on Figure 3-4, these Special Centers include Neighborhood Centers, Commercial Centers,
Employment Centers and Education/Cultural Centers in defined geographical locations. The current
General Plan also includes a Special Center category referred to as Major Employers, which is
geographically non-specific and reserved for companies with sales offices and corporate headquarters in
Cupertino.
Neighborhood Centers identified in the current General Plan include the Monta Vista, Oak Valley, and
Fairgrove neighborhoods. The Education/Cultural Center includes the De Anza College. The Employment
Centers under the current General Plan include Bubb Road, North De Anza Boulevard, City Center, and
Vallco Park North. The Commercial Centers include Homestead Road, South De Anza, Heart of the City
Specific Plan and Vallco Park South.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
AESTHETICS
4.1-14 JUNE 18, 2014
Monta Vista Village Neighborhood
The Monta Vista Village Neighborhood is centrally located in Cupertino. This Neighborhood largely consists
of medium density, single-family cluster development, ranging from 1- to 2-stories. However, a 3-story,
multi-family residential development, as well as single-story commercial and office buildings, are located
near the Neighborhood’s eastern boundary, near Bubb Road.
Generally, the Monta Vista Neighborhood interfaces with similar residential development to the north and
south. The Blackberry Farm Park and the Steven Creek riparian corridor serve as open space and provide a
nice break between the Neighborhood Center and more single-family residential development to the west.
Areas east of the Neighborhood consist of State Route 85 and large, 1- to 3-story office buildings centered
on surface parking lots and a small area along Imperial Avenue that allows light industrial use.
Bubb Road Special Area
The Bubb Road Special Area is located immediately east of the Monta Vista Neighborhood (see Figure 3-19).
This would be renamed Bubb Road Special Area. Generally, the Special Area can be described as a long,
linear area bisected by Bubb Road bounded by Stevens Creek Boulevard to the north and McClellan Road to
the south. The Bubb Road Special Area houses 1- to 3-story commercial and office buildings. The buildings
and warehouses are surrounded by large surface parking lots. However, the 3-story office building located in
the office campus at the northwest corner of the Bubb Road and McClellan Road intersection provides
underground parking.
A single-family residential development is located to the north, and south of the Bubb Road Special Area. A
small convenience market, a 7-11, is located to the south across McClellan Road. The Special Area is
bounded by the Union Pacific Railroad tracks on the west beyond which a small area allowing light
industrial uses is located. Highway 85 is located on the east of the Special Area. There are existing sound
walls along the freeway to help attenuate the noise effects of the freeway. Housing Element Site 18 (The
Oaks Shopping Center) and De Anza College with its 1-2 story buildings and 4-story parking structure are
located across SR 85.
Other Neighborhoods
The Other Neighborhoods are dispersed across the majority of the city and generally consist of residential
areas not located within the Special Centers. There is a difference in residential development located on the
western and eastern areas of the city. Generally, larger lot, lower-density development is located closer to
the foothills, or the city’s western boundary; whereas smaller lot, medium- to high-density developments
are progressively prominent as towards the city’s eastern boundary, closer to San Jose and Santa Clara.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
AESTHETICS
PLACEWORKS 4.1-15
Other Non-Residential Mixed-Use Special Areas
The Other Non-Residential/Mixed-Use Special Areas, identified on Figure 3-19, where changes are
proposed under the Project, are composed of existing mixed-use office and commercial properties
distributed throughout the city as follows:
1. West side of Stevens Creek Canyon and McClellan (Housing Element Site 9)
2. Foothill and Stevens Creek (Southwest corner is Housing Element Site 8)
3. Homestead near Foothill
4. Northwest Corner of Bollinger and Blaney
5. Southeast Corner of McClellan and Bubb
6. Commercial site on Homestead between Homestead High and west of Norada
7. Northeast corner of Homestead and SR 85
8. Southeast corner of Blaney and Homestead
9. Southwest corner of Silver Oak Way and Foothill
Building heights on these Other Non-Residential Mixed-Use Special Areas range from 1- to 4-stories. In
addition, the Other Non-Residential/Mixed-Use Special Areas also vary in type and form. For instance,
Other Non-Residential Mixed-Use Special Areas identified on Figure 3-19 as locations 1, 4, and 5 provide
large, unarticulated buildings on surface parking lots, while locations 2 and 3 have street frontage with
buildings placed close to the street and with podium parking or parking in the rear of the properties.
Development on locations 6 and 7 are constrained due to the properties’ narrow or irregular configurations,
or location of the sites.
Housing Element Sites
Housing Element Site 1 (Shan Restaurant)
Housing Element Site 1 (Shan Restaurant) is located in the Heart of the City Special Area (see Figure 3-8).
This Site comprises three parcels totaling approximately 1.7 acres. This Site has four, 1-story buildings,
which vary in size but share the same scale. The buildings’ facades are not articulated nor is there treatment
to their massing. Three out of the four buildings are oriented towards the street and provide some level of
street frontage along North Blaney Avenue and Stevens Creek Boulevard. On-site surface parking and access
driveways breaks up the space between buildings.
Generally, this Site is surrounded by residential development. Single-family residences abut this Site to the
north, a 2-story office building is located west, and a recently built, 3-story multi-family development with
a mixed-use component is located to the east. In addition, an unarticulated, aging 1-story commercial
building, with a large surface parking lot and a multi-family development under construction with a
commercial component are located south of this Site, across Stevens Creek Boulevard (see Figure 3-21).
Housing Element Site 2 (Arya/Scandinavian Design)
Housing Element Site 2 (Arya/Scandinavian Design) is located in the Heart of the City Special Area (see
Figure 3-8). This Site comprises three parcels totaling approximately 2.83 acres. The two smaller parcels,
located on the west side of this Site, consist of a surface parking lot and a 1-story restaurant. The restaurant’s
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
AESTHETICS
4.1-16 JUNE 18, 2014
large windows and short rooflines gives the building an intimate scale. However, the building has an overly
large setback from the street. The larger parcel, located on the east side of this Site, houses a 1-story
furniture store. The furniture store’s façade does not vary in texture and color; however, its arcaded
windows provide rhythm.
Site 2 has 1-2 story commercial development across Stevens Creek Boulevard, a gas station and small lot
single family homes to the west, 2-story multi-family owner-occupied development to the east, and single-
family residences to the south (see Figure 3-22).
Housing Element Site 3 (United Furniture/East of East Estates Drive)
Housing Element Site 3 (United Furniture/East of East Estates Drive) is located in the Heart of the City
Special Area (see Figure 3-8). This Site comprises six parcels totaling approximately 4.86 acres. The three
parcels west of East Estates Drive consist of a self-contained, 1-story strip mall development and a large
surface parking lot. The strip mall’s building façade offers some variety texture, massing, and scale. The
parking lot, however, contains limited landscaping and does not provide a buffer between its parking stalls
and the adjacent sidewalk. The three parcels east of East Estates Drive consist of 1- to 2-story commercial
and office buildings and surface parking lots. The buildings on this portion of this Site vary in size, scale, and
texture and color. For instance, the Rice Café buildings uses bright colors and relatively large window
awnings, whereas the office building located at the corner of Miller Avenue and Richwood Drive is dressed
by horizontal paneling and uses a limited a color palette.
Housing Element Site 3 is surrounded by 1- to 2-story strip mall developments to the west; tri-plexes and
single family residences to the south; 1- to 2-story office, commercial, and multi-family developments to the
east; and Vallco Mall’s expansive surface parking lot to the north (see Figure 3-23).
Housing Element Site 4 (Barry Swenson)
Housing Element Site 4 (Barry Swenson) is located in the Heart of the City Special Area (see Figure 3-8).
This Site has one parcel totaling approximately 0.55 acres. The narrow and deep Site is currently vacant.
Site 4 is immediately west of 2-story multi-family, low-income residential development, east of a large
surface parking lot serving a 1-story office building, and north of single-family residences. In addition, this
Site is adjacent to Housing Element Site 19 (Cypress Building Association/Hall Property) and south of the
17.4-acre Main Street mixed-use project (see Figure 3-24).
Housing Element Site 5 (Glenbrook Apartments)
Housing Element Site 5 (Glenbrook Apartments) is located in the Heart of the City Special Area (see Figure
3-8). This Site comprises two parcels totaling approximately 31.34 acres. This high-density Site is composed
by numerous 2-story structures, tennis courts, and swimming pools. This apartment community is generally
bordered by single-family residences to the north, Memorial Park and the City’s Senior Center to the east,
the 1-story Oaks shopping center to the south, and SR 85 and a new public Dog Park to the west. De Anza
College and big box developments are also in close proximity to this Site (see Figure 3-25).
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
AESTHETICS
PLACEWORKS 4.1-17
Housing Element Site 6 (The Villages)
Housing Element Site 6 (The Villages) is not located within a Special Area. This Site has five parcels totaling
approximately 27.1 acres. This high-density Site includes a tennis court, swimming pool, and numerous 1-
story buildings housing multiple units. Site 6 is immediately bordered by single family residential
development to the west and south, a storage facility and 1- to 2-story office buildings with large surface
parking lots to the east, and I-280 to the north, beyond which the Markham, a newly redeveloped multi-
family development is located (see Figure 3-26).
Housing Element Site 7 (Carl Berg Property)
Housing Element Site 7 (Carl Berg Property) is located in the North De Anza Special Area. This Site has one
parcel totaling approximately 7.98 acres. Site 7 contains a large surface parking lot and two buildings. The
larger, 2-story office building sits in the center of this Site and provides relatively limited treatment to its
façade and massing. The smaller, 1-story office building sits in the southeast corner of this Site. The smaller
building provides large windows and a lower roofline, affecting its perceived scale.
Site 7 is immediately bordered by a storage facility and I-280 to the north; a large surface parking lot serves
a 3-story office building and a 3-story condominium development to the east, and 1-story office and
commercial developments, also with surface parking lots to the south (see Figure 3-27).
Housing Element Site 8 (Bateh Bros.)
Housing Element Site 8 (Bateh Bros.) is located within the Other Commercial/Mixed-use Special Area. This
Site has three parcels totaling approximately 0.67 acre. This Site is partially developed with an aging 1-story
convenience store, whose massing and form are minimally treated. The majority of this Site, however, is
unimproved and partially unpaved. Site 8 is immediately surrounded by Stevens Creek Boulevard and
existing residential cluster development and 1-story commercial developments to the north and east (Other
Non-Residential Mixed-Use Special Area location 2 as shown in Figure 3-19), and single-family residential
development to the south and west (see Figure 3-28).
Housing Element Site 9 (Foothill @ McClellan Center – Foothill Market)
Housing Element Site 9 (Foothill @ McClellan Center – Foothill Market) is located within the Other
Commercial Centers category. This Site has one parcel totaling approximately 1.3 acres. This Site is
developed with a small, 1-story commercial strip shopping center and a large surface parking lot. The
building hugs this Site’s western boundary while the parking lot dominates the street frontage and a majority
of this Site.
In addition, there are two structures located on the northern portion of this Site. The larger of the two
ranges in height from 1- to 2-story. The structure located near the northwest portion of this Site is 1-story
and the smallest in size. Site 9 is immediately surrounded by single-family and small lot single family
development (see Figure 3-29).
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
AESTHETICS
4.1-18 JUNE 18, 2014
Housing Element Site 10 (The Hamptons)
Housing Element Site 10 (The Hamptons) is located in the North Vallco Gateway, which is within the North
Vallco Park Special Area (see Figure 3-7). This Site has two parcels totaling approximately 12.44 acres. This
high-density Site is composed of a large open space field, a swimming pool, and nearly a dozen 3-story
buildings housing multiple units and podium parking. The buildings on this Site are articulated and provide
treatment to building massing and form.
Site 10 is immediately bordered by the Apple Campus 2, currently under construction, to the north and
east; I-280 to the south; and North Wolfe Road with the mainly 1-story Study Area 5 (Cupertino Village),
the 3-story Ariosa apartment community, Marriot Courtyard Inn, and the 4-story Hilton Garden Inn
located across the street to the west (see Figure 3-30).
Housing Element Site 11(Vallco Shopping District except Rosebowl)
Housing Element Site 11 (Vallco Shopping District except Rosebowl) in the South Vallco Gateways located
within the Heart of the City Special Area. Housing Element Site 11 generally represents the Study Area 6
(Vallco Shopping District) except the Rose Bowl mixed-use development currently under construction. This
Site has three parcels totaling approximately 47.83 acres.
Site 11 is located in an area considered the city’s regional shopping district and consists of many retail stores,
including major national retailers such as Macy’s, Sears, and JC Penney. The Vallco Shopping District also
houses a movie theater and a number of restaurants. This Site includes large amounts of both surface and
structured parking. Although the multi-story buildings and parking structures are physically separated by
North Wolfe Road, an elevated bridge connects the western and eastern-portions of the mall. The physical
form and massing of buildings on this Site vary. For example, the AMC Cupertino Square 16 building is
somewhat articulated and not monotonous in color and texture, whereas the Sears’ building façade is
minimalistic.
Site 11 is generally surrounded by single-family housing to the west. Large, 2-story office buildings coupled
with expansive surface parking lots and vacant land are located east of this Site, north of Vallco Parkway. A
new, 3-story mixed-use development (Rose Bowl), an existing three-story mixed-use development
(Metropolitan) and 2- to 3-story office buildings are immediately south of this Site. In addition, commercial
strip malls and 1- to 2-story office buildings are located near this Site, and the Main Street development
with a three-story residential development and three five-story office buildings is under construction
direction east of the site, south of Vallco Parkway (see Figure 3-31).
Housing Element Site 12 (Homestead Lanes and Adjacency)
Housing Element Site 12 (Homestead Lanes and Adjacency) is located in the Stelling Gateway, which is
within the Homestead Mixed-Use Special Area (see Figure 3-6). This Site has four parcels totaling
approximately 5.1 acres. This Site is dominated by a large surface parking lot and houses a 1-story bowling
alley, commercial strip mall, and a fast food restaurant. The parking lot dominates the street frontage, while
majority of the buildings space occupies the eastern-portion of this Site.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
AESTHETICS
PLACEWORKS 4.1-19
Site 12 is immediately bordered by Homestead Road and 2-story multi-family residential developments to
the north (in the City of Sunnyvale); the recently developed 2-story Markham Apartments to the south and
east and I-280 to the south beyond the Markham; and North Stelling Road, a large surface parking lot and
church-associated recreational facilities, and a 1-story commercial development to the west (see Figure
3-32).
Housing Element Site 13 (Loree Shopping Center)
Housing Element Site 13 (Loree Shopping Center) is located in the Heart of the City Special Area (see
Figure 3-8). Site 13 has two parcels totaling approximately 1.29 acres. This Site is occupied by a 1-story
strip mall commercial center, which is minimally articulated in form and massing. The surface parking lot
does not provide a safe buffer between its parking stalls and adjacent sidewalk. Site 13 is immediately
bordered by Stevens Creek Boulevard and a 2-story office building to the north; Judy Avenue and a gas
station to the east; single-family residences to the south; and 1-story commercial and office developments to
the west. In addition, the 17.4-acre Main Street mixed-use project is under development northeast of this
Site (see Figure 3-33).
Housing Element Site 14 (Marina Plaza)
Housing Element Site 14 (Marina Plaza) is located in the North Crossroads Node, which is within the Heart
of the City Special Area (see Figure 3-8). This Site contains one parcel totaling approximately 6.86 acres.
This Site includes a large surface parking lot and a 1-story commercial strip mall. The 1-story building is
located at the rear of the street, just south of Alves Drive. Site 14 shares its immediate surrounding with a
several commercial and office pads. The buildings in close proximity to this Sites range from 1- to 4-story. A
development that will be one story with a mezzanine is currently under construction at the northeast corner
of Bandley Drive and Alves Drive. In addition, other strip commercial malls, big-box developments, and the
3- to 8-story buildings that make up the Study Area 2 (City Center) are near this Site (see Figure 3-34).
Housing Element Site 15 (Stevens Creek Office Center)
Housing Element Site 15 (Stevens Creek Office Center) is located in the North Crossroads Node, which is
in the Heart of the City Special Area. Housing Element Site 15 is coterminous with Study Area 7 (Stevens
Creek Office Center) and comprises one parcel totaling approximately 4.82 acres. Site 15 is located in one
of the major commercial areas in the city, and is surrounded by big-box development. A new, 16,000-
square-foot retail project (Saich Way Station), located east of this Site, will begin construction in
Spring/Summer 2014. This Site provides ample surface parking along its perimeter to serve its commercial
uses and medical and professional offices. Panera Bread and Peet’s Coffee and Tea, the most recent
development, provides an active-street frontage that is inviting to pedestrians. The buildings on this Site
range between 1- to 2-story (see Figure 3-35).
Housing Element Site 16 (Summerwinds and Granite Rock)
Housing Element Site 16 (Summerwinds and Granite Rock) is located in the South De Anza Special Area.
This Site has four parcels totaling approximately 4.57 acres. This Site is occupied by four 1-story buildings,
which are separated by drive aisles and surface parking. The buildings are not oriented towards the street. In
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
AESTHETICS
4.1-20 JUNE 18, 2014
addition, this Site configuration of the larger building, a retail sales nursery (Summerwinds Nursery), is
easily viewed from South De Anza Boulevard, a major city arterial. Site 16 is immediately bordered by 1-
story commercial uses, with the exception of the 3-story rowhouses development north of this Site (see
Figure 3-36).
Housing Element Site 17 (Homestead Road – Intrahealth/Office/Tennis Courts)
Housing Element Site 17 (Homestead Road – Intrahealth/Office/Tennis Courts) is located in the Stelling
Gateway, which is part of the Homestead Mixed-Use Special Area (see Figure 3-6). This Site has six parcels
totaling 5.42 acres. This Site is occupied by 1- to 2-story commercial buildings, tennis courts, and a
recreation center. Though portions of the north side of this Site are unimproved and unpaved, the large
amount of surface parking disrupts this Site flow and configuration. This Site’s immediate surroundings
consist of a large commercial strip mall and other 1-story commercial establishments to the north; Housing
Element Site 12, which also contains strip mall development, to the east, a large surface parking lot and
Stelling Substation to the south; and 2-story multi-family developments to the west (see Figure 3-37).
Housing Element Site 18 (The Oaks Shopping Center)
Housing Element Site 18 (The Oaks Shopping Center) is located in Oaks Gateway, which is part of the
Heart of the City Special Area (see Figure 3-8). This Site has four parcels totaling approximately 7.9 acres.
This Site is occupied by the 1-story Oaks Shopping Center, which contains various small-scale commercial
and restaurant tenants. Currently, the property has entitlements for a three-story mixed-use
office/commercial building and a hotel that expires in September 2014. Site 18 is immediately bordered by
the 2-story Glenbrook Apartments to the north, Memorial Park and Senior Center to the east, De Anza
College’s 4-story parking garage, Flint Center, and 1- to 2-story buildings to the south, and Highway 85 to
the west (see Figure 3-38).
Housing Element Site 19 (Cypress Building Association/Hall Property)
Housing Element Site 19 (Cypress Building Association/Hall Property) is located in the Heart of the City
Special Area (see Figure 3-8). This Site has three parcels totaling approximately 4.98 acres. This Site is
occupied by 1- to 2-story commercial and office buildings. Surface parking lots and drive aisles establish the
space between the buildings on this Site. The buildings consist of limited articulation in terms of texture,
color, and fenestration. The treatment to building form and massing is also limited. Site 19 is immediately
bordered by the 17.4 acre Main Street mixed-use project currently under construction to the north;
Housing Element Site 4 (Barry Swenson), which is currently vacant, to the east; Cupertino High School’s
surface parking lots and 1- to 2-story buildings to the south; and 3-story townhomes and a 2-story
commercial development to the west (see Figure 3-39).
General Plan and Zoning Ordinance Conformance Locations
The City-identified sites that represent locations where there are inconsistencies between existing land use,
the General Plan land use designation and/or Zoning designation for the location. These locations are shown
on shown on Figure 3-40. As part of the proposed Project, the General Plan or the Zoning Ordinance
and/or Maps will be amended to bring consistency between the existing use, the General Plan land use
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
AESTHETICS
PLACEWORKS 4.1-21
designation, and/or Zoning for each location. Table 3-22 lists the parcels with known inconsistencies and
describes how the General Plan and Zoning amendments under the proposed Project will bring these
locations into consistency. No new development potential would occur at these site a result of these
changes.
Scenic Corridors and Vistas
Scenic corridors are considered a defined area of landscape, viewed as a single entity that includes the total
field of vision visible from a specific point, or series of points along a linear transportation route. Public
view corridors are areas in which short-range, medium-range and long-range views are available from
publicly accessible viewpoints, such as from city streets. However, scenic vistas are generally interpreted as
long-range views of a specific scenic feature (e.g. open space lands, mountain ridges, bay, or ocean views).
The eastern part of Cupertino is relatively flat, whereas the western part of the city experiences changes in
topography as it slopes into the Santa Cruz Mountains. Because Cupertino is largely built out, views of
scenic vistas within the city are limited. However, given the flat nature of the majority of the city, glimpses
of the Santa Cruz Mountain Range can be captured from portions of major corridors such as Stevens Creek
Boulevard and Homestead Road. Views of the Santa Cruz Mountains are likely to increase as a person travels
towards the foothills in the western and southern areas of the city.
While Cupertino gives attention to major thoroughfares such as De Anza Boulevard, Stevens Creek
Boulevard, and Homestead Road, the city has not designated these arterials, or any other streets/areas in
the city, as scenic corridors and/or scenic vistas. The General Plan recognizes mountains (i.e. Santa Cruz)
and foothills (i.e. Montebello) as irreplaceable resources and provides policies (e.g. Policy 2-52) to ensure
their protection as scenic elements.
Light and Glare
Light pollution refers to all forms of unwanted light in the night sky, including glare, light trespass, sky glow,
and over-lighting. Views of the night sky are an important part of the natural environment. Excessive light
and glare can be visually disruptive to humans and nocturnal animal species. Although there is considerable
development in Cupertino, commercial development is concentrated near highways, in the heart of the city,
and along major streets. Generally, it takes form through street lighting along major streets and highways
and nighttime illumination of commercial buildings, shopping centers, and industrial buildings. Light
spillage from residential areas is usually screened by trees.
Shade and Shadow
The issue of shade and shadow is an important environmental issue because it may impact the users or
occupants of certain land uses on adjacent properties if on-site buildings block direct sunlight. Users or
occupants of certain land uses, such as residential, recreational, churches, schools, outdoor restaurants,
historic buildings, and pedestrian areas have expectations for direct sunlight and warmth from the sun.
These land uses are termed “shadow-sensitive.” Shadow lengths are dependent on the height and size of the
building from which it is cast and the angle of the sun. The angle of the sun varies to the rotation of the earth
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
AESTHETICS
4.1-22 JUNE 18, 2014
(i.e. time of day) and elliptical orbit (i.e. change in seasons). The longest shadows are cast during the winter
months and the shortest shadows are cast during the summer months.
4.1.2 THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
According to Appendix G, Environmental Checklist, of the CEQA Guidelines, the proposed Project would
have a significant effect on the environment if the proposed Project would:
1. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista.
2. Substantially degrade scenic resources, including but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings within a State scenic highway.
3. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings.
4. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in
the area.
4.1.3 IMPACT DISCUSSION
This section analyzes the proposed Project’s potential cumulative impacts to aesthetics. The evaluation of
aesthetics and aesthetic impacts is highly subjective. It requires the application of a process that objectively
identifies the visual features of the environment and their importance. Aesthetic description involves
identifying existing visual character, including visual resources and scenic vistas unique to Cupertino (see
Section 4.1.1, Environmental Setting, above). Changes to aesthetic resources due to implementation of the
proposed Project are identified and qualitatively evaluated based on the proposed modifications to the
existing setting and the viewer’s sensitivity. Project-related aesthetic impacts are determined using the
threshold criteria discussed in Section 4.1.2, Thresholds of Significance, above.
AES-1 Implementation of the proposed Project would not have an adverse effect
on a scenic vista.
Future development under the proposed Project would have the potential to affect scenic vistas and/or
scenic corridors if new or intensified development blocked views of areas that provide or contribute to such
vistas. Potential effects could include blocking views of a scenic vista/corridor from specific publically
accessible vantage points or the alteration of the overall scenic vista/corridor itself. Such alterations could
be positive or negative, depending on the characteristics of individual future developments and the
subjective perception of observers.
As previously described, public views of scenic corridors are considered those views as seen along a linear
transportation route and public views of scenic vistas are views of specific scenic features. Scenic vistas are
generally interpreted as long-range views, while scenic corridors are comprised of short-, middle-, and
long-range views. As stated in Section 4.1.1, Environmental Setting, the current General Plan does not have
designated scenic corridors or vistas. However, for this analysis, the westward views of the foothills and
ridgelines of the Santa Cruz Mountains are considered scenic vistas and the Caltrans designated segment of
I-280 from Santa Clara County line on the west to I-880 on the east as an eligible State Scenic Highway is
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
AESTHETICS
PLACEWORKS 4.1-23
considered a scenic corridor. The impacts to the State-designated view corridor are discussed below under
Impact AES-2.
In addition to the potential for new development under implementation of the proposed Project, there
would be a number of General Plan policies that, once adopted, could affect scenic vistas. Even so, other
policies within the General Plan, as well as provisions of the Municipal Code would continue to regulate
development, thereby preventing significant impacts to scenic vistas.
Policies 2-23 through 2-33 collectively reflect the changes to land use, development intensity, development
allocations, and Special Areas that constitute the Project Components—as described in detail in Chapter 3,
Project Description. Since the content of these particular policies is directly integrated with and reflective
of the proposed Project as a whole, impact discussions for the effects of the proposed Project necessarily
encompass analysis of these particular policies.
General Plan Policy 2-15 includes minor changes, including the combination of two previous strategies
regarding building massing and height, and amended Policy 2-16 includes a new strategy requiring the
screening of utilities areas in new developments. Changes to acceptable heights and densities, are an integral
part of the City’s amended land use policies, and these changes are included as part of the project
description. Therefore, the potential for physical impacts from amended policies 2-15 and 2-16 is addressed
in the analysis of overall Project implementation, which would continue to be governed by General Plan and
Municipal Code policies related to aesthetic impacts. Additionally, the amendments to Policy 2-16 would
serve to reduce aesthetic impacts from new developments. Finally, as individual projects are proposed, each
would continue to be required to undergo development review that would ensure conformance with other
General Plan and Municipal Code policies regarding aesthetics, including any applicable requirements for
approval by the Design Review Committee.
Policy 2-20 would require that development or redevelopment projects in the Crossroad Area conform to
the Crossroad Area Streetscape Plan.
Policies 2-88 and 5-48 would respectively serve to enhance the aesthetic quality of Cupertino by
encouraging new “demonstration gardens” and promoting the undergrounding of utility lines. Especially
with regard to Policy 5-48, these amended policies would serve to mitigate potential aesthetic impacts of
future developments under the proposed Project.
As described in detail in Section 4.1.1.2, Existing Conditions, the Project Component locations where
potential future development is expected to occur would be concentrated on a limited number of vacant
parcels and in the form of infill/intensification on sites either already developed and/or underutilized,
and/or in close proximity to existing residential and residential-serving development, where future
development would have a lesser impact on scenic vistas. Proposed changes under the Project consist
primarily of increased development intensities; however, some Project Component locations that are
distributed throughout the Project Study Area propose increases in maximum height.
Because of the increase in proposed building heights, potential new development under the proposed
Project could block the far-field views of the Santa Cruz Mountain Range and foothills from various vantage
points throughout the city. However, provided that the topography in the Project Component locations is
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
AESTHETICS
4.1-24 JUNE 18, 2014
essentially flat, the views from street-level public viewing to the scenic resources are currently inhibited by
existing conditions such as buildings, structures, and mature trees/vegetation. The maximum heights
currently permitted limit the opportunity for views of scenic vistas from street-level public viewing because
the Project Component locations with maximum height increases are restricted to certain areas. Future
development under the proposed Project is not anticipated to further obstruct public views of scenic
resources from within the city. Similar views would continue to be visible between projects and over lower
density areas. Considering this and the fact that the Project Component locations are not considered
destination public viewing points nor are they visible from scenic vistas, overall impacts to scenic vistas
would be less than significant.
Furthermore, potential future development in all areas where increased height is being considered would be
subject to the Architectural and Site Review process, in accordance with Chapter 19.168 of the Zoning
Ordinance or would be required to comply with Design Standards outlined in the General Plan, Heart of
the City Specific Plan, or other appropriate Conceptual Plans, the Monta Vista Design Guidelines, or the
South Vallco Specific Plan discussed in Section 4.1.1.1, above. In addition, the following current General
Plan policies would ensure future development in Cupertino would conceivably reduce potential aesthetic
impacts of future development under the proposed Project:
Within the Land Use/Community Design Element, Policy 2-1, Focus Development in Mixed-Use Special
Areas, would require the City to, in the mixed-use Special Areas where office, commercial and residential
uses are allowed, focus higher intensity development and increased building heights where appropriate in
designated corridors, gateways, and nodes. Policy 2-15, Urban Building Forms, would require the City to
concentrate urban building forms in the mixed-use Special Areas which would ensure that higher intensity
development is limited to the major Special Areas. Policy 2-16, Attractive Building and Site Design, would
require the City to emphasize attractive building and site design during the development review process by
giving careful attention to building scale, mass and placement, architecture, materials, landscaping, and
related design considerations, including screening of equipment and loading areas. Policy 2-18, Single-
Family Residential Design, would require the City to preserve the character of residential neighborhoods by
requiring new development to be compatible with the existing neighborhood. Policy 2-21, Context of
Streetscape Landscaping, would require the City to, in public and private landscaping projects subject to
City review, select landscaping designs that reflect the development context. Policy 2-47, Hillside
Development Standards, would require the City to establish building and development standards for the
hillsides that ensure hillside protection. Policy 2-48, Previously Designated Very Low Density Semi-Rural 5-
Acre, would call for the City to allow certain hillside properties to develop using a previous General Plan
Designation. Policy 2-51, Rural Improvement Standards in Hillside Areas, would call for the City to require
rural improvement standards in hillside areas to preserve the rural character of the hillsides. Policy 2-52,
Views for Public Facilities, would require the City to design and layout public facilities, particularly public
open spaces, so they include views of the foothills or other nearby natural features, and plan hillside
developments to minimize visual and other impacts on adjacent public open space. Policy 2-66, Historic
Sites, would require the City to have projects on Historic Sites meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standard
for Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, and Restoring Historic
Buildings and provide a plaque, reader board and/or other educational tools on the site to explain the
historic significance of the resource(s). Under this policy the plaque must include the city seal, name of
resource, date it was built, a written description and photograph and shall be placed in a location where the
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
AESTHETICS
PLACEWORKS 4.1-25
public can view the information. Additionally, this policy requires that for public and quasi-public sites, the
City will coordinate with the property owner to allow public access of the historical site to foster public
awareness and provide educational opportunities. For privately-owned sites, property owners should be
encouraged, but not required, to provide access to the public. Policy 2-67, Commemorative Sites, would
call for the City to require projects on Commemorative Sites to provide a plaque, reader board and/or
other educational tool on the site to explain the historic significance of the resource. The plaque shall
include the city seal, name of resource, date it was built, a written description and photograph and shall be
placed in a location where the public can view the information. Additionally, for public and quasi-public
sites, this policy calls for the City to coordinate with property owners to allow public access to the historical
site to foster public awareness and provide educational opportunities. For privately-owned sites, property
owners should be encouraged, but not required, to provide access to the public. Policy 2-68, Community
Landmarks, would call for the City to require Projects on Landmark Sites to provide a plaque, reader board
and/or other educational tools on the site to explain the historic significance of the resource. Under this
policy the plaque must include the city seal, name of resource, date it was built, a written description and
photograph and shall be placed in a location where the public can view the information. Policy 2-69,
Historic Mention/Interest Sites, would require the City to encourage agencies that have jurisdiction over
the historical resource to encourage rehabilitation of the resource and provide public access to foster public
awareness and provide educational opportunities. These are sites outside the City’s jurisdictions, but have
contributed to the City’s historic past. Policy 2-70, Incentives for Preservation of Historic Resources, would
require the City to utilize a variety of techniques to serve as incentives toward fostering the preservation
and rehabilitation of Historic Sites including: allowing flexible interpretation of zoning ordinance not
essential to public health and safety (this could include flexibility as to use, parking requirements and/or
setback requirements); using the California Building Code for rehabilitation of historic structures; tax
rebates (Mills Act or Local tax rebates); financial incentives such as grants/loans to assist rehabilitation
efforts. Policy 2-71, Recognizing Historical Resources, would require the City to maintain an inventory of
historically significant structures and periodically updated it in order to promote awareness of these
community resources. Policy 2-74, Heritage Trees, would require the City to protect and maintain heritage
trees in a healthy state. Policy 2-88, Park Design, would require the City to design parks to utilize the
natural features and topography of the site and to keep long-term maintenance costs low. Within the
Environmental Resources/Sustainability Element, Policy 5-9, Development near Sensitive Areas, would
require the City to encourage the clustering of new development away from sensitive areas such as riparian
corridors, wildlife habitat and corridors, public open space preserves and ridgelines. New developments in
these areas must have a harmonious landscaping plans approved prior to development.
Significance Without Mitigation: Less than significant.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
AESTHETICS
4.1-26 JUNE 18, 2014
AES-2 Implementation of the proposed Project would not substantially damage
scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings,
and historic buildings, within a State scenic highway.
As previously discussed, the segment of I-280 is not an officially designated State Scenic Highway, but is
considered to be an eligible State Scenic Highway. Future development in the Homestead, North Vallco
Road, North De Anza, and Heart of the City Special Areas and Housing Element Site 6 (The Villages
Apartments) would be within the viewshed of I-280. The future development in these areas would be
similar to the existing conditions at these locations, with the exception of increased building height limits.
These are shown on Figure 4.1-1. However, as described below, these Special Areas are currently developed
and the proposed land use, zoning and development standards changes would not represent a substantial
change in the character of these areas.
Homestead Special Area
North De Anza Gateway /Study Area 1 (Cupertino Inn and Goodyear Tire)
Study Area 1 (Cupertino Inn and Goodyear Tire) is coterminous with the North De Anza Gateway and is
located at the northwest corner of the North De Anza Boulevard and I-280 intersection. Under the
proposed Project, future development would retain a hotel and would include a new 250-room hotel and
conference facility at the Goodyear Tire property. The General Plan designation and Zoning designation
would remain unchanged, with the exception of the Goodyear Tire property, which would change to P(CG)
to be consistent with the Cupertino Inn property. The maximum height would be 75 feet with a retail
component or up to 145 feet if a project includes a retail component and provides community benefits.4
This represents a substantial height increase from the currently permitted 1 to 3 stories at this location.
As described above in Section 4.1.1.2, Existing Conditions, this Study Area is proximate to existing large-
scale 1-3 story residential developments, large format retail buildings and parking lots. While an 8-10 story
building could cause visual interference of the foothills, with the discretionary Architectural and Site
Approval of any development, the project could be required to provide suitable setbacks from public rights-
of-way and appropriate buffers and/or height transitions for buildings adjacent to low-density residential
development. In addition, the provision of community-wide benefits which are being proposed as a new
policy in the General Plan, the additional height could mitigate any impacts. Therefore, impacts to views of
scenic resource from the I-280 viewing corridor would be less than significant.
4 Community benefits are described in Chapter 3, Project Description, of this Draft EIR, under Section 3.7.
City of
Sunnyvale
%&'(280
|ÿ85
City of San Jose
City of
Santa Clara
City of
Los Altos
|ÿ85
City of Sunnyvale
Santa Clara
County
Stelling Gateway
North De Anza Gateway
North Vallco Gateway
South Vallco ParkGateway EastCity Center Node
Oaks Gateway South Vallco ParkGateway West
NorthCrossroadsNode
CommunityRecreationNode
De AnzaCollege Node Civic Center Node
S
B
L
A
N
E
Y
A
V
E
B O LLI N GE R RD
N
S
T
E
L
L
I
N
G
R
D
B
U
B
B
R
D
NTANTAU
AVE
S
D
E
A
N
Z
A
B
L
V
D
BLANEYAVE
FO
O
T
H
I
L
L
B
L
V
D
N
FOOTHILL
BLVD
RAINBOW DR
S
S
T
E
L
L
I
N
G
R
D
HOMESTEAD RD
PRUNERIDGE AVE
M
I
L
L
E
R
AVE
STEVENS CREEK BLVD
S
TANTAUAVE
G
R
A
N
T
R
D
N
D
E
A
N
Z
A
B
L
V
D
PROSPEC T R D
MCCLELLAN RD
N
W
O
L
F
E
R
D
")4
")3
")7
")1 ")5
")6
")2
!(1
!(2 !(3 !(4
!(5
!(6
!(6 !(7
!(8
!(9
!(10
!(11
!(12
!(13
!(14!(15
!(16
!(17
!(18
!(19
AESTHETICSCITY OF CUPERTINOGENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING PROJECT
Figure 4.1-1Maximum Building Heights
Source: City of Cupertino, 2013; MIG, Inc, 2014; PlaceWorks, 2014.
0 0.25 0.50.125
Miles
Maximum Height Limits30 feet45 feet60 feet75 feet75 feet85 feet90 feet110 feet130 feet145 feet160 feet
Mixed-Use Special AreasCity Gateways/NodesStudy AreasHousing Element SitesOther Special AreasCity Boundary
a
b
c
c
c
a
b
c
Some of the areas may require someretail components to allow the max.height shown here.
A maximum height of 85 feet is onlyallowed along Stevens Creek Blvdand Wolfe Rd, with retail and project-wide/community benefits.
The maximum heights shown here may be allowed only with retail and project-wide/community benefits.
3
3
The General Plan and Zoning Conformance Sites are excluded from this figure because no new development potential would occuron these sites as a result of the proposed Project.
NOTE:
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
AESTHETICS
PLACEWORKS 4.1-29
Study Area 3 (PG&E) and Study Area 4 (Mirapath)
Given the Study Area 3 (PG&E) and Study Area 4 (Mirapath) are adjacent properties, in the case of
complete redevelopment, it is intended that both properties would be master planned in order to ensure
cohesive development. Under the proposed Project, the Study Areas land use designation and zoning would
be amended to support a retail store/center in the future use. A maximum height of 30 feet would be
permitted. These amendments would not result in substantially taller development because the existing
building heights are 1 to 2 stories. Therefore, impacts to views of scenic resource from the I-280 viewing
corridor would be less than significant.
Stelling Gateway/ Housing Element Sites 12 (Homestead Lanes and Adjacency) and 17
(Homestead Road – IntraHealth/Office/Tennis Courts)
The Stelling Gateway is located in the western end of the Homestead Special Area and includes Housing
Element Site 12 (Homestead Lanes and Adjacency) and Housing Element Site 17 (Homestead Road –
IntraHealth/Office/Tennis Courts). Under the proposed Project, building heights would range from 45 feet
to 60 feet with a retail component, which, when compared to existing conditions that permit a building
height range of 30 feet on the west side of Stelling Road, to 45 feet east of Stelling Road, represents a
15-foot increase.
Under the proposed Project, there would be no changes to the current General Plan land use designation
for Housing Element Site 12 but a General Plan land use designation would be required for Housing
Element Site 17 to allow a change from 15 dwelling units per acre, to a maximum of 35 dwelling units per
acre. The Zoning designation would be amended for both sites to Planned Development with General
Commercial and Residential (P(CG, Res)) to allow for residential uses. The permitted density would remain
at 35 dwelling units per acre for Housing Element Site 17. These amendments would not result in
substantially taller development given the location is surrounded by 1- to 2-story developments as described
above in Section 4.1.1.2, Existing Conditions. These amendments would allow for the development of one
additional story for future projects at these sites. With the discretionary Architectural and Site review of any
future proposed development, the City could require the project to provide suitable setbacks from public
rights-of-way and appropriate buffers and/or height transitions for buildings adjacent to low-density
residential development. Therefore, impacts to views of scenic resource from the I-280 viewing corridor
would be less than significant.
North Vallco Park Special Area
North Vallco Gateway/Study Area 5 (Cupertino Village)/Housing Element Site 10 (The
Hamptons)
The North Vallco Park Special Area includes the North Vallco Gateway, Study Area 5 (Cupertino Village) and
Housing Element Site 10 (The Hamptons). Housing Element Site 10 is completely within the North Vallco
Gateway, while only a portion of Study Area 5 (Cupertino Village) is within this Gateway’s boundary. Under
the proposed Project, the North Vallco Park Special Area would continue to be a predominantly office,
hotel, and residential area, with a series of low- to mid-rise neighborhood mixed-use centers.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
AESTHETICS
4.1-30 JUNE 18, 2014
There are no proposed changes to the current General Plan land use designation for the Study Area;
however, under the proposed Project, the General Plan land use designation for Housing Element Site 10
would be changed to High Density with greater than 35 dwelling unit per gross acre (High Density (Greater
than 35 DU/Gr. Ac)) and The Zoning designation for the Study Area would be amended to Planned
Development with General Commercial, Professional Office, and Residential uses P(CG, OP, Res) to
accommodate office uses. The Zoning designation for Housing Element Site 10 would be amended to
Planned Development with Residential (P(Res)). The proposed density in this Gateway and Study Area
would be 25 dwelling units per acre with the exception of Housing Element Site 10, which would be 110
dwelling units per acre. Maximum building heights would range from 60 feet to 130 feet along Wolfe Road
if a project includes a retail component and provides community benefits, with 85 feet permitted on
Housing Element Site 10.
Currently, the Study Area and Gateway include large surface parking lots, specialty retail stores, restaurants,
professional offices, and financial services, and Housing Element Site 10 is currently occupied with a 342-
unit multi-family housing development. The location is also surrounded by a 4-story hotel and residential
development, including both 3-story, multi-family residential and single-family houses as described above in
Section 4.1.1.2, Existing Conditions.
While these amendments represent greater intensity and building heights (1 story to 130 feet at Study Area
5 (Cupertino Village) and North Vallco Gateway, and 60 feet to 85 feet at Housing Element Site 10), given
the surrounding land uses, and the nearby projects under construction, including the Apple Campus 2 site,
the City could, as part of its discretionary Architecture and Site Approval permit process, require suitable
setbacks for buildings along the public rights-of-way and appropriate buffers and/or height transitions
adjacent to low-density residential development. Additionally, the taller heights west of North Wolfe Road
are located east of the residential development. Any views of the mountains are currently impeded by the
existing tree canopy and three-story Arioso apartment complex from North Wolfe Road, but there will be
no changes from the I-280 viewshed since the freeway is located south of the site. On the east side of North
Wolfe Road, the taller heights may marginally impede views of the Santa Cruz mountains for the users of
the Apple Campus, but not from the I-280 viewshed since the freeway is located south of the site. Therefore,
impacts to views of scenic resource from the I-280 viewing corridor would be less than significant.
Heart of the City Special Area
South Vallco East and West Gateways/Study Area 6 (Vallco Shopping District)/Housing
Element Site 11 (Vallco Shopping District except Rosebowl)
The South Vallco Gateways East and West include Study Area 6 (Vallco Shopping District) and Housing
Element Site 11 (Vallco Shopping District except Rosebowl). These Project Component locations are
bounded by I-280 to the north. Under the proposed Project, Study Area 6 (Vallco Shopping District) could
include a major redesign of the Vallco Shopping Mall area to create a “downtown” for Cupertino. Proposed
uses would include commercial, office, residential, public/quasi-public, and hotel. A majority of this Study
Area is also being considered as potential Housing Element Site 11 (Vallco Shopping District except
Rosebowl).
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
AESTHETICS
PLACEWORKS 4.1-31
Under the proposed Project, maximum heights in the South Vallco Gateway West would be 60 feet, up to 75
feet with a retail component, or up to 85 feet, if a project features a retail component and provides
community benefits and fronts Stevens Creek Boulevard or Wolfe Road. In South Vallco Gateway East, the
maximum heights would be 75 feet, up to 90 feet with a retail component, or up to 160 feet for the area
bounded by I-280 to the north, Vallco Parkway to the south, Perimeter Road to the east and Wolfe Road on
the west, if a project includes a retail component and provides community benefits, with the exception of
the Rosebowl mixed-use development site currently under construction.5 The Zoning designations would be
amended to Planned Development, Regional Shopping, Professional Office, and Residential (P(Regional
Shopping, OP, Res)) to allow for office and residential uses. Further, the General Plan designations would be
changed to Commercial/Office/Residential (C/O/R) to allow for office uses in addition to commercial
and residential uses, which are the existing designations. No changes would be made to the residential
density.
This Study Area, and Housing Element Site, is considered the city’s regional shopping district and consists of
many retail stores and restaurants. As described above in Section 4.1.1.2, Existing Conditions, the Vallco
Shopping District is surrounded with commercial and industrial uses, as well as some residential
neighborhoods further to the west away from Stevens Creek Boulevard. Therefore, future development
could allow taller buildings to be constructed, given the existing range in heights of 1-story to 5-stories
would be amended to allow up to 160 feet under certain conditions on a portion of the Site. The City could,
in conjunction with its discretionary permit process, Architectural and Site Approval, require that suitable
building setbacks from public rights of way. Additionally, it is assumed that such development (where heights
taller than the base height are being proposed) would provide appropriate buffers and/or height transitions
for buildings adjacent to low-density residential development. In addition, the General Plan Amendments
include a policy that states that the tallest heights proposed with the Project would not be considered
and/or approved by the City unless a retail component, thereby generating sales tax revenue to the City, and
substantial community wide benefits, as direct benefits to the public above and beyond the project
obligations, are included as part of a Development Agreement.
Because of the existing site conditions, and because the surrounding area has large scale retail and industrial
uses, impacts to the views of scenic resource from the I-280 viewing corridor would be less than
significant.
North De Anza Special Area
Under the proposed Project, the North De Anza Special Area would remain an office area consisting of mid-
rise buildings. This Special Area is a major north/south connector that includes many office and commercial
uses. Future development permitted in this Special Area would result in increased office, commercial, and
hotel allocations, and increased residential units, with no changes to the current permitted density and an
increase in the permitted building heights from 45 feet to 75 feet. This increase in height could allow
approximately two additional floors to be constructed in this area, allowing buildings approximately 4-5
stories in height to be constructed. This area has mainly 2-3 story office buildings. In addition to the heavy
tree canopy and the large landscape easement required from De Anza Boulevard, the impact to views from
5 Community benefits are described in Chapter 3, Project Description, of this Draft EIR, under Section 3.7.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
AESTHETICS
4.1-32 JUNE 18, 2014
the public right of way would not be substantial. Additionally, the City’s discretionary review process,
Architectural and Site Approval, could ensure that the buildings have adequate setback from residential
development. The analysis also assumes that any development would provide appropriate buffers and/or
height transitions for buildings adjacent to low-density residential development.
Because this Special Area is currently comprised of mid-rise office buildings, the proposed Project would
not represent a substantial change in the visual character even with the increase in building heights because
potential new development would be dispersed throughout the overall Special Area and thus would not
form a uniform wall that could potentially obstruct views from the I-280 viewshed. Accordingly, potential
future development would not damage a scenic resource or obstruct a view of a scenic resource from the I-
280 viewshed, the foreground views would continue to be of the built urban environment and the far-
distant views to the Santa Cruz Mountains would remain. Therefore, impacts to views of scenic resource
from the I-280 viewing corridor would be less than significant.
Housing Element Site 7 (Carl Berg Property)
Housing Element Site 7 (Carl Berg Property), which was developed in 1975, currently has light industrial
(research and office) uses with a large amount of surface parking. Under the proposed Project, there would
be no changes to the designation, zoning, or density on this housing Site. Therefore, the potential increase in
building height would not damage or obstruct a view of a scenic resource from the I-280 viewshed. The
foreground views would continue to be of the built urban environment and the far-distant views to the Santa
Cruz Mountains would remain. Therefore, impacts to views of scenic resource from the I-280 viewing
corridor would be less than significant.
Housing Element Site 6 (The Villages Apartments)
Housing Element Site 6 (The Villages Apartments) is not located within a Special Area; however, it is
situated on the south side of I-280 south of the Homestead Special Area and west of the North De Anza
Special Area and Housing Element Site 7 (Carl Berg Property). Under the proposed Project, there would be
no changes to the General Plan land use designation, zoning, or density. Therefore, even though the
maximum allowable height may be amended, impacts to views of scenic resource from the I-280 viewing
corridor would be less than significant.
Summary
As described above, the land use or intensity changes do not represent a substantial reimagining of the
character of the Project Component locations in the I-280 viewshed, because the existing viewshed within
this area is largely urbanized and built out. The potential future development under the proposed Project
would primarily involve gradual changes in development intensity along the I-280 viewshed, similar to
existing buildings, albeit with increased building height potential. New and/or intensified uses in the I-280
viewshed, as result of the proposed Project, would be dispersed within the Special Areas discussed here,
namely Heart of the City Special Area, North De Anza Special Area, North Vallco Park Special Area, South
De Anza Special Area, and Homestead Special Area, and would not fully obstruct views of far-field scenic
resources (e.g. Santa Cruz Mountains) from I-280.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
AESTHETICS
PLACEWORKS 4.1-33
As discussed under Impact AES 1, above, General Plan Policies are analyzed as an integral, inseparable
component of the proposed Project, and amended policies under the proposed Project would not cause
adverse physical changes that could create aesthetic impacts in Cupertino. Individual developments would
continue to be subject to General Plan policies and Municipal Code provisions related to aesthetics,
including potential project-level design review requirements. Moreover, certain policy changes would serve
to reduce aesthetic impacts from new and existing developments. Therefore the policy amendments under
the proposed Project would not result in impacts under this threshold of significance.
Furthermore, potential future development where increases in height are requested would be subject to the
Architectural and Site Review process, in accordance with Chapter 19.168 of the Zoning Ordinance. Future
development would also be required to comply with Design Standards outlined in the Heart of the City
Specific Plan the Vallco Specific Plan, and other Conceptual Plans as described above in Section 4.1.1.1,
Environmental Setting, and the General Plan policies outlined in impact discussion AES-1, that limit the
height and bulk of buildings. Accordingly, impacts related to scenic resources in the I-280 viewshed would
be less than significant.
Significance Without Mitigation: Less than significant.
AES-3 Implementation of the proposed Project would not substantially degrade
the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings.
The Project Component locations are concentrated on areas either already developed and/or underutilized,
and/or in close proximity to existing residential and residential-serving development. Future building form
and massing may be greater than existing conditions, but would not necessarily degrade the existing
surrounding character.
Project implementation would allow continued development and redevelopment throughout the city. As
discussed above, future development in the Homestead Special Area, North Vallco Park Special Area, the
North De Anza Special Area and the South Vallco West Gateway and South Vallco West Gateway in the Heart
of the City Special Area, and Housing Element Site 6 (The Villages Apartments) would not result in a
substantial change to the existing visual character of the Site or its surroundings. Potential impacts to visual
character from future development on the remaining Project Component locations are discussed below.
Heart of the City Special Area
Oaks Gateway/Housing Element Site 18 (The Oaks Shopping Center)
The Oaks Gateway is coterminous with Housing Element Site 18 (The Oaks Shopping Center) located on
the north side of Stevens Creek Boulevard between SR 85 and Mary Avenue. Under the proposed Project,
there would be no changes to the General Plan land use designation; however, the Zoning designation would
be amended to Planned Development with General Commercial and Residential (P(CG, Res)) to allow for
future mixed-use development including residential uses. Under the proposed Project, the permitted
residential density would increase to 35 dwelling units per acre and building heights would range from 60
feet to up to 75 feet with a retail component. Because this Project Component location is within the
existing 1-story Oaks Shopping Center, which currently has entitlements for a mixed-use
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
AESTHETICS
4.1-34 JUNE 18, 2014
office/commercial building and a hotel which expire in September 2014, and is surrounded by urban land
uses and SR 85 to the west, future development permitted under the proposed Project would not adversely
impact the visual character of the Site or its surroundings. Thus, impacts from new development to the
visual character or quality of the site or surrounding areas would be less than significant.
North Crossroads Node/Study Area 7 (Stevens Creek Office Center)/Housing Element
Sites 14 (Marina Plaza) and 15 (Stevens Creek Office Center)
The North Crossroads Node includes Study Area 7 and Housing Element Site 15 (Stevens Creek Office
Center), and Housing Element Sites 14 (Marina Plaza), located along Stevens Creek Boulevard; a major
commercial corridor that currently houses major retailers in big-box buildings. A new 16,000 square-foot
retail project (Saich Way Station) is also scheduled to commence construction in Spring/Summer 2014.
Other properties near these Project Component locations include large, 1- to 2-story buildings. The
proposed density at this location would be a maximum of 40 dwelling units per acre and building heights
would range from 60 feet to 75 feet with a retail component.
Under the proposed Project, development within Study Area 7 (Stevens Creek Office Center), which is
coterminous with Housing Element Site 15, could include new hotel, commercial, and residential mixed-
use development with a maximum height of 60 feet, or up to 75 feet if a project includes a retail
component. There would be no changes to the General Plan land use designation; however, the Zoning
designation would be amended to Planned Development with General Commercial, Professional Office and
Residential (P(CG, OP. Res.))
Under the proposed Project, there would be no changes to the General Plan land use designation or zoning
at Housing Element Site 14 (Marina Plaza) and the permitted density would increase to 40 dwelling units
per acre and the maximum height would increase to 60 feet and up to 75 feet with retail development. This
would mean that the site could have a potential development that could be 4-5 stories tall. The buildings
directly to the east of this site are 3-4 stories tall. Therefore, the impacts of the increased height at this
location would be less than significant.
Because the area is largely built out and within one of the major commercial areas in the city, and is
surrounded by big-box development with a dense urban character, new development on these sites would
not degrade the visual character of the Site or the area; thus, impacts would be less than significant.
City Center Node/Study Area 2 (City Center)
The City Center Node includes Study Area 2 (City Center). The proposed density at this Node would be up
to 25 dwelling units per acre and the maximum height would be 75 feet, or up to 90 feet if a project
includes a retail component, or up to 110 feet if a project includes a retail component and provides
community benefits.6 For the portion of this Node designated as Study Area 2 (City Center), a new
415,000-square-foot office building along with the addition of four levels to an existing aboveground garage
could be developed. Residential densities would remain unchanged at 25 dwelling units per acre and the
heights would be the same as that of the overall Node.
6 Community benefits are described in Chapter 3, Project Description, of this Draft EIR, under Section 3.7.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
AESTHETICS
PLACEWORKS 4.1-35
Because this Project Component location is currently developed with mixed-use development offering
residential, office, and commercial space, and is surrounded by higher density uses ranging from 1- to 8-
story buildings, future development permitted under the proposed Project would not adversely impact the
visual character of the Site or its surroundings; thus impacts would be less than significant.
Housing Element Site 1 (Shan Restaurant)
Under the proposed Project, there would be no changes to the General Plan land use designation, zoning, or
density. There will be no changes to the density or height allowance for this site. Because this Project
Component location is currently developed with four, 1-story buildings, which vary in size but share the
same scale, future development permitted under the proposed Project would not adversely impact the
visual character of the Site or its surroundings; thus impacts would be less than significant.
Other Housing Element Sites
Under the proposed Project there would be no changes to the General Plan land use designation or zoning
at Housing Element Sites 2 (Arya/Scandinavian Design), 3 (United Furniture/East of East Estates Drive), 4
(Barry Swenson), 5 (Glenbrook Apartments), 13 (Loree Shopping Center) and 19 (Cypress Building
Association & Hall Property); thus, impacts from future development permitted under the proposed Project
would not adversely impact the visual character of the Site or its surroundings; thus impacts would be less
than significant.
South De Anza Special Area
Under the proposed Project, the South De Anza Special Area would remain a general commercial area south
of Stevens Creek Boulevard. This Special Area would allow increased office, commercial, and hotel
allocations, and increased residential units, with an increase in the density from 5-to-15 dwelling units per
acre, to up to a maximum of 25 dwelling units per acre, but no height increases would be occur and the land
uses would remain the same; thus, future development permitted under the proposed Project would not
adversely impact the visual character of the Site or its surroundings; thus impacts would be less than
significant.
Housing Element Site 16 (Summerwinds & Granite Rock)
Under the proposed Project, there would be no changes to the General Plan land use designation; however,
the Zoning designation would be amended to Planned Development with General Commercial and
Residential (P(CG, Res)) to allow for residential uses. The permitted density would increase to 40 dwelling
units per acre but no height increases would be occur and the land uses would generally remain the same;
thus, future development permitted under the proposed Project would not adversely impact the visual
character of the Site or its surroundings; thus impacts would be less than significant.
Housing Element Site 8 (Bateh Bros.)
Under the proposed Project, there would be no changes to the General Plan land use designation; however,
the Zoning designation would be amended to Planned Development with General Commercial and
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
AESTHETICS
4.1-36 JUNE 18, 2014
Residential P(CG, Res) to allow for residential uses, and density would be increased to 35 dwelling units per
acre, but no height increases would be occur and the land uses would remain the same; thus, future
development permitted under the proposed Project would not adversely impact the visual character of the
Site or its surroundings; thus impacts would be less than significant.
Housing Element Site 9 (Foothill at McClellan Center – Foothill)
Under the proposed Project, there would be no changes to the General Plan land use designation; however,
the Zoning designation would be amended to Planned Development with General Commercial and
Residential (P(CG, Res)) to allow for residential uses. The density would be increased to 25 dwelling units
per acre, but no height increases would be occur and the land uses would generally remain the same; thus,
future development permitted under the proposed Project would not adversely impact the visual character
of the Site or its surroundings; thus impacts would be less than significant.
Other Special Areas
Monta Vista Village Neighborhood
Under the proposed Project, the Monta Vista Village Neighborhood would largely remain unchanged at 12
dwelling units per acre, and an additional 101 units would be permitted in this neighborhood. The only
change in land use designation would occur in the area on either side of Pasadena Avenue between Granada
Avenue and Olive Avenue. The land use designation would change to 10 – 15 dwelling units per acre. This
change reflects the existing number of units on properties in that area. This change would allow property
owners in that area to replace the same number of units on the site. Additional development allocation in
this Neighborhood includes an increase of 15,231 square feet for office, and 18,679 square feet (12,895
square feet net increase) for commercial uses. In order to be consistent with the change in the density of the
area discussed above, the zoning designation would also be changed to Planned Residential with a density of
10-15 units per acre. Given land uses would remain the same, future development permitted under the
proposed Project would not adversely impact the visual character of the Site or its surroundings; thus
impacts would be less than significant.
Bubb Road Special Area
Under the proposed Project, the Bubb Road Special Area would remain at 20 dwelling units per acre, but no
new residential units would be permitted in this area because the existing 94-unit residential allocation
would be allocated to other areas of the city more appropriate for residential development.7 Additional
development allocation in this Employment Center includes 100,000 square feet for office uses. There are
no proposed General Plan land use designations or Zoning designation changes for this Special Area under
the proposed Project. Given land uses would remain the same, future development permitted under the
7 As shown in Table 3-2, the remaining total residential allocation is 479 units throughout the Special Centers and the project proposes
521 units for a difference of 42 additional residential units in the Special Centers under the proposed Project. This results from 50 proposed
unit in the Other Commercial area plus 27 proposed units in the Monta Vista Neighborhood Center area plus 59 proposed units in the Other
Neighborhood area for a total of 136 proposed units; 136 proposed units minus the 94 currently permitted in the Bubb Road area equals 42
new units in the Special Centers.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
AESTHETICS
PLACEWORKS 4.1-37
proposed Project would not adversely impact the visual character of the Site or its surroundings; thus
impacts would be less than significant.
Other Non-Residential Mixed-Use Special Areas
Under the proposed Project, a maximum of 10,000 square feet of office uses and 75,000 square feet of
commercial uses would be permitted throughout the seven locations that are comprised of existing mixed-
use office and commercial properties distributed throughout the city as discussed under Section 4.1.1.2,
Existing Conditions. Furthermore, a total of 120 residential units would be permitted. There are no changes
to the permitted density or building heights under the proposed Project. Given land uses would remain the
same, future development permitted under the proposed Project would not adversely impact the visual
character of the Site or its surroundings; thus impacts would be less than significant.
Other Neighborhoods
Under the proposed Project, an additional 59 residential units would be permitted in Other Neighborhoods.
The existing density and height standards would remain the same under the proposed Project. There are no
proposed General Plan land use designations or Zoning designation changes for the Other Neighborhoods
under the proposed Project. Given land uses would remain the same, future development permitted under
the proposed Project would not adversely impact the visual character of the Site or its surroundings; thus
impacts would be less than significant.
General Plan and Zoning Ordinance Conformance Sites
Under the proposed Project, the City-identified sites, shown on Figure 3-40, that represent locations where
there are inconsistencies between existing land use and the General Plan land use designation and/or
Zoning designation for the location, would not result in changes to the character of the existing site or its
surroundings. Under the proposed Project, the General Plan or the Zoning Ordinance and/or Maps would
be amended to bring consistency between the existing use and the General Plan land use and/or Zoning for
the location. Thus, no impact would occur.
Summary
As described above, potential future development under the proposed Project would create a slight shift in
uses and involve notable changes in building intensity and height. However, given the existing commercial,
industrial, and residential uses surrounding Project Component locations, gradual development of future
projects would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the Site and their
surroundings.
As discussed under Impact AES-1, above, Policies 2-23 through 2-33 are analyzed as an integral, inseparable
component of the proposed Project, and amended policies 2-15, 2-16, 2-18, 2-20, 2-82, 2-88, and 5-48
under the proposed Project would not cause adverse physical changes that could create aesthetic impacts in
Cupertino. Individual developments would continue to be subject to General Plan policies and Municipal
Code provisions related to aesthetics, including potential project-level design review requirements.
Moreover, certain policy changes would serve to reduce aesthetic impacts from new and existing
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
AESTHETICS
4.1-38 JUNE 18, 2014
developments. Therefore the policy amendments under the proposed Project would not result in impacts
under this threshold of significance.
Furthermore, potential future development would, in all the areas where additional height is allowed, be
subject to the City’s discretionary review processes, including the Development Permit and Architectural
and Site Approval Review, in accordance with Section 19.12 of the Zoning Ordinance. Future development
would also would be required to comply with Design Standards outlined in the Heart of the City Specific
Plan, the Vallco Master Plan, and the Monta Vista Design Guidelines as described above in Section 4.1.1.1,
Environmental Setting, and the General Plan policies listed in impact discussion AES-1, would ensure that
the bulk, mass, height, and architectural character of new development are compatible with surrounding
uses. Thus, impacts would be less than significant.
Significance Without Mitigation: Less than significant.
AES-4 Implementation of the proposed Project would not create a new source of
substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime
views in the area.
Nighttime illumination and glare impacts are the effects of a project’s exterior lighting upon adjoining uses
and areas. Light and glare impacts are determined through a comparison of the existing light sources with
the proposed lighting plan or policies.
Currently, the Project Study Area contains many existing sources of nighttime illumination. These include
street and parking area lights, security lighting, and exterior lighting on existing residential, commercial,
and institutional buildings. Additional onsite light and glare is caused by surrounding land uses and traffic on
SR 85 and I-280.
As discussed under impact AES 1, above, Policies 2-23 through 2-33 are analyzed as an integral, inseparable
component of the proposed Project, and amended policies 2-15, 2-16, 2-18, 2-20, 2-82, 2-88, and 5-48
under the proposed Project would not cause adverse physical changes that could create aesthetic impacts in
Cupertino. Individual developments would continue to be subject to General Plan policies and Municipal
Code provisions related to aesthetics, including potential project-level design review requirements.
Moreover, certain policy changes would serve to reduce aesthetic impacts from new and existing
developments. Therefore the policy amendments under the proposed Project would not result in impacts
under this threshold of significance.
The proposed Project would modify land uses, zoning, and density, which in turn would intensify related
lighting sources. In addition to new building, security, and lighting for parking areas, buildout of the Project
Study Area would also include lighting aimed at properly illuminating the Project Component locations.
Because the proposed Project allows higher intensity development throughout the Project Study Area, its
implementation would likely result in larger buildings with more exterior glazing (i.e. windows and doors)
that could result in new sources of glare. Despite the new and expanded sources of nighttime illumination
and glare, the proposed Project is not expected to generate a substantial increase in light and glare.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
AESTHETICS
PLACEWORKS 4.1-39
Besides general guidelines that require lighting that is context sensitive in style and intensity, new
developments would also have to comply with the General Plan policies and Municipal Code provisions that
ensure new land uses do not generate excessive light levels. The City's General Plan policies also require
reducing light and glare spillover from future development to surrounding land uses by buffering new
development with landscaping and trees. The preservation of mature trees with substantial tree canopies
would diffuse the overall amount of light generated by new development and glare generated by windows of
multistory buildings. Furthermore, because the Project Component locations and surrounding area are
largely developed, the lighting associated with the proposed Project would not substantially increase
nighttime light and glare within the Project Study Area or its surroundings. Therefore, impacts relating to
light and glare would be less than significant.
Significance Without Mitigation: Less than significant.
AES-5 Implementation of the proposed Project, in combination with past, present
and reasonably foreseeable projects, would not result in significant
cumulative impacts with respect to aesthetics.
As discussed in Chapter 4, Environmental Evaluation, of this Draft EIR, this EIR takes into account growth
projected by the proposed 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). The cumulative setting for visual
impacts includes potential future development under the proposed General Plan combined with effects of
development on lands adjacent to the city within Los Altos and Sunnyvale to the north, Santa Clara and San
Jose to the east, and Saratoga to the south, and the unincorporated areas of Santa Clara County to the west
and south.
Significant impacts, including those associated with scenic resources, visual character, and increased light
and glare would generally be site-specific and would not contribute to cumulative impacts after
implementation of the General Plan policies and the provisions stated in the Municipal Code. The proposed
heights in some areas of the proposed Project would, within the designated growth areas, drastically alter
the City’s vertical landscape and urban form over time, as new development is proposed.
Because of the developed nature of the Project Study Area, future development under the General Plan
Amendment, Housing Element Update, and associated Rezoning, in combination with other new
development, would not negatively impact the visual character of the City. Furthermore, the Project would
not constitute a significant adverse impact because redevelopment of the area is also anticipated in the
current specific plans and the City's General Plan policies.
As discussed under Impact AES-1, above, General Plan policies are analyzed as an integral, inseparable
component of the proposed Project, and amended polices listed above in Impact AES-1 through AES-4
under the proposed Project would not cause adverse physical changes that could create aesthetic impacts in
Cupertino. Individual developments would continue to be subject to General Plan policies and Municipal
Code provisions related to aesthetics, including potential project-level design review requirements.
Moreover, certain policy changes would serve to reduce aesthetic impacts from new and existing
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
AESTHETICS
4.1-40 JUNE 18, 2014
developments. Therefore the policy amendments under the proposed Project would not result in cumulative
impacts to aesthetics. Additionally, as part of the approval process, potential new development under the
proposed Project would be subject to architectural and site design review, as applicable, to ensure that the
development is aesthetically pleasing and compatible with adjoining land uses. With the development review
mechanisms in place, approved future development under the proposed Project is not anticipated to create
substantial impacts to visual resources. Therefore, the proposed Project would result in a cumulatively less
than significant contribution to aesthetic impacts.
Significance Without Mitigation: Less than significant.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
AIR QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 4.2-1
4.2 AIR QUALITY
This chapter describes the existing air quality setting and baseline conditions in Cupertino and evaluates the
potential environmental impacts that could occur by adopting and implementing the proposed Project.
“Emissions” refers to the actual quantity of pollutant, measured in pounds per day or tons per year.
“Concentrations” refers to the amount of pollutant material per volumetric unit of air. Concentrations are
measured in parts per million (ppm), parts per billion (ppb), or micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3).
This chapter is based on the methodology recommended by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District
(BAAQMD) for plan-level review. The analysis contained herein focuses on air pollution from regional
emissions and localized pollutant concentrations and is based on the population and employment projections
anticipated in Cupertino at 2040 buildout. Transportation sector emissions are based on vehicle miles
traveled (VMT) provided by Hexagon, as modeled using the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority’s
(VTA) regional transportation demand model. Criteria air pollutant emissions modeling is included in
Appendix C, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Data and Calculation Sheet, of this Draft EIR.
4.2.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
California is divided geographically into air basins for the purpose of managing the air resources of the State
on a regional basis. An air basin generally has similar meteorological and geographic conditions throughout.
The State is divided into 15 air basins. As shown in Figure 4.2-1, Cupertino is in the San Francisco Bay Area
Air Basin (SFBAAB or Air Basin). The discussion below identifies the natural factors in the Air Basin that
affect air pollution. Air pollutants of concern are criteria air pollutants and toxic air contaminants (TACs).
Federal, State, and local air districts have adopted laws and regulations intended to control and improve air
quality. The regulatory framework that is potentially applicable to the proposed Project is also summarized
below.
4.2.1.1 SAN FRANCISCO AIR BASIN
The BAAQMD is the regional air quality agency for the Air Basin, which comprises all of Alameda, Contra
Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara counties; the southern portion of Sonoma
County; and the southwestern portion of Solano County. Figure 4.2-1 illustrates the boundaries of the air
basin and encompassed counties. Air quality in this area is determined by such natural factors as topography,
meteorology, and climate, in addition to the presence of existing air pollution sources and ambient
conditions.1
1 This section describing the air basin is from Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2010 (Revised 2011), Appendix C: Sample
Air Quality Setting, in California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines.
Sources: City of Palo Alto, 2013; USGS, 2010; NHD 2013; ESRI, 2010; Tiger Lines, 2010; PlaceWorks, 2014; Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2012.
GOLDEN
GATE
SAN
FRANCISCO
SAN BRUNO
GAP
SONOMA NAPA
SOLANO
SANTA CLARA
MARIN
ALAMEDA
CONTRA COSTA
SAN MATEO
CARQUINEZ
STRAIT
San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin Boundary
Figure 4.2-1San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin
Sources: USGS, 2010; NHD 2013; ESRI, 2010; Tiger Lines, 2010; PlaceWorks, 2014; Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2012.
AIR QUALITY
CITY OF CUPERTINOGENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING PROJECT
0 25 5012.5
Miles
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
AIR QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 4.2-3
Meteorology
The Air Basin is characterized by complex terrain, consisting of coastal mountain ranges, inland valleys, and
bays, which distort normal wind flow patterns. The Coast Range2 splits in the Bay Area, creating a western
coast gap, the Golden Gate, and an eastern coast gap, the Carquinez Strait, which allows air to flow in and
out of the Bay Area and the Central Valley.
The climate is dominated by the strength and location of a semi-permanent, subtropical high-pressure cell.
During the summer, the Pacific high-pressure cell is centered over the northeastern Pacific Ocean, resulting
in stable meteorological conditions and a steady northwesterly wind flow. Upwelling of cold ocean water
from below the surface because of the northwesterly flow produces a band of cold water off the California
coast.
The cool and moisture-laden air approaching the coast from the Pacific Ocean is further cooled by the
presence of the cold water band, resulting in condensation and the presence of fog and stratus clouds along
the Northern California coast. In the winter, the Pacific high-pressure cell weakens and shifts southward,
resulting in wind flow offshore, the absence of upwelling, and the occurrence of storms. Weak inversions
coupled with moderate winds result in a low air pollution potential.
Wind Patterns
During the summer, winds flowing from the northwest are drawn inland through the Golden Gate and over
the lower portions of the San Francisco Peninsula. Immediately south of Mount Tamalpais in Marin County,
the northwesterly winds accelerate considerably and come more directly from the west as they stream
through the Golden Gate. This channeling of wind through the Golden Gate produces a jet that sweeps
eastward and splits off to the northwest toward Richmond and to the southwest toward San Jose when it
meets the East Bay hills.
Wind speeds may be strong locally in areas where air is channeled through a narrow opening, such as the
Carquinez Strait, the Golden Gate, or the San Bruno gap. For example, the average wind speed at San
Francisco International Airport in July is about 17 knots (from 3:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.), compared with only
7 knots at San Jose and less than 6 knots at the Farallon Islands.
The air flowing in from the coast to the Central Valley, called the sea breeze, begins developing at or near
ground level along the coast in late morning or early afternoon. As the day progresses, the sea breeze layer
deepens and increases in velocity while spreading inland. The depth of the sea breeze depends in large part
upon the height and strength of the inversion. Under normal atmospheric conditions, the air in the lower
atmosphere is warmer than the air above it. An inversion is a change in the normal conditions that causes the
temperature gradient to be reversed, or inverted. If the inversion is low and strong, and hence stable, the
flow of the sea breeze will be inhibited, and stagnant conditions are likely to result.
In the winter, the Air Basin frequently experiences stormy conditions with moderate to strong winds, as
well as periods of stagnation with very light winds. Winter stagnation episodes (i.e. conditions where there
2 The Coast Ranges traverses California’s west coast from Humboldt County to Santa Barbara County.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
AIR QUALITY
4.2-4 JUNE 18, 2014
is little mixing, which occurs when there is a lack of or little wind) are characterized by nighttime drainage
flows in coastal valleys. Drainage is a reversal of the usual daytime air-flow patterns; air moves from the
Central Valley toward the coast and back down toward the Bay from the smaller valleys within the Air Basin.
Temperature
Summertime temperatures in the Air Basin are determined in large part by the effect of differential heating
between land and water surfaces. Because land tends to heat up and cool off more quickly than water, a
large-scale gradient (differential) in temperature is often created between the coast and the Central Valley,
and small-scale local gradients are often produced along the shorelines of the ocean and bays. The
temperature gradient near the ocean is also exaggerated, especially in summer, because of the upwelling of
cold water from the ocean bottom along the coast. On summer afternoons, the temperatures at the coast
can be 35 degrees Fahrenheit cooler than temperatures 15 to 20 miles inland; at night, this contrast usually
decreases to less than 10 degrees Fahrenheit.
In the winter, the relationship of minimum and maximum temperatures is reversed. During the daytime the
temperature contrast between the coast and inland areas is small, whereas at night the variation in
temperature is large.
Precipitation
The Air Basin is characterized by moderately wet winters and dry summers. Winter rains (November
through March) account for about 75 percent of the average annual rainfall. The amount of annual
precipitation can vary greatly from one part of the Air Basin to another, even within short distances. In
general, total annual rainfall can reach 40 inches in the mountains, but it is often less than 16 inches in
sheltered valleys.
During rainy periods, ventilation (rapid horizontal movement of air and injection of cleaner air) and vertical
mixing (an upward and downward movement of air) are usually high, and thus pollution levels tend to be
low (i.e. air pollutants are dispersed more readily into the atmosphere rather than accumulate under
stagnant conditions). However, during the winter, frequent dry periods do occur, where mixing and
ventilation are low and pollutant levels build up.
Wind Circulation
Low wind speed contributes to the buildup of air pollution because it allows more pollutants to be emitted
into the air mass per unit of time. Light winds occur most frequently during periods of low sun (fall and
winter, and early morning) and at night. These are also periods when air pollutant emissions from some
sources are at their peak, namely, commuter traffic (early morning) and wood-burning appliances
(nighttime). The problem can be compounded in valleys, when weak flows carry the pollutants up-valley
during the day, and cold air drainage flows move the air mass down-valley at night. Such restricted
movement of trapped air provides little opportunity for ventilation and leads to buildup of pollutants to
potentially unhealthful levels.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
AIR QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 4.2-5
Inversions
As described above, an inversion is a layer of warmer air over a layer of cooler air. Inversions affect air
quality conditions significantly because they influence the mixing depth (i.e. the vertical depth in the
atmosphere available for diluting air contaminants near the ground). There are two types of inversions that
occur regularly in the Air Basin. Elevation inversions3 are more common in the summer and fall, and
radiation inversions4 are more common during the winter. The highest air pollutant concentrations in the Air
Basin generally occur during inversions.
4.2.1.2 AIR POLLUTANTS OF CONCERN
A substance in the air that can cause harm to humans and the environment is known as an air pollutant.
Pollutants can be in the form of solid particles, liquid droplets, or gases. In addition, they may be natural or
man-made. Pollutants can be classified as primary or secondary. Usually, primary pollutants are directly
emitted from a process, such as ash from a volcanic eruption, carbon monoxide gas from a motor vehicle
exhaust, or sulfur dioxide released from factories. Secondary pollutants are not emitted directly. Rather,
they form in the air when primary pollutants react or interact.
Criteria Air Pollutants
The pollutants emitted into the ambient air by stationary and mobile sources are regulated by federal and
State law. Air pollutants are categorized as primary and/or secondary pollutants. Primary air pollutants are
emitted directly from sources. Carbon monoxide (CO), reactive organic gases (ROG), nitrogen oxides
(NOx), sulfur dioxide (SO2), coarse inhalable particulate matter (PM10), fine inhalable particulate matter
(PM2.5), and lead (Pb) are primary air pollutants. Of these, CO, SO2, NO2, PM 10, and PM2.5 are “criteria air
pollutants,” which means that ambient air quality standards (AAQS) have been established for them. ROG
and NOx are criteria pollutant precursors that form secondary criteria air pollutants through chemical and
photochemical reactions in the atmosphere. Ozone (O3) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) are the principal
secondary pollutants.
A description of each of the primary and secondary criteria air pollutants and their known health effects is
presented below.
Carbon Monoxide (CO) is a colorless, odorless, toxic gas produced by incomplete combustion of
carbon substances, such as gasoline or diesel fuel. CO is a primary criteria air pollutant. CO
concentrations tend to be the highest during winter mornings with little or no wind, when surface-
based inversions trap the pollutant at ground levels. Because CO is emitted directly from internal
combustion engines, motor vehicles operating at slow speeds are the primary source of CO in the Air
Basin. Emissions are highest during cold starts, hard acceleration, stop-and-go driving, and when a
vehicle is moving at low speeds. New findings indicate that CO emissions per mile are lowest at about
45 miles per hour (mph) for the average light-duty motor vehicle and begin to increase again at higher
speeds. When inhaled at high concentrations, CO combines with hemoglobin in the blood and reduces
3 When the air blows over elevated areas, it is heated as it is compressed into the side of the hill/mountain. When that warm air comes
over the top, it is warmer than the cooler air of the valley.
4 During the night, the ground cools off, radiating the heat to the sky.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
AIR QUALITY
4.2-6 JUNE 18, 2014
its oxygen-carrying capacity. This results in reduced oxygen reaching the brain, heart, and other body
tissues. This condition is especially critical for people with cardiovascular diseases, chronic lung disease,
or anemia, as well as for fetuses. Even healthy people exposed to high CO concentrations can
experience headaches, dizziness, fatigue, unconsciousness, and even death.5 The Air Basin is designated
under the California and National AAQS as being in attainment of CO criteria levels.6
Reactive Organic Gases (ROGs) are compounds composed primarily of hydrogen and carbon
atoms. Internal combustion associated with motor vehicle usage is the major source of ROGs. Other
sources of ROGs include evaporative emissions from paints and solvents, the application of asphalt
paving, and the use of household consumer products such as aerosols. Adverse effects on human health
are not caused directly by ROGs, but rather by reactions of ROGs to form secondary pollutants such as
O3. There are no AAQS established for ROGs. However, because they contribute to the formation of
O3, BAAQMD has established a significance threshold for this pollutant.
Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) are a by-product of fuel combustion and contribute to the formation of O3,
PM10, and PM2.5. The two major components of NOx are nitric oxide (NO) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2).
The principal component of NOx produced by combustion is NO, but NO reacts with oxygen to form
NO2, creating the mixture of NO and NO2 commonly called NOx. NO 2 acts as an acute irritant and in
equal concentrations is more injurious than NO. At atmospheric concentrations, however, NO2 is only
potentially irritating. There is some indication of a relationship between NO2 and chronic pulmonary
fibrosis. Some increase in bronchitis in children (two and three years old) has also been observed at
concentrations below 0.3 ppm. NO2 absorbs blue light; the result is a brownish-red cast to the
atmosphere and reduced visibility. NO is a colorless, odorless gas formed from atmospheric nitrogen
and oxygen when combustion takes place under high temperature and/or high pressure.7 The Air Basin
is designated an attainment area for NO2 under the National AAQS and California AAQS.8
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) is a colorless, pungent, irritating gas formed by the combustion of sulfurous
fossil fuels. It enters the atmosphere as a result of burning high-sulfur-content fuel oils and coal and
from chemical processes at chemical plants and refineries. Gasoline and natural gas have very low sulfur
content and do not release significant quantities of SO2. When SO2 forms sulfates (SO4) in the
atmosphere, together these pollutants are referred to as sulfur oxides (SOx). Thus, SO2 is both a primary
and secondary criteria air pollutant. At sufficiently high concentrations, SO2 may irritate the upper
respiratory tract. At lower concentrations and when combined with particulates, SO2 may do greater
harm by injuring lung tissue.9 The Air Basin is designated an attainment area for SO2 under the
California and National AAQS.10
5 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), 2010 (Revised 2011), Appendix C: Sample Air Quality Setting, in California
Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines.
6 California Air Resources Board (CARB), 2013. Area Designations: Activities and Maps,
http://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/adm/adm.htm, April.
7 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), 2010 (Revised 2011). Appendix C: Sample Air Quality Setting, in California
Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines.
8 California Air Resources Board (CARB), 2013. Area Designations: Activities and Maps,
http://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/adm/adm.htm, April.
9 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), 2010 (Revised 2011). Appendix C: Sample Air Quality Setting, in California
Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines.
10 California Air Resources Board (CARB), 2013. Area Designations: Activities and Maps,
http://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/adm/adm.htm, April.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
AIR QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 4.2-7
Suspended Particulate Matter (PM10 and PM2.5) consists of finely divided solids or liquids such as
soot, dust, aerosols, fumes, and mists. Two forms of fine particulates are now recognized and regulated.
Inhalable coarse particles, or PM10, include the particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 10
microns (i.e. 10 millionths of a meter or 0.0004-inch) or less. Inhalable fine particles, or PM2.5, have an
aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 microns or less (i.e. 2.5 millionths of a meter or 0.0001 inch).
Some particulate matter, such as pollen, occurs naturally. In the Air Basin most particulate matter is
caused by combustion, factories, construction, grading, demolition, agricultural activities, and motor
vehicles. Extended exposure to particulate matter can increase the risk of chronic respiratory disease.
PM10 bypasses the body’s natural filtration system more easily than larger particles and can lodge deep in
the lungs. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) scientific review concluded that PM2.5
penetrates even more deeply into the lungs, and this is more likely to contribute to health effects—at
concentrations well below current PM10 standards. These health effects include premature death in
people with heart or lung disease, nonfatal heart attacks, irregular heartbeat, aggravated asthma,
decreased lung function, increased respiratory symptoms (e.g. irritation of the airways, coughing, or
difficulty breathing). Motor vehicles are currently responsible for about half of particulates in the Air
Basin. Wood burning in fireplaces and stoves is another large source of fine particulates.11
Both PM10 and PM2.5 may adversely affect the human respiratory system, especially in people who are
naturally sensitive or susceptible to breathing problems. These health effects include premature death
and increased hospital admissions and emergency room visits (primarily the elderly and individuals with
cardiopulmonary disease); increased respiratory symptoms and disease (children and individual with
asthma); and alterations in lung tissue and structure and in respiratory tract defense mechanisms.12
Diesel particulate matter (DPM) is classified a carcinogen by the California Air Resources Board
(CARB). The Air Basin is designated nonattainment under the California AAQS for PM10 and
nonattainment under both the California and National AAQS for PM2.5.13,14
Ozone (O3) is commonly referred to as “smog” and is a gas that is formed when ROGs and NOx, both
by-products of internal combustion engine exhaust, undergo photochemical reactions in the presence of
sunlight. O3 is a secondary criteria air pollutant. O3 concentrations are generally highest during the
summer months when direct sunlight, light winds, and warm temperatures create favorable conditions
to the formation of this pollutant. O3 poses a health threat to those who already suffer from respiratory
diseases as well as to healthy people. O3 levels usually build up during the day and peak in the afternoon
hours. Short-term exposure can irritate the eyes and cause constriction of the airways. Besides causing
shortness of breath, it can aggravate existing respiratory diseases such as asthma, bronchitis, and
emphysema. Chronic exposure to high ozone levels can permanently damage lung tissue. O3 can also
11 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), 2010 (Revised 2011). Appendix C: Sample Air Quality Setting, in
California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines.
12 South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAAQMD), 2005. Guidance Document for Addressing Air Quality Issues in
General Plans and Local Planning.
13 California Air Resources Board (CARB), 2013. Area Designations: Activities and Maps,
http://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/adm/adm.htm, April.
14 On January 9, 2013, the EPA issued a final rule to determine that the SFBAAB has attained the 24-hour PM2.5 National AAQS. This
action suspends federal State Implementation Plan planning requirements for the Bay Area. The SFBAAB will continue to be designated
nonattainment for the National 24-hour PM2.5 standard until such time as BAAQMD elects to submit a redesignation request and a maintenance
plan to EPA and EPA approves the proposed redesignation.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
AIR QUALITY
4.2-8 JUNE 18, 2014
damage plants and trees and materials such as rubber and fabrics.15 The Air Basin is designated
nonattainment of the 1-hour California AAQS and 8-hour California and National AAQS for O3.16
Lead (Pb) is a metal found naturally in the environment as well as in manufactured products. The
major sources of lead emissions have historically been mobile and industrial sources. As a result of the
phase-out of leaded gasoline, metal processing is currently the primary source of lead emissions. The
highest levels of lead in air are generally found near lead smelters. Other stationary sources are waste
incinerators, utilities, and lead-acid battery manufacturers.
Twenty years ago, mobile sources were the main contributor to ambient lead concentrations in the air.
In the early 1970s, the EPA set national regulations to gradually reduce the lead content in gasoline. In
1975, unleaded gasoline was introduced for motor vehicles equipped with catalytic converters. The EPA
banned the use of leaded gasoline in highway vehicles in December 1995. As a result of the EPA’s
regulatory efforts to remove lead from gasoline, emissions of lead from the transportation sector and
levels of lead in the air decreased dramatically.17 The Air Basin is designated in attainment of the
California and National AAQS for lead.18 Because emissions of lead are found only in projects that are
permitted by BAAQMD, lead is not an air quality of concern for the proposed Project.
Toxic Air Contaminants
Public exposure to TACs is a significant environmental health issue in California. In 1983, the California
Legislature enacted a program to identify the health effects of TACs and to reduce exposure to these
contaminants to protect the public health. The California Health and Safety Code define a TAC as “an air
pollutant which may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or in serious illness, or which may pose
a present or potential hazard to human health.” A substance that is listed as a hazardous air pollutant
pursuant to Section 112(b) of the federal Clean Air Act (42 U.S. Code Section 7412[b]) is a toxic air
contaminant. Under State law, the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA), acting through
CARB, is authorized to identify a substance as a TAC if it is an air pollutant that may cause or contribute to
an increase in mortality or serious illness, or may pose a present or potential hazard to human health.
California regulates TACs primarily through AB 1807 (Tanner Air Toxics Act) and AB 2588 (Air Toxics “Hot
Spot” Information and Assessment Act of 1987). The Tanner Air Toxics Act sets up a formal procedure for
CARB to designate substances as TACs. Once a TAC is identified, CARB adopts an “airborne toxics control
measure” for sources that emit designated TACs. If there is a safe threshold for a substance (i.e. a point below
which there is no toxic effect), the control measure must reduce exposure to below that threshold. If there
is no safe threshold, the measure must incorporate toxics best available control technology to minimize
emissions. To date, CARB has established formal control measures for 11 TACs that are identified as having
no safe threshold.
15 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), 2010 (Revised 2011). Appendix C: Sample Air Quality Setting, in
California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines.
16 California Air Resources Board (CARB), 2013. Area Designations: Activities and Maps, http://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/
adm/adm.htm, April.
17 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), 2010 (Revised 2011). Appendix C: Sample Air Quality Setting, in
California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines.
18 California Air Resources Board (CARB), 2013, Area Designations: Activities and Maps, http://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/adm/
adm.htm, April.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
AIR QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 4.2-9
Air toxics from stationary sources are also regulated in California under the Air Toxics “Hot Spot”
Information and Assessment Act of 1987. Under AB 2588, TAC emissions from individual facilities are
quantified and prioritized by the air quality management district or air pollution control district. High
priority facilities are required to perform a health risk assessment (HRA), and if specific thresholds are
exceeded, are required to communicate the results to the public through notices and public meetings.
At the time of the last update to the TAC list in December 1999, CARB had designated 244 compounds as
TACs.19 Additionally, CARB has implemented control measures for a number of compounds that pose high
risks and show potential for effective control. The majority of the estimated health risks from TACs can be
attributed to relatively few compounds, the most important being particulate matter from diesel-fueled
engines.
In 1998, CARB identified diesel particulate matter (DPM) as a TAC. Previously, the individual chemical
compounds in diesel exhaust were considered TACs. Almost all diesel exhaust particles are 10 microns or
less in diameter. Because of their extremely small size, these particles can be inhaled and eventually trapped
in the bronchial and alveolar regions of the lungs.
4.2.2 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
4.2.2.1 FEDERAL AND STATE REGULATIONS
Ambient Air Quality Standards
The Clean Air Act (CAA) was passed in 1963 by the U.S. Congress and has been amended several times. The
1970 Clean Air Act amendments strengthened previous legislation and laid the foundation for the regulatory
scheme of the 1970s and 1980s. In 1977, Congress again added several provisions, including nonattainment
requirements for areas not meeting National AAQS and the Prevention of Significant Deterioration
program. The 1990 amendments represent the latest in a series of federal efforts to regulate the protection
of air quality in the United States. The CAA allows states to adopt more stringent standards or to include
other pollution species. The California Clean Air Act, signed into law in 1988, requires all areas of the State
to achieve and maintain the California AAQS by the earliest practical date. The California AAQS tend to be
more restrictive than the National AAQS.
The National and California AAQS are the levels of air quality considered to provide a margin of safety in
the protection of the public health and welfare. They are designed to protect “sensitive receptors” most
susceptible to further respiratory distress, such as asthmatics, the elderly, very young children, people
already weakened by other disease or illness, and persons engaged in strenuous work or exercise. Healthy
adults can tolerate occasional exposure to air pollutant concentrations considerably above these minimum
standards before adverse effects are observed.
Both California and the federal government have established health-based AAQS for seven air pollutants,
which are shown in Table 4.2-1. These pollutants are ozone (O3), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), carbon monoxide
(CO), sulfur dioxide (SO2), coarse inhalable particulate matter (PM10), fine inhalable particulate matter
19 California Air Resources Board (CARB), 1999. Final Staff Report: Update to the Toxic Air Contaminant List.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
AIR QUALITY
4.2-10 JUNE 18, 2014
(PM2.5), and lead (Pb). In addition, the State has set standards for sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, vinyl chloride,
and visibility-reducing particles. These standards are designed to protect the health and welfare of the
populace with a reasonable margin of safety.
TABLE 4.2‐1 AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS FOR CRITERIA POLLUTANTS
Pollutant
Averaging
Time
California
Standard
Federal Primary
Standard Major Pollutant Sources
Ozone (O3)
1 hour 0.09 ppm *
Motor vehicles, paints, coatings, and solvents.
8 hours 0.070 ppm 0.075 ppm
Carbon
Monoxide (CO)
1 hour 20 ppm 35 ppm Internal combustion engines, primarily gasoline‐
powered motor vehicles. 8 hours 9.0 ppm 9 ppm
Nitrogen
Dioxide (NO2)
Annual Average 0.030 ppm 0.053 ppm Motor vehicles, petroleum‐refining operations,
industrial sources, aircraft, ships, and railroads. 1 hour 0.18 ppm 0.100 ppm
Sulfur
Dioxide (SO2)
Annual
Arithmetic
Mean
* *a
Fuel combustion, chemical plants, sulfur recovery
plants, and metal processing. 1 hour 0.25 ppm 0.075 ppm
24 hours 0.04 ppm *a
Respirable
Particulate
Matter
(PM10)
Annual
Arithmetic
Mean
20 µg/m3 *
Dust and fume‐producing construction, industrial, and
agricultural operations, combustion, atmospheric
photochemical reactions, and natural activities (e.g.
wind‐raised dust and ocean sprays). 24 hours 50 µg/m3 150 µg/m3
Respirable
Particulate
Matter
(PM2.5 )
Annual
Arithmetic
Mean
12 µg/m3 12 µg/m3 Dust and fume‐producing construction, industrial, and
agricultural operations, combustion, atmospheric
photochemical reactions, and natural activities (e.g.
wind‐raised dust and ocean sprays). 24 hours * 35 µg/m3
Lead (Pb)
30‐Day Average 1.5 µg/m3 *
Present source: lead smelters, battery manufacturing &
recycling facilities. Past source: combustion of leaded
gasoline.
Calendar
Quarterly * 1.5 µg/m3
Rolling 3‐Month
Average * 0.15 µg/m3
Sulfates (SO4) 24 hours 25 µg/m3 * Industrial processes.
Visibility
Reducing
Particles
8 hours
ExCo =0.23/km
visibility of 10≥
miles
No Federal
Standard
Visibility‐reducing particles consist of suspended
particulate matter, which is a complex mixture of tiny
particles that consists of dry solid fragments, solid cores
with liquid coatings, and small droplets of liquid. These
particles vary greatly in shape, size, and chemical
composition, and can be made up of many different
materials such as metals, soot, soil, dust, and salt.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
AIR QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 4.2-11
TABLE 4.2‐1 AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS FOR CRITERIA POLLUTANTS
Pollutant
Averaging
Time
California
Standard
Federal Primary
Standard Major Pollutant Sources
Hydrogen
Sulfide 1 hour 0.03 ppm No Federal
Standard
Hydrogen sulfide (H2S) is a colorless gas with the odor
of rotten eggs. It is formed during bacterial
decomposition of sulfur‐containing organic substances.
Also, it can be present in sewer gas and some natural
gas, and can be emitted as the result of geothermal
energy exploitation.
Vinyl Chloride 24 hour 0.01 ppm No Federal
Standard
Vinyl chloride (chloroethene), a chlorinated
hydrocarbon, is a colorless gas with a mild, sweet odor.
Most vinyl chloride is used to make polyvinyl chloride
(PVC) plastic and vinyl products. Vinyl chloride has been
detected near landfills, sewage plants, and hazardous
waste sites, due to microbial breakdown of chlorinated
solvents.
Notes: ppm: parts per million; µg/m3: micrograms per cubic meter
* Standard has not been established for this pollutant/duration by this entity.
a. On June 2, 2010, a new 1‐hour SO2 standard was established and the existing 24‐hour and annual primary standards were revoked.
Source: California Air Resources Board, 2013, Ambient Air Quality Standards, http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/aaqs2.pdf, June.
4.2.2.2 REGIONAL REGULATIONS
Bay Area Air Quality Management District
BAAQMD is the agency responsible for assuring that the National and California AAQS are attained and
maintained in the Air Basin. BAAQMD is responsible for:
Adopting and enforcing rules and regulations concerning air pollutant sources.
Issuing permits for stationary sources of air pollutants.
Inspecting stationary sources of air pollutants.
Responding to citizen complaints.
Monitoring ambient air quality and meteorological conditions.
Awarding grants to reduce motor vehicle emissions.
Conducting public education campaigns.
Air Quality Management Planning.
Air quality conditions in the Air Basin have improved significantly since the BAAQMD was created in
1955.20 The BAAQMD prepares air quality management plans (AQMPs) to attain ambient air quality
standards in the Air Basin. The BAAQMD prepares ozone attainment plans for the National O3 standard and
clean air plans for the California O3 standard. The BAAQMD prepares these AQMPs in coordination with
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC).
The most recent adopted comprehensive plan is the 2010 Bay Area Clean Air Plan, which was adopted by
BAAQMD on September 15, 2010, and incorporates significant new scientific data, primarily in the form of
20 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), 2010 (Revised 2011). Appendix C: Sample Air Quality Setting, in
California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
AIR QUALITY
4.2-12 JUNE 18, 2014
updated emissions inventories, ambient measurements, new meteorological episodes, and new air quality
modeling tools.
BAAQMD 2010 Bay Area Clean Air Plan
The purpose of the 2010 Bay Area Clean Air Plan is to: 1) update the Bay Area 2005 Ozone Strategy in
accordance with the requirements of the California Clean Air Act to implement all feasible measures to
reduce O3; 2) consider the impacts of O3 control measures on PM, TAC, and greenhouse gases (GHGs) in a
single, integrated plan; 3) review progress in improving air quality in recent years; and 4) establish emission
control measures in the 2009 to 2012 timeframe. The 2010 Bay Area Clean Air Plan also provides the
framework for the Air Basin to achieve attainment of the California and National AAQS.
BAAQMD Community Air Risk Evaluation Program
The BAAQMD’s Community Air Risk Evaluation (CARE) program was initiated in 2004 to evaluate and
reduce health risks associated with exposure to outdoor TACs in the Bay Area. Based on findings of the latest
report, DPM was found to account for approximately 85 percent of the cancer risk from airborne toxics.
Carcinogenic compounds from gasoline-powered cars and light duty trucks were also identified as
significant contributors: 1,3-butadiene contributed four percent of the cancer risk-weighted emissions, and
benzene contributed three percent. Collectively, five compounds—diesel PM, 1,3-butadiene, benzene,
formaldehyde, and acetaldehyde—were found to be responsible for more than 90 percent of the cancer risk
attributed to emissions. All of these compounds are associated with emissions from internal combustion
engines. The most important sources of cancer risk-weighted emissions were combustion-related sources of
DPM, including on-road mobile sources (31 percent), construction equipment (29 percent), and ships and
harbor craft (13 percent). A 75 percent reduction in DPM was predicted between 2005 and 2015 when the
inventory accounted for CARB’s diesel regulations. Overall, cancer risk from TAC dropped by more than 50
percent between 2005 and 2015, when emissions inputs accounted for state diesel regulations and other
reductions.21
Modeled cancer risks from TAC in 2005 were highest near sources of DPM: near core urban areas, along
major roadways and freeways, and near maritime shipping terminals. Peak modeled risks were found to be
located east of San Francisco, near West Oakland and the Maritime Port of Oakland. BAAQMD has
identified seven impacted communities in the Bay Area:
Western Contra Costa County and the cities of Richmond and San Pablo.
Western Alameda County along the Interstate 880 (I-880) corridor and the cities of Berkeley, Alameda,
Oakland, and Hayward.
San Jose.
Eastern side of San Francisco.
Concord.
Vallejo.
Pittsburgh and Antioch.
21 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), 2014. Improving Air Quality & Health in Bay Area Communities,
Community Air Risk Program (CARE) Retrospective & Path Forward (2004 – 2013). April
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
AIR QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 4.2-13
San Jose is the closest CARE program impacted community to the city. As illustrated in Figure 4.2-2, based
on the Phase II boundaries, Cupertino lies outside this impacted community.
The major contributor to acute and chronic non-cancer health effects in the Air Basin is acrolein (C3H4O).
Major sources of acrolein are on-road mobile sources and aircraft near freeways and commercial and
military airports.22 Currently CARB does not have certified emission factors or an analytical test method for
acrolein. Since the appropriate tools needed to implement and enforce acrolein emission limits are not
available, the BAAQMD does not conduct health risk screening analysis for acrolein emissions.23
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
VTA is the congestion management agency (CMA) for Santa Clara County. VTA is tasked with developing a
comprehensive transportation improvement program among local jurisdictions that will reduce traffic
congestion and improve land use decision-making and air quality. VTA’s latest congestion management
program (CMP) is the 2013 Congestion Management Program. VTA’s countywide transportation model
must be consistent with the regional transportation model developed by the MTC with ABAG data. The
countywide transportation model is used to help evaluate cumulative transportation impacts of local land
use decisions on the CMP system. In addition, VTA’s updated CMP includes multi-modal performance
standards and trip reduction and transportation demand management (TDM) strategies consistent with the
goals of reducing regional VMT in accordance with Senate Bill 375. Strategies identified in the 2013 CMP
for Santa Clara County, where local jurisdictions are a responsible agency, include:24
Traffic Level of Service: Monitor and submit report on the level of service (LOS) on CMP roadway
network intersections using CMP software and procedures.
Transportation Model and Database: Certify that Member Agency models are consistent with the
CMP model.
Community Form and Impact Analysis: Prepare a Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) for
projects that generate 100 or more peak hour trips and submit to the CMP according to TIA Guidelines
schedule.
Community Form and Impact Analysis: Submit relevant conditions of approval to VTA for
projects generating TIAs.
Community Form and Impact Analysis: Prepare and submit land use monitoring data to the CMP
on all land use project approved from July 1 to June 30 of the previous year.
Community Form and Impact Analysis: Submit an annual statement certifying that the Member
Agency has complied with the CMP Land Use Impact Analysis Program.
Monitoring and Conformance: Outline the requirements and procedures established for
conducting annual traffic LOS and land use monitoring efforts. Support the Traffic Level of Service and
Community Form and Impact Analysis Elements.
22 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), 2006. Community Air Risk Evaluation Program, Phase I Findings and Policy
Recommendations Related to Toxic Air Contaminants in the San Francisco Bay Area.
23 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), 2010. Air Toxics NSR Program, Health Risk Screening Analysis Guidelines.
24 Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), 2013. 2013 Congestion Management Program http://www.vta.org/sfc/
servlet.shepherd/version/download/068A0000001Q7pt, October.
City of Sunnyvale
%&'(280
|ÿ85
City of San Jose
City of
Santa Clara
Santa Clara
County
City of
Los Altos
City of Saratoga
|ÿ85
City of Sunnyvale
City of
Saratoga
City of San Jose
S
B
L
A
N
E
Y
A
V
E
N
B
L
A
N
E
Y
A
V
E
B O L L I N GE R RD
N
S
T
E
L
L
I
N
G
R
D
B
U
B
B
R
D
N
TANTAU
AVE
S
D
E
A
N
Z
A
B
L
V
D
B
L
ANEY
AVE
FO
O
T
H
I
L
L
B
L
V
D
N
FOOTHILL
BLVD
RAINBOW DR
S
S
T
E
L
L
I
N
G
R
D
HOMESTEAD RD
PRU N E RIDGE AVE
M
I
L
LER
AVE
STEVENS CREEK BLVD
S
TANTAUAVE
G
R
A
N
T
R
D
N
D
E
A
N
Z
A
B
L
V
D
PROS P EC T R D
MCCLELLAN RD
HO
L
L
E
N
B
E
C
K
A
V
E
N
W
O
L
F
E
R
D
PROJECT DESCRIPTIONCITY OF CUPERTINOGENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING PROJECT
Figure 4.2-2BAAQMD Community Air Risk Evaluation (CARE) Program Impacted Communities
Source: BAAQMD, 2014; City of Cupertino, 2013; MIG, Inc, 2014; PlaceWorks, 2014.
00.5 10.25
Miles
Impacted Community: San JoseStudy AreasParksSchoolsCity Boundary
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
AIR QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 4.2-15
Capital Improvement Program: Develop a list of projects intended to maintain or improve the
level of service on the designated system and to maintain transit performance standards.
Deficiency Plan: Prepare Deficiency Plans for facilities that violate CMP traffic LOS standards or that
are projected to violate LOS standards using the adopted Deficiency Plan Requirements.
Deficiency Plan: Submit Deficiency Plan Implementation Status Report as part of annual monitoring.
4.2.2.3 LOCAL REGULATIONS
City of Cupertino General Plan 2000-2020
The City of Cupertino’s 2000-2020 General Plan, adopted on November 15, 2005, outlines a vision for
long-range physical and economic development and resource conservation that reflects the aspirations of the
community. The General Plan includes policies that are relevant to air quality are primarily in Section 5,
Environmental Resources/Sustainability, and also in Section 2, Land Use/Community Design, Section 4,
Circulation, and Section 6, Health and Safety, and Section 2, Land Use/Community Design.
As part of the proposed Project, some General Plan policies would be amended. Substantive policy changes
under the proposed Project include the addition, removal, or functional revision (e.g. not purely semantic)
of policies in ways that have the potential to result in a physical impact on the environment. Policies of the
2000-2020 General Plan that are relevant to air quality and were not substantially modified (e.g. renum-
bered or minor text change) are listed below in Table 4.2-2. A comprehensive list of policy changes is
provided in Appendix I, Proposed General Plan Policy Amendments, of this Draft EIR. Discussions of how
substantive policy changes may result in adverse physical changes are included in the analyses under each
impact criterion in Section 4.2.5, Impact Discussion, below.
TABLE 4.2‐2 POLICIES AND STRATEGIES OF THE CUPERTINO 2000‐2020 GENERAL PLAN
New Policy
Number
Original Policy
Number Policies and Strategies
Section 2, Land Use/Community Design
Policy 2‐12 Policy 2‐9 Long Term Growth Boundary. Allow modification of the long‐term growth boundary only in
conjunction with a comprehensive review of the City’s General Plan.
Policy 2‐51 Policy 2‐52 Rural Improvement Standards in Hillside Areas. Require rural improvement standards in
hillside areas to preserve the rural character of the hillsides.
Strategy 1. Mass Grading in New Construction. Follow natural land contour and avoid mass
grading in new construction, especially in flood hazard or hillside areas. Grading large, flat
areas shall be avoided.
Strategy 2. Retaining Significant Trees. Retain significant specimen trees, especially when
they grow in groves or clusters, and integrate them into the developed site. The Montebello
foothills at the south and west boundaries of the valley floor are a scenic backdrop to the
City, adding to its sense of scale and variety of color. It’s impossible to guarantee an
unobstructed view of the hills from any vantage point, but people should be able to see the
foothills from public gathering places.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
AIR QUALITY
4.2-16 JUNE 18, 2014
TABLE 4.2‐2 POLICIES AND STRATEGIES OF THE CUPERTINO 2000‐2020 GENERAL PLAN
New Policy
Number
Original Policy
Number Policies and Strategies
Section 4, Circulation
Policy 4‐13 Policy 4‐11 Safe Parking Lots. Require parking lots that are safe for pedestrians.
Strategy. Safe Spaces for Pedestrians. Require parking lot design and construction to include
clearly defined spaces for pedestrians so that foot traffic is separated from the hazards of
car traffic and people are directed from their cars to building entries.
Section 5, Environmental Resources/Sustainability
Policy 5‐44 Policy 5‐44 Reuse of Building Materials. Encourage the recycling and reuse of building materials,
including recycling materials generated by the demolition and remodeling of buildings.
Strategy 1. Post Demolition and Remodeling Projects. Encourage contractors to post
demolition and remodeling projects on the Internet announcing the availability of potential
reusable materials.
Strategy 2. Public and Private Projects. Require contractors working on City projects to use
recycled building materials and sustainably harvested wood products to the maximum
extent possible and encourage them to do the same on private projects.
Source: City of Cupertino and Cupertino 2000‐2020 General Plan.
4.2.3 EXISTING AIR QUALITY
4.2.3.1 ATTAINMENT STATUS OF THE SFBAAB
Areas that meet AAQS are classified attainment areas, and areas that do not meet these standards are
classified nonattainment areas. Severity classifications for O3 range from marginal, moderate, and serious to
severe and extreme. The attainment status for the Air Basin is shown in Table 4.2-3. The Air Basin is
currently designated a nonattainment area for California and National O3, California and National PM2.5,
and California PM10 AAQS.
4.2.3.2 EXISTING AMBIENT AIR QUALITY
Existing levels of ambient air quality and historical trends and projections in the vicinity of Cupertino have
been documented by measurements made by the BAAQMD. In addition to 24 permanent monitoring
stations located around the Bay Area, BAAQMD has a special monitoring station located in Cupertino at the
Monta Vista Park on Foothill Boulevard. This Special Purpose Monitoring Station started operating in
September 2010. Therefore, for years prior to 2010, data from the San Jose Jackson Street Monitoring
Station was used in this analysis. Data from these stations are summarized in Table 4.2-4. The data show
occasional violations of the State and federal O3 standards. The federal PM2.5 and state PM10 standards have
been exceeded once in the last five years. The State and federal CO and NO2 standards have not been
exceeded in the last five years in the vicinity of the city.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
AIR QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 4.2-17
TABLE 4.2‐3 ATTAINMENT STATUS OF CRITERIA POLLUTANTS IN THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA AIR BASIN
Pollutant State Federal
Ozone – 1‐hour Nonattainment (serious) Nonattainment
Ozone – 8‐hour Nonattainment Classification revoked (2005)
PM10 Nonattainment Unclassified/Attainment
PM2.5 Nonattainment Nonattainmenta
CO Attainment Attainment
NO2 Attainment Attainment
SO2 Attainment Attainment
Lead Attainment Attainment
Sulfates Attainment Unclassified/Attainment
All others Unclassified/Attainment Unclassified/Attainment
a. On January 9, 2013, the EPA issued a final rule to determine that the Air Basin has attained the 24‐hour PM2.5 National AAQS. This action suspends
federal State Implementation Plan planning requirements for the Bay Area. The Air Basin will continue to be designated nonattainment for the
National 24‐hour PM2.5 standard until such time as BAAQMD elects to submit a redesignation request and a maintenance plan to EPA and EPA
approves the proposed redesignation.
Source: California Air Resources Board, 2014, Area Designations: Activities and Maps, http://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/adm/adm.htm, April 17.
TABLE 4.2‐4 AMBIENT AIR QUALITY MONITORING SUMMARY
Pollutant/Standard
Number of Days Threshold Were Exceeded and
Maximum Levels During Such Violations
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Ozone (O3)a
State 1‐Hour 0.09 ppm
State 8‐hour 0.07 ppm
Federal 8‐Hour > 0.075 ppm
Maximum 1‐Hour Conc. (ppm)
Maximum 8‐Hour Conc. (ppm)
1
3
2
0.118
0.080
0
0
0
0.088
0.069
1
3
1
0.127
0.092
0
0
0
0.086
0.067
0
0
0
0.83
0.067
Carbon Monoxide (CO)a
State 8‐Hour > 9.0 ppm
Federal 8‐Hour 9.0 ppm
Maximum 8‐Hour Conc. (ppm)
0
0
2.48
0
0
2.50
0
0
0.93
0
0
0.95
0
0
0.73
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)a
State 1‐Hour 0.18 (ppm)
Maximum 1‐Hour Conc. (ppb)
0
80.0
0
69.0
0
48.6
0
42.5
0
44.7
Coarse Particulates (PM10)b
State 24‐Hour > 50 µg/m3
Federal 24‐Hour > 150 µg/m3
Maximum 24‐Hour Conc. (µg/ m3)
1
0
57.3
0
0
41.1
0
0
27.4
0
0
28.9
0
0
415
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
AIR QUALITY
4.2-18 JUNE 18, 2014
TABLE 4.2‐4 AMBIENT AIR QUALITY MONITORING SUMMARY
Pollutant/Standard
Number of Days Threshold Were Exceeded and
Maximum Levels During Such Violations
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Fine Particulates (PM2.5)a
Federal 24‐Hour > 35 µg/m3
Maximum 24‐Hour Conc. (µg/m3)
5
41.9
0
35.0
*
25.0
*
30.5
*
27.5
Notes: ppm: parts per million; ppb: parts per billion; µg/m3: or micrograms per cubic meter; * = insufficient data; NA = Not Available
a. Data from Cupertino Monitoring Station for years 2010 ‐2012. Data from the San Jose Jackson Street Monitoring Station for years 2008 to 2009.
Source: California Air Resources Board, 2014, Air Pollution Data Monitoring Cards (2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012), Accessed May 1, 2014,
http://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/index.html.
Criteria air pollutants generated by existing land uses in the city are shown in Table 4.2-5.
TABLE 4.2‐5 CRITERIA AIR POLLUTANT EMISSIONS GENERATED BY EXISTING LAND USES WITHIN CUPERTINO
Category
Criteria Air Pollutants (lbs/day)
ROG NOx
Exhaust
PM10
Exhaust
PM2.5
Transportation 148 1,113 115 55
Energy 47 414 33 33
Area 1,321 733 52 52
Total 1,516 2,260 200 140
Tons Per Year (tpy) 275 tpy 397 tpy 35 tpy 25 tpy
Note: Emissions may not total to 100 percent due to rounding.
a. Transportation. VMT is based on data provided by Hexagon based on VTA model for Cupertino and modeled with EMFAC2011‐PL for running
exhaust emissions using 2013 emission rates. VMT is multiplied by 347 days/year to account for reduced traffic on weekends and holidays.
b. Energy. Based on three‐year average (2012–2010) of energy use provided by Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E). The nonresidential sector includes
direct access customers, county facilities, and other district facilities within the city boundaries.
c. Area Sources – Off‐Road Emissions. Generated using OFFROAD2007. Estimated based on population (Landscaping), employment (Light
Commercial Equipment), and construction building permits (Construction) for Cupertino as a percentage of Santa Clara County. Excludes
BAAQMD‐permitted sources. ROG emissions from consumer product use based on the emissions rates in CalEEMod 2013.2.2. Daily construction
emissions multiplied by 347 days/year to account for reduced/limited construction activity on weekends and holidays. Excludes fugitive emissions
from construction sites.
4.2.3.3 SENSITIVE RECEPTORS
Some land uses are considered more sensitive to air pollution than others due to the types of population
groups or activities involved. Sensitive population groups include children, the elderly, the acutely ill, and
the chronically ill, especially those with cardiorespiratory diseases. Residential areas are also considered
sensitive receptors to air pollution because residents (including children and the elderly) tend to be at home
for extended periods of time, resulting in sustained exposure to any pollutants present. Other sensitive
receptors include retirement facilities, hospitals, and schools. Recreational land uses are considered
moderately sensitive to air pollution. Although exposure periods are generally short, exercise places a high
demand on respiratory functions, which can be impaired by air pollution. In addition, noticeable air
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
AIR QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 4.2-19
pollution can detract from the enjoyment of recreation. Industrial, commercial, retail, and office areas are
considered the least sensitive to air pollution. Exposure periods are relatively short and intermittent, since
the majority of the workers tend to stay indoors most of the time. In addition, the working population is
generally the healthiest segment of the population.
4.2.4 THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the proposed Project would have a significant effect on
the environment with respect to air quality if it would:
1. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan.
2. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality
violation.
3. 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).
4. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.
5. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people.
4.2.4.1 BAAQMD SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
The BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines were prepared to assist in the evaluation of air quality impacts
of projects and plans proposed within the Bay Area. The guidelines provide recommended procedures for
evaluating potential air impacts during the environmental review process, consistent with CEQA
requirements, and include recommended thresholds of significance, mitigation measures, and background
air quality information. They also include recommended assessment methodologies for air toxics, odors, and
greenhouse gas emissions. In June 2010, the BAAQMD's Board of Directors adopted CEQA thresholds of
significance and an update of the CEQA Guidelines. In May 2011, the updated BAAQMD CEQA Air
Quality Guidelines were amended to include a risk and hazards threshold for new receptors and modified
procedures for assessing impacts related to risk and hazard impacts.
On March 5, 2012, the Alameda County Superior Cour t issued a judgment finding that the BAAQMD had
failed to comply with CEQA when it adopted the thresholds of significance in the BAAQMD CEQA Air
Quality Guidelines. The court did not determine whether the thresholds of significance were valid on their
merits, but found that the adoption of the thresholds was a project under CEQA. The court issued a writ of
mandate ordering the BAAQMD to set aside the thresholds and cease dissemination of them until the
BAAQMD complied with CEQA.
Following the court's order, the BAAQMD released revised CEOA Air Quality Guidelines in May of 2012
that include guidance on calculating air pollution emissions, obtaining information regarding the health
impacts of air pollutants, and identifying potential mitigation measures, and which set aside the significance
thresholds. The BAAQMD recognizes that lead agencies may rely on the previously recommended
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
AIR QUALITY
4.2-20 JUNE 18, 2014
Thresholds of Significance contained in its CEQA Guidelines adopted in 1999. The Alameda County
Superior Court, in ordering BAAQMD to set aside the thresholds, did not address the merits of the science
or evidence supporting the thresholds. The City finds, therefore, that despite the Superior Court’ ruling,
and in light of the subsequent case history discussed below, the science and reasoning contained in the
BAAQMD 2011 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines provide the latest state-of-the-art guidance available. For that
reason, substantial evidence supports continued use of the BAAQMD 2011 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines.
On August 13, 2013, the First District Court of Appeal ordered the trial court to reverse the judgment and
upheld the BAAQMD’s CEQA Guidelines. California Building Industry Association versus Bay Area Air
Quality Management District, Case No. A135335 and A136212 (Court of Appeal, First District, August 13,
2013). In addition to the City’s independent determination that use of the BAAQMD’s CEQA Guidelines is
supported by substantial evidence, they have been found to be valid guidelines for use in the CEQA
environmental review process. On November 26, 2013, the California Supreme Court granted review on
the issue of whether the toxic air contaminants thresholds are consistent with CEQA; specifically, whether
CEQA requires analysis of exposing project residents or users to existing environmental hazards. Briefing
was completed on May 27, 2014, but the hearing has not yet been set.
While the outcome of this case presents uncertainty for current project applicants and local agencies
regarding proper evaluation of toxic air contaminants in CEQA documents, local agencies still have a duty
to evaluate impacts related to air quality and greenhouse gas emissions. In addition, CEQA grants local
agencies broad discretion to develop their own thresholds of significance, or to rely on thresholds previously
adopted or recommended by other public agencies or experts so long as they are supported by substantial
evidence. Accordingly, the City of Cupertino is using the BAAQMD's 2011 thresholds to evaluate project
impacts in order to protectively evaluate the potential effects of the project on air quality and greenhouse
gas emissions.
Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions and Precursors
Criteria Air Pollutants and Precursors
Under its plan-level review criteria, BAAQMD requires a consistency evaluation of a plan with its current
air quality plan control measures. The current AQMP is the 2010 Bay Area Clean Air Plan. BAAQMD
considers the project consistent with the AQMP in accordance with the following:
Does the project support the primary goals of the AQMP?
Does the project include applicable control measures from the AQMP?
Does the project disrupt or hinder implementation of any AQMP control measures?
A comparison that the project VMT or vehicle trip increase is less than or equal to the projected
population increase.
Local CO Hotspots
Congested intersections have the potential to create elevated concentrations of CO, referred to as CO
hotspots. The significance criteria for CO hotspots are based on the California AAQS for CO, which are 9.0
ppm (8-hour average) and 20.0 ppm (1-hour average). Under the plan-level review, BAAQMD does not
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
AIR QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 4.2-21
require an evaluation of CO hotspots.25 With the turnover of older vehicles, introduction of cleaner fuels,
and implementation of control technology, the Air Basin is in attainment of the California and National
AAQS, and CO concentrations in the Air Basin have steadily declined. Because CO concentrations have
improved, the BAAQMD does not require a CO hotspot analysis if the following criteria are met:
The project is consistent with an applicable congestion management program established by the County
Congestion Management Agency for designated roads or highways, the regional transportation plan, and
local congestion management agency plans.
The Project would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 44,000 vehicles
per hour.
The Project traffic would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersection to more than 24,000
vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal mixing is substantially limited (e.g. tunnel, parking
garage, bridge underpass, natural or urban street canyon, below-grade roadway).26
Community Risk and Hazards
The BAAQMD’s significance thresholds for local community risk and hazard impacts apply to both the siting
of a new source and to the siting of a new receptor.
Local community risk and hazard impacts are associated with TACs and PM2.5 because emissions of these
pollutants can have significant health impacts at the local level. Significant health impacts may occur when a
project generates:
An excess cancer risk level of more than 10 in one million, or a non-cancer (i.e. chronic or acute)
hazard index greater than 1.0; or
An incremental increase of greater than 0.3 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3) annual average
PM2.5.27
For assessing community risk and hazards, sources within a 1,000-foot radius of a project site are
considered. Sources are defined as freeways, high volume roadways (with volume of 10,000 vehicles or
more per day or 1,000 trucks per day), and permitted sources.28 For a plan-level analysis, BAAQMD
requires the following:
Overlay zones around existing and planned sources of TACs,
Overlay zones of at least 500 feet from all freeways and high volume roads.
For a plan-level analysis, a project must also identify goals, policies, and objectives to minimize potential
impacts and create overlay zones for sources of TACs and receptors.29
25 Congested intersections have the potential to create CO hotspots.
26 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), 2011 Revised. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality
Guidelines.
27 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2010 (Revised 2011), California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines.
28 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), 2010 (Revised 2011). California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality
Guidelines.
29 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), 2010 (Revised 2011). California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality
Guidelines.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
AIR QUALITY
4.2-22 JUNE 18, 2014
Odors
BAAQMD’s thresholds for odors are qualitative based on BAAQMD’s Regulation 7, Odorous Substances.
This rule places general limitations on odorous substances and specific emission limitations on certain
odorous compounds. In addition, odors are also regulated under BAAQMD Regulation 1, Rule 1-301,
Public Nuisance, which states that no person shall discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of
air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance or annoyance to any considerable
number of persons or the public; or which endangers the comfort, repose, health or safety of any such
persons or the public, or which causes, or has a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or
property. Under BAAQMD’s Rule 1-301, a facility that receives three or more violation notices within a 30
day period can be declared a public nuisance. BAAQMD has established odor screening thresholds for land
uses that have the potential to generate substantial odor complaints, including wastewater treatment plants,
landfills or transfer stations, composting facilities, confined animal facilities, food manufacturing, and
chemical plants.30 For a plan-level analysis, BAAQMD requires:
Potential existing and planned location of odors sources to be identified.
Policies to reduce odors.
4.2.5 IMPACT DISCUSSION
This section analyzes the proposed Project’s potential impacts and cumulative impacts to air quality.
AQ-1 Implementation of the proposed Project would conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the applicable air quality plan.
2010 Bay Area Clean Air Plan
The current AQMP is the 2010 Bay Area Clean Air Plan. The primary goals of the 2010 Bay Area Clean Air
Plan are to attain the State and Federal AAQS, reduce population exposure and protect public health in the
Bay Area, and reduce GHG emissions and protect the climate. BAAQMD considers this Plan consistent with
the AQMP in accordance with the following:
Attain Air Quality Standards
BAAQMD’s 2010 Bay Area Clean Air Plan strategy is based on regional population and employment
projections within the Bay Area compiled by ABAG. Demographic trends incorporated into the Plan Bay
Area determine vehicle miles traveled (VMT) within the Bay Area, which BAAQMD utilizes to forecast
future air quality trends. The SFBAAB is currently designated a nonattainment area for O3, PM 2.5, and PM10
(state AAQS only).
As discussed in Chapter 4.11, Population and Housing, of this Draft EIR, the growth projections for
Cupertino would exceed the employment projections identified by ABAG. ABAG forecasts the population in
30 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), 2010 (Revised 2011). California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality
Guidelines.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
AIR QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 4.2-23
Cupertino could grow to 71,700 by 2040.31 The buildout projections, resulting from future development
under the proposed Project, estimate that the residential population could grow to 71,300 by 2040.
Therefore, the additional residential population resulting from implementation of the proposed Project
would not exceed regional projections (400 fewer residents). With respect to employment, ABAG forecasts
33,260 employees in Cupertino in 2040.32 Buildout of the proposed Project would exceed the regional
projections by 10,982 employees. However, growth under the proposed Project would come incrementally
over a period of approximately 26 years and would be guided by a policy framework that is generally
consistent with many of the principal goals and objectives established in regional planning initiatives for the
Bay Area.
The General Plan includes policies and strategies that, once adopted, would ensure coordination with
regional agencies on regional planning initiatives. Within the Environmental Resources Element, Policy 5-5,
Air Pollution Effects of New Development, would require the City to minimize the air quality impacts of
new development projects and the impacts affecting new development. Supporting Strategy 3 would require
the City to assess the potential for air pollution effects of future land use and transportation planning, to
ensure that planning decisions support regional goals of improving air quality.
The Circulation Element also includes policies regarding coordination with regional transportation planning
agencies. Policy 4-1 would ensure that the City actively participate in developing regional approaches to
meeting the transportation needs of the residents of the Santa Clara Valley. Therefore, while growth
anticipated under the proposed Project could exceed regional growth projections for Cupertino by 10,982
employees, this additional growth would be consistent with the regional planning objectives established for
the Bay Area.
Consequently, emissions within Cupertino are included in BAAQMD’s projections, and future development
in the city through the proposed Project horizon year 2040 would not hinder BAAQMD’s ability to attain
the California or National AAQS. Accordingly, impacts would be less than significant.
Reduce Population Exposure and Protect Public Health
Cupertino is largely developed. Future growth under the proposed Project would be accommodated
through redevelopment of infill sites. As identified in the discussion of community risk and hazards (see
Impact AQ-4 below), new sensitive land uses could be proximate to major sources of TACs, and new
industrialcommercial land uses could generate an increase in TACs. Adherence to BAAQMD regulations
would ensure new sources of TACs do not expose populations to significant health risk; however, siting of
land uses proximate to major sources of air pollution is outside the control of BAAQMD. These impacts are
addressed under Impact AQ-4, below. Implementation of current and proposed General Plan policies, and
strategies, and mitigation to reduce community risk and hazards listed in Impact AQ-4 below would ensure
these impacts are less than significant.
31 Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), 2014, Plan Bay Area Projections 2013.
32 Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), 2014, Plan Bay Area Projections 2013.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
AIR QUALITY
4.2-24 JUNE 18, 2014
Reduce GHG Emissions and Protect the Climate
The GHG emissions impacts of the proposed Project are discussed in Chapter 4.6, Greenhouse Gas
Emissions, of this Draft EIR. Goals and policies have been incorporated within the proposed Project, as
identified in Chapter 4.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, to reduce VMT and associated GHG emissions. In
addition, the City is also preparing a Climate Action Plan (CAP) to reduce community-wide GHG
emissions. The General Plan policies and strategies would also reduce GHG emissions, as described in more
detail in Chapter 4.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of this Draft EIR. Future development under the
proposed Project would be required to adhere to statewide measures that have been adopted to achieve the
GHG reduction targets of Assembly Bill 32. In addition, the proposed Project is consistent with regional
strategies for infill development identified by the MTC/ABAG in the Plan Bay Area. Consequently, the
proposed Project is consistent with the goals of the 2010 Bay Area Clean Air Plan to reduce GHG emissions
and protect the climate. As identified above, the proposed Project would support the goals of the 2010 Bay
Area Clean Air Plan. New policies would be introduced as part of the proposed Project to minimize
impacts. Impacts would be less than significant.
Include applicable control measures from the AQMP
Table 4.2-6 identifies the control measures included in the 2010 Bay Area Clean Air Plan, and, as shown,
implementation of the proposed Project policies and strategies in Table 4.2-6 would ensure that the
proposed Project would be consistent with the 2010 Bay Area Clean Air Plan and that the impacts due to
inconsistency would be less than significant.
Disrupt or hinder implementation of any AQMP control measures
Table 4.2-6 identifies the control measures included in the 2010 Bay Area Clean Air Plan. As identified in the
table, the proposed Project would not hinder BAAQMD from implementing the control measures in the
2010 Bay Area Clean Air Plan. Impacts are less than significant.
GE
N
E
R
A
L
P
L
A
N
A
M
E
N
D
M
E
N
T
,
H
O
U
S
I
N
G
E
L
E
M
E
N
T
U
P
D
A
T
E
,
A
N
D
A
S
S
O
C
I
A
T
E
D
R
E
Z
O
N
I
N
G
D
R
A
F
T
E
I
R
CITY OF CUPERTINO AIR QUALITY
PL
A
C
E
W
O
R
K
S
4.2-25
TAB
L
E
4.
2
‐6
CON
T
R
O
L
MEA
S
U
R
E
S
FR
O
M
TH
E
20
1
0
BAY
ARE
A
CLE
A
N
AIR
PLA
N
Ty
p
e
Me
a
s
u
r
e
Nu
m
b
e
r
/ Ti
t
l
e
Co
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
c
y
St
a
t
i
o
n
a
r
y
an
d
Ar
e
a
So
u
r
c
e
s
Co
n
t
r
o
l
Me
a
s
u
r
e
s
SS
M
1 – Me
t
a
l
Me
l
t
i
n
g
Fa
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
SS
M
2 – Di
g
i
t
a
l
Pr
i
n
t
i
n
g
SS
M
3 – Li
v
e
s
t
o
c
k
Wa
s
t
e
SS
M
4 – Na
t
u
r
a
l
Ga
s
Pr
o
c
e
s
s
i
n
g
an
d
Di
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
SS
M
5 – Va
c
u
u
m
Tr
u
c
k
s
SS
M
6 – Ge
n
e
r
a
l
Pa
r
t
i
c
u
l
a
t
e
Ma
t
t
e
r
We
i
g
h
t
Ra
t
e
Li
m
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
s
SS
M
7 – Op
e
n
Bu
r
n
i
n
g
SS
M
8 – Co
l
e
Ca
l
c
i
n
i
n
g
SS
M
9 – Ce
m
e
n
t
Ki
l
n
s
SS
M
10
– Re
f
i
n
e
r
y
Bo
i
l
e
r
s
an
d
He
a
t
e
r
s
SS
M
11
– Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
Fa
n
Ty
p
e
Fu
r
n
a
c
e
s
SS
M
12
– Sp
a
c
e
He
a
t
i
n
g
SS
M
13
– Dr
y
e
r
s
,
Ov
e
n
s
,
Ki
l
n
s
SS
M
14
– Gl
a
s
s
Fu
r
n
a
c
e
s
SS
M
15
– Gr
e
e
n
h
o
u
s
e
Ga
s
e
s
in
Pe
r
m
i
t
t
i
n
g
En
e
r
g
y
Ef
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y
SS
M
16
– Re
v
i
s
e
Re
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
2,
Ru
l
e
2:
Ne
w
So
u
r
c
e
Re
v
i
e
w
SS
M
17
– Re
v
i
s
e
Re
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
2,
Ru
l
e
5 Ne
w
So
u
r
c
e
Re
v
i
e
w
fo
r
Ai
r
To
x
i
c
s
SS
M
18
– Re
v
i
s
e
Ai
r
To
x
i
c
s
“H
o
t
Sp
o
t
”
Pr
o
g
r
a
m
St
a
t
i
o
n
a
r
y
an
d
ar
e
a
so
u
r
c
e
co
n
t
r
o
l
me
a
s
u
r
e
s
ar
e
so
u
r
c
e
s
regulated directly by
BA
A
Q
M
D
.
To
im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
th
e
st
a
t
i
o
n
a
r
y
an
d
ar
e
a
so
u
r
c
e
control measures, BAAQMD
ad
o
p
t
s
/
r
e
v
i
s
e
s
ru
l
e
s
or
re
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
to
im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
th
e
control measures and reduce
em
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
fr
o
m
st
a
t
i
o
n
a
r
y
an
d
ar
e
a
so
u
r
c
e
s
.
Be
c
a
u
s
e
BAAQMD is the implementing
ag
e
n
c
y
,
ne
w
an
d
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
so
u
r
c
e
s
of
st
a
t
i
o
n
a
r
y
an
d
ar
e
a
sources within the city
wo
u
l
d
be
re
q
u
i
r
e
d
to
co
m
p
l
y
wi
t
h
th
e
s
e
co
n
t
r
o
l
me
a
s
u
r
e
s
in the 2010 Bay Area
Cl
e
a
n
Ai
r
Pl
a
n
.
Mo
b
i
l
e
So
u
r
c
e
Co
n
t
r
o
l
Me
a
s
u
r
e
s
MS
M
A‐1 – Pr
o
m
o
t
e
Cl
e
a
n
,
fu
e
l
Ef
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
Li
g
h
t
& Me
d
i
u
m
‐Du
t
y
Ve
h
i
c
l
e
s
MS
M
A‐2 – Ze
r
o
Em
i
s
s
i
o
n
Ve
h
i
c
l
e
an
d
Pl
u
g
‐in
Hy
b
r
i
d
s
MS
M
A‐3 – Gr
e
e
n
Fl
e
e
t
s
(L
i
g
h
t
Me
d
i
u
m
& He
a
v
y
‐Du
t
y
Ve
h
i
c
l
e
s
)
MS
M
A‐4 – Re
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
or
Re
p
a
i
r
of
Hi
g
h
Em
i
t
t
i
n
g
Ve
h
i
c
l
e
s
MS
M
B‐1 – HD
V
Fl
e
e
t
Mo
d
e
r
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
MS
M
B‐2 – Lo
w
NO
x
Re
t
r
o
f
i
t
s
fo
r
In
‐Us
e
En
g
i
n
e
s
MS
M
B‐3 – Ef
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
Dr
i
v
e
Tr
a
i
n
s
MS
M
C‐1 – Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
an
d
Fa
r
m
i
n
g
Eq
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
MS
M
C‐2 – La
w
n
& Ga
r
d
e
n
Eq
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
MS
M
C‐3 – Re
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
Ve
s
s
e
l
s
Mo
b
i
l
e
So
u
r
c
e
Co
n
t
r
o
l
Me
a
s
u
r
e
s
th
a
t
wo
u
l
d
re
d
u
c
e
em
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
by accelerating the
re
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
of
ol
d
e
r
,
di
r
t
i
e
r
ve
h
i
c
l
e
s
an
d
eq
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
,
through programs such as the
BA
A
Q
M
D
’
s
Ve
h
i
c
l
e
Bu
y
‐Ba
c
k
an
d
Sm
o
k
i
n
g
Ve
h
i
c
l
e
Pr
o
g
r
a
m
s
,
and promoting
ad
v
a
n
c
e
d
te
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y
ve
h
i
c
l
e
s
th
a
t
re
d
u
c
e
em
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
.
The implementation of these
me
a
s
u
r
e
s
re
l
y
he
a
v
i
l
y
up
o
n
in
c
e
n
t
i
v
e
pr
o
g
r
a
m
s
,
su
c
h
as the Carl Moyer Program
an
d
th
e
Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
Fu
n
d
fo
r
Cl
e
a
n
Ai
r
,
to
ac
h
i
e
v
e
voluntary emission reductions
in
ad
v
a
n
c
e
of
,
or
in
ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
to
,
CA
R
B
re
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
.
CA
R
B
has new regulations that
re
q
u
i
r
e
th
e
re
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
or
re
t
r
o
f
i
t
of
on
‐ro
a
d
tr
u
c
k
s
,
construction equipment, and
ot
h
e
r
sp
e
c
i
f
i
c
eq
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
th
a
t
is
di
e
s
e
l
po
w
e
r
e
d
.
Th
e
proposed Project would not
hi
n
d
e
r
th
e
ab
i
l
i
t
y
of
BA
A
Q
M
D
to
im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
th
e
s
e
re
g
i
o
n
a
l
programs.
Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
Co
n
t
r
o
l
Me
a
s
u
r
e
s
TC
M
A‐1 – Im
p
r
o
v
e
Lo
c
a
l
an
d
Re
g
i
o
n
a
l
Ra
i
l
Se
r
v
i
c
e
TC
M
A‐2 – Im
p
r
o
v
e
Lo
c
a
l
an
d
Re
g
i
o
n
a
l
Ra
i
l
Se
r
v
i
c
e
TC
M
B‐1 – Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
Fr
e
e
w
a
y
Pe
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
In
i
t
i
a
t
i
v
e
TC
M
B‐2 – Im
p
r
o
v
e
Tr
a
n
s
i
t
Ef
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y
an
d
Us
e
TC
M
B‐3 – Ba
y
Ar
e
a
Ex
p
r
e
s
s
La
n
d
Ne
t
w
o
r
k
Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
Co
n
t
r
o
l
Me
a
s
u
r
e
s
(T
C
M
)
ar
e
st
r
a
t
e
g
i
e
s
to reduce vehicle trips,
ve
h
i
c
l
e
us
e
,
VM
T
,
ve
h
i
c
l
e
id
l
i
n
g
,
or
tr
a
f
f
i
c
co
n
g
e
s
t
i
o
n
fo
r
the purpose of reducing
mo
t
o
r
ve
h
i
c
l
e
em
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
.
Wh
i
l
e
mo
s
t
of
th
e
TC
M
s
ar
e
implemented at the regional
le
v
e
l
—
t
h
a
t
is
,
by
MT
C
or
Ca
l
t
r
a
n
s
—
t
h
e
r
e
ar
e
me
a
s
u
r
e
s
for which the 2010 Bay Area
Cl
e
a
n
Ai
r
Pl
a
n
re
l
i
e
s
up
o
n
lo
c
a
l
co
m
m
u
n
i
t
i
e
s
to
as
s
i
s
t
with implementation.
GE
N
E
R
A
L
P
L
A
N
A
M
E
N
D
M
E
N
T
,
H
O
U
S
I
N
G
E
L
E
M
E
N
T
U
P
D
A
T
E
,
A
N
D
A
S
S
O
C
I
A
T
E
D
R
E
Z
O
N
I
N
G
D
R
A
F
T
E
I
R
CI
T
Y
O
F
C
U
P
E
R
T
I
N
O
AI
R
Q
U
A
L
I
T
Y
4.
2
-
2
6
JUNE 18, 2014
TAB
L
E
4.
2
‐6
CON
T
R
O
L
MEA
S
U
R
E
S
FR
O
M
TH
E
20
1
0
BAY
ARE
A
CLE
A
N
AIR
PLA
N
Ty
p
e
Me
a
s
u
r
e
Nu
m
b
e
r
/ Ti
t
l
e
Co
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
c
y
TC
M
B‐4 – Go
o
d
s
Mo
v
e
m
e
n
t
Im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
an
d
Em
i
s
s
i
o
n
Re
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
St
r
a
t
e
g
i
e
s
TC
M
C‐1 – Su
p
p
o
r
t
Vo
l
u
n
t
a
r
y
Em
p
l
o
y
e
r
‐Ba
s
e
d
Tr
i
p
Re
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
Pr
o
g
r
a
m
TC
M
C‐2 – Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
Sa
f
e
Ro
u
t
e
s
to
Sc
h
o
o
l
s
an
d
Sa
f
e
Ro
u
t
e
s
to
Tr
a
n
s
i
t
TC
M
C‐3 – Pr
o
m
o
t
e
Ri
d
e
s
h
a
r
e
Se
r
v
i
c
e
an
d
In
c
e
n
t
i
v
e
s
TC
M
C‐4 – Co
n
d
u
c
t
Pu
b
l
i
c
Ou
t
r
e
a
c
h
an
d
Ed
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
TC
M
C‐5 – Pr
o
m
o
t
e
Sm
a
r
t
Dr
i
v
i
n
g
/
S
p
e
e
d
Mo
d
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
TC
M
D‐1 – Im
p
r
o
v
e
Bi
c
y
c
l
e
Ac
c
e
s
s
an
d
Fa
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
TC
M
D‐2 – Im
p
r
o
v
e
Pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
Ac
c
e
s
s
an
d
Fa
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
TC
M
D‐3 – Su
p
p
o
r
t
Lo
c
a
l
La
n
d
Us
e
St
r
a
t
e
g
i
e
s
TC
M
E‐1 – Va
l
u
e
Pr
i
c
i
n
g
St
r
a
t
e
g
i
e
s
TC
M
E‐2 – Pa
r
k
i
n
g
Pr
i
c
i
n
g
an
d
Ma
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
TC
M
E‐3 – Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
Pr
i
c
i
n
g
Re
f
o
r
m
Th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
in
c
l
u
d
e
s
po
l
i
c
i
e
s
an
d
st
r
a
t
e
g
i
e
s
related to transportation and
la
n
d
us
e
th
a
t
wo
u
l
d
as
s
i
s
t
BA
A
Q
M
D
in
me
e
t
i
n
g
th
e
re
g
i
o
n
a
l
goals of the 2010 Bay
Ar
e
a
Cl
e
a
n
Ai
r
Pl
a
n
,
in
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
:
Po
l
i
c
y
2‐1:
Fo
c
u
s
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
in
Mi
x
e
d
‐Us
e
Special Areas In the mixed‐
us
e
Sp
e
c
i
a
l
Ar
e
a
s
(s
h
o
w
n
in
Fi
g
u
r
e
2‐B)
wh
e
r
e
office, commercial and
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
us
e
s
ar
e
al
l
o
w
e
d
,
fo
c
u
s
hi
g
h
e
r
in
t
e
n
s
i
t
y
development and
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
d
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
he
i
g
h
t
s
wh
e
r
e
ap
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
in designated corridors,
ga
t
e
w
a
y
s
,
an
d
no
d
e
s
.
Po
l
i
c
y
2‐2:
Co
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
Be
t
w
e
e
n
Sp
e
c
i
a
l
Ar
e
a
s
,
Employment Centers and
th
e
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
Pr
o
v
i
d
e
st
r
o
n
g
co
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
be
t
w
e
e
n
th
e
mi
x
e
d
‐use Special Areas,
em
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t
ce
n
t
e
r
s
an
d
th
e
su
r
r
o
u
n
d
i
n
g
co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
.
St
r
a
t
e
g
y
1.
Ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
Co
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
.
En
h
a
n
c
e
pedestrian and bicycle
co
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
fr
o
m
th
e
mi
x
e
d
‐us
e
Sp
e
c
i
a
l
Ar
e
a
s
and employment centers
to
su
r
r
o
u
n
d
i
n
g
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
s
.
St
r
a
t
e
g
y
2.
Pu
b
l
i
c
Ac
c
e
s
s
.
Pr
o
v
i
d
e
pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
and bicycle paths through
ne
w
an
d
re
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
pr
o
j
e
c
t
s
to
en
h
a
n
c
e
public access to and
th
r
o
u
g
h
th
e
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
.
Po
l
i
c
y
2‐22
:
Jo
b
s
/
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
Ba
l
a
n
c
e
St
r
i
v
e
fo
r
a mo
r
e
ba
l
a
n
c
e
d
ra
t
i
o
of
jo
b
s
an
d
housing units.
St
r
a
t
e
g
y
1.
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
an
d
Mi
x
e
d
‐Us
e
.
St
r
i
v
e
to
achieve a balanced
jo
b
s
/
h
o
u
s
i
n
g
ra
t
i
o
ba
s
e
d
on
th
e
po
l
i
c
i
e
s
an
d
strategies contained in the
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
El
e
m
e
n
t
(S
e
e
Ch
a
p
t
e
r
3)
.
St
r
a
t
e
g
y
2.
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
Im
p
a
c
t
on
Lo
c
a
l
Sc
h
o
o
l
s
.
Since the quality of
Cu
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
sc
h
o
o
l
s
(e
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
r
y
an
d
hi
g
h
sc
h
o
o
l
)
is a primary asset of the
Ci
t
y
,
ca
r
e
sh
a
l
l
be
ta
k
e
n
to
en
s
u
r
e
th
a
t
an
y
new housing pays the
st
a
t
u
t
o
r
i
l
y
ma
n
d
a
t
e
d
im
p
a
c
t
fe
e
s
to
mi
t
i
g
a
t
e
any adverse impact to these
sy
s
t
e
m
s
.
Po
l
i
c
y
2‐26
:
He
a
r
t
of
th
e
Ci
t
y
Sp
e
c
i
a
l
Ar
e
a
Cr
e
a
t
e
a po
s
i
t
i
v
e
an
d
me
m
o
r
a
b
l
e
im
a
g
e
al
o
n
g
Stevens Creek Boulevard of
mi
x
e
d
‐us
e
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
;
en
h
a
n
c
e
d
ac
t
i
v
i
t
y
gateways and nodes; and safe
an
d
ef
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
ci
r
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
an
d
ac
c
e
s
s
fo
r
al
l
modes of transportation.
St
r
a
t
e
g
y
1.
He
a
r
t
of
th
e
Ci
t
y
Sp
e
c
i
f
i
c
Pl
a
n
.
Ma
i
n
t
a
i
n
the Heart of the City
Sp
e
c
i
f
i
c
Pl
a
n
as
th
e
pr
i
m
a
r
y
im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
tool for the City to use for
th
i
s
ar
e
a
.
St
r
a
t
e
g
y
2.
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
Ca
l
m
i
n
g
.
Ev
a
l
u
a
t
e
op
t
i
o
n
s
on Stevens Creek Boulevard
to
im
p
r
o
v
e
th
e
pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
en
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
by
proactively managing speed
GE
N
E
R
A
L
P
L
A
N
A
M
E
N
D
M
E
N
T
,
H
O
U
S
I
N
G
E
L
E
M
E
N
T
U
P
D
A
T
E
,
A
N
D
A
S
S
O
C
I
A
T
E
D
R
E
Z
O
N
I
N
G
D
R
A
F
T
E
I
R
CITY OF CUPERTINO AIR QUALITY
PL
A
C
E
W
O
R
K
S
4.2-27
TAB
L
E
4.
2
‐6
CON
T
R
O
L
MEA
S
U
R
E
S
FR
O
M
TH
E
20
1
0
BAY
ARE
A
CLE
A
N
AIR
PLA
N
Ty
p
e
Me
a
s
u
r
e
Nu
m
b
e
r
/ Ti
t
l
e
Co
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
c
y
li
m
i
t
s
an
d
tr
a
f
f
i
c
si
g
n
a
l
sy
n
c
h
r
o
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
.
Po
l
i
c
y
4‐5:
Pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
Ac
c
e
s
s
Cr
e
a
t
e
pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
ac
c
e
s
s
be
t
w
e
e
n
ne
w
su
b
d
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
and school sites.
Re
v
i
e
w
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
ci
r
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
pl
a
n
s
to improve safety and
ac
c
e
s
s
fo
r
pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
s
an
d
bi
c
y
c
l
i
s
t
s
to
sc
h
o
o
l
sites, including completing
ac
c
e
s
s
i
b
l
e
ne
t
w
o
r
k
of
si
d
e
w
a
l
k
s
an
d
pa
t
h
s
.
Po
l
i
c
y
4‐1:
Ci
t
y
Pa
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
t
i
o
n
in
Re
g
i
o
n
a
l
Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
Planning
Pa
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
t
e
ac
t
i
v
e
l
y
in
de
v
e
l
o
p
i
n
g
re
g
i
o
n
a
l
ap
p
r
o
a
c
h
e
s
to meeting the
tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
ne
e
d
s
of
th
e
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
of
th
e
Santa Clara Valley. Work
cl
o
s
e
l
y
wi
t
h
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
i
n
g
ju
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
s
an
d
ag
e
n
c
i
e
s
responsible for
ro
a
d
w
a
y
s
,
tr
a
n
s
i
t
fa
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
an
d
tr
a
n
s
i
t
se
r
v
i
c
e
s
in Cupertino.
St
r
a
t
e
g
y
1.
Re
g
i
o
n
a
l
Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
.
Participate in regional
tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
in
or
d
e
r
to
mi
n
i
m
i
z
e
adverse impacts on
Cu
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
’
s
ci
r
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
sy
s
t
e
m
.
Wo
r
k
wi
t
h
all regional transportation
ag
e
n
c
i
e
s
to
de
v
e
l
o
p
pr
o
g
r
a
m
s
co
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
t
wi
t
h
the goals and policies of
Cu
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
’
s
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
Pl
a
n
.
Wo
r
k
wi
t
h
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
i
n
g
cities to address
re
g
i
o
n
a
l
tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
an
d
la
n
d
us
e
is
s
u
e
s
of mutual interest.
St
r
a
t
e
g
y
2.
Jo
b
s
–
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
Ba
l
a
n
c
e
.
Mi
n
i
m
i
z
e
regional traffic impacts on
Cu
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
by
su
p
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
re
g
i
o
n
a
l
pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
programs to manage the jobs‐
ho
u
s
i
n
g
ba
l
a
n
c
e
th
r
o
u
g
h
o
u
t
Sa
n
t
a
Cl
a
r
a
Co
u
n
t
y
and the Silicon Valley,
in
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
th
e
Ba
y
Ar
e
a
re
g
i
o
n
’
s
Su
s
t
a
i
n
a
b
l
e
Communities Strategy and
Re
g
i
o
n
a
l
Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
Pl
a
n
.
St
r
a
t
e
g
y
3.
In
t
e
r
c
h
a
n
g
e
Im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
.
Id
e
n
t
i
f
y
potential interchange
im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
,
su
c
h
as
I‐28
0
wi
t
h
th
e
La
w
r
e
n
c
e
Expressway Stevens
Cr
e
e
k
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
,
an
d
No
r
t
h
Wo
l
f
e
Ro
a
d
,
th
a
t
would encourage the use of
th
e
fr
e
e
w
a
y
an
d
re
d
u
c
e
th
e
us
e
of
lo
c
a
l
st
r
e
e
t
s
.
St
r
a
t
e
g
y
4.
Co
n
g
e
s
t
i
o
n
Ma
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
Pl
a
n
(C
M
P
)
.
Actively participate in
th
e
pr
e
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
of
th
e
CM
P
an
d
ot
h
e
r
re
g
i
o
n
a
l
efforts to control traffic
co
n
g
e
s
t
i
o
n
an
d
li
m
i
t
ai
r
po
l
l
u
t
i
o
n
.
St
r
a
t
e
g
y
5.
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
Im
p
a
c
t
An
a
l
y
s
i
s
(T
I
A
)
.
Re
q
u
i
r
e
TIA reports that meet
th
e
re
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
of
th
e
Sa
n
t
a
Cl
a
r
a
Va
l
l
e
y
Transportation Authority (VTA)
fo
r
al
l
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
s
pr
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
to
ge
n
e
r
a
t
e
more than 100 trips in the
mo
r
n
i
n
g
or
af
t
e
r
n
o
o
n
pe
a
k
ho
u
r
.
St
r
a
t
e
g
y
6.
Mu
l
t
i
‐mo
d
a
l
Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
.
En
s
u
r
e
that connections are
pr
o
v
i
d
e
d
to
en
a
b
l
e
tr
a
v
e
l
e
r
s
to
tr
a
n
s
i
t
i
o
n
fr
o
m
one mode of
tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
to
an
o
t
h
e
r
(e
.
g
.
,
bi
c
y
c
l
e
to
bu
s
)
.
St
r
a
t
e
g
y
7.
Re
g
i
o
n
a
l
Bu
s
an
d
Ra
p
i
d
Tr
a
n
s
i
t
Service. Support the expansion
GE
N
E
R
A
L
P
L
A
N
A
M
E
N
D
M
E
N
T
,
H
O
U
S
I
N
G
E
L
E
M
E
N
T
U
P
D
A
T
E
,
A
N
D
A
S
S
O
C
I
A
T
E
D
R
E
Z
O
N
I
N
G
D
R
A
F
T
E
I
R
CI
T
Y
O
F
C
U
P
E
R
T
I
N
O
AI
R
Q
U
A
L
I
T
Y
4.
2
-
2
8
JUNE 18, 2014
TAB
L
E
4.
2
‐6
CON
T
R
O
L
MEA
S
U
R
E
S
FR
O
M
TH
E
20
1
0
BAY
ARE
A
CLE
A
N
AIR
PLA
N
Ty
p
e
Me
a
s
u
r
e
Nu
m
b
e
r
/ Ti
t
l
e
Co
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
c
y
of
th
e
VT
A
’
s
re
g
i
o
n
a
l
bu
s
tr
a
n
s
i
t
sy
s
t
e
m
an
d
extension of bus and/or light
ra
i
l
ra
p
i
d
tr
a
n
s
i
t
in
t
o
th
e
St
e
v
e
n
s
Cr
e
e
k
an
d
De Anza Corridors to fulfill
th
e
“s
p
o
k
e
an
d
wh
e
e
l
”
tr
a
n
s
i
t
sy
s
t
e
m
de
s
i
g
n
e
d
to serve all of Santa Clara
Co
u
n
t
y
.
Sp
e
c
i
f
i
c
ac
t
i
o
n
s
to
im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
th
i
s
st
r
a
t
e
g
y
are:
o
Re
v
i
e
w
al
l
ri
g
h
t
‐of
‐wa
y
im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
projects for potential
op
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
i
e
s
an
d
co
n
s
t
r
a
i
n
t
s
to
ra
p
i
d
transit development.
o
En
c
o
u
r
a
g
e
hi
g
h
e
r
de
n
s
i
t
y
an
d
mi
x
e
d
‐use development in rapid
tr
a
n
s
i
t
co
r
r
i
d
o
r
s
an
d
en
s
u
r
e
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
s
are designed to
en
h
a
n
c
e
th
e
us
e
of
tr
a
n
s
i
t
.
o
Se
e
k
th
e
co
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
v
e
su
p
p
o
r
t
of
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
,
property owners and
bu
s
i
n
e
s
s
e
s
in
pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
ra
p
i
d
tr
a
n
s
i
t
ex
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
s
.
o
Ac
t
i
v
e
l
y
se
e
k
to
ha
v
e
Cu
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
re
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
West Valley cities and
ul
t
i
m
a
t
e
l
y
ch
a
i
r
th
e
VT
A
Bo
a
r
d
of
Di
r
e
c
t
o
r
s
to promote the above
po
l
i
c
y
.
Po
l
i
c
y
4‐3:
Re
d
u
c
e
d
Re
l
i
a
n
c
e
on
th
e
Us
e
of
Single‐Occupant Vehicles
Pr
o
m
o
t
e
a ge
n
e
r
a
l
de
c
r
e
a
s
e
in
re
l
i
a
n
c
e
on
private, mostly single‐
oc
c
u
p
a
n
t
ve
h
i
c
l
e
s
(S
O
V
)
by
en
c
o
u
r
a
g
i
n
g
at
t
r
a
c
t
i
v
e
alternatives.
St
r
a
t
e
g
y
1.
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
to
th
e
SO
V
.
En
c
o
u
r
a
g
e
the use of alternatives to
th
e
SO
V
in
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
d
ca
r
‐po
o
l
i
n
g
,
us
e
of public transit, bicycling
an
d
wa
l
k
i
n
g
.
St
r
a
t
e
g
y
2.
Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
Sy
s
t
e
m
Ma
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
(TSM) Programs.
En
c
o
u
r
a
g
e
TS
M
pr
o
g
r
a
m
s
fo
r
em
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
in
both the public and private
se
c
t
o
r
s
by
in
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
pr
e
f
e
r
r
e
d
pa
r
k
i
n
g
fo
r
ca
r
p
o
o
l
s
,
providing bus passes,
en
c
o
u
r
a
g
i
n
g
co
m
p
r
e
s
s
e
d
wo
r
k
w
e
e
k
s
,
an
d
providing incentives and
re
w
a
r
d
s
fo
r
bi
c
y
c
l
i
n
g
an
d
wa
l
k
i
n
g
.
St
r
a
t
e
g
y
3.
Te
l
e
c
o
m
m
u
t
i
n
g
,
Te
l
e
c
o
n
f
e
r
e
n
c
i
n
g
and Other Electronic
Co
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
.
En
c
o
u
r
a
g
e
em
p
l
o
y
e
r
s
to
us
e
the internet to reduce
co
m
m
u
t
e
tr
a
v
e
l
.
En
c
o
u
r
a
g
e
sc
h
o
o
l
s
,
pa
r
t
i
c
u
l
a
r
l
y
at the college and high
sc
h
o
o
l
le
v
e
l
s
,
to
ma
k
e
ma
x
i
m
u
m
us
e
of
th
e
internet to limit the need to
tr
a
v
e
l
to
an
d
fr
o
m
th
e
ca
m
p
u
s
.
St
r
a
t
e
g
y
4.
De
s
i
g
n
of
Ne
w
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
s
.
En
c
o
u
r
a
g
e
new commercial
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
s
to
pr
o
v
i
d
e
sh
a
r
e
d
of
f
i
c
e
fa
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
,
cafeterias, day‐care
fa
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
,
lu
n
c
h
r
o
o
m
s
,
sh
o
w
e
r
s
,
bi
c
y
c
l
e
pa
r
k
i
n
g
,
home offices, shuttle
bu
s
e
s
to
tr
a
n
s
i
t
fa
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
an
d
ot
h
e
r
am
e
n
i
t
i
e
s
that encourage the use of
tr
a
n
s
i
t
,
bi
c
y
c
l
i
n
g
,
wa
l
k
i
n
g
or
te
l
e
c
o
m
m
u
t
i
n
g
as commute modes to work.
Pr
o
v
i
d
e
pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
pa
t
h
w
a
y
s
an
d
or
i
e
n
t
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
to the street to
en
c
o
u
r
a
g
e
pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
ac
t
i
v
i
t
y
.
GE
N
E
R
A
L
P
L
A
N
A
M
E
N
D
M
E
N
T
,
H
O
U
S
I
N
G
E
L
E
M
E
N
T
U
P
D
A
T
E
,
A
N
D
A
S
S
O
C
I
A
T
E
D
R
E
Z
O
N
I
N
G
D
R
A
F
T
E
I
R
CITY OF CUPERTINO AIR QUALITY
PL
A
C
E
W
O
R
K
S
4.2-29
TAB
L
E
4.
2
‐6
CON
T
R
O
L
MEA
S
U
R
E
S
FR
O
M
TH
E
20
1
0
BAY
ARE
A
CLE
A
N
AIR
PLA
N
Ty
p
e
Me
a
s
u
r
e
Nu
m
b
e
r
/ Ti
t
l
e
Co
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
c
y
St
r
a
t
e
g
y
5.
St
r
e
e
t
Sp
a
c
e
fo
r
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
.
Provide space on
ap
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
st
r
e
e
t
s
fo
r
bu
s
tu
r
n
o
u
t
s
,
or
sa
f
e
and accessible bike lanes or
pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
pa
t
h
s
.
St
r
a
t
e
g
y
6.
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
In
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
.
Use the Cupertino
Sc
e
n
e
an
d
ot
h
e
r
me
d
i
a
to
pr
o
v
i
d
e
ed
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
material on alternatives to
th
e
SO
V
.
St
r
a
t
e
g
y
7.
Ci
t
i
z
e
n
Pa
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
t
i
o
n
.
Co
n
t
i
n
u
e
to
work with the City Bicycle
Pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
Co
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
,
co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
gr
o
u
p
s
and residents to eliminate
ha
z
a
r
d
s
an
d
ba
r
r
i
e
r
s
to
bi
c
y
c
l
e
an
d
pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
transportation.
St
r
a
t
e
g
y
8.
Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
De
m
a
n
d
Ma
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
(TDM) Programs.
Re
q
u
i
r
e
la
r
g
e
em
p
l
o
y
e
r
s
to
de
v
e
l
o
p
an
d
ma
i
n
t
a
i
n
TDM programs to
re
d
u
c
e
th
e
ve
h
i
c
l
e
tr
i
p
s
ge
n
e
r
a
t
e
d
by
th
e
i
r
employees. Work together
wi
t
h
th
e
la
r
g
e
em
p
l
o
y
e
r
s
to
de
v
e
l
o
p
a tr
a
c
k
i
n
g
system for the TDM
pr
o
g
r
a
m
s
to
al
l
o
w
on
g
o
i
n
g
as
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
of
re
s
u
l
t
s
.
Po
l
i
c
y
4‐4:
Im
p
r
o
v
e
d
Pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
an
d
Bi
c
y
c
l
e
Circulation Throughout
Cu
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
Ex
p
a
n
d
th
e
ci
t
y
‐wi
d
e
pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
an
d
bi
c
y
c
l
e
network in order to provide
im
p
r
o
v
e
d
re
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
,
mo
b
i
l
i
t
y
an
d
sa
f
e
t
y
.
St
r
a
t
e
g
y
1.
Th
e
Pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
Plan. Implement the projects
re
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d
in
th
e
Pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
Plan including:
o
Af
t
e
r
en
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
re
v
i
e
w
,
an
d
wh
e
r
e
found to be feasible, improve
sa
f
e
t
y
at
se
l
e
c
t
e
d
in
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
by
on
e
or more of the following:
pr
o
h
i
b
i
t
ri
g
h
t
‐tu
r
n
‐on
‐re
d
,
ad
d
ti
m
e
to
the pedestrian signal phase,
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
a me
d
i
a
n
an
d
/
o
r
re
d
u
c
e
co
r
n
e
r
radii.
o
Wh
e
r
e
fe
a
s
i
b
l
e
pr
o
v
i
d
e
mi
s
s
i
n
g
si
d
e
w
a
l
k
s
on arterial and collector
st
r
e
e
t
s
an
d
on
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
st
r
e
e
t
s
as desired by residents.
o
Id
e
n
t
i
f
y
a ci
t
y
w
i
d
e
pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
ci
r
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
grid including shortcuts,
pa
t
h
w
a
y
s
an
d
br
i
d
g
e
s
,
wh
e
r
e
ne
e
d
e
d
,
to close gaps in the
pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
ci
r
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
sy
s
t
e
m
.
St
r
a
t
e
g
y
2.
Pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
Gr
i
d
.
Co
n
s
i
d
e
r
de
v
e
l
o
p
i
n
g
a quarter‐mile grid of
sa
f
e
,
wa
l
k
‐ab
l
e
si
d
e
w
a
l
k
s
an
d
pa
t
h
s
to
pr
o
v
i
d
e
pedestrian access among
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
,
sh
o
p
p
i
n
g
,
re
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
an
d
bu
s
i
n
e
s
s
locations.
St
r
a
t
e
g
y
3.
Sc
h
o
o
l
s
.
Wo
r
k
wi
t
h
th
e
Sc
h
o
o
l
District to encourage students
to
wa
l
k
,
bi
k
e
,
or
ca
r
p
o
o
l
to
sc
h
o
o
l
.
St
r
a
t
e
g
y
4.
Pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
Ti
m
e
on
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
Si
g
n
a
l
s
.
With engineering review,
pr
o
v
i
d
e
ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
ti
m
e
fo
r
pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
s
to
cr
o
s
s
streets at appropriate
in
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
.
Ad
d
e
d
ti
m
e
wo
u
l
d
be
mo
s
t
ap
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
near shopping
GE
N
E
R
A
L
P
L
A
N
A
M
E
N
D
M
E
N
T
,
H
O
U
S
I
N
G
E
L
E
M
E
N
T
U
P
D
A
T
E
,
A
N
D
A
S
S
O
C
I
A
T
E
D
R
E
Z
O
N
I
N
G
D
R
A
F
T
E
I
R
CI
T
Y
O
F
C
U
P
E
R
T
I
N
O
AI
R
Q
U
A
L
I
T
Y
4.
2
-
3
0
JUNE 18, 2014
TAB
L
E
4.
2
‐6
CON
T
R
O
L
MEA
S
U
R
E
S
FR
O
M
TH
E
20
1
0
BAY
ARE
A
CLE
A
N
AIR
PLA
N
Ty
p
e
Me
a
s
u
r
e
Nu
m
b
e
r
/ Ti
t
l
e
Co
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
c
y
di
s
t
r
i
c
t
s
,
sc
h
o
o
l
s
an
d
se
n
i
o
r
ci
t
i
z
e
n
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
s
.
This strategy should be
co
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d
ev
e
n
if
it
co
u
l
d
re
d
u
c
e
th
e
le
v
e
l
of service for automobile
tr
a
f
f
i
c
.
St
r
a
t
e
g
y
5.
Pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
Im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
.
To
en
h
a
n
c
e
walking, consider
va
r
i
o
u
s
im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
to
ro
a
d
w
a
y
s
to
ma
k
e
them more pedestrian
fr
i
e
n
d
l
y
an
d
le
s
s
au
t
o
‐ce
n
t
r
i
c
.
Wh
e
r
e
a me
d
i
a
n
is provided, it should be
wi
d
e
en
o
u
g
h
to
sa
f
e
l
y
ac
c
o
m
m
o
d
a
t
e
pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
s
.
Streets that connect
ma
j
o
r
pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
ac
t
i
v
i
t
y
ce
n
t
e
r
s
sh
o
u
l
d
be
evaluated for potential
im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
fo
r
pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
s
.
Wo
r
k
i
n
g
wi
t
h
the neighborhood, consider
re
d
u
c
i
n
g
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
st
r
e
e
t
wi
d
t
h
s
to
pr
o
m
o
t
e
slower traffic.
St
r
a
t
e
g
y
6.
Cr
o
s
s
w
a
l
k
Ma
r
k
i
n
g
,
Me
d
i
a
n
s
,
an
d
“Chokers.” Following
en
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
re
v
i
e
w
,
ma
r
k
cr
o
s
s
w
a
l
k
s
wi
t
h
pa
v
e
m
e
n
t
treatment scaled to
th
e
sp
e
e
d
of
tr
a
f
f
i
c
.
Us
e
me
d
i
a
n
s
an
d
“c
h
o
k
e
r
s
”
to narrow the width of
th
e
st
r
e
e
t
wh
e
r
e
fe
a
s
i
b
l
e
an
d
ap
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
,
and to indicate and identify
en
t
r
a
n
c
e
s
to
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
s
.
St
r
a
t
e
g
y
7.
Pr
e
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
of
Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
Im
p
a
c
t
Analysis (TIA).
En
c
o
u
r
a
g
e
al
l
pu
b
l
i
c
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
an
d
pr
i
v
a
t
e
development projects that
re
q
u
i
r
e
a TI
A
to
an
a
l
y
z
e
po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
bi
c
y
c
l
e
an
d
pedestrian impacts in
ac
c
o
r
d
a
n
c
e
wi
t
h
th
e
Sa
n
t
a
Cl
a
r
a
Co
u
n
t
y
Va
l
l
e
y
Transportation Authority
(V
T
A
)
TI
A
Gu
i
d
e
l
i
n
e
s
.
St
r
a
t
e
g
y
8.
Cu
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
Bi
c
y
c
l
e
Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
Plan. Maintain the Cupertino
Bi
c
y
c
l
e
Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
Pl
a
n
,
as
ne
e
d
e
d
.
In
c
l
u
d
e
top priority bicycle
pr
o
j
e
c
t
s
in
th
e
an
n
u
a
l
Ca
p
i
t
a
l
Im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
Program. Continue to identify
ba
r
r
i
e
r
s
to
sa
f
e
an
d
co
n
v
e
n
i
e
n
t
bi
c
y
c
l
e
ac
c
e
s
s
and then identify how and
wh
e
n
th
e
s
e
ba
r
r
i
e
r
s
wi
l
l
be
re
m
o
v
e
d
.
St
r
a
t
e
g
y
9.
Bi
c
y
c
l
e
Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
Pl
a
n
Im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
.
Implement the
sp
e
c
i
f
i
c
im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
id
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d
in
th
e
Bi
c
y
c
l
e
Transportation Plan. The
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
Ne
t
w
o
r
k
is
sh
o
w
n
in
Fi
g
u
r
e
4‐B.
St
r
a
t
e
g
y
10
.
Bi
c
y
c
l
e
Fa
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
in
Ne
w
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
s
.
Encourage the
de
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
s
of
ma
j
o
r
ne
w
or
re
m
o
d
e
l
e
d
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
to include secure
in
t
e
r
i
o
r
an
d
/
o
r
fu
l
l
y
we
a
t
h
e
r
pr
o
t
e
c
t
e
d
bi
c
y
c
l
e
parking. Continue to
im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
th
e
Or
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
re
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
fo
r
10% of bicycle parking to be
Cl
a
s
s
1.
St
r
a
t
e
g
y
11
.
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
Ca
l
m
i
n
g
on
Bi
c
y
c
l
e
Ro
u
t
e
s
.
Where feasible and
ap
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
,
im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
tr
a
f
f
i
c
ca
l
m
i
n
g
on
th
o
s
e
bicycle routes where
au
t
o
m
o
b
i
l
e
tr
a
f
f
i
c
vo
l
u
m
e
s
ar
e
lo
w
.
Re
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
the Santa Clara County
Va
l
l
e
y
Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
Au
t
h
o
r
i
t
y
’
s
Bi
c
y
c
l
e
Te
c
h
n
i
c
a
l
Guidelines for
GE
N
E
R
A
L
P
L
A
N
A
M
E
N
D
M
E
N
T
,
H
O
U
S
I
N
G
E
L
E
M
E
N
T
U
P
D
A
T
E
,
A
N
D
A
S
S
O
C
I
A
T
E
D
R
E
Z
O
N
I
N
G
D
R
A
F
T
E
I
R
CITY OF CUPERTINO AIR QUALITY
PL
A
C
E
W
O
R
K
S
4.2-31
TAB
L
E
4.
2
‐6
CON
T
R
O
L
MEA
S
U
R
E
S
FR
O
M
TH
E
20
1
0
BAY
ARE
A
CLE
A
N
AIR
PLA
N
Ty
p
e
Me
a
s
u
r
e
Nu
m
b
e
r
/ Ti
t
l
e
Co
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
c
y
re
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d
tr
a
f
f
i
c
ca
l
m
i
n
g
me
a
s
u
r
e
s
.
Bi
c
y
c
l
e
traffic flows best where
au
t
o
m
o
b
i
l
e
tr
a
f
f
i
c
vo
l
u
m
e
an
d
sp
e
e
d
s
ar
e
lo
w
and where there are no
st
o
p
si
g
n
s
or
tr
a
f
f
i
c
si
g
n
a
l
s
to
hi
n
d
e
r
th
r
o
u
g
h
traffic flow.
St
r
a
t
e
g
y
12
.
Bi
c
y
c
l
e
Pa
r
k
i
n
g
.
Pr
o
v
i
d
e
bi
c
y
c
l
e
parking in multi‐family
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
s
an
d
in
co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
districts as required under
th
e
pa
r
k
i
n
g
re
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
of
th
e
Mu
n
i
c
i
p
a
l
Code.
St
r
a
t
e
g
y
13
.
Fu
n
d
i
n
g
So
u
r
c
e
s
.
Id
e
n
t
i
f
y
fu
n
d
i
n
g
sources for regular
ma
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
an
d
cl
e
a
n
i
n
g
of
al
l
pu
b
l
i
c
bi
c
y
c
l
e
and pedestrian facilities as
pa
r
t
of
th
e
Ci
t
y
’
s
op
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
bu
d
g
e
t
,
an
d
pr
i
o
r
i
t
i
z
e
routine street
ma
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
fo
r
st
r
e
e
t
s
wi
t
h
bi
k
e
fa
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
.
St
r
a
t
e
g
y
14
.
Pu
b
l
i
c
an
d
Pr
i
v
a
t
e
Pa
r
t
n
e
r
s
h
i
p
s
.
Partner with other agencies
an
d
/
o
r
or
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
s
to
es
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
pr
o
g
r
a
m
s
for bicyclists, pedestrians, and
mo
t
o
r
i
s
t
s
of
al
l
ag
e
s
.
Po
l
i
c
y
4‐6:
Re
g
i
o
n
a
l
Tr
a
i
l
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
Co
n
t
i
n
u
e
to
pl
a
n
an
d
pr
o
v
i
d
e
fo
r
a co
m
p
r
e
h
e
n
s
i
v
e
system of trails and
pa
t
h
w
a
y
s
co
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
t
wi
t
h
re
g
i
o
n
a
l
sy
s
t
e
m
s
,
including the Bay Trail,
St
e
v
e
n
s
Cr
e
e
k
Co
r
r
i
d
o
r
an
d
Ri
d
g
e
Tr
a
i
l
,
an
d
with the policies contained in
th
e
La
n
d
Us
e
an
d
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
De
s
i
g
n
El
e
m
e
n
t
.
The General Alignment of
th
e
Ba
y
Tr
a
i
l
,
as
sh
o
w
n
in
th
e
As
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n
of
Bay Area Governments’ Bay
Tr
a
i
l
pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
do
c
u
m
e
n
t
,
is
in
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
e
d
in
the General Plan by
re
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
.
Po
l
i
c
y
4‐7:
In
c
r
e
a
s
e
d
Us
e
of
Pu
b
l
i
c
Tr
a
n
s
i
t
Su
p
p
o
r
t
an
d
en
c
o
u
r
a
g
e
th
e
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
d
us
e
of
public transit.
St
r
a
t
e
g
y
1.
Tr
a
n
s
i
t
Fa
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
in
Ne
w
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
s
.
Ensure all new
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
pr
o
j
e
c
t
s
in
c
l
u
d
e
am
e
n
i
t
i
e
s
to
support public transit such as:
bu
s
st
o
p
sh
e
l
t
e
r
s
;
sp
a
c
e
fo
r
tr
a
n
s
i
t
ve
h
i
c
l
e
s
to stop and maneuver as
ne
e
d
e
d
;
tr
a
n
s
i
t
ma
p
s
an
d
sc
h
e
d
u
l
e
s
.
En
c
o
u
r
a
g
e
commercial and
in
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n
a
l
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
s
to
su
p
p
o
r
t
bu
s
passes for employees.
St
r
a
t
e
g
y
2.
Tr
a
n
s
i
t
St
o
p
Am
e
n
i
t
i
e
s
.
Wo
r
k
wi
t
h
the VTA and adjacent
pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
ow
n
e
r
s
to
pr
o
v
i
d
e
at
t
r
a
c
t
i
v
e
am
e
n
i
t
i
e
s
such as seating, lighting
an
d
si
g
n
a
g
e
at
al
l
bu
s
st
o
p
s
.
St
r
a
t
e
g
y
3.
Va
l
l
c
o
Pa
r
k
Tr
a
n
s
i
t
St
a
t
i
o
n
.
Wo
r
k
with the VTA to study and
de
v
e
l
o
p
a tr
a
n
s
i
t
tr
a
n
s
f
e
r
st
a
t
i
o
n
at
So
u
t
h
Vallco Park Gateways.
St
r
a
t
e
g
y
4.
Ra
p
i
d
Tr
a
n
s
i
t
.
Wo
r
k
wi
t
h
th
e
Sa
n
t
a
Clara Valley Transportation
Au
t
h
o
r
i
t
y
(V
T
A
)
to
pl
a
n
fo
r
an
d
de
v
e
l
o
p
bu
s
and/or light rail rapid transit
se
r
v
i
c
e
s
in
th
e
St
e
v
e
n
s
Cr
e
e
k
an
d
no
r
t
h
De
Anza corridors to take
ad
v
a
n
t
a
g
e
of
th
e
po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
in
mi
x
e
d
‐use activities in the De Anza
GE
N
E
R
A
L
P
L
A
N
A
M
E
N
D
M
E
N
T
,
H
O
U
S
I
N
G
E
L
E
M
E
N
T
U
P
D
A
T
E
,
A
N
D
A
S
S
O
C
I
A
T
E
D
R
E
Z
O
N
I
N
G
D
R
A
F
T
E
I
R
CI
T
Y
O
F
C
U
P
E
R
T
I
N
O
AI
R
Q
U
A
L
I
T
Y
4.
2
-
3
2
JUNE 18, 2014
TAB
L
E
4.
2
‐6
CON
T
R
O
L
MEA
S
U
R
E
S
FR
O
M
TH
E
20
1
0
BAY
ARE
A
CLE
A
N
AIR
PLA
N
Ty
p
e
Me
a
s
u
r
e
Nu
m
b
e
r
/ Ti
t
l
e
Co
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
c
y
Co
l
l
e
g
e
cu
s
t
o
m
e
r
ba
s
e
.
Co
n
s
i
d
e
r
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
d
frequency of service to
en
c
o
u
r
a
g
e
ri
d
e
r
s
h
i
p
.
Re
v
i
e
w
im
p
a
c
t
s
to
en
s
u
r
e
that operations are
op
t
i
m
i
z
e
d
.
Po
l
i
c
y
4‐9:
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
Se
r
v
i
c
e
an
d
Pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
s
Needs
Ba
l
a
n
c
e
th
e
ne
e
d
s
of
pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
s
wi
t
h
de
s
i
r
e
d
traffic service. Where
ne
c
e
s
s
a
r
y
an
d
ap
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
,
al
l
o
w
a lo
w
e
r
e
d
level of service standard to
be
t
t
e
r
ac
c
o
m
m
o
d
a
t
e
pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
s
on
ma
j
o
r
streets and at specific
in
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
.
Po
l
i
c
y
4‐12
:
St
r
e
e
t
Im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
Pl
a
n
st
r
e
e
t
im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
su
c
h
as
cu
r
b
cu
t
s
,
sidewalks, bus stop turnouts,
bu
s
sh
e
l
t
e
r
s
,
li
g
h
t
po
l
e
s
,
be
n
c
h
e
s
an
d
tr
a
s
h
containers as an integral part
of
a pr
o
j
e
c
t
to
en
s
u
r
e
an
en
h
a
n
c
e
d
st
r
e
e
t
s
c
a
p
e
and the safe movement
of
pe
o
p
l
e
an
d
ve
h
i
c
l
e
s
wi
t
h
th
e
le
a
s
t
po
s
s
i
b
l
e
disruption to the
st
r
e
e
t
s
c
a
p
e
.
St
r
a
t
e
g
y
1.
Si
d
e
w
a
l
k
Ac
c
e
s
s
to
Pa
r
k
i
n
g
or
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
.
Examine sidewalk to
pa
r
k
i
n
g
ar
e
a
s
or
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
fr
o
n
t
a
g
e
s
at
th
e
ti
m
e
individual sites develop to
re
g
u
l
a
t
e
th
e
en
t
r
y
to
th
e
si
t
e
at
a ce
n
t
r
a
l
po
i
n
t
.
Sidewalks in the
Cr
o
s
s
r
o
a
d
s
Ar
e
a
sh
a
l
l
be
wi
d
e
en
o
u
g
h
to
ac
c
o
m
m
o
d
a
t
e
increased
pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
ac
t
i
v
i
t
y
.
St
r
a
t
e
g
y
2.
Bu
s
St
o
p
Tu
r
n
o
u
t
s
in
St
r
e
e
t
Fr
o
n
t
a
g
e
s
.
Require bus stop
tu
r
n
o
u
t
s
,
or
pa
r
t
i
a
l
tu
r
n
o
u
t
s
,
wi
t
h
i
n
th
e
st
r
e
e
t
frontage of a new or
re
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
i
n
g
si
t
e
.
Th
i
s
po
l
i
c
y
do
e
s
no
t
ap
p
l
y
to the Crossroads Area. Bus
st
o
p
s
sh
o
u
l
d
in
c
l
u
d
e
sh
e
l
t
e
r
s
,
be
n
c
h
e
s
,
tr
a
s
h
receptacles and other
am
e
n
i
t
i
e
s
as
ap
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
.
Fo
l
l
o
w
th
e
VT
A
sp
e
c
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
for improving bus
st
o
p
s
.
St
r
a
t
e
g
y
3.
Ro
a
d
w
a
y
Ma
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
Fu
n
d
i
n
g
.
Identify and secure new
fu
n
d
i
n
g
so
u
r
c
e
s
to
fu
n
d
th
e
on
‐go
i
n
g
ro
u
t
i
n
e
maintenance of roadways.
St
r
a
t
e
g
y
4.
Ti
m
i
n
g
of
Im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
.
In
t
e
g
r
a
t
e
the financing, design and
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
of
pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
an
d
bi
c
y
c
l
e
fa
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
with street projects. Build
pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
an
d
bi
c
y
c
l
e
im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
at
th
e
same time as improvements
fo
r
ve
h
i
c
u
l
a
r
ci
r
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
.
Po
l
i
c
y
4‐13
:
Sa
f
e
Pa
r
k
i
n
g
Lo
t
s
Re
q
u
i
r
e
pa
r
k
i
n
g
lo
t
s
th
a
t
ar
e
sa
f
e
fo
r
pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
s
.
St
r
a
t
e
g
y
.
Sa
f
e
Sp
a
c
e
s
fo
r
Pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
s
.
Re
q
u
i
r
e
parking lot design and
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
to
in
c
l
u
d
e
cl
e
a
r
l
y
de
f
i
n
e
d
sp
a
c
e
s
for pedestrians so that foot
tr
a
f
f
i
c
is
se
p
a
r
a
t
e
d
fr
o
m
th
e
ha
z
a
r
d
s
of
ca
r
traffic and people are directed
fr
o
m
th
e
i
r
ca
r
s
to
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
en
t
r
i
e
s
.
GE
N
E
R
A
L
P
L
A
N
A
M
E
N
D
M
E
N
T
,
H
O
U
S
I
N
G
E
L
E
M
E
N
T
U
P
D
A
T
E
,
A
N
D
A
S
S
O
C
I
A
T
E
D
R
E
Z
O
N
I
N
G
D
R
A
F
T
E
I
R
CITY OF CUPERTINO AIR QUALITY
PL
A
C
E
W
O
R
K
S
4.2-33
TAB
L
E
4.
2
‐6
CON
T
R
O
L
MEA
S
U
R
E
S
FR
O
M
TH
E
20
1
0
BAY
ARE
A
CLE
A
N
AIR
PLA
N
Ty
p
e
Me
a
s
u
r
e
Nu
m
b
e
r
/ Ti
t
l
e
Co
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
c
y
Po
l
i
c
y
4‐15
:
Sc
h
o
o
l
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
Im
p
a
c
t
s
on
Ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
s
Mi
n
i
m
i
z
e
th
e
im
p
a
c
t
of
sc
h
o
o
l
dr
o
p
‐of
f
,
pi
c
k
‐up and parking on
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
s
.
St
r
a
t
e
g
y
1.
C
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
wi
t
h
Sc
h
o
o
l
Di
s
t
r
i
c
t
s
.
Coordinate with the School
Di
s
t
r
i
c
t
s
to
de
v
e
l
o
p
pl
a
n
s
an
d
pr
o
g
r
a
m
s
th
a
t
encourage car/van‐pooling,
st
a
g
g
e
r
ho
u
r
s
of
ad
j
a
c
e
n
t
sc
h
o
o
l
s
,
dr
o
p
‐of
f
locations, encourage walking
an
d
bi
c
y
c
l
i
n
g
to
sc
h
o
o
l
.
St
r
a
t
e
g
y
2.
Te
e
n
Co
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
.
En
c
o
u
r
a
g
e
th
e
Teen Commission to work
wi
t
h
sc
h
o
o
l
s
to
en
c
o
u
r
a
g
e
ye
a
r
‐ro
u
n
d
pr
o
g
r
a
m
s
to incentivize walking
an
d
bi
k
i
n
g
to
sc
h
o
o
l
.
Po
l
i
c
y
5‐3:
Co
n
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
an
d
Ef
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
Us
e
of Energy Resources
En
c
o
u
r
a
g
e
th
e
ma
x
i
m
u
m
fe
a
s
i
b
l
e
co
n
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
and efficient use of
el
e
c
t
r
i
c
a
l
po
w
e
r
an
d
na
t
u
r
a
l
ga
s
re
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
for new and existing
re
s
i
d
e
n
c
e
s
,
bu
s
i
n
e
s
s
e
s
,
in
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
an
d
pu
b
l
i
c
uses.
St
r
a
t
e
g
y
1.
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
e
En
e
r
g
y
So
u
r
c
e
s
.
Co
n
t
i
n
u
e
to ensure the ease of
ac
c
e
s
s
to
an
d
us
e
of
so
l
a
r
en
e
r
g
y
an
d
ot
h
e
r
alternate, renewable energy
re
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
fo
r
al
l
ne
w
an
d
si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
l
y
re
n
o
v
a
t
e
d
private and public
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
th
r
o
u
g
h
ef
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
po
l
i
c
i
e
s
,
pr
o
g
r
a
m
s
and incentives.
St
r
a
t
e
g
y
2.
Co
m
p
r
e
h
e
n
s
i
v
e
En
e
r
g
y
Ma
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
Plan. Prepare and
im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a co
m
p
r
e
h
e
n
s
i
v
e
en
e
r
g
y
ma
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
plan for all applicable
pu
b
l
i
c
fa
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
,
eq
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
to
ac
h
i
e
v
e
th
e
en
e
r
g
y
goals established in the
Ci
t
y
’
s
mu
n
i
c
i
p
a
l
Cl
i
m
a
t
e
Ac
t
i
o
n
Pl
a
n
.
Em
b
e
d
this plan into the City’s
En
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
l
y
Pr
e
f
e
r
a
b
l
e
Pr
o
c
u
r
e
m
e
n
t
Po
l
i
c
y
to ensure measures are
ac
h
i
e
v
e
d
th
r
o
u
g
h
al
l
fu
t
u
r
e
pr
o
c
u
r
e
m
e
n
t
an
d
construction practices.
St
r
a
t
e
g
y
3.
Co
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
c
y
wi
t
h
St
a
t
e
an
d
Fe
d
e
r
a
l
Regulation. Continue to
ev
a
l
u
a
t
e
,
an
d
re
v
i
s
e
as
ne
c
e
s
s
a
r
y
,
ap
p
l
i
c
a
b
l
e
City codes, ordinances and
pr
o
c
e
d
u
r
e
s
fo
r
in
c
l
u
s
i
o
n
of
lo
c
a
l
,
st
a
t
e
an
d
federal policies and standards
th
a
t
pr
o
m
o
t
e
en
e
r
g
y
an
d
wa
t
e
r
co
n
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
.
St
r
a
t
e
g
y
4.
En
e
r
g
y
Ef
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
Re
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
s
.
Continue to use life cycle cost
an
a
l
y
s
i
s
to
id
e
n
t
i
f
y
Ci
t
y
as
s
e
t
s
fo
r
re
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
with more energy efficient
te
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
i
e
s
.
St
r
a
t
e
g
y
5.
In
c
e
n
t
i
v
e
Pr
o
g
r
a
m
.
Su
p
p
o
r
t
in
c
e
n
t
i
v
e
programs to include
su
c
h
it
e
m
s
as
re
d
u
c
e
d
pe
r
m
i
t
fe
e
s
fo
r
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
projects that exceed the
Ci
t
y
’
s
Gr
e
e
n
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
Or
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
an
d
Ca
l
G
r
e
e
n
.
Continue to promote
ot
h
e
r
in
c
e
n
t
i
v
e
s
fr
o
m
th
e
st
a
t
e
,
co
u
n
t
y
an
d
federal governments for
im
p
r
o
v
i
n
g
en
e
r
g
y
ef
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y
an
d
ex
p
a
n
d
i
n
g
renewable energy
in
s
t
a
l
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
by
po
s
t
i
n
g
in
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
re
g
a
r
d
i
n
g
incentive, rebate and tax
GE
N
E
R
A
L
P
L
A
N
A
M
E
N
D
M
E
N
T
,
H
O
U
S
I
N
G
E
L
E
M
E
N
T
U
P
D
A
T
E
,
A
N
D
A
S
S
O
C
I
A
T
E
D
R
E
Z
O
N
I
N
G
D
R
A
F
T
E
I
R
CI
T
Y
O
F
C
U
P
E
R
T
I
N
O
AI
R
Q
U
A
L
I
T
Y
4.
2
-
3
4
JUNE 18, 2014
TAB
L
E
4.
2
‐6
CON
T
R
O
L
MEA
S
U
R
E
S
FR
O
M
TH
E
20
1
0
BAY
ARE
A
CLE
A
N
AIR
PLA
N
Ty
p
e
Me
a
s
u
r
e
Nu
m
b
e
r
/ Ti
t
l
e
Co
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
c
y
cr
e
d
i
t
pr
o
g
r
a
m
s
on
th
e
Ci
t
y
’
s
we
b
si
t
e
.
St
r
a
t
e
g
y
6.
So
l
a
r
Ac
c
e
s
s
St
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
.
Co
n
t
i
n
u
e
to ensure compliance with
th
e
St
a
t
e
of
Ca
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
Su
b
d
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
Ma
p
Ac
t
solar access standards in
or
d
e
r
to
ma
x
i
m
i
z
e
na
t
u
r
a
l
he
a
t
i
n
g
an
d
co
o
l
i
n
g
opportunities for future
re
s
i
d
e
n
c
e
s
an
d
bu
s
i
n
e
s
s
e
s
.
En
c
o
u
r
a
g
e
th
e
in
c
l
u
s
i
o
n
of additional shade
tr
e
e
s
an
d
la
n
d
s
c
a
p
i
n
g
fo
r
en
e
r
g
y
ef
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y
.
St
r
a
t
e
g
y
7.
Ed
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
Pr
o
g
r
a
m
s
.
Co
n
t
i
n
u
e
to:
o
Of
f
e
r
co
n
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
/
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y
ed
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
programs and leverage
th
o
s
e
av
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
th
r
o
u
g
h
th
e
Co
u
n
t
y
an
d
the Bay Regional Energy
Ne
t
w
o
r
k
to
se
r
v
e
al
l
ut
i
l
i
t
y
us
e
r
s
.
o
Pr
o
v
i
d
e
in
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
ma
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
an
d
host energy conservation
wo
r
k
s
h
o
p
s
fo
r
bu
s
i
n
e
s
s
e
s
an
d
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
.
o
Pr
o
v
i
d
e
,
or
pa
r
t
n
e
r
wi
t
h
ot
h
e
r
ag
e
n
c
i
e
s
to offer, educational
ma
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
,
se
m
i
n
a
r
an
d
st
a
f
f
tr
a
i
n
i
n
g
on energy
co
n
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
/
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y
fo
r
th
o
s
e
wh
o
design, build and manage
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
fa
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
,
an
d
fo
r
th
o
s
e
wh
o
regulate building design and
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
,
pe
r
th
e
Ci
t
y
’
s
Gr
e
e
n
B
i
z
Program. In partnership with
De
An
z
a
Co
l
l
e
g
e
de
v
e
l
o
p
a “S
u
s
t
a
i
n
a
b
l
e
Building Practices” guide
fo
r
Cu
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
an
d
bu
s
i
n
e
s
s
e
s
that builds upon the City’s
Gr
e
e
n
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
Or
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
.
Th
e
Gu
i
d
e
should include information
re
g
a
r
d
i
n
g
cu
r
r
e
n
t
re
b
a
t
e
s
an
d
su
b
s
i
d
i
e
s
to make implementing a
su
s
t
a
i
n
a
b
l
e
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
mo
r
e
fi
n
a
n
c
i
a
l
l
y
attractive with references
ba
c
k
to
th
e
Ci
t
y
,
St
a
t
e
,
Fe
d
e
r
a
l
an
d
ot
h
e
r
web sites for up‐to‐date
in
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
.
Pr
o
v
i
d
e
,
or
pa
r
t
n
e
r
wi
t
h
other agencies to offer,
ed
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
ma
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
,
se
m
i
n
a
r
s
an
d
a certification program for
co
n
t
r
a
c
t
o
r
s
an
d
ar
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
s
wh
o
ha
v
e
participated in “Sustainable
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
”
co
u
r
s
e
s
.
Ma
n
y
of
th
e
cu
r
r
i
c
u
l
u
m
s
are currently available
at
De
An
z
a
Co
l
l
e
g
e
.
As
an
in
c
e
n
t
i
v
e
fo
r
participating in the
“S
u
s
t
a
i
n
a
b
l
e
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
”
pr
o
g
r
a
m
th
e
Ci
t
y
will maintain a “Sustainable
Bu
i
l
d
e
r
/
De
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
”
pa
g
e
on
th
e
i
r
cu
r
r
e
n
t
City website. This page
wi
l
l
no
t
be
an
en
d
o
r
s
e
m
e
n
t
of
th
e
in
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
or company listed, but
a re
s
o
u
r
c
e
ce
n
t
e
r
fo
r
th
e
co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
.
o
Es
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
an
d
ma
i
n
t
a
i
n
an
En
e
r
g
y
In
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
Center or Kiosk at
Ci
t
y
Ha
l
l
wh
e
r
e
in
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
co
n
c
e
r
n
i
n
g
energy issues, building
st
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
,
re
c
y
c
l
i
n
g
an
d
as
s
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
is
available.
St
r
a
t
e
g
y
8.
En
e
r
g
y
Co
g
e
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
Sy
s
t
e
m
s
.
En
c
o
u
r
a
g
e
the use of energy
co
g
e
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
sy
s
t
e
m
s
th
r
o
u
g
h
th
e
pr
o
v
i
s
i
o
n
of an awareness program
GE
N
E
R
A
L
P
L
A
N
A
M
E
N
D
M
E
N
T
,
H
O
U
S
I
N
G
E
L
E
M
E
N
T
U
P
D
A
T
E
,
A
N
D
A
S
S
O
C
I
A
T
E
D
R
E
Z
O
N
I
N
G
D
R
A
F
T
E
I
R
CITY OF CUPERTINO AIR QUALITY
PL
A
C
E
W
O
R
K
S
4.2-35
TAB
L
E
4.
2
‐6
CON
T
R
O
L
MEA
S
U
R
E
S
FR
O
M
TH
E
20
1
0
BAY
ARE
A
CLE
A
N
AIR
PLA
N
Ty
p
e
Me
a
s
u
r
e
Nu
m
b
e
r
/ Ti
t
l
e
Co
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
c
y
ta
r
g
e
t
i
n
g
th
e
la
r
g
e
r
co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
an
d
in
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
users and public facilities.
St
r
a
t
e
g
y
9.
Re
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
of
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
De
s
i
g
n
.
En
s
u
r
e
designer, developers,
ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
s
an
d
bu
i
l
d
e
r
s
me
e
t
th
e
Ci
t
y
’
s
Gr
e
e
n
Building Ordinance and
Ca
l
G
r
e
e
n
an
d
en
c
o
u
r
a
g
e
ar
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
s
,
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
designers and contractors to
ex
c
e
e
d
th
e
s
e
re
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
fo
r
ne
w
pr
o
j
e
c
t
s
through the provision of
in
c
e
n
t
i
v
e
s
.
En
c
o
u
r
a
g
e
ei
t
h
e
r
pa
s
s
i
v
e
so
l
a
r
he
a
t
i
n
g
and/or dark plaster
in
t
e
r
i
o
r
wi
t
h
a co
v
e
r
fo
r
sw
i
m
m
i
n
g
po
o
l
s
,
ca
b
a
n
a
s
and other related
ac
c
e
s
s
o
r
y
us
e
s
wh
e
r
e
so
l
a
r
ac
c
e
s
s
is
av
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
.
Encourage the use of
re
n
e
w
a
b
l
e
en
e
r
g
y
so
u
r
c
e
s
wh
e
r
e
fe
a
s
i
b
l
e
,
and continue to offer energy
au
d
i
t
s
an
d
/
o
r
su
b
v
e
n
t
i
o
n
pr
o
g
r
a
m
s
th
a
t
al
s
o
advance community
ad
o
p
t
i
o
n
of
al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
en
e
r
g
y
te
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
i
e
s
.
St
r
a
t
e
g
y
10
.
Us
e
of
Di
s
c
r
e
t
i
o
n
a
r
y
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
Permits (Use Permits).
Re
q
u
i
r
e
,
as
co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
of
ap
p
r
o
v
a
l
fo
r
ne
w
and renovated projects, the
pr
o
v
i
s
i
o
n
of
en
e
r
g
y
co
n
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
/
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y
applications, aligned with the
Ci
t
y
’
s
Gr
e
e
n
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
Or
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
an
d
Ca
l
G
r
e
e
n
.
St
r
a
t
e
g
y
11
.
En
e
r
g
y
Ef
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
Modes. Continue to
en
c
o
u
r
a
g
e
al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
,
fu
e
l
‐ef
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
modes such as “clean”
mu
l
t
i
‐mo
d
a
l
pu
b
l
i
c
tr
a
n
s
i
t
,
ca
r
an
d
va
n
p
o
o
l
i
n
g
,
flexible work hours, safe
ro
u
t
e
s
to
sc
h
o
o
l
s
,
an
d
pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
an
d
bi
c
y
c
l
e
paths through community
ed
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
an
d
tr
a
i
n
i
n
g
,
in
f
r
a
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
in
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t
,
and financial
in
c
e
n
t
i
v
e
s
,
in
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
co
m
m
u
t
e
r
be
n
e
f
i
t
s
pr
o
g
r
a
m
s
.
La
n
d
Us
e
an
d
Lo
c
a
l
Im
p
a
c
t
Co
n
t
r
o
l
Me
a
s
u
r
e
s
LU
M
1 – Go
o
d
s
Mo
v
e
m
e
n
t
LU
M
2 – In
d
i
r
e
c
t
So
u
r
c
e
Re
v
i
e
w
LU
M
3 – En
h
a
n
c
e
d
CE
Q
A
Pr
o
g
r
a
m
LU
M
4 – La
n
d
Us
e
Gu
i
d
e
l
i
n
e
s
LU
M
5 – Re
d
u
c
e
Ri
s
k
in
Im
p
a
c
t
e
d
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
i
e
s
LU
M
6 – En
h
a
n
c
e
d
Ai
r
Qu
a
l
i
t
y
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
Th
e
20
1
0
Ba
y
Ar
e
a
Cl
e
a
n
Ai
r
Pl
a
n
al
s
o
in
c
l
u
d
e
s
la
n
d
us
e
measures to reduce air
qu
a
l
i
t
y
em
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
an
d
/
o
r
ai
r
qu
a
l
i
t
y
ex
p
o
s
u
r
e
in
th
e
SF
B
A
A
B
.
The following proposed
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
po
l
i
c
i
e
s
su
p
p
o
r
t
th
e
s
e
la
n
d
us
e
me
a
s
u
r
e
s
:
Po
l
i
c
y
5‐5:
Ai
r
Po
l
l
u
t
i
o
n
Ef
f
e
c
t
s
of
Ne
w
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
Mi
n
i
m
i
z
e
th
e
ai
r
qu
a
l
i
t
y
im
p
a
c
t
s
of
ne
w
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
projects and the
im
p
a
c
t
s
af
f
e
c
t
i
n
g
ne
w
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
.
St
r
a
t
e
g
y
1.
To
x
i
c
Ai
r
Co
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
n
t
s
.
Co
n
t
i
n
u
e
to review projects for potential
ge
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
of
to
x
i
c
ai
r
co
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
n
t
s
at
th
e
time of approval and confer
wi
t
h
BA
A
Q
M
D
on
co
n
t
r
o
l
s
ne
e
d
e
d
if
im
p
a
c
t
s
are uncertain.
St
r
a
t
e
g
y
2.
Du
s
t
Co
n
t
r
o
l
.
Co
n
t
i
n
u
e
to
re
q
u
i
r
e
water application to non‐
po
l
l
u
t
i
n
g
du
s
t
co
n
t
r
o
l
me
a
s
u
r
e
s
du
r
i
n
g
de
m
o
l
i
t
i
o
n
and the duration of
th
e
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
pe
r
i
o
d
.
St
r
a
t
e
g
y
3.
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
De
c
i
s
i
o
n
s
.
Co
n
t
i
n
u
e
to
as
s
e
s
s
the potential for air
po
l
l
u
t
i
o
n
ef
f
e
c
t
s
of
fu
t
u
r
e
la
n
d
us
e
an
d
tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
planning, and
en
s
u
r
e
th
a
t
pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
de
c
i
s
i
o
n
s
su
p
p
o
r
t
re
g
i
o
n
a
l
goals of improving air
GE
N
E
R
A
L
P
L
A
N
A
M
E
N
D
M
E
N
T
,
H
O
U
S
I
N
G
E
L
E
M
E
N
T
U
P
D
A
T
E
,
A
N
D
A
S
S
O
C
I
A
T
E
D
R
E
Z
O
N
I
N
G
D
R
A
F
T
E
I
R
CI
T
Y
O
F
C
U
P
E
R
T
I
N
O
AI
R
Q
U
A
L
I
T
Y
4.
2
-
3
6
JUNE 18, 2014
TAB
L
E
4.
2
‐6
CON
T
R
O
L
MEA
S
U
R
E
S
FR
O
M
TH
E
20
1
0
BAY
ARE
A
CLE
A
N
AIR
PLA
N
Ty
p
e
Me
a
s
u
r
e
Nu
m
b
e
r
/ Ti
t
l
e
Co
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
c
y
qu
a
l
i
t
y
.
St
r
a
t
e
g
y
4.
En
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
Re
v
i
e
w
.
Co
n
t
i
n
u
e
to
evaluate the relationship of
se
n
s
i
t
i
v
e
re
c
e
p
t
o
r
s
,
su
c
h
as
co
n
v
a
l
e
s
c
e
n
t
ho
s
p
i
t
a
l
s
and residential uses,
to
po
l
l
u
t
i
o
n
so
u
r
c
e
s
th
r
o
u
g
h
th
e
en
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
assessment of new
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
.
Po
l
i
c
y
5‐6:
Ai
r
Po
l
l
u
t
i
o
n
Ef
f
e
c
t
s
of
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
Mi
n
i
m
i
z
e
th
e
ai
r
qu
a
l
i
t
y
im
p
a
c
t
s
of
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
development.
St
r
a
t
e
g
y
1.
Pu
b
l
i
c
Ed
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
Pr
o
g
r
a
m
.
Es
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
a Citywide public
ed
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
pr
o
g
r
a
m
re
g
a
r
d
i
n
g
th
e
im
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
of the Clean Air Act and
pr
o
v
i
d
e
in
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
on
wa
y
s
to
re
d
u
c
e
an
d
control emissions; continue
to
pr
o
v
i
d
e
in
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
ab
o
u
t
al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
co
m
m
u
t
e
s
,
carpooling and
re
s
t
r
i
c
t
i
n
g
ex
a
c
e
r
b
a
t
i
n
g
ac
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
on
“S
p
a
r
e
the Air” high‐pollution days.
St
r
a
t
e
g
y
2.
Ho
m
e
Oc
c
u
p
a
t
i
o
n
s
.
Ex
p
a
n
d
th
e
allowable home occupations
in
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
l
y
zo
n
e
d
pr
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
to
re
d
u
c
e
the need to commute to work.
St
r
a
t
e
g
y
3.
T
r
e
e
Pl
a
n
t
i
n
g
.
Co
n
t
i
n
u
e
to
im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
the City’s tree planting
pr
o
g
r
a
m
to
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
th
e
Ci
t
y
’
s
ur
b
a
n
ca
n
o
p
y
on City property and
en
c
o
u
r
a
g
e
na
t
i
v
e
,
sh
a
d
e
‐pr
o
d
u
c
i
n
g
,
dr
o
u
g
h
t
‐tolerant tree and other
pl
a
n
t
i
n
g
s
on
pr
i
v
a
t
e
pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
.
St
r
a
t
e
g
y
4.
Fu
e
l
‐Ef
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
Ve
h
i
c
l
e
s
.
Pe
r
th
e
City’s Environmentally
Pr
e
f
e
r
a
b
l
e
Pr
o
c
u
r
e
m
e
n
t
Po
l
i
c
y
,
pr
i
o
r
i
t
i
z
e
th
e
City’s purchase,
re
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
an
d
on
g
o
i
n
g
us
e
of
fu
e
l
‐ef
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
and low polluting vehicles
Up
d
a
t
e
th
e
Ci
t
y
’
s
Ve
h
i
c
l
e
Re
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
Po
l
i
c
y
and Budget to require
ve
h
i
c
l
e
li
f
e
c
y
c
l
e
co
s
t
an
a
l
y
s
e
s
an
d
in
c
l
u
d
e
al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
fueling
in
f
r
a
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
re
v
i
e
w
an
d
re
l
a
t
e
d
fu
n
d
i
n
g
al
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
.
Update the City’s
Ve
h
i
c
l
e
Us
e
Po
l
i
c
y
to
en
c
o
u
r
a
g
e
al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
vehicle use across all
de
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
s
an
d
fu
e
l
‐sa
v
i
n
g
dr
i
v
e
r
be
h
a
v
i
o
r
s
and habits. Review and
im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
fl
e
e
t
ma
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
be
s
t
pr
a
c
t
i
c
e
s
to support fuel
co
n
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
,
in
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
sc
h
e
d
u
l
e
d
ma
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
and fleet fuel tracking.
Pu
r
s
u
e
av
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
gr
a
n
t
fu
n
d
i
n
g
to
of
f
s
e
t
th
e
cost of implementing these
pr
o
g
r
a
m
s
.
St
r
a
t
e
g
y
5.
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
Qu
a
r
r
y
Em
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
.
Co
n
t
i
n
u
e
to work with County to
mo
n
i
t
o
r
an
d
in
f
l
u
e
n
c
e
/
e
n
c
o
u
r
a
g
e
im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
of emissions and dust
fr
o
m
th
e
Ha
n
s
o
n
an
d
St
e
v
e
n
s
Cr
e
e
k
Qu
a
r
r
i
e
s
on the West end of the City.
Po
l
i
c
y
2‐8:
Ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
Co
m
p
a
t
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Mi
n
i
m
i
z
e
po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
co
n
f
l
i
c
t
s
wi
t
h
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
neighborhoods from noise,
tr
a
f
f
i
c
,
li
g
h
t
an
d
vi
s
u
a
l
l
y
in
t
r
u
s
i
v
e
ef
f
e
c
t
s
fr
o
m
more intense
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
s
wi
t
h
ad
e
q
u
a
t
e
bu
f
f
e
r
i
n
g
se
t
b
a
c
k
s
,
landscaping, walls,
GE
N
E
R
A
L
P
L
A
N
A
M
E
N
D
M
E
N
T
,
H
O
U
S
I
N
G
E
L
E
M
E
N
T
U
P
D
A
T
E
,
A
N
D
A
S
S
O
C
I
A
T
E
D
R
E
Z
O
N
I
N
G
D
R
A
F
T
E
I
R
CITY OF CUPERTINO AIR QUALITY
PL
A
C
E
W
O
R
K
S
4.2-37
TAB
L
E
4.
2
‐6
CON
T
R
O
L
MEA
S
U
R
E
S
FR
O
M
TH
E
20
1
0
BAY
ARE
A
CLE
A
N
AIR
PLA
N
Ty
p
e
Me
a
s
u
r
e
Nu
m
b
e
r
/ Ti
t
l
e
Co
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
c
y
li
m
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
s
,
si
t
e
de
s
i
g
n
an
d
ot
h
e
r
ap
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
measures.
Cr
e
a
t
e
zo
n
i
n
g
re
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
or
sp
e
c
i
f
i
c
pl
a
n
s
that reduce
in
c
o
m
p
a
t
i
b
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
be
t
w
e
e
n
ne
w
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
and existing residential
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
s
th
r
o
u
g
h
me
a
s
u
r
e
s
su
c
h
as
:
daylight planes for single‐
fa
m
i
l
y
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
,
mi
n
i
m
u
m
se
t
b
a
c
k
st
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
,
landscape screening,
ac
o
u
s
t
i
c
a
l
an
a
l
y
s
i
s
,
lo
c
a
t
i
o
n
an
d
or
i
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
of service areas away from
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
us
e
s
an
d
li
m
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
s
on
ho
u
r
s
of
operation.
Po
l
i
c
y
6‐28
:
Pr
o
x
i
m
i
t
y
of
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
to
Ha
z
a
r
d
o
u
s
Materials
As
s
e
s
s
fu
t
u
r
e
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
’
ex
p
o
s
u
r
e
to
ha
z
a
r
d
o
u
s
materials when new
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
or
ch
i
l
d
c
a
r
e
fa
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
are proposed in existing
in
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
an
d
ma
n
u
f
a
c
t
u
r
i
n
g
ar
e
a
s
.
Do
no
t
allow residential development
or
ch
i
l
d
c
a
r
e
fa
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
if
su
c
h
ha
z
a
r
d
o
u
s
co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
cannot be mitigated to
an
ac
c
e
p
t
a
b
l
e
le
v
e
l
of
ri
s
k
.
En
e
r
g
y
an
d
Cl
i
m
a
t
e
Co
n
t
r
o
l
Me
a
s
u
r
e
s
EC
M
1 – En
e
r
g
y
Ef
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y
EC
M
2 – Re
n
e
w
a
b
l
e
En
e
r
g
y
EC
M
3 – Ur
b
a
n
He
a
t
Is
l
a
n
d
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
EC
M
4 – Tr
e
e
Pl
a
n
t
i
n
g
Th
e
20
1
0
Ba
y
Ar
e
a
Cl
e
a
n
Ai
r
Pl
a
n
al
s
o
in
c
l
u
d
e
s
me
a
s
u
r
e
s
to reduce energy use,
wa
t
e
r
us
e
,
an
d
wa
s
t
e
ge
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
.
Th
e
fo
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Project policies support
th
e
s
e
en
e
r
g
y
ef
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y
an
d
ot
h
e
r
su
s
t
a
i
n
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
me
a
s
u
r
e
s
:
Po
l
i
c
y
5‐1:
Pr
i
n
c
i
p
l
e
s
of
Su
s
t
a
i
n
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
In
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
e
th
e
pr
i
n
c
i
p
l
e
s
of
su
s
t
a
i
n
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
in
t
o
Cupertino’s planning and
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
sy
s
t
e
m
in
or
d
e
r
to
im
p
r
o
v
e
th
e
environment, reduce
gr
e
e
n
h
o
u
s
e
ga
s
em
i
s
s
i
o
n
an
d
me
e
t
th
e
ne
e
d
s
of the present community
wi
t
h
o
u
t
co
m
p
r
o
m
i
s
i
n
g
th
e
ne
e
d
s
of
fu
t
u
r
e
generations.
St
r
a
t
e
g
y
1.
Gr
e
e
n
h
o
u
s
e
Ga
s
Em
i
s
s
i
o
n
Re
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
Target.
St
r
a
t
e
g
y
2.
Su
s
t
a
i
n
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
Ta
s
k
Fo
r
c
e
or
Co
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
.
Appoint a Task Force
or
Co
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
to
ov
e
r
s
e
e
th
e
im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
of the City’s Climate
Ac
t
i
o
n
Pl
a
n
.
Th
e
go
a
l
s
of
th
i
s
Ta
s
k
Fo
r
c
e
/
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
would be:
a.
Wr
i
t
e
an
d
ke
e
p
cu
r
r
e
n
t
th
e
Cl
i
m
a
t
e
Action Plan through ongoing
me
a
s
u
r
e
m
e
n
t
of
mu
n
i
c
i
p
a
l
an
d
ci
t
y
‐wide programs to help achieve
th
e
En
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
an
d
Su
s
t
a
i
n
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
section of the
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
Pl
a
n
.
b.
Id
e
n
t
i
f
y
re
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
,
te
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
i
e
s
,
an
d
products to attain the
gr
e
e
n
h
o
u
s
e
ga
s
em
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
re
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
s
targets established in the
Ci
t
y
’
s
Cl
i
m
a
t
e
Ac
t
i
o
n
Pl
a
n
an
d
ev
a
l
u
a
t
e
the life‐cycle cost of
ow
n
e
r
s
h
i
p
fo
r
ea
c
h
re
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d
.
c.
Wo
r
k
wi
t
h
Ci
t
y
st
a
f
f
to
ev
a
l
u
a
t
e
th
e
fi
n
a
n
c
i
a
l
feasibility of these
re
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
s
on
an
on
g
o
i
n
g
ba
s
i
s
.
GE
N
E
R
A
L
P
L
A
N
A
M
E
N
D
M
E
N
T
,
H
O
U
S
I
N
G
E
L
E
M
E
N
T
U
P
D
A
T
E
,
A
N
D
A
S
S
O
C
I
A
T
E
D
R
E
Z
O
N
I
N
G
D
R
A
F
T
E
I
R
CI
T
Y
O
F
C
U
P
E
R
T
I
N
O
AI
R
Q
U
A
L
I
T
Y
4.
2
-
3
8
JUNE 18, 2014
TAB
L
E
4.
2
‐6
CON
T
R
O
L
MEA
S
U
R
E
S
FR
O
M
TH
E
20
1
0
BAY
ARE
A
CLE
A
N
AIR
PLA
N
Ty
p
e
Me
a
s
u
r
e
Nu
m
b
e
r
/ Ti
t
l
e
Co
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
c
y
St
r
a
t
e
g
y
3.
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
Pr
o
g
r
a
m
s
.
Co
n
t
i
n
u
e
to adopt and implement
ne
w
en
e
r
g
y
ef
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y
an
d
re
n
e
w
a
b
l
e
en
e
r
g
y
policies and implementation
pr
o
g
r
a
m
s
th
a
t
in
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
e
th
e
Ci
t
y
’
s
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
planning and regulatory
pr
o
c
e
s
s
.
St
r
a
t
e
g
y
4.
Ci
t
y
‐Wi
d
e
In
v
e
n
t
o
r
y
.
Co
n
t
i
n
u
e
to
conduct an ongoing
mu
n
i
c
i
p
a
l
an
d
co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
‐wi
d
e
gr
e
e
n
h
o
u
s
e
gas emissions inventory and
pe
r
i
o
d
i
c
a
l
l
y
re
v
i
e
w
th
e
Ci
t
y
’
s
Cl
i
m
a
t
e
Ac
t
i
o
n
Plan in order to identify
is
s
u
e
s
,
op
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
i
e
s
an
d
pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
.
St
r
a
t
e
g
y
5.
Su
s
t
a
i
n
a
b
l
e
En
e
r
g
y
an
d
Wa
t
e
r
Co
n
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
Plan. Prepare and
im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a co
m
p
r
e
h
e
n
s
i
v
e
Cl
i
m
a
t
e
Ac
t
i
o
n
Plan that prioritizes energy
an
d
wa
t
e
r
co
n
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
me
a
s
u
r
e
s
.
Th
i
s
pl
a
n
will specifically include
re
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
s
re
g
a
r
d
i
n
g
:
a.
Re
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
of
en
e
r
g
y
co
n
s
u
m
p
t
i
o
n
.
b.
Re
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
of
fo
s
s
i
l
fu
e
l
us
e
.
c.
Ma
x
i
m
u
m
us
e
of
re
n
e
w
a
b
l
e
en
e
r
g
y
re
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
.
d.
Im
p
r
o
v
e
Ci
t
y
‐wi
d
e
wa
t
e
r
co
n
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
.
e.
Re
d
u
c
e
wa
t
e
r
co
n
s
u
m
p
t
i
o
n
wi
t
h
i
n
mu
n
i
c
i
p
a
l
operations.
f.
Pr
o
m
o
t
e
an
d
in
c
e
n
t
i
v
i
z
e
re
d
u
c
e
d
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
and business water
us
e
.
St
r
a
t
e
g
y
6.
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
Ga
r
d
e
n
s
.
En
c
o
u
r
a
g
e
community and school
ga
r
d
e
n
s
,
wh
i
c
h
pr
o
v
i
d
e
a mo
r
e
li
v
a
b
l
e
en
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
by regulating
te
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
,
no
i
s
e
an
d
po
l
l
u
t
i
o
n
,
an
d
cr
e
a
t
e
access to healthy, local
so
u
r
c
e
s
of
fo
o
d
.
St
r
a
t
e
g
y
7.
Fi
s
c
a
l
l
y
Su
s
t
a
i
n
a
b
l
e
Wa
s
t
e
Ma
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
.
Consider
en
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
an
d
so
c
i
a
l
co
s
t
s
in
al
l
de
c
i
s
i
o
n
‐making and budget
de
c
i
s
i
o
n
s
.
Po
l
i
c
y
5‐3:
Co
n
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
an
d
Ef
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
Us
e
of Energy Resources
En
c
o
u
r
a
g
e
th
e
ma
x
i
m
u
m
fe
a
s
i
b
l
e
co
n
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
and efficient use of
el
e
c
t
r
i
c
a
l
po
w
e
r
an
d
na
t
u
r
a
l
ga
s
re
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
for new and existing
re
s
i
d
e
n
c
e
s
,
bu
s
i
n
e
s
s
e
s
,
in
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
an
d
pu
b
l
i
c
uses.
St
r
a
t
e
g
y
1.
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
e
En
e
r
g
y
So
u
r
c
e
s
.
Co
n
t
i
n
u
e
to ensure the ease of
ac
c
e
s
s
to
an
d
us
e
of
so
l
a
r
en
e
r
g
y
an
d
ot
h
e
r
alternate, renewable energy
re
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
fo
r
al
l
ne
w
an
d
si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
l
y
re
n
o
v
a
t
e
d
private and public
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
th
r
o
u
g
h
ef
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
po
l
i
c
i
e
s
,
pr
o
g
r
a
m
s
and incentives.
St
r
a
t
e
g
y
2.
Co
m
p
r
e
h
e
n
s
i
v
e
En
e
r
g
y
Ma
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
Plan. Prepare and
im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a co
m
p
r
e
h
e
n
s
i
v
e
en
e
r
g
y
ma
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
plan for all applicable
GE
N
E
R
A
L
P
L
A
N
A
M
E
N
D
M
E
N
T
,
H
O
U
S
I
N
G
E
L
E
M
E
N
T
U
P
D
A
T
E
,
A
N
D
A
S
S
O
C
I
A
T
E
D
R
E
Z
O
N
I
N
G
D
R
A
F
T
E
I
R
CITY OF CUPERTINO AIR QUALITY
PL
A
C
E
W
O
R
K
S
4.2-39
TAB
L
E
4.
2
‐6
CON
T
R
O
L
MEA
S
U
R
E
S
FR
O
M
TH
E
20
1
0
BAY
ARE
A
CLE
A
N
AIR
PLA
N
Ty
p
e
Me
a
s
u
r
e
Nu
m
b
e
r
/ Ti
t
l
e
Co
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
c
y
pu
b
l
i
c
fa
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
,
eq
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
to
ac
h
i
e
v
e
th
e
en
e
r
g
y
goals established in the
Ci
t
y
’
s
mu
n
i
c
i
p
a
l
Cl
i
m
a
t
e
Ac
t
i
o
n
Pl
a
n
.
Em
b
e
d
this plan into the City’s
En
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
l
y
Pr
e
f
e
r
a
b
l
e
Pr
o
c
u
r
e
m
e
n
t
Po
l
i
c
y
to ensure measures are
ac
h
i
e
v
e
d
th
r
o
u
g
h
al
l
fu
t
u
r
e
pr
o
c
u
r
e
m
e
n
t
an
d
construction practices.
St
r
a
t
e
g
y
3.
Co
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
c
y
wi
t
h
St
a
t
e
an
d
Fe
d
e
r
a
l
Regulation. Continue to
ev
a
l
u
a
t
e
,
an
d
re
v
i
s
e
as
ne
c
e
s
s
a
r
y
,
ap
p
l
i
c
a
b
l
e
City codes, ordinances and
pr
o
c
e
d
u
r
e
s
fo
r
in
c
l
u
s
i
o
n
of
lo
c
a
l
,
st
a
t
e
an
d
federal policies and standards
th
a
t
pr
o
m
o
t
e
en
e
r
g
y
an
d
wa
t
e
r
co
n
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
.
St
r
a
t
e
g
y
4.
En
e
r
g
y
Ef
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
Re
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
s
.
Continue to use life cycle cost
an
a
l
y
s
i
s
to
id
e
n
t
i
f
y
Ci
t
y
as
s
e
t
s
fo
r
re
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
with more energy efficient
te
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
i
e
s
.
St
r
a
t
e
g
y
5.
In
c
e
n
t
i
v
e
Pr
o
g
r
a
m
.
Su
p
p
o
r
t
in
c
e
n
t
i
v
e
programs to include
su
c
h
it
e
m
s
as
re
d
u
c
e
d
pe
r
m
i
t
fe
e
s
fo
r
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
projects that exceed the
Ci
t
y
’
s
Gr
e
e
n
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
Or
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
an
d
Ca
l
G
r
e
e
n
.
Continue to promote
ot
h
e
r
in
c
e
n
t
i
v
e
s
fr
o
m
th
e
st
a
t
e
,
co
u
n
t
y
an
d
federal governments for
im
p
r
o
v
i
n
g
en
e
r
g
y
ef
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y
an
d
ex
p
a
n
d
i
n
g
renewable energy
in
s
t
a
l
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
by
po
s
t
i
n
g
in
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
re
g
a
r
d
i
n
g
incentive, rebate and tax
cr
e
d
i
t
pr
o
g
r
a
m
s
on
th
e
Ci
t
y
’
s
we
b
si
t
e
.
St
r
a
t
e
g
y
6.
So
l
a
r
Ac
c
e
s
s
St
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
.
Co
n
t
i
n
u
e
to ensure compliance with
th
e
St
a
t
e
of
Ca
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
Su
b
d
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
Ma
p
Ac
t
solar access standards in
or
d
e
r
to
ma
x
i
m
i
z
e
na
t
u
r
a
l
he
a
t
i
n
g
an
d
co
o
l
i
n
g
opportunities for future
re
s
i
d
e
n
c
e
s
an
d
bu
s
i
n
e
s
s
e
s
.
En
c
o
u
r
a
g
e
th
e
in
c
l
u
s
i
o
n
of additional shade
tr
e
e
s
an
d
la
n
d
s
c
a
p
i
n
g
fo
r
en
e
r
g
y
ef
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y
.
St
r
a
t
e
g
y
7.
Ed
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
Pr
o
g
r
a
m
s
.
Co
n
t
i
n
u
e
to:
o
Of
f
e
r
co
n
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
/
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y
ed
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
programs and leverage
th
o
s
e
av
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
th
r
o
u
g
h
th
e
Co
u
n
t
y
an
d
the Bay Regional Energy
Ne
t
w
o
r
k
to
se
r
v
e
al
l
ut
i
l
i
t
y
us
e
r
s
.
o
Pr
o
v
i
d
e
in
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
ma
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
an
d
host energy conservation
wo
r
k
s
h
o
p
s
fo
r
bu
s
i
n
e
s
s
e
s
an
d
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
.
o
Pr
o
v
i
d
e
,
or
pa
r
t
n
e
r
wi
t
h
ot
h
e
r
ag
e
n
c
i
e
s
to offer, educational
ma
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
,
se
m
i
n
a
r
an
d
st
a
f
f
tr
a
i
n
i
n
g
on energy
co
n
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
/
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y
fo
r
th
o
s
e
wh
o
design, build and manage
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
fa
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
,
an
d
fo
r
th
o
s
e
wh
o
regulate building design and
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
,
pe
r
th
e
Ci
t
y
’
s
Gr
e
e
n
B
i
z
Program. In partnership with
De
An
z
a
Co
l
l
e
g
e
de
v
e
l
o
p
a “S
u
s
t
a
i
n
a
b
l
e
Building Practices” guide
fo
r
Cu
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
an
d
bu
s
i
n
e
s
s
e
s
that builds upon the City’s
Gr
e
e
n
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
Or
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
.
Th
e
Gu
i
d
e
should include information
GE
N
E
R
A
L
P
L
A
N
A
M
E
N
D
M
E
N
T
,
H
O
U
S
I
N
G
E
L
E
M
E
N
T
U
P
D
A
T
E
,
A
N
D
A
S
S
O
C
I
A
T
E
D
R
E
Z
O
N
I
N
G
D
R
A
F
T
E
I
R
CI
T
Y
O
F
C
U
P
E
R
T
I
N
O
AI
R
Q
U
A
L
I
T
Y
4.
2
-
4
0
JUNE 18, 2014
TAB
L
E
4.
2
‐6
CON
T
R
O
L
MEA
S
U
R
E
S
FR
O
M
TH
E
20
1
0
BAY
ARE
A
CLE
A
N
AIR
PLA
N
Ty
p
e
Me
a
s
u
r
e
Nu
m
b
e
r
/ Ti
t
l
e
Co
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
c
y
re
g
a
r
d
i
n
g
cu
r
r
e
n
t
re
b
a
t
e
s
an
d
su
b
s
i
d
i
e
s
to make implementing a
su
s
t
a
i
n
a
b
l
e
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
mo
r
e
fi
n
a
n
c
i
a
l
l
y
attractive with references
ba
c
k
to
th
e
Ci
t
y
,
St
a
t
e
,
Fe
d
e
r
a
l
an
d
ot
h
e
r
web sites for up‐to‐date
in
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
.
Pr
o
v
i
d
e
,
or
pa
r
t
n
e
r
wi
t
h
other agencies to offer,
ed
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
ma
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
,
se
m
i
n
a
r
s
an
d
a certification program for
co
n
t
r
a
c
t
o
r
s
an
d
ar
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
s
wh
o
ha
v
e
participated in “Sustainable
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
”
co
u
r
s
e
s
.
Ma
n
y
of
th
e
cu
r
r
i
c
u
l
u
m
s
are currently available
at
De
An
z
a
Co
l
l
e
g
e
.
As
an
in
c
e
n
t
i
v
e
fo
r
participating in the
“S
u
s
t
a
i
n
a
b
l
e
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
”
pr
o
g
r
a
m
th
e
Ci
t
y
will maintain a “Sustainable
Bu
i
l
d
e
r
/
De
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
”
pa
g
e
on
th
e
i
r
cu
r
r
e
n
t
City website. This page
wi
l
l
no
t
be
an
en
d
o
r
s
e
m
e
n
t
of
th
e
in
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
or company listed, but
a re
s
o
u
r
c
e
ce
n
t
e
r
fo
r
th
e
co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
.
o
Es
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
an
d
ma
i
n
t
a
i
n
an
En
e
r
g
y
In
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
Center or Kiosk at
Ci
t
y
Ha
l
l
wh
e
r
e
in
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
co
n
c
e
r
n
i
n
g
energy issues, building
st
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
,
re
c
y
c
l
i
n
g
an
d
as
s
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
is
available.
St
r
a
t
e
g
y
8.
En
e
r
g
y
Co
g
e
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
Sy
s
t
e
m
s
.
En
c
o
u
r
a
g
e
the use of energy
co
g
e
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
sy
s
t
e
m
s
th
r
o
u
g
h
th
e
pr
o
v
i
s
i
o
n
of an awareness program
ta
r
g
e
t
i
n
g
th
e
la
r
g
e
r
co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
an
d
in
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
users and public facilities.
St
r
a
t
e
g
y
9.
Re
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
of
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
De
s
i
g
n
.
En
s
u
r
e
designer, developers,
ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
s
an
d
bu
i
l
d
e
r
s
me
e
t
th
e
Ci
t
y
’
s
Gr
e
e
n
Building Ordinance and
Ca
l
G
r
e
e
n
an
d
en
c
o
u
r
a
g
e
ar
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
s
,
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
designers and contractors to
ex
c
e
e
d
th
e
s
e
re
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
fo
r
ne
w
pr
o
j
e
c
t
s
through the provision of
in
c
e
n
t
i
v
e
s
.
En
c
o
u
r
a
g
e
ei
t
h
e
r
pa
s
s
i
v
e
so
l
a
r
he
a
t
i
n
g
and/or dark plaster
in
t
e
r
i
o
r
wi
t
h
a co
v
e
r
fo
r
sw
i
m
m
i
n
g
po
o
l
s
,
ca
b
a
n
a
s
and other related
ac
c
e
s
s
o
r
y
us
e
s
wh
e
r
e
so
l
a
r
ac
c
e
s
s
is
av
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
.
Encourage the use of
re
n
e
w
a
b
l
e
en
e
r
g
y
so
u
r
c
e
s
wh
e
r
e
fe
a
s
i
b
l
e
,
and continue to offer energy
au
d
i
t
s
an
d
/
o
r
su
b
v
e
n
t
i
o
n
pr
o
g
r
a
m
s
th
a
t
al
s
o
advance community
ad
o
p
t
i
o
n
of
al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
en
e
r
g
y
te
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
i
e
s
.
St
r
a
t
e
g
y
10
.
Us
e
of
Di
s
c
r
e
t
i
o
n
a
r
y
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
Permits (Use Permits).
Re
q
u
i
r
e
,
as
co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
of
ap
p
r
o
v
a
l
fo
r
ne
w
and renovated projects, the
pr
o
v
i
s
i
o
n
of
en
e
r
g
y
co
n
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
/
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y
applications, aligned with the
Ci
t
y
’
s
Gr
e
e
n
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
Or
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
an
d
Ca
l
G
r
e
e
n
.
St
r
a
t
e
g
y
11
.
En
e
r
g
y
Ef
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
Modes. Continue to
en
c
o
u
r
a
g
e
al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
,
fu
e
l
‐ef
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
modes such as “clean”
mu
l
t
i
‐mo
d
a
l
pu
b
l
i
c
tr
a
n
s
i
t
,
ca
r
an
d
va
n
p
o
o
l
i
n
g
,
flexible work hours, safe
ro
u
t
e
s
to
sc
h
o
o
l
s
,
an
d
pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
an
d
bi
c
y
c
l
e
paths through community
ed
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
an
d
tr
a
i
n
i
n
g
,
in
f
r
a
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
in
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t
,
and financial
GE
N
E
R
A
L
P
L
A
N
A
M
E
N
D
M
E
N
T
,
H
O
U
S
I
N
G
E
L
E
M
E
N
T
U
P
D
A
T
E
,
A
N
D
A
S
S
O
C
I
A
T
E
D
R
E
Z
O
N
I
N
G
D
R
A
F
T
E
I
R
CITY OF CUPERTINO AIR QUALITY
PL
A
C
E
W
O
R
K
S
4.2-41
TAB
L
E
4.
2
‐6
CON
T
R
O
L
MEA
S
U
R
E
S
FR
O
M
TH
E
20
1
0
BAY
ARE
A
CLE
A
N
AIR
PLA
N
Ty
p
e
Me
a
s
u
r
e
Nu
m
b
e
r
/ Ti
t
l
e
Co
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
c
y
in
c
e
n
t
i
v
e
s
,
in
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
co
m
m
u
t
e
r
be
n
e
f
i
t
s
pr
o
g
r
a
m
s
.
Po
l
i
c
y
5‐4:
Gr
e
e
n
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
De
s
i
g
n
Se
t
st
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
fo
r
th
e
de
s
i
g
n
an
d
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
of energy and resource
co
n
s
e
r
v
i
n
g
/
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
(G
r
e
e
n
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
Design).
St
r
a
t
e
g
y
1.
“G
r
e
e
n
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
”
Pr
o
g
r
a
m
.
Pe
r
i
o
d
i
c
a
l
l
y
review and revise the
Ci
t
y
’
s
Gr
e
e
n
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
Or
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
to
en
s
u
r
e
al
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
with state CalGreen
re
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
fo
r
al
l
ma
j
o
r
pr
i
v
a
t
e
an
d
pu
b
l
i
c
projects that ensure
re
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
in
en
e
r
g
y
an
d
wa
t
e
r
us
e
fo
r
ne
w
development through site
se
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
an
d
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
de
s
i
g
n
.
St
r
a
t
e
g
y
2.
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
En
e
r
g
y
Au
d
i
t
s
.
Co
n
t
i
n
u
e
to offer and leverage
re
g
i
o
n
a
l
pa
r
t
n
e
r
s
’
pr
o
g
r
a
m
s
to
co
n
d
u
c
t
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
energy assessments for
ho
m
e
s
,
co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
,
in
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
an
d
ci
t
y
fa
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
and recommend
im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
th
a
t
le
a
d
to
en
e
r
g
y
an
d
co
s
t
savings opportunities for
pa
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
n
t
s
.
St
r
a
t
e
g
y
3.
“G
r
e
e
n
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
”
Ev
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
Gu
i
d
e
.
Prepare a “Green
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
”
ev
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
gu
i
d
e
ba
s
e
d
up
o
n
th
e
City’s Green Building
Or
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
,
Ca
l
G
r
e
e
n
,
an
d
ab
o
v
e
li
s
t
e
d
“e
s
s
e
n
t
i
a
l
components” for use by
th
e
ci
t
y
st
a
f
f
wh
e
n
re
v
i
e
w
i
n
g
pr
o
j
e
c
t
s
.
St
r
a
t
e
g
y
4.
St
a
f
f
Tr
a
i
n
i
n
g
.
Co
n
t
i
n
u
e
to
tr
a
i
n
appropriate staff in the design
pr
i
n
c
i
p
l
e
s
,
co
s
t
s
,
an
d
be
n
e
f
i
t
s
of
su
s
t
a
i
n
a
b
l
e
building and landscape
de
s
i
g
n
.
En
c
o
u
r
a
g
e
st
a
f
f
to
at
t
e
n
d
ou
t
s
i
d
e
tr
a
i
n
i
n
g
s
on these topics and
at
t
a
i
n
re
l
e
v
a
n
t
pr
o
g
r
a
m
ce
r
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
(e
.
g
.
Green Point Rater, LEED
Ac
c
r
e
d
i
t
e
d
Pr
o
f
e
s
s
i
o
n
a
l
)
.
St
r
a
t
e
g
y
5.
“G
r
e
e
n
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
”
In
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
Seminars. Conduct and/or
pa
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
t
e
in
“G
r
e
e
n
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
”
in
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
seminars and workshops for
me
m
b
e
r
s
of
th
e
de
s
i
g
n
an
d
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
in
d
u
s
t
r
y
,
land development, real
es
t
a
t
e
sa
l
e
s
,
le
n
d
i
n
g
in
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n
s
,
la
n
d
s
c
a
p
i
n
g
and design, the building
ma
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
in
d
u
s
t
r
y
an
d
pr
o
s
p
e
c
t
i
v
e
pr
o
j
e
c
t
applicants. Consider
mo
d
e
l
i
n
g
th
i
s
pr
o
g
r
a
m
af
t
e
r
th
e
CE
R
T
pr
o
g
r
a
m
.
St
r
a
t
e
g
y
6.
Pu
b
l
i
c
Co
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
.
Fu
r
t
h
e
r
accelerate community
ad
o
p
t
i
o
n
of
gr
e
e
n
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
pr
a
c
t
i
c
e
s
th
r
o
u
g
h
regularly featured articles in
th
e
Cu
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
Sc
e
n
e
,
me
d
i
a
ou
t
r
e
a
c
h
to
th
e
Courier and the Guide (San
Jo
s
e
Me
r
c
u
r
y
)
,
st
r
e
a
m
i
n
g
su
s
t
a
i
n
a
b
l
e
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
and other conservation
co
u
r
s
e
s
or
se
m
i
n
a
r
s
on
th
e
Ci
t
y
Ch
a
n
n
e
l
,
an
d
make these recordings
av
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
at
th
e
Li
b
r
a
r
y
.
Po
l
i
c
y
5‐7:
Us
e
of
Op
e
n
Fi
r
e
s
an
d
Fi
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
s
Di
s
c
o
u
r
a
g
e
hi
g
h
po
l
l
u
t
i
o
n
fi
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
us
e
.
GE
N
E
R
A
L
P
L
A
N
A
M
E
N
D
M
E
N
T
,
H
O
U
S
I
N
G
E
L
E
M
E
N
T
U
P
D
A
T
E
,
A
N
D
A
S
S
O
C
I
A
T
E
D
R
E
Z
O
N
I
N
G
D
R
A
F
T
E
I
R
CI
T
Y
O
F
C
U
P
E
R
T
I
N
O
AI
R
Q
U
A
L
I
T
Y
4.
2
-
4
2
JUNE 18, 2014
TAB
L
E
4.
2
‐6
CON
T
R
O
L
MEA
S
U
R
E
S
FR
O
M
TH
E
20
1
0
BAY
ARE
A
CLE
A
N
AIR
PLA
N
Ty
p
e
Me
a
s
u
r
e
Nu
m
b
e
r
/ Ti
t
l
e
Co
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
c
y
St
r
a
t
e
g
y
1.
Ba
y
Ar
e
a
Ai
r
Qu
a
l
i
t
y
Ma
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
District (BAAQMD)
Li
t
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
.
Co
n
t
i
n
u
e
to
ma
k
e
av
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
BA
A
Q
M
D
literature on reducing
po
l
l
u
t
i
o
n
fr
o
m
fi
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
us
e
.
St
r
a
t
e
g
y
2.
In
s
t
a
l
l
a
t
i
o
n
of
Ne
w
Fi
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
s
.
Co
n
t
i
n
u
e
to prohibit the use of
wo
o
d
‐bu
r
n
i
n
g
fi
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
s
in
ne
w
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
,
except for Environmental
Pr
o
t
e
c
t
i
o
n
Ag
e
n
c
y
Ce
r
t
i
f
i
e
d
Wo
o
d
s
t
o
v
e
s
.
Po
l
i
c
y
5‐28
:
In
t
e
r
a
g
e
n
c
y
Co
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
Co
n
t
i
n
u
e
to
ac
t
i
v
e
l
y
pu
r
s
u
e
in
t
e
r
a
g
e
n
c
y
co
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
for regional water
su
p
p
l
y
pr
o
b
l
e
m
so
l
v
i
n
g
.
Po
l
i
c
y
5‐29
:
Co
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
of
Lo
c
a
l
Co
n
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
Policies with Region‐wide
Co
n
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
Po
l
i
c
i
e
s
Co
n
t
i
n
u
e
to
co
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
e
ci
t
y
‐wi
d
e
wa
t
e
r
co
n
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
efforts with the
Sa
n
t
a
Cl
a
r
a
Va
l
l
e
y
Wa
t
e
r
Di
s
t
r
i
c
t
(S
C
V
W
D
)
,
San Jose Water Company and
Ca
l
Wa
t
e
r
.
St
r
a
t
e
g
y
.
Wa
t
e
r
Co
n
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
Me
a
s
u
r
e
s
.
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
the drought plans
fr
o
m
th
e
Ci
t
y
’
s
wa
t
e
r
re
t
a
i
l
e
r
s
(S
a
n
Jo
s
e
Wa
t
e
r
Company and California
Wa
t
e
r
Co
m
p
a
n
y
)
an
d
SC
V
W
D
wh
e
n
wa
t
e
r
conservation efforts are
ne
e
d
e
d
.
Po
l
i
c
y
5‐30
:
Pu
b
l
i
c
In
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
Ef
f
o
r
t
Pr
o
v
i
d
e
th
e
pu
b
l
i
c
in
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
re
g
a
r
d
i
n
g
wa
t
e
r
conservation/efficiency
te
c
h
n
i
q
u
e
s
,
in
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
ho
w
pa
v
i
n
g
an
d
ot
h
e
r
impervious surfaces impact
ru
n
o
f
f
.
St
r
a
t
e
g
y
1.
Ou
t
r
e
a
c
h
.
Pa
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
t
e
in
re
g
i
o
n
a
l
public outreach with other
st
o
r
m
w
a
t
e
r
co
‐pe
r
m
i
t
t
e
e
s
.
Al
s
o
co
n
t
i
n
u
e
to
send educational
in
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
an
d
no
t
i
c
e
s
to
ho
u
s
e
h
o
l
d
s
an
d
businesses with water
pr
o
h
i
b
i
t
i
o
n
s
,
wa
t
e
r
al
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
an
d
co
n
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
tips. Continue to offer
fe
a
t
u
r
e
d
ar
t
i
c
l
e
s
in
th
e
Cu
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
Sc
e
n
e
an
d
Cupertino Courier. Provide
co
n
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
Pu
b
l
i
c
Se
r
v
i
c
e
An
n
o
u
n
c
e
m
e
n
t
s
on the City’s Channel and
Cu
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
Ra
d
i
o
.
St
r
a
t
e
g
y
2.
De
m
o
n
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
Ga
r
d
e
n
s
.
In
c
l
u
d
e
water‐wise demonstration
ga
r
d
e
n
s
in
so
m
e
pa
r
k
s
wh
e
r
e
fe
a
s
i
b
l
e
as
th
e
y
are relandscaped or
im
p
r
o
v
e
d
us
i
n
g
dr
o
u
g
h
t
to
l
e
r
a
n
t
na
t
i
v
e
an
d
non‐invasive, non‐native
pl
a
n
t
s
.
St
r
a
t
e
g
y
3.
Ma
s
t
e
r
Ga
r
d
e
n
e
r
s
.
Wo
r
k
wi
t
h
th
e
County Master Gardeners
an
d
ot
h
e
r
re
l
e
v
a
n
t
st
e
w
a
r
d
s
h
i
p
pa
r
t
n
e
r
s
to
identify water‐wise plant
ma
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
an
d
ir
r
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
me
t
h
o
d
s
fo
r
us
e
in
public and private areas. This
GE
N
E
R
A
L
P
L
A
N
A
M
E
N
D
M
E
N
T
,
H
O
U
S
I
N
G
E
L
E
M
E
N
T
U
P
D
A
T
E
,
A
N
D
A
S
S
O
C
I
A
T
E
D
R
E
Z
O
N
I
N
G
D
R
A
F
T
E
I
R
CITY OF CUPERTINO AIR QUALITY
PL
A
C
E
W
O
R
K
S
4.2-43
TAB
L
E
4.
2
‐6
CON
T
R
O
L
MEA
S
U
R
E
S
FR
O
M
TH
E
20
1
0
BAY
ARE
A
CLE
A
N
AIR
PLA
N
Ty
p
e
Me
a
s
u
r
e
Nu
m
b
e
r
/ Ti
t
l
e
Co
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
c
y
in
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
sh
o
u
l
d
be
sh
a
r
e
d
on
th
e
Ci
t
y
’
s
Green web site and included
in
Cu
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
Sc
e
n
e
En
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
Se
c
t
i
o
n
.
Po
l
i
c
y
5‐31
:
Wa
t
e
r
Us
e
Ef
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y
Pr
o
m
o
t
e
ef
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
us
e
of
wa
t
e
r
th
r
o
u
g
h
o
u
t
the City.
St
r
a
t
e
g
y
1.
Re
c
y
c
l
e
d
Wa
t
e
r
.
En
c
o
u
r
a
g
e
on
s
i
t
e
water recycling including
th
e
us
e
of
ci
s
t
e
r
n
s
to
co
l
l
e
c
t
ra
i
n
ru
n
o
f
f
an
d
treated gray water systems.
St
r
a
t
e
g
y
2.
La
n
d
s
c
a
p
i
n
g
Pl
a
n
s
.
Pe
r
th
e
Ci
t
y
’
s
Greywater Ordinance,
re
q
u
i
r
e
wa
t
e
r
‐ef
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
la
n
d
s
c
a
p
i
n
g
pl
a
n
s
th
a
t
incorporate the usage of
re
c
y
c
l
e
d
wa
t
e
r
fo
r
la
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
ir
r
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
as
pa
r
t
of the development review
pr
o
c
e
s
s
.
St
r
a
t
e
g
y
3.
Wa
t
e
r
Co
n
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
Pr
o
g
r
a
m
s
.
Continue to work with the
Sa
n
t
a
Cl
a
r
a
Va
l
l
e
y
Wa
t
e
r
Di
s
t
r
i
c
t
,
Sa
n
Jo
s
e
Water and Cal Water to
un
d
e
r
t
a
k
e
pr
o
g
r
a
m
s
th
a
t
pr
o
m
o
t
e
wa
t
e
r
us
e
efficiency for municipal,
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
,
an
d
co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
cu
s
t
o
m
e
r
s
.
Co
n
t
i
n
u
e
activities that support
th
e
Ci
t
y
’
s
Gr
e
e
n
Bu
s
i
n
e
s
s
Ce
r
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
go
a
l
s
of long‐term water
co
n
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
wi
t
h
i
n
Ci
t
y
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
,
in
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
installation of low‐flow
to
i
l
e
t
s
an
d
sh
o
w
e
r
s
,
in
s
t
a
l
l
a
t
i
o
n
of
au
t
o
m
a
t
i
c
shut off valves in lavatories
an
d
si
n
k
s
an
d
wa
t
e
r
ef
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
ou
t
d
o
o
r
ir
r
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
,
per the City’s Water
Ef
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
La
n
d
s
c
a
p
i
n
g
Or
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
,
En
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
l
y
Preferable
Pr
o
c
u
r
e
m
e
n
t
Po
l
i
c
y
,
an
d
th
e
Pa
r
k
s
& Re
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
Green Policies.
Po
l
i
c
y
5‐38
:
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
/
I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
Re
c
y
c
l
i
n
g
Ex
p
a
n
d
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
an
d
in
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
re
c
y
c
l
i
n
g
programs to meet
an
d
su
r
p
a
s
s
AB
9
3
9
wa
s
t
e
st
r
e
a
m
re
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
goals.
St
r
a
t
e
g
y
.
In
c
r
e
a
s
e
Re
c
y
c
l
i
n
g
.
En
c
o
u
r
a
g
e
al
l
commercial and industrial
us
e
s
to
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
th
e
i
r
re
c
y
c
l
i
n
g
ef
f
o
r
t
s
to
he
l
p
the city achieve its
re
c
y
c
l
i
n
g
go
a
l
s
.
Po
l
i
c
y
5‐39
:
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
Re
c
y
c
l
i
n
g
A co
m
p
r
e
h
e
n
s
i
v
e
re
c
y
c
l
i
n
g
pr
o
g
r
a
m
is
to
be
provided for all residential
an
d
mu
l
t
i
‐fa
m
i
l
y
dw
e
l
l
i
n
g
s
.
St
r
a
t
e
g
y
1.
Co
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
wi
t
h
So
l
i
d
Wa
s
t
e
an
d
Recycling Contractor. Work
cl
o
s
e
l
y
wi
t
h
th
e
Ci
t
y
’
s
so
l
i
d
wa
s
t
e
an
d
re
c
y
c
l
i
n
g
contractor to develop and
im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
ef
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
an
d
ef
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
re
c
y
c
l
i
n
g
methods.
St
r
a
t
e
g
y
2.
E‐Wa
s
t
e
Re
c
y
c
l
i
n
g
Pr
o
g
r
a
m
.
Co
n
t
i
n
u
e
/
m
a
k
e
permanent the e‐
wa
s
t
e
re
c
y
c
l
i
n
g
pr
o
g
r
a
m
.
St
r
a
t
e
g
y
3.
Cu
r
b
s
i
d
e
Re
c
y
c
l
i
n
g
of
Ya
r
d
Wa
s
t
e
an
d
Compostables. Include
ve
g
e
t
a
b
l
e
,
fr
u
i
t
an
d
ot
h
e
r
ap
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
fo
o
d
items, as well as recycling of
GE
N
E
R
A
L
P
L
A
N
A
M
E
N
D
M
E
N
T
,
H
O
U
S
I
N
G
E
L
E
M
E
N
T
U
P
D
A
T
E
,
A
N
D
A
S
S
O
C
I
A
T
E
D
R
E
Z
O
N
I
N
G
D
R
A
F
T
E
I
R
CI
T
Y
O
F
C
U
P
E
R
T
I
N
O
AI
R
Q
U
A
L
I
T
Y
4.
2
-
4
4
JUNE 18, 2014
TAB
L
E
4.
2
‐6
CON
T
R
O
L
MEA
S
U
R
E
S
FR
O
M
TH
E
20
1
0
BAY
ARE
A
CLE
A
N
AIR
PLA
N
Ty
p
e
Me
a
s
u
r
e
Nu
m
b
e
r
/ Ti
t
l
e
Co
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
c
y
no
n
‐re
u
s
a
b
l
e
ba
t
t
e
r
i
e
s
.
Po
l
i
c
y
5‐40
:
On
‐si
t
e
Ga
r
b
a
g
e
an
d
Or
g
a
n
i
c
Co
l
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
Area Dedication
Mo
d
i
f
y
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
,
an
d
re
q
u
i
r
e
fo
r
ne
w
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
s
,
on‐site waste facility
re
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
fo
r
al
l
mu
l
t
i
‐fa
m
i
l
y
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
,
commercial and industrial
la
n
d
us
e
s
to
ha
v
e
ad
e
q
u
a
t
e
co
v
e
r
e
d
ar
e
a
fo
r
a combination of garbage,
re
c
y
c
l
i
n
g
an
d
or
g
a
n
i
c
co
l
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
.
St
r
a
t
e
g
y
.
Or
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
Re
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
.
Re
v
i
s
e
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
ordinances as needed
re
l
a
t
i
v
e
to
on
‐si
t
e
wa
s
t
e
fa
c
i
l
i
t
y
re
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
for all multi‐family
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
,
co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
an
d
in
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
zo
n
i
n
g
districts to require
ad
e
q
u
a
t
e
co
v
e
r
e
d
ar
e
a
fo
r
a co
m
b
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
of
garbage, recycling and
or
g
a
n
i
c
co
l
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
.
Po
l
i
c
y
5‐41
:
Pu
b
l
i
c
Ed
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
Pr
o
m
o
t
e
th
e
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
pu
b
l
i
c
ed
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
pr
o
g
r
a
m
regarding the reduction
of
so
l
i
d
wa
s
t
e
di
s
p
o
s
a
l
wh
i
l
e
en
c
o
u
r
a
g
i
n
g
re
c
y
c
l
i
n
g
and organic diversion.
St
r
a
t
e
g
y
1.
Re
c
y
c
l
i
n
g
Pr
o
g
r
a
m
In
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
.
Us
e
the local television channel,
th
e
Cu
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
Sc
e
n
e
,
th
e
In
t
e
r
n
e
t
an
d
ot
h
e
r
available media to provide
in
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
to
th
e
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
ab
o
u
t
th
e
ob
j
e
c
t
i
v
e
s
of the City’s recycling
an
d
or
g
a
n
i
c
di
v
e
r
s
i
o
n
pr
o
g
r
a
m
s
.
St
r
a
t
e
g
y
2.
Re
u
s
a
b
l
e
Pr
o
d
u
c
t
s
.
En
c
o
u
r
a
g
e
us
e
of reusable products.
Po
l
i
c
y
5‐42
:
Ci
t
y
Re
c
y
c
l
i
n
g
an
d
Or
g
a
n
i
c
Di
v
e
r
s
i
o
n
En
c
o
u
r
a
g
e
Ci
t
y
st
a
f
f
to
re
c
y
c
l
e
an
d
co
m
p
o
s
t
at all City facilities.
St
r
a
t
e
g
y
1.
Re
c
y
c
l
i
n
g
an
d
Or
g
a
n
i
c
Di
v
e
r
s
i
o
n
Opportunities. Provide
co
l
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
bi
n
s
an
d
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
th
e
nu
m
b
e
r
of
existing recycling and organic
bi
n
s
at
st
r
a
t
e
g
i
c
a
l
l
y
lo
c
a
t
e
d
ar
e
a
s
to
fa
c
i
l
i
t
a
t
e
disposal of recyclable and
or
g
a
n
i
c
ma
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
,
in
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
al
l
Ci
t
y
pa
r
k
s
.
St
r
a
t
e
g
y
2.
Sc
h
o
o
l
s
an
d
In
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n
s
.
Pa
r
t
n
e
r
with schools/institutions in
Cu
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
to
en
s
u
r
e
th
a
t
th
e
y
un
d
e
r
s
t
a
n
d
and are adhering to the City’s
re
c
y
c
l
i
n
g
an
d
or
g
a
n
i
c
di
v
e
r
s
i
o
n
go
a
l
s
an
d
pr
o
v
i
d
i
n
g
adequate recycling
an
d
co
m
p
o
s
t
i
n
g
op
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
i
e
s
to
st
a
f
f
an
d
students.
Po
l
i
c
y
5‐43
:
Re
‐di
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
of
Re
u
s
a
b
l
e
Ma
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
Th
r
o
u
g
h
pu
b
l
i
c
ed
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
,
en
c
o
u
r
a
g
e
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
and businesses to re‐
di
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
e
re
u
s
a
b
l
e
ma
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
(e
.
g
.
,
ga
r
a
g
e
sa
l
e
s
,
materials exchange).
St
r
a
t
e
g
y
1.
Di
s
s
e
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
of
Re
c
y
c
l
i
n
g
In
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
.
Disseminate
in
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
to
bo
t
h
bu
s
i
n
e
s
s
e
s
an
d
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
regarding the benefits of
re
c
y
c
l
i
n
g
an
d
fu
r
t
h
e
r
re
d
u
c
i
n
g
th
e
so
l
i
d
wa
s
t
e
stream.
St
r
a
t
e
g
y
2.
Us
e
of
th
e
In
t
e
r
n
e
t
.
Se
t
up
a we
b
site for the benefit of the
GE
N
E
R
A
L
P
L
A
N
A
M
E
N
D
M
E
N
T
,
H
O
U
S
I
N
G
E
L
E
M
E
N
T
U
P
D
A
T
E
,
A
N
D
A
S
S
O
C
I
A
T
E
D
R
E
Z
O
N
I
N
G
D
R
A
F
T
E
I
R
CITY OF CUPERTINO AIR QUALITY
PL
A
C
E
W
O
R
K
S
4.2-45
TAB
L
E
4.
2
‐6
CON
T
R
O
L
MEA
S
U
R
E
S
FR
O
M
TH
E
20
1
0
BAY
ARE
A
CLE
A
N
AIR
PLA
N
Ty
p
e
Me
a
s
u
r
e
Nu
m
b
e
r
/ Ti
t
l
e
Co
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
c
y
pu
b
l
i
c
wh
e
r
e
in
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
ca
n
be
po
s
t
e
d
id
e
n
t
i
f
y
i
n
g
the availability of
re
c
y
c
l
a
b
l
e
ma
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
an
d
th
e
lo
c
a
t
i
o
n
of
ex
c
h
a
n
g
e
s
.
St
r
a
t
e
g
y
3.
En
c
o
u
r
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
of
Pr
o
d
u
c
t
St
e
w
a
r
d
s
h
i
p
.
Per the City’s
Ex
t
e
n
d
e
d
Pr
o
d
u
c
e
r
Re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
(E
P
R
)
po
l
i
c
y
,
support EPR initiatives and
st
a
t
e
w
i
d
e
le
g
i
s
l
a
t
i
o
n
th
a
t
wi
l
l
gi
v
e
in
c
e
n
t
i
v
e
for the redesign of products
an
d
pa
c
k
a
g
i
n
g
to
fa
c
i
l
i
t
a
t
e
th
e
re
‐us
e
of
ma
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
and to make the overall
pr
o
d
u
c
t
s
le
s
s
to
x
i
c
an
d
ea
s
i
e
r
to
re
c
y
c
l
e
.
Po
l
i
c
y
5‐44
:
Re
u
s
e
of
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
Ma
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
En
c
o
u
r
a
g
e
th
e
re
c
y
c
l
i
n
g
an
d
re
u
s
e
of
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
materials, including
re
c
y
c
l
i
n
g
ma
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
ge
n
e
r
a
t
e
d
by
th
e
de
m
o
l
i
t
i
o
n
and remodeling of
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
.
St
r
a
t
e
g
y
1.
Po
s
t
De
m
o
l
i
t
i
o
n
an
d
Re
m
o
d
e
l
i
n
g
Projects. Encourage
co
n
t
r
a
c
t
o
r
s
to
po
s
t
de
m
o
l
i
t
i
o
n
an
d
re
m
o
d
e
l
i
n
g
projects on the Internet
an
n
o
u
n
c
i
n
g
th
e
av
a
i
l
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
of
po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
re
u
s
a
b
l
e
materials.
St
r
a
t
e
g
y
2.
Pu
b
l
i
c
an
d
Pr
i
v
a
t
e
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
s
.
Re
q
u
i
r
e
contractors working on
Ci
t
y
pr
o
j
e
c
t
s
to
us
e
re
c
y
c
l
e
d
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
ma
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
and sustainably harvested
wo
o
d
pr
o
d
u
c
t
s
to
th
e
ma
x
i
m
u
m
ex
t
e
n
t
po
s
s
i
b
l
e
and encourage them to
do
th
e
sa
m
e
on
pr
i
v
a
t
e
pr
o
j
e
c
t
s
.
Fu
r
t
h
e
r
St
u
d
y
Co
n
t
r
o
l
Me
a
s
u
r
e
s
FS
M
1 – Ad
h
e
s
i
v
e
s
an
d
Se
a
l
a
n
t
s
FS
M
2 – Re
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
in
Co
a
t
i
n
g
an
d
So
l
v
e
n
t
s
FS
M
3 – So
l
v
e
n
t
Cl
e
a
n
i
n
g
an
d
De
g
r
e
a
s
i
n
g
Op
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
FS
M
4 – Em
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
fr
o
m
Co
o
l
i
n
g
To
w
e
r
s
FS
M
5 – Eq
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
Le
a
k
s
FS
M
6 – Wa
s
t
e
w
a
t
e
r
fr
o
m
Co
k
e
Cu
t
t
i
n
g
FS
M
7 – SO
2 fr
o
m
Re
f
i
n
e
r
y
Pr
o
c
e
s
s
e
s
FS
M
8 – Re
d
u
c
e
Em
i
s
s
i
o
n
fr
o
m
LP
G
,
Pr
o
p
a
n
e
,
Bu
t
a
n
e
,
an
d
ot
h
e
r
Pr
e
s
s
u
r
i
z
e
d
Ga
s
e
s
FS
M
9 – Gr
e
e
n
h
o
u
s
e
Ga
s
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
in
BA
C
T
an
d
TB
A
C
T
De
t
e
r
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
s
FS
M
10
Fu
r
t
h
e
r
Re
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
s
fr
o
m
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
Co
o
k
i
n
g
Eq
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
FS
M
11
– Ma
g
n
e
t
So
u
r
c
e
Ru
l
e
FS
M
12
– Wo
o
d
Sm
o
k
e
FS
M
13
– En
e
r
g
y
Ef
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y
an
d
Re
n
e
w
a
b
l
e
En
e
r
g
y
FS
M
14
– Wi
n
e
r
y
Fe
r
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
FS
M
15
– Co
m
p
o
s
t
i
n
g
Op
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
Th
e
ma
j
o
r
i
t
y
of
th
e
Fu
r
t
h
e
r
St
u
d
y
co
n
t
r
o
l
me
a
s
u
r
e
s
ap
p
l
y
to sources regulated
di
r
e
c
t
l
y
by
BA
A
Q
M
D
.
Be
c
a
u
s
e
BA
A
Q
M
D
is
th
e
im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
i
n
g
agency, new and
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
so
u
r
c
e
s
of
st
a
t
i
o
n
a
r
y
an
d
ar
e
a
so
u
r
c
e
s
in
th
e
city would be required to
co
m
p
l
y
wi
t
h
th
e
s
e
ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
fu
r
t
h
e
r
st
u
d
y
co
n
t
r
o
l
me
a
s
u
r
e
s
in the 2010 Bay Area
Cl
e
a
n
Ai
r
Pl
a
n
.
GE
N
E
R
A
L
P
L
A
N
A
M
E
N
D
M
E
N
T
,
H
O
U
S
I
N
G
E
L
E
M
E
N
T
U
P
D
A
T
E
,
A
N
D
A
S
S
O
C
I
A
T
E
D
R
E
Z
O
N
I
N
G
D
R
A
F
T
E
I
R
CI
T
Y
O
F
C
U
P
E
R
T
I
N
O
AI
R
Q
U
A
L
I
T
Y
4.
2
-
4
6
JUNE 18, 2014
TAB
L
E
4.
2
‐6
CON
T
R
O
L
MEA
S
U
R
E
S
FR
O
M
TH
E
20
1
0
BAY
ARE
A
CLE
A
N
AIR
PLA
N
Ty
p
e
Me
a
s
u
r
e
Nu
m
b
e
r
/ Ti
t
l
e
Co
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
c
y
FS
M
16
– Va
n
i
s
h
i
n
g
Oi
l
s
an
d
Ru
s
t
In
h
i
b
i
t
o
r
s
FS
M
17
– Fe
r
r
y
Sy
s
t
e
m
Ex
p
a
n
s
i
o
n
FS
M
18
– Gr
e
e
n
h
o
u
s
e
Ga
s
Fe
e
So
u
r
c
e
:
Ba
y
Ar
e
a
Ai
r
Qu
a
l
i
t
y
Ma
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
Di
s
t
r
i
c
t
,
20
1
1
Re
v
i
s
e
d
,
Ca
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
En
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
Qu
a
l
i
t
y
Ac
t
Ai
r
Qu
a
l
i
t
y
Gu
i
d
e
l
i
n
e
s
.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
AIR QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 4.2-47
Regional Growth Projections for VMT and Population and Employment
Future development under the proposed Project would result in additional sources of criteria air pollutants.
Growth accommodated within the city would occur over a 20-year or longer time horizon. As a result,
BAAQMD’s approach to evaluating impacts from criteria air pollutants generated by long-term growth
associated with a plan is done in comparison to BAAQMD’s AQMP rather than a comparison of emissions to
project-level significance thresholds. This is because BAAQMD’s AQMP plans for growth in the SFBAAB are
based on regional population and employment projections identified by ABAG and growth in VMT identified
by VTA. Changes in regional, community-wide emissions in Cupertino could affect the ability of BAAQMD
to achieve the air quality goals identified in the AQMP. Consequently, air quality impacts for a plan-level
analysis are based on consistency with the regional growth projections.
As previously discussed under subheading “Attain Air Quality Standards” above, the additional residential
population resulting from implementation of the proposed Project is within the regional population
projections (400 fewer residents) but would exceed the regional employment projections (10,982 more
employees). However, because future growth under the proposed Project would come incrementally over
approximately 26 years and would be guided by a policy framework that is generally consistent with many of
the principal goals and objectives established in regional planning initiatives for the Bay Area, this additional
growth would be consistent with the regional planning objectives established for the Bay Area, which
concentrates new development within infill sites. The General Plan includes policies and strategies that,
once adopted, would ensure coordination with regional agencies on regional planning initiatives. As
described above, Policy 5-5, Air Pollution Effects of New Development, would require the City to minimize
the air quality impacts of new development projects and the impacts affecting new development and
supporting Strategy 3 would require the City to assess the potential for air pollution effects of future land
use and transportation planning, to ensure that planning decisions support regional goals of improving air
quality. Policy 4-1, City Participation in Regional Transportation Planning, would require the City to
actively participate in developing regional approaches to meeting the transportation needs of the residents
of the Santa Clara Valley.
Citywide VMT estimates derived from assumed 2040 land use under the proposed Project were calculated
by Hexagon Transportation Consultants, using the VTA model. Land uses in the city 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 as projected by the VTA model for year 2040, 1,264,271 VMT per day (10.94 miles
per service population per day in 2040) would be generated in the city. Table 4.2-7 compares the projected
increase in service population with the projected increase in VMT. VMT estimates in the VTA model are
sensitive to changes in land use. Generally, land uses that reflect a more balanced jobs-housing ratio in the
VTA model result in lower per capita VMT. As shown in this table, daily VMT in the Project Study Area
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). However, BAAQMD’s AQMP requires that the VMT
increase be less than or equal to the projected population increase and of the proposed Project. The
proposed Project would result in a higher VMT rate of growth than rate of service population growth.
Consequently, impacts for Cupertino would be significant.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
AIR QUALITY
4.2-48 JUNE 18, 2014
TABLE 4.2‐7 COMPARISON OF THE CHANGE IN SERVICE POPULATION AND VMT IN THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
Category 2013 2040 Change
Percent
Change
Population 58,302 71,300 12,998 22.3%
Employment 27,387 44,242 16,855 61.5%
Total Service Population 85,689 115,542 29,853 34.8%
VMT/Day 897,419 1,264,271 366,852 40.9%
Notes: VMT is provided by Hexagon based on the VTA model.
Applicable Regulations
AB 1493: Pavley Fuel Efficiency Standards
Title 20 California Code of Regulations (CCR): Appliance Energy Efficiency Standards
Title 24, Part 6, CCR: Building and Energy Efficiency Standards
Title 24, Part 11, CCR: Green Building Standards Code
CARB Rule 2485 (13 CCR Chapter 10, Section 2485), Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Limit
Diesel-Fueled Commercial Motor Vehicle Idling
CARB Rule 2480 (13 CCR Chapter 10, Section 2480), Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Limit
School Bus Idling and Idling at Schools
CARB Rule 2477 (13 CCR Section 2477 and Article 8), Airborne Toxic Control Measure for In-Use
Diesel-Fueled Transport Refrigeration Units (TRU) and TRU Generator Sets and Facilities Where
TRUs Operate
BAAQMD, Regulation 2, Rule 2, New Source Review
BAAQMD, Regulation 2, Rule 5, New Source Review of Toxic Air Contaminants
BAAQMD Regulation 6, Rule 1, General Requirements
BAAQMD Regulation 6, Rule 2, Commercial Cooking Equipment
BAAQMD Regulation 7, Odorous Substances
BAAQMD Regulation 8, Rule 3, Architectural Coatings
BAAQMD Regulation 8, Rule 4, General Solvent and Surface Coatings Operations
BAAQMD Regulation 8, Rule 7, Gasoline Dispensing Facilities
BAAQMD Regulation 11, Rule 2, Asbestos, Demolition, Renovation and Manufacturing
Mitigation Measures
While the proposed Project would support the primary goals of the 2010 Bay Area Clean Air Plan, the
buildout of the proposed 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.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
AIR QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 4.2-49
There are no additional mitigation measures available.
The Plan Bay Area aims to improve transportation efficiency and reduce regional infrastructure costs in the
region. Policies and development standards in the proposed Project would facilitate continued City
participation/cooperation with BAAQMD and VTA to achieve regional air quality improvement goals,
promote energy conservation design and development techniques, encourage alternative transportation
modes, and implement transportation demand management strategies. However, due to the level of growth
forecast in the city and the programmatic nature of the proposed Project, no additional mitigating policies
or development standards are available and impacts are considered significant and unavoidable.
Significance With Mitigation: Significant and unavoidable.
AQ-2 Implementation of the proposed Project would violate any air quality
standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality
violation.
BAAQMD has identified thresholds of significance for criteria pollutant emissions and criteria air pollutant
precursors, including ROG, NO, PM10 and PM2.5. Development projects below the significance thresholds
are not expected to generate sufficient criteria pollutant emissions to violate any air quality standard or
contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. According to BAAQMD’s CEQA
Guidelines, long-range plans (e.g. general plan, redevelopment plans, specific plans, area plans, community
plans, regional plans, congestion management plans, etc.) present unique challenges for assessing impacts.
Due to the SFBAAB’s nonattainment status for ozone and PM and the cumulative impacts of growth on air
quality, these plans almost always have significant, unavoidable adverse air quality impacts.
Operational Emissions
Although BAAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines only require an emissions inventory of criteria air
pollutants for project-level analyses, an inventory of criteria air pollutants was generated for the proposed
Project, since enough information regarding the buildout of the General Plan is available and can be used to
identify the magnitude of emissions from buildout of the proposed Project. Table 4.2-8 identifies the
emissions associated with buildout of the proposed Project. Subsequent environmental review of
development projects would be required to assess potential impacts under BAAQMD’s project-level
thresholds.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
AIR QUALITY
4.2-50 JUNE 18, 2014
TABLE 4.2‐8 COMMUNITY‐WIDE CRITERIA AIR POLLUTANTS GENERATED BY PROPOSED LAND USES IN THE GENERAL
PLAN
Category
Criteria Air Pollutants (average lbs/day)
ROG NOx
Exhaust
PM10
Exhaust
PM2.5
Transportationa 76 433 148 65
Energyb 65 571 45 45
Area Sourcesc 1,707 790 58 58
Total 1,848 1,793 251 167
Change from 2013 Land Uses 426 1,536 218 144
BAAQMD Average Daily Project‐Level Threshold 54 54 82 54
Exceeds Average Daily Threshold Yes Yes Yes Yes
Total Tons per Year (tpy) 336 tpy 318 tpy 44 tpy 30 tpy
Change from 2013 Land Uses 77 tpy 61 tpy 11 tpy 7 tpy
BAAQMD Annual Project‐Level Threshold 10 tpy 10 tpy 15 tpy 10 tpy
Exceeds Annual Threshold Yes Yes No No
Note: Emissions may not total to 100 percent due to rounding.
a. Transportation. VMT is based on data provided by Hexagon: based on VTA model for Cupertino and modeled with EMFAC2011‐PL for running
exhaust emissions using 2035 emission rates (note: 2040 emissions rates are not available). VMT is multiplied by 347 days/year to account for reduced
traffic on weekends and holidays.
b. Energy. Based on three‐year average (2012–2010) of energy use provided by Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) and forecast based on the proposed
Project housing units (residential), employment (non‐residential), and service population (City) projections. The nonresidential sector includes direct
access customers, county facilities, and other district facilities within the city boundaries.
c. Area Sources – Off‐road Emissions. Generated using OFFROAD2007. Estimated based on population (Landscaping), employment (Light Commercial
Equipment), and construction building permits (Construction) for Cupertino as a percentage of Santa Clara County. Annual construction emissions
forecasts are assumed to be similar to historic levels. Forecasts for landscaping equipment use are based on the proposed Project population
projections, and for light commercial equipment use are based on the proposed Project employment projections. Excludes BAAQMD‐permitted
sources. ROG emissions from consumer product use based on the emissions rates in CalEEMod 2013.2.2. Daily construction emissions multiplied by 347
days/year to account for reduced/limited construction activity on weekends and holidays. Excludes fugitive emissions from construction sites.
The General Plan includes policies and strategies that, once adopted, would reduce criteria air pollutants
from development projects to the maximum extent practicable. Within the Land Use/ Community Design
Element, Policy 2-2, Connections Between Special Areas, Employment Centers and the Community and
supporting strategies would require the city to provide strong connections between the mixed-use Special
Areas, employment centers, and the surrounding community. Policy 2-12, Long Term Growth Boundary,
would require the City to allow modification of the long-term growth boundary only in conjunction with a
comprehensive review of the City’s General Plan. Policy 2-22, Jobs/Housing Balance and supporting
strategies, require the City to strive for a more balanced ratio of jobs and housing units. Policy 2-26, Heart
of the City Special Area, and supporting strategies, require the City to create a positive and memorable
image along Stevens Creek Boulevard of mixed-use development; enhanced activity gateways and nodes; and
safe and efficient circulation and access for all modes of transportation. Policy 4-5, Pedestrian Access,
require the City to create pedestrian access between new subdivisions and school sites. Review existing
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
AIR QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 4.2-51
neighborhood circulation plans to improve safety and access for pedestrians and bicyclists to school sites,
including completing accessible network of sidewalks and paths. Within the Environmental
Resources/Sustainability Element, Policy 5-1, Principles of Sustainability, Policy 5-3, Conservation and
Efficient Use of Energy Resources, Policy 5-4, Green Building Design, require the City to apply the
principles of sustainability, conserve energy, set standards for the design and construction of energy and
resource conserving/efficient building (Green Building Design). Policy 5-6, Air Pollution Effects of Existing
Development, and supporting strategies require the City to minimize the air quality impacts of existing
development through citywide public education program regarding the implications of the Clean Air Act
expanding home occupations, increase planting of trees on City property and encourage the practice on
private property, and maintain City use of fuel-efficient and low polluting vehicles. Policy 5-7, Use of Open
Fires and Fireplaces, would require the City to discourage high pollution fireplace use. Within the
Circulation Element, Policy 4-1, City Participation in Regional Transportation Planning, and supporting
strategies would require the City to participate actively in developing regional approaches to meeting the
transportation needs of the residents of the Santa Clara Valley and work closely with neighboring
jurisdictions and agencies responsible for roadways, transit facilities and transit services in Cupertino. Policy
4-3, Reduced Reliance on the Use of Single-Occupant Vehicles, and supporting strategies, require the City
to promote a general decrease in reliance on private, mostly single-occupant vehicles (SOV) by encouraging
attractive alternatives by encouraging the use of alternatives to the SOV including increased car-pooling, use
of public transit, bicycling and walking; TSM programs; employers to use the internet to reduce commute
travel; schools, particularly at the college and high school levels, to make maximum use of the internet to
limit the need to travel to and from the campus, new commercial developments to provide shared office
facilities, cafeterias, day-care facilities, lunchrooms, showers, bicycle parking, home offices, shuttle buses to
transit facilities and other amenities that encourage the use of transit, bicycling, walking or telecommuting
as commute modes to work. Provide pedestrian pathways and orient buildings to the street to encourage
pedestrian activity. Require the use of the Cupertino Scene and other media to provide educational material
on alternatives to the SOV and to continue to work with the City Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Committee,
community groups and residents to eliminate hazards and barriers to bicycle and pedestrian transportation.
Despite implementation of the General Plan policies and strategies listed above and identified in Table 4.2-6,
criteria air pollutant emissions associated with buildout of the proposed Project would generate a substantial
increase in emissions that exceeds the BAAQMD regional significance thresholds (ROG, NOx, and PM10).
Criteria air pollutant emissions would be generated from on-site area sources (e.g. landscaping fuel,
consumer products), vehicle trips generated by the proposed Project, and energy use (e.g. natural gas used
for cooking and heating). This is considered a significant impact.
Applicable Regulations
AB 1493: Pavley Fuel Efficiency Standards
Title 20 CCR: Appliance Energy Efficiency Standards
Title 24, Part 6, CCR: Building and Energy Efficiency Standards
Title 24, Part 11, CCR: Green Building Standards Code
CARB Rule 2485 (13 CCR Chapter 10, Section 2485), Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Limit
Diesel-Fueled Commercial Motor Vehicle Idling
CARB Rule 2480 (13 CCR Chapter 10, Section 2480), Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Limit
School Bus Idling and Idling at Schools
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
AIR QUALITY
4.2-52 JUNE 18, 2014
CARB Rule 2477 (13 CCR Section 2477 and Article 8), Airborne Toxic Control Measure for In-Use
Diesel-Fueled Transport Refrigeration Units (TRU) and TRU Generator Sets and Facilities Where TRUs
Operate
BAAQMD, Regulation 2, Rule 2, New Source Review
BAAQMD, Regulation 2, Rule 5, New Source Review of Toxic Air Contaminants
BAAQMD Regulation 6, Rule 1, General Requirements
BAAQMD Regulation 6, Rule 2, Commercial Cooking Equipment
BAAQMD Regulation 7, Odorous Substances
BAAQMD Regulation 8, Rule 3, Architectural Coatings
BAAQMD Regulation 8, Rule 4, General Solvent and Surface Coatings Operations
BAAQMD Regulation 8, Rule 7, Gasoline Dispensing Facilities
BAAQMD Regulation 11, Rule 2, Asbestos, Demolition, Renovation and Manufacturing
Mitigation Measures
Future development under the proposed 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).
The General Plan includes policies and strategies, listed above and under Impact AQ-1 that, once adopted
would minimize emissions to the extent feasible; however, there are no additional measures available to
mitigate this impact due to the level of growth forecast in the city.
Compliance with the policies and strategies of the proposed Project would reduce operational emissions
from development under the proposed Project to the maximum extent practicable. In addition, Mitigation
Measure AQ-4a (for new sources of TACs), would also reduce criteria air pollutants associated with light
industrial land uses within the city. Future development in Cupertino could generate operational emissions
in excess of the BAAQMD significance thresholds. Operational emissions from future development would
be determined during project-level CEQA review. The total criteria air pollutant emissions from operation
of future development projects under the proposed Project would be substantial and would contribute to
increases in concentrations of air pollutants, which could contribute to ongoing violations of air quality
standards. It should be noted that the identification of this program-level impact does not preclude the
finding of less-than-significant impacts for subsequent projects that comply with BAAQMD screening
criteria or meet applicable thresholds of significance. However, due to the programmatic nature of the
proposed Project, no additional mitigating policies are available.
It should be noted that mass emissions from a project are not correlated with concentrations of air
pollutants. Project that exceed the regional significance threshold contribute to the nonattainment
designation. As the attainment designation is based on the AAQS, which are set at levels of exposure that are
determined to not result in adverse health, the proposed General Plan Update would cumulatively
contribute to health impacts within the SFBAAB. Known health effects related to ozone include worsening
of bronchitis, asthma, and emphysema and a decrease in lung function. Particulate matter can also lead to a
variety of health effects in people. These include premature death of people with heart or lung disease,
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
AIR QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 4.2-53
nonfatal heart attacks, irregular heartbeat, decreased lung function, and increased respiratory symptoms.
Regional emissions contribute to these known health effects but it is speculative for this broad based
General Plan Update to determine how exceeding the regional thresholds would affect the number of days
the region is in nonattainment since mass emissions are not correlated with concentrations of emissions or
how many additional individuals in the air basin would be affected by the health effects cited above. The
BAAQMD is the primary agency responsible for ensuring the health and welfare of sensitive individuals to
elevated concentrations of air quality in the SFBAAB. To achieve the health-based standards established by
the EPA, BAAQMD prepares an air quality management plan that detail regional programs to attain the
AAQS. However, 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 the attainment standard are met in the SFBAAB. The impact is considered significant and
unavoidable.
Significance With Mitigation: Significant and unavoidable.
Construction Emissions
BAAQMD’s plan-level guidelines do not require an evaluation of construction emissions for plan-level
projects. There is no proposed development under the proposed Project at this time. Future development
proposals under the proposed Project would be subject to separate environmental review pursuant to
CEQA in order to identify and mitigate potential air quality impacts. Because the details regarding future
construction activities are not known at this time, including phasing of future individual projects,
construction duration and phasing, and preliminary construction equipment, construction emissions are
evaluated qualitatively in accordance with BAAQMD’s plan-level guidance.
Construction emissions associated with individual development projects under the proposed Project would
generate an increase in criteria air pollutants and TACs. BAAQMD has developed project-level thresholds
for construction activities. Subsequent environmental review of future development projects would be
required to assess potential impacts under BAAQMD’s project-level thresholds. Construction emissions
from buildout of future projects within Cupertino would primarily be 1) exhaust emissions from off-road
diesel-powered construction equipment; 2) dust generated by demolition, grading, earthmoving, and other
construction activities; 3) exhaust emissions from on-road vehicles and 4) off-gas emissions of ROGs from
application of asphalt, paints, and coatings.
The General Plan includes policies and strategies that, once adopted, would minimize impacts during
construction. Within the Environmental Resources/Sustainability Element, Policy 5-5, Air Pollution Effects
of New Development, would require the City to minimize the air quality impacts of new development
projects and the impacts affecting new development. Strategy 2, Dust Control, would direct the City to
require water application to non-polluting dust control measures during demolition and the duration of the
construction period. Within the Land Use/Community Design Element, Policy 2-51, Rural Improvement
Standards in Hillside Areas, would direct the City to require rural improvement standards in hillside areas to
preserve the rural character of the hillsides. Strategy 1, Mass Grading in New Construction, would require
the City to follow natural land contour and avoid mass grading in new construction, especially in flood
hazard or hillside areas. Grading large, flat areas shall be avoided.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
AIR QUALITY
4.2-54 JUNE 18, 2014
Existing federal, State, and local regulations, and policies and strategies of the proposed Project described
throughout this chapter protect local and regional air quality. Continued compliance with these regulations
and implementation of General Plan policies and strategies, would reduce construction-related impacts to
the extent feasible. However, if uncontrolled, fugitive dust (PM10 and PM2.5) levels downwind of actively
disturbed areas during construction or overlapping construction activities could violate air quality standards
or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation and expose sensitive receptors to
elevated concentrations of pollutants during construction activities.
It should be noted that mass emissions from a project are not correlated with concentrations of air
pollutants. Project that exceed the regional significance threshold contribute to the nonattainment
designation. As the attainment designation is based on the AAQS, which are set at levels of exposure that are
determined to not result in adverse health, the proposed General Plan Update would cumulatively
contribute to health impacts within the SFBAAB. Known health effects related to ozone include worsening
of bronchitis, asthma, and emphysema and a decrease in lung function. Particulate matter can also lead to a
variety of health effects in people. These include premature death of people with heart or lung disease,
nonfatal heart attacks, irregular heartbeat, decreased lung function, and increased respiratory symptoms.
Regional emissions contribute to these known health effects but it is speculative for this broad based
General Plan Update to determine how exceeding the regional thresholds would affect the number of days
the region is in nonattainment since mass emissions are not correlated with concentrations of emissions or
how many additional individuals in the air basin would be affected by the health effects cited above. The
BAAQMD is the primary agency responsible for ensuring the health and welfare of sensitive individuals to
elevated concentrations of air quality in the SFBAAB. To achieve the health-based standards established by
the EPA, BAAQMD prepares an air quality management plan that detail regional programs to attain the
AAQS. However, 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 the attainment standard are met in the SFBAAB. Consequently, impacts are significant.
Applicable Regulations
AB 1493: Pavley Fuel Efficiency Standards
Title 20 CCR: Appliance Energy Efficiency Standards
Title 24, Part 6, CCR: Building and Energy Efficiency Standards
Title 24, Part 11, CCR: Green Building Standards Code
CARB Rule 2485 (13 CCR Chapter 10, Section 2485), Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Limit
Diesel-Fueled Commercial Motor Vehicle Idling
CARB Rule 2480 (13 CCR Chapter 10, Section 2480), Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Limit
School Bus Idling and Idling at Schools
CARB Rule 2477 (13 CCR Section 2477 and Article 8), Airborne Toxic Control Measure for In-Use
Diesel-Fueled Transport Refrigeration Units (TRU) and TRU Generator Sets and Facilities Where TRUs
Operate
BAAQMD, Regulation 2, Rule 2, New Source Review
BAAQMD, Regulation 2, Rule 5, New Source Review of Toxic Air Contaminants
BAAQMD Regulation 6, Rule 1, General Requirements
BAAQMD Regulation 6, Rule 2, Commercial Cooking Equipment
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
AIR QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 4.2-55
BAAQMD Regulation 7, Odorous Substances
BAAQMD Regulation 8, Rule 3, Architectural Coatings
BAAQMD Regulation 8, Rule 4, General Solvent and Surface Coatings Operations
BAAQMD Regulation 8, Rule 7, Gasoline Dispensing Facilities
BAAQMD Regulation 11, Rule 2, Asbestos, Demolition, Renovation and Manufacturing
Mitigation Measures
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.
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.
While Mitigation Measure AQ-2a would require adherence to the current Bay Area Air Quality Management
District’s basic control measures for reducing construction emissions of PM10 and Mitigation Measure AQ-2b
would require adherence to BAAQMD’s basic control measures for fugitive dust control and would ensure
impacts from fugitive dust generated during construction activities are less than significant, applicants for
future development in Cupertino could generate construction exhaust emissions in excess of the BAAQMD
significance thresholds. An analysis of emissions generated from the construction of specific future projects
under the General Plan would be required to evaluate emissions compared to BAAQMD’s project-level
significance thresholds during individual environmental review. It should be noted that the identification of
this program-level impact does not preclude the finding of less-than-significant impacts for subsequent
projects that comply with BAAQMD screening criter ia or meet applicable thresholds of significance.
However, due to the programmatic nature of the proposed Project, no additional mitigation measures are
available and the impact is considered significant and unavoidable.
Significance With Mitigation: Significant and unavoidable.
AQ-3 Implementation of the proposed 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).
This section analyzes potential impacts related to air quality that could occur from the buildout associated
with the proposed Project in combination with the regional growth within the air basin. The SFBAAB is
currently designated a nonattainment area for California and National O3, California and National PM2.5,
and California PM10 AAQS. At a plan-level, air quality impacts are measured by the potential for a project to
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
AIR QUALITY
4.2-56 JUNE 18, 2014
exceed BAAQMD’s significance criteria and contribute to the State and Federal nonattainment designations
in the SFBAAB. Any project that produces a significant regional air quality impact in an area that is in
nonattainment adds to the cumulative impact. Pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(b)(1),
cumulative impacts can be based on the growth projections in a local General Plan. Consequently, the
analysis in this chapter is the proposed Project’s contribution to cumulative impacts. The proposed Project’s
contribution to cumulative air quality impacts are identified under the discussions in Impacts AQ-1 and
AQ-2. The analyses in these sections identify whether the proposed Project would conflict with the 2010
Bay Area Clean Air Plan (Impact AQ-1) or generate a substantial increase in criteria air pollutants (Impact
AQ-2). The proposed Project would result in a higher VMT rate of growth than the rate of service
population growth and would generate a substantial increase in criteria air pollutant emissions from
construction and operational activities. Consequently, Impacts AQ-1 and AQ-2 identified regional air quality
impacts as significant and unavoidable.
Applicable Regulations
AB 1493: Pavley Fuel Efficiency Standards
Title 20 CCR: Appliance Energy Efficiency Standards
Title 24, Part 6, CCR: Building and Energy Efficiency Standards
Title 24, Part 11, CCR: Green Building Standards Code
CARB Rule 2485 (13 CCR Chapter 10, Section 2485), Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Limit
Diesel-Fueled Commercial Motor Vehicle Idling
CARB Rule 2480 (13 CCR Chapter 10, Section 2480), Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Limit
School Bus Idling and Idling at Schools
CARB Rule 2477 (13 CCR Section 2477 and Article 8), Airborne Toxic Control Measure for In-Use
Diesel-Fueled Transport Refrigeration Units (TRU) and TRU Generator Sets and Facilities Where TRUs
Operate
BAAQMD, Regulation 2, Rule 2, New Source Review
BAAQMD, Regulation 2, Rule 5, New Source Review of Toxic Air Contaminants
BAAQMD Regulation 6, Rule 1, General Requirements
BAAQMD Regulation 6, Rule 2, Commercial Cooking Equipment
BAAQMD Regulation 7, Odorous Substances
BAAQMD Regulation 8, Rule 3, Architectural Coatings
BAAQMD Regulation 8, Rule 4, General Solvent and Surface Coatings Operations
BAAQMD Regulation 8, Rule 7, Gasoline Dispensing Facilities
BAAQMD Regulation 11, Rule 2, Asbestos, Demolition, Renovation and Manufacturing
Mitigation Measures
There are no additional mitigation measures available to mitigate this impact.
Criteria air pollutant emissions generated by land uses within the proposed Project would exceed the
BAAQMD thresholds (see AQ-2). Air quality impacts identified in the discussions of Impacts AQ-1 and AQ-
2 constitute the proposed Project’s contribution to cumulative air quality impacts in the SFBAAB. Mitigation
measures AQ-2a and AQ-2b, identified above to reduce Project-related emissions, would reduce impacts to
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
AIR QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 4.2-57
the extent feasible. Due to the programmatic nature of the proposed Project, no additional mitigation
measures are available. Air pollutant emissions associated with the proposed Project would result in a
cumulatively considerable contribution to air quality impacts, and the Project’s impacts would be
significant and unavoidable.
Significance With Mitigation: Significant and unavoidable.
AQ-4 Implementation of the proposed Project would expose sensitive receptors
to substantial concentrations of air pollution.
CO Hotspots
Areas of vehicle congestion have the potential to create pockets of CO called hotspots. These pockets have
the potential to exceed the State one-hour standard of 20 parts per million (ppm) or the eight-hour standard
of 9.0 ppm. Because CO is produced in the greatest quantities from vehicle combustion and does not readily
disperse into the atmosphere, adherence to ambient air quality standards is typically demonstrated through
an analysis of localized CO concentrations. Hotspots are typically produced at intersections, where traffic
congestion is highest because vehicles queue for longer periods and are subject to reduced speeds.
The General Plan includes policies and strategies that, once adopted, would encourage bicycle, pedestrian,
and transit use to tie land use and transportation, which ensures consistency with VTA’s 2013 Congestion
Management Program. Within the Circulation Element, Policy 4-4, Improve Pedestrian and Bicycle
Circulation Throughout Cupertino, would require the City to Expand city-wide pedestrian and bicycle
circulation in order to provide improved recreation, mobility and safety. Supporting strategies include
implementing the Pedestrian Guidelines; considering developing safe, walk-able sidewalks and paths;
promoting the Safe Route to Schools program; providing additional time for pedestrians to cross streets and
other pedestrian improvements to roadways to make them more pedestrian friendly and less auto-centric;
and implementing the Bicycle Plan. Policy 4-6, Regional Trail Development, would require the City to
continue to plan and provide for a comprehensive system of trails and pathways consistent with regional
systems, including the Bay Trail, Stevens Creek Special Area and Ridge Trail and with the policies contained
in the Land Use and Community Design Element. Policy 4-7, Increased Use of Public Transit, would require
the City to support and encourage the increased use of public transit. Policy 4-9, Traffic Service and
Pedestrians Needs, would require the City to balance the needs of pedestrians with desired traffic service.
Where necessary and appropriate, allow a lowered LOS standard to better accommodate pedestrians on
major streets and at specific intersections. Policy 4-12, Street Improvement Planning, would require the
City to plan street improvements such as curb cuts, sidewalks, bus stop turnouts, bus shelters, light poles,
benches and trash containers as an integral part of a project to ensure an enhanced streetscape and the safe
movement of people and vehicles with the least possible disruption to the streetscape. Policy 4-13, Safe
Parking Lots, would direct the City to require parking lots that are safe for pedestrians. Policy 4-15, School
Traffic Impacts on Neighborhoods, would require the City to minimize the impact of school drop-off, pick-
up and parking on neighborhoods.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
AIR QUALITY
4.2-58 JUNE 18, 2014
As demonstrated by the policies above the proposed Project would be consistent with the VTA’s 2013
Congestion Management Program.33 In addition, the SFBAAB has been designated attainment under both
the national and California AAQS for CO. Under existing and future vehicle emission rates, a project would
have to increase traffic volumes at a single intersection by more than 44,000 vehicles per hour—or 24,000
vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal mixing is substantially limited—in order to generate a
significant CO impact.34 The proposed Project would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections
by more than 44,000 vehicles per hour or 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal
mixing is substantially limited. Trips associated with the proposed Project would not exceed the screening
criteria of the BAAQMD. Therefore, the proposed Project would not have the potential to substantially
increase CO hotspots at intersections in Cupertino. Localized air quality impacts related to mobile-source
emissions would therefore be less than significant.
Toxic Air Contaminants – New Sources of Air Toxics
Various industrial and commercial processes (e.g. manufacturing, dry cleaning) allowed under the existing
General Plan would be expected to release TACs. TAC emissions generated by stationary and point sources
of emissions within the SFBAAB are regulated and controlled by BAAQMD. Emissions of TAC from mobile
sources are regulated by statewide rules and regulations, not by BAAQMD, and have the potential to
generate substantial concentrations of air pollutants.
Existing land uses that have the potential to generate substantial stationary sources of emissions that would
require a permit from BAAQMD for emissions of TACs include industrial land uses, such as chemical
processing facilities, chrome-plating facilities, dry cleaners, and gasoline-dispensing facilities. Emissions of
stationary source TACs would be controlled by BAAQMD through permitting and would be subject to
further study and health risk assessment prior to the issuance of any necessary air quality permits under
BAAQMD Regulation 2, Rule 2, New Source Review, and Rule 5, New Source Review of Toxic Air
Contaminants.
Mobile sources of TACs are not regulated by BAAQMD. The primary mobile source of TACs within
Cupertino is truck idling and use of off-road equipment at warehousing operations. Warehousing operations
could generate a substantial amount of DPM emissions from off-road equipment use and truck idling. In
addition, some warehousing and industrial facilities may include use of transport refrigeration units (TRUs)
for cold storage. New land uses in Cupertino that are permitted under the proposed Project that use trucks,
including trucks with TRUs, could generate an increase in DPM that would contribute to cancer and non-
cancer health risk in the SFBAAB. Impacts could occur at facilities that permit 100 or more truck trips per
day or 40 or more trucks with TRUs within 1,000 feet of a sensitive land use. These new land uses could be
near existing sensitive receptors within and outside Cupertino. In addition, trucks would travel on regional
transportation routes through the SFBAAB contributing to near-roadway DPM concentrations.
To reduce community risk and hazards from placement of new sources of air toxics, implementation of the
General Plan policies and strategies would minimize impacts. Within the Environmental
33 Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), 2013. 2013 Congestion Management Program http://www.vta.org/sfc/
servlet.shepherd/version/download/068A0000001Q7pt, October.
34 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), 2011 (Revised), CEQA Air Quality Guidelines.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
AIR QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 4.2-59
Resources/Sustainability Element, Policy 5-5, Air Pollution Effects of New Development, would require the
City to minimize the air quality impacts of new development projects and the impacts affecting new
development. Supporting strategies requiring the City to review projects for potential generation of toxic
air contaminants at the time of approval and confer with BAAQMD on controls needed if impacts are
uncertain and assess the potential for air pollution effects of future land use and transportation planning, and
ensure that planning decisions support regional goals of improving air quality. Policy 5-6, Air Pollution
Effects of Existing Development, would require the City to minimize the air quality impacts of existing
development. Within the Land Use/Community Design Element, Policy 2-8, Neighborhood Compatibility,
would require the City to minimize potential conflicts with residential neighborhoods from noise, traffic,
light and visually intrusive effects from more intense developments with adequate buffering setbacks,
landscaping, walls, limitations, site design and other appropriate measures. This policy would require the
City to create zoning or specific plans that reduce incompatibilities between new development and existing
residential neighborhoods through measures such as: daylight planes for single-family development,
minimum setback standards, landscape screening, acoustical analysis, location and orientation of service
areas away from residential uses and limitations on hours of operation.
Policy 5-5, and the accompanying Strategy 1, Toxic Air Contaminants, would require that projects that
generate new sources of TACs would be required to reduce emissions. However, this policy does not identify
BAAQMD’s performance standards (ten in one million [10E-06], PM2.5 concentrations exceed 0.3 µg/m3
,
or the appropriate noncancer hazard index exceeds 1.0) and consequently, mitigation is needed to ensure
that new projects are evaluated in accordance with BAAQMD’s CEQA Guidelines. Community risk and
hazard impacts are significant.
Toxic Air Contaminants – Siting of Sensitive Receptors
Regulation of land uses falls outside CARB jurisdiction; however, CARB developed and approved the Air
Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective (2005) to provide guidance regarding
the siting of sensitive land uses in the vicinity of freeways, distribution centers, rail yards, ports, refineries,
chrome-plating facilities, dry cleaners, and gasoline-dispensing facilities. This guidance document was
developed to assess compatibility and associated health risks when placing sensitive receptors near existing
pollution sources.
CARB’s recommendations on the siting of new sensitive land uses were based on a compilation of recent
studies that evaluated data on the adverse health effects ensuing from proximity to air pollution sources. The
key observation in these studies is that proximity to air pollution sources substantially increases both
exposure and the potential for adverse health effects. There are three carcinogenic toxic air contaminants
that constitute the majority of the known health risks from motor vehicle traffic, DPM from trucks, and
benzene and 1,3 butadiene from passenger vehicles. Table 4.2-9 shows a summary of CARB
recommendations for siting new sensitive land uses within the vicinity of air-pollutant sources.
Recommendations in Table 4.2-9 are based on data that show that localized air pollution exposures can be
reduced by as much as 80 percent by following CARB minimum distance separations.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
AIR QUALITY
4.2-60 JUNE 18, 2014
TABLE 4.2‐9 CARB RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SITING NEW SENSITIVE LAND USES
Source/Category Advisory Recommendations
Freeways and
High‐Traffic Roads
Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 500 feet of a freeway, urban roads with 100,000 vehicles
per day, or rural roads with 50,000 vehicles per day.
Distribution Centers
Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 1,000 feet of a distribution center (that accommodates
more than 100 trucks per day, more than 40 trucks with operating transport refrigeration units [TRUs]
per day, or where TRU unit operations exceed 300 hours per week).
Take into account the configuration of existing distribution centers and avoid locating residences and
other sensitive land uses near entry and exit points.
Rail Yards Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 1,000 feet of a major service and maintenance rail yard.
Within 1 mile of a rail yard, consider possible siting limitations and mitigation approaches.
Ports Avoid siting of new sensitive land uses immediately downwind of ports in the most heavily impacted
zones. Consult local air districts or CARB on the status of pending analyses of health risks.
Refineries Avoid siting new sensitive land uses immediately downwind of petroleum refineries. Consult with local
air districts and other local agencies to determine an appropriate separation.
Chrome Platers Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 1,000 feet of a chrome plater.
Dry Cleaners Using
Perchloroethylene
Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 300 feet of any dry cleaning operation. For operations with
two or more machines, provide 500 feet. For operations with three or more machines, consult with
the local air district.
Do not site new sensitive land uses in the same building with perchloroethylene dry cleaning
operations.
Gasoline Dispensing
Facilities
Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 300 feet of a large gas station (defined as a facility with a
throughput of 3.6 million gallons per year or greater). A 50‐foot separation is recommended for typical
gas dispensing facilities.
Source: California Air Resources Board (CARB), May 2005, Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective.
Local air pollution sources in the city include mobile (e.g. State Route 85 and I-280) and stationary/area
sources (e.g. industrial, warehouse, commercial/retail, institutional, and residential).
Stationary sources in Cupertino were identified using BAAQMD’s Stationary Source Screening Analysis
Tool. There are approximately 86 potential stationary sources in or near the city. Of these sources,
approximately 4 are industrial uses, 25 emergency diesel generators, 4 auto body repair and refinishing
facilities, 23 gas stations, 13 dry cleaners, and 17 miscellaneous sources (e.g. technology companies, city
services, printing shops, furniture refinishing, etc.).
High-volume roadways with over 10,000 vehicles per day were also mapped using the California
Environmental Health Tracking Program’s (CEHTP’s) Traffic Linkage web service and 2040 traffic
projections from the traffic analysis prepared by Hexagon Transportation Consultants.35 A total of 12
high volume roadways were identified within 1,000 feet of the city, including I-280 and SR 85 (Valley
Freeway).
Figure 4.2-3 identifies major areas of the city with the potential to expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations within 1,000 feet of the sources identified.
35 California Environmental Health Tracking Program (CEHTP), 2013. Traffic linkage web service. http://www.ehib.org/
traffic_tool.jsp.
!A!A
!A
!A !A!A
!A
!A
!A
!A!A!A
!A
!A!A
!A
!A !A
!A
!A !A
!(
!A
!A!A
!A
!A
!(
!A
!(
!A !(
Ó
!A
ÓÓ!(
!(!(!(Ó
!(
!A
Ó
Ó
Ó
Ó
ÓÓÓ
Ó
!(
!(
Ó
!(
!(
!(
ÓÓÓ
!(
Ó
Ó
Ó
Ó
!(
!A
!A
!A
!A
Ó
!A
!A
!A
!A
Ó
!A!A
!A
!A
!A!A
!A
!A
!A!A!A
!A
!A!A!A
!A
Ó
!(
!A
!(
!A
!A
!(
!(
!A
!(
Ó
Ó
ÓÓÓÓ
ÓÓ
Ó
Ó
ÓÓÓ
Ó
!(!(
!(!(
!(
Ó
!(
Ó
Ó
!(
!A
Ó
City of Sunnyvale
%&'(280
|ÿ85
City of San Jose
City of
Santa Clara
Santa Clara
County
City of
Los Altos
City of Saratoga
|ÿ85
City of Sunnyvale
City of
Saratoga
City of San Jose
LA
W
R
E
N
C
Y
E
X
P
W
Y
S
B
L
A
N
E
Y
A
V
E
N
B
L
A
N
E
Y
A
V
E
B O L LI N G E R RD
N
S
T
E
L
L
I
N
G
R
D
B
U
B
B
R
D
N
TANTAU
AVE
S
D
E
A
N
Z
A
B
L
V
D
FO
O
T
H
I
L
L
B
L
V
D
N
FOOTHILL
BLVD
RAINBOW DR
HOMESTEAD RD
PRUNERIDGEAVE
M
I
L
L
ER
AVE
STEVENS CREEK BLVD
S
TANTAUAVE
G
R
A
N
T
R
D
N
D
E
A
N
Z
A
B
L
V
D
P R OS PE C T RD
MCCLELLAN RD
N
W
O
L
F
E
R
D
PROJECT DESCRIPTIONCITY OF CUPERTINOGENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING PROJECT
Figure 4.2-3Sources of Toxic Air Contaminants in the City of Cupertino
Source: City of Cupertino, 2013; MIG, Inc, 2014; Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2012; PlaceWorks, 2014.
0 0.5 10.25
Miles
Stationary Air Emission Sources
!A Contained by City Boundary
!(Within 1,000 feet of City Boundary
Ó Beyond 1,000 feet of City BoundaryHigh Volume Roadways500-foot High Volume Roadway Screening BufferRailroad200-foot Railroad Screening BufferCity Boundary
Footnote 2: Site specific analysis of the freeways,high volume roadways, and railroad is needed to determine actual screening buffer distances.
Footnote 1: Because these are screeningbuffer distances, refined analysis of the effects from high volume roadways and railroad throughair dispersion modeling would likely show muchlower potential TAC exposure.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
AIR QUALITY
4.2-62 JUNE 18, 2014
The Union Pacific (UP) rail line is included in Figure 4.2-3 since UP uses diesel-fueled locomotives, which
are a source of TAC emissions. Figure 4.2-3 also identifies a 500-foot screening area around high-volume
roadways and a 200-foot screening area for rail lines. Because these are screening distances, refined analysis
of the effects from many of the high volume roadways and rail lines would likely show much lower potential
TAC exposure and smaller buffer zones. A refined analysis or site-specific health risk assessment should be
conducted for all new sensitive sources that are sited within these areas to determine the actual health
impact.
The General Plan includes policies and strategies that, once adopted, would minimize emissions. Within the
Environmental Resources/Sustainability Element, Policy 5-5, Air Pollution Effects of New Development,
includes supporting strategy 3 and 4, which require the City to assess the potential for air pollution effects
of future land use and transportation planning, and ensure that planning decisions support regional goals of
improving air quality, and evaluate the relationship of sensitive receptors, such as convalescent hospitals and
residential uses, to pollution sources through the environmental assessment of new development. Within the
Health and Safety Element, Policy 6-28, Proximity of Residents to Hazardous Materials, would require the
City to assess future residents’ exposure to hazardous materials when new residential development of
childcare facilities are proposed in existing industrial and manufacturing areas. Do not allow residential
development if such hazardous conditions cannot be mitigated to an acceptable level of risk.
These policies and strategies together with those listed under the subheading “Toxic Air Contaminants –
New Sources of Air Toxics” and specifically the implementation of Policy 5-6, accompanying Strategy 4 and
Policy 6-28, would reduce impacts from placement of sensitive receptors proximate to major sources of air
pollution. However, future projects proximate to major sources air pollution (i.e. when within 1,000 feet of
an industrial area) would need to ensure that they could achieve BAAQMD’s performance standards (ten in
one million [10E-06], PM2.5 concentrations exceed 0.3 µg/m3
, or the appropriate noncancer hazard index
exceeds 1.0) and consequently, mitigation is needed to ensure that new projects are evaluated in accordance
with BAAQMD’s CEQA Guidelines. Consequently, impacts are significant.
Applicable Regulations
CARB Rule 2485 (13 CCR Chapter 10, Section 2485), Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Limit
Diesel-Fueled Commercial Motor Vehicle Idling
CARB Rule 2480 (13 CCR Chapter 10, Section 2480), Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Limit
School Bus Idling and Idling at Schools
CARB Rule 2477 (13 CCR Section 2477 and Article 8), Airborne Toxic Control Measure for In-Use
Diesel-Fueled Transport Refrigeration Units (TRU) and TRU Generator Sets and Facilities Where TRUs
Operate
BAAQMD, Regulation 2, Rule 2, New Source Review
BAAQMD, Regulation 2, Rule 5, New Source Review of Toxic Air Contaminants
BAAQMD Regulation 6, Rule 1, General Requirements
BAAQMD Regulation 6, Rule 2, Commercial Cooking Equipment
BAAQMD Regulation 7, Odorous Substances
BAAQMD Regulation 8, Rule 3, Architectural Coatings
BAAQMD Regulation 8, Rule 4, General Solvent and Surface Coatings Operations
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
AIR QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 4.2-63
BAAQMD Regulation 8, Rule 7, Gasoline Dispensing Facilities
BAAQMD Regulation 11, Rule 2, Asbestos, Demolition, Renovation and Manufacturing
Mitigation Measures
The proposed Project could result in the placement of 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. Non-
residential 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. Consequently, impacts are significant.
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 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 proposed 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 µg/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 proposed 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 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 μg/m3, or the appropriate noncancer hazard index exceeds 1.0, the applicant will be
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
AIR QUALITY
4.2-64 JUNE 18, 2014
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
proposed 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.
Buildout of the proposed Project could result in new sources of criteria air pollutant emissions and/or toxic
air contaminants near existing or planned sensitive receptors. Existing and proposed Project policies would
reduce concentrations of TACs and PM2.5 generated by new development. Review of projects by BAAQMD
for permitted sources of air toxics (e.g. industrial facilities, dry cleaners, and gasoline dispensing facilities)
would ensure health risks are minimized. Mitigation Measure AQ-4a would ensure that mobile sources of
TACs not covered under BAAQMD permits are considered during subsequent project-level environmental
review. Development of individual projects would be required to achieve the incremental risk thresholds
established by BAAQMD, and impacts would be less than significant. Placement of new sensitive
receptors near major sources of TACs and PM2.5 could expose people to substantial pollutant concentrations.
General Plan policies would reduce concentrations of criteria air pollutant emissions and air toxics
generated by new development. Mitigation Measure AQ-4b would ensure that placement of sensitive
receptors near major sources of air pollution would achieve the incremental risk thresholds established by
BAAQMD, and impacts would be less than significant.
Significance With Mitigation: Less than significant.
AQ-5 Implementation of the proposed Project would not create or expose a
substantial number of people to objectionable odors.
Sources of objectionable odors may occur within the city. BAAQMD’s Regulation 7, Odorous Substances,
places general limitations on odorous substances and specific emission limitations on certain odorous
compounds. In addition, odors are also regulated under BAAQMD Regulation 1, Rule 1-301, Public
Nuisance, which states that “no person shall discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air
contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance or annoyance to any considerable
number of persons or the public; or which endangers the comfort, repose, health or safety of any such
persons or the public, or which causes, or has a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or
property.” Under BAAQMD’s Rule 1-301, a facility that receives three or more violation notices within a 30
day period can be declared a public nuisance.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
AIR QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 4.2-65
There are two types of odor impacts: 1) siting sensitive receptors near nuisance odors, and 2) siting new
sources of nuisance odors near sensitive receptors. Table 4.2-10 identifies screening distances from potential
sources of objectionable odors within the SFBAAB. Odors from these types of land uses are regulated under
BAAQMD Regulation 7, Odorous Substances.36
Siting Receptors In Proximity to Odor Sources
Sensitive receptors, such as the residential uses associated with planned development under the proposed
Project, may be placed within the distances to these sources specified in Table 4.2-10. In general, the City’s
land use plan designates residential areas and commercial/industrial areas of the city to prevent potential
mixing of incompatible land use types, with the exception of mixed-use areas that combine commercial
with residential. BAAQMD Regulation 7, Odorous Substances, requires abatement of any nuisance
generated by an odor complaint. Implementation of the Policy 2-8, Neighborhood Compatibility, would
require the City to minimize potential conflicts between land uses by creating zoning or specific plans that
reduce incompatibilities between new development and existing residential neighborhoods.
Therefore, because existing sources of odors are required to comply with BAAQMD Regulation 7, impacts
to siting of new sensitive land uses would be less then significant.
Applicable Regulations
California Health & Safety Code, Section 114149
BAAQMD Regulation 7, Odorous Substances
Significance Without Mitigation: Less than significant.
Siting New Odor Sources
While not all sources in Table 4.2-10 are found in Cupertino (e.g. rendering plants, confined animal
facilities), commercial and industrial areas in Cupertino have the potential to include land uses that generate
nuisance odors.
Buildout permitted under the proposed Project could include new sources of odors, such as composting,
greenwaste, and recycling operations; food processing; chemical manufacturing; and painting/coating
operations, because these are permitted uses in the commercial and/or industrial areas in the city. Future
environmental review could be required for industrial projects listed in Table 4.2-8, above, to ensure that
sensitive land uses are not exposed to objectionable odors. BAAQMD Regulation 7, Odorous Substances,
requires abatement of any nuisance generating an odor complaint. Typical abatement includes passing air
through a drying agent followed by two successive beds of activated carbon to generate odor-free air.
Facilities listed in Table 4.2-10 would need to consider measures to reduce odors as part of their CEQA
review.
36 It should be noted that while restaurants can generate odors, these sources are not identified by BAAQMD as nuisance odors since
they typically do not generate significant odors that affect a substantial number of people. Larger restaurants that employ five or more people
are subject to BAAQMD Regulation 7, Odorous Substances.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
AIR QUALITY
4.2-66 JUNE 18, 2014
TABLE 4.2‐10 BAAQMD ODOR SCREENING DISTANCES
Land Use/Type of Operation Screening Distance
Wastewater Treatment Plan 2 miles
Wastewater Pumping Facilities 1 mile
Sanitary Landfill 2 miles
Transfer Station 1 mile
Composting Facility 1 mile
Petroleum Refinery 2 miles
Asphalt Batch Plan 2 miles
Chemical Manufacturing 2 miles
Fiberglass Manufacturing 1 mile
Painting/Coating Operations 1 mile
Rendering Plant 2 miles
Coffee Roaster 1 mile
Food Processing Facility 1 mile
Confined Animal Facility/Feed Lot/ Dairy 1 mile
Green Waste and Recycling Operations 1 mile
Metal Smelting Plants 2 miles
Source: Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), 2011, California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines, Table 3‐3, Odor
Screening Distances, and associated Appendix D of these Guidelines..
The General Plan includes policies and strategies that, once adopted, would also reduce potential land use
incompatibilities regarding objectionable odors: Within the Land Use/Community Design Element, Policy
2-8, Neighborhood Compatibility, would require the City to minimize potential conflicts with residential
neighborhoods from noise, traffic, light and visually intrusive effects from more intense developments with
adequate buffering setbacks, landscaping, walls, limitations, site design and other appropriate measures.
Create zoning or specific plans that reduce incompatibilities between new development and existing
residential neighborhoods through measures such as: daylight planes for single-family development,
minimum setback standards, landscape screening, acoustical analysis, location and orientation of service
areas away from residential uses and limitations on hours of operation. Within the Environmental
Resources/Sustainability Element, Policy 5-5, Air Pollution Effects of New Development, would require the
City to minimize the air quality impacts of new development projects and the impacts affecting new
development. Supporting strategies 3 and 4 would require the City to assess the potential for air pollution
effects of future land use and transportation planning, and ensure that planning decisions support regional
goals of improving air quality, and evaluate the relationship of sensitive receptors, such as convalescent
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
AIR QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 4.2-67
hospitals and residential uses, to pollution sources through the environmental assessment of new
development. Consequently, review of projects using BAAQMD’s odor screening distances during future
CEQA review and compliance with BAAQMD Regulation 7 would ensure that odor impacts are minimized
and are less than significant.
Applicable Regulations
California Health & Safety Code, Section 114149
BAAQMD Regulation 7, Odorous Substances
Significance Without Mitigation: Less than significant.
AQ-6 Implementation of the proposed Project would cumulatively contribute to
air quality impacts in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin.
As described under AQ-3, regional air quality impacts were identified as significant; therefore, in
combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, the proposed Project even with
implementation of applicable regulations, as well as, the Mitigation Measures AQ-2a and AQ-2b and AQ-4a
and AQ-4b and General Plan policies outlined in Impact AQ-1 through AQ-5 above, would result in a
significant cumulative impact with respect to air quality. Therefore, the impact would be significant and
unavoidable.
Significance Without Mitigation: Significant and Unavoidable.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
AIR QUALITY
4.2-68 JUNE 18, 2014
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
PLACEWORKS 4.3-1
4.3 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
This chapter describes existing biological resources in the City of Cupertino and evaluates the potential en-
vironmental consequences on biological resources from future development that could occur by adopting
and implementing proposed Project. This chapter presents the analysis of biological resources prepared by
Environmental Collaborative in April 2014. A detailed description of the environmental setting, including
regulatory framework and existing conditions, and policies and mitigation measures that would avoid or re-
duce significant impacts are provided below.
Biological resources associated with the proposed Project were identified through a review of available
background information, inspection of aerial photography, and a field reconnaissance survey of locations
with potential sensitive biological features. Available documentation was reviewed to provide information on
general resources in the central Santa Clara County area, presence of sensitive natural communities, and the
distribution and habitat requirements of special-status species which have been recorded from or are
suspected to occur in the project vicinity, including a record search conducted by the California Natural
Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and mapping of
habitat types prepared as part of the Classification and Assessment with Landsat of Visible Ecological
Groupings (CALVEG)1 habitat mapping program by the United States Department of Agriculture Forest
Service.
4.3.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
4.3.1.1 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
This section summarizes existing federal, State, regional, and local policies and regulations that apply to bio-
logical resources.
State and Federal Regulations
In addition to the environmental protections provided by the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA), other State and federal regulations have been enacted to provide for the protection and
management of sensitive biological resources. State and federal agencies have a lead role in the protection of
biological resources under their permit authority set forth in various statues and regulations. The United
States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) is responsible for administering the Migratory Bird Treaty Act
(MBTA) and the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) for freshwater and terrestrial species, while the
National Marine Fishery Service (NOAA Fisheries) is responsible for implementing the federal ESA for
marine species and anadromous fish. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) has primary responsibility
for protecting wetlands under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors
Act. At the state level, the CDFW is responsible for administration of the California Endangered Species Act
(CESA), and for protection of streams, waterbodies, and riparian corridors through the Streambed
1 The CALVEG system was initiated in January 1978 by the Region 5 Ecology Group of the US Forest Service to classify California’s exist-
ing vegetation communities for use in statewide resource planning. CALVEG maps use a hierarchical classification on the following categories:
forest; woodland; chaparral; shrubs; and herbaceous.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
4.3-2 JUNE 18, 2014
Alteration Agreement process under Section 1600-1616 of the California Fish and Game Code.
Certification from the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) is also required when a
proposed activity may result in discharge into navigable waters, pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water
Act and EPA 404(b)(1) Guidelines. The RWQCB also regulates State Waters under the Porter Cologne Act.
Special-Status Species and Sensitive Natural Communities
Special-status species are plants and animals that are legally protected under the ESA/CESA or other
regulations, as well as other species that are considered rare enough by the scientific community and trustee
agencies to warrant special consideration, particularly with regard to protection of isolated populations,
nesting or denning locations, communal roosts, and other essential habitat. Species with legal protection
under the ESA/CESA often represent major constraints to development, particularly when they are wide-
ranging or highly sensitive to habitat disturbance and where proposed development would result in a "take"
of these species. A take is a term used in the ESA to include, "harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill
trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct."
The primary information source on the distribution of special-status species in California is the CNDDB
inventory, which is maintained by the Natural Heritage Division of the CDFW. Occurrence data is obtained
from a variety of scientific, academic, and professional organizations, private consulting firms, and
knowledgeable individuals, and is entered into the inventory as expeditiously as possible. The presence of a
population of species of concern in a particular region is an indication that an additional population may
occur at another location within the region, if habitat conditions are suitable. However, the absence of an
occurrence in a particular location does not necessarily mean that special-status species are absent from the
area in question, only that no data has been entered into the CNDDB inventory. Detailed field surveys are
generally required to provide a conclusive determination of the presence or absence of sensitive resources
from a particular location, unless suitable habitat is determined to be absent.
In addition to species-oriented management, protecting habitat on an ecosystem-level is increasingly
recognized as vital to the protection of natural diversity in the state. The CNDDB also monitors the
locations of natural communities that are considered rare or threatened, known as sensitive natural
communities. The CNDDB has compiled a list of sensitive natural communities that are given a high
inventory priority for mapping and protection. Although these natural communities have no legal protective
status under the ESA/CESA, they are provided some level of protection under the CEQA Guidelines. A
project would normally be considered to have a significant effect on the environment if it would
substantially affect a sensitive natural community, such as a riparian woodland, native grassland, or coastal
salt marsh. Further loss of a sensitive natural community could also be interpreted as substantially
diminishing habitat, depending on the relative abundance, quality and degree of past disturbance, and the
anticipated impacts.
Wetlands
Although definitions vary to some degree, wetlands are generally considered to be areas that are periodically
or permanently inundated by surface or ground water, and support vegetation adapted to life in saturated
soil. Wetlands are recognized as important features at a regional and national level due to their high inherent
value to fish and wildlife, use as storage areas for storm and floodwaters, and water recharge, filtration, and
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
PLACEWORKS 4.3-3
purification functions. Technical standards for delineating wetlands have been developed by the USACE and
the USFWS, which generally define wetlands through consideration of three criteria: hydrology, soils, and
vegetation.
The CDFW, USACE, and RWQCB have jurisdiction over modifications to stream channels, riverbanks,
lakes, and other wetland features. Jurisdiction of the USACE is established through the provisions of Section
404 of the Clean Water Act, which prohibits the discharge of dredged or fill material into "waters" of the
United States without a permit, including wetlands and unvegetated "other waters". A detailed wetland
delineation and verification by the USACE would be required to determine the extent of possible
jurisdictional waters at a specific location. Riparian wetland areas regulated by the USACE are generally
defined by the “ordinary high water mark” rather than the band of adjacent riparian vegetation that tends to
extend a considerable distance up the bank from the active channel. The limits of State waters regulated by
the CDFW and RWQCB extends to the top of bank of creek channels or the limits of woody riparian
vegetation, whichever is greater. Jurisdictional authority of the CDFW over wetland areas is established
under Section 1601-1606 of the Fish and Wildlife Code, which pertains to activities that would disrupt the
natural flow or alter the channel, bed, or bank of any lake, river, or stream. The RWQCB is responsible for
upholding State water quality standards pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act and for regulating
State Waters under the Porter-Cologne Act.
Regional Regulations
Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan
The Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan (SCVHP) was prepared by Santa Clara County and a number of
participating local agencies (Local Partners) with the intent of providing a framework to protect, enhance,
and restore natural resources in specific areas of the County, while improving and streamlining the
environmental permitting process for impacts on threatened and endangered species. Participating entities
include: the County of Santa Clara, City of San Jose, City of Morgan Hill, City of Gilroy, Santa Clara Valley
Water District, and Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority. The City of Cupertino was not a
participating Local Partner and the Study Area and permit area for the SCVHP does not include any of the
Project Component locations within the city boundary, and therefore the properties within the Cupertino
city boundary are not covered by the SCVHP. 2
Local Regulations
The City of Cupertino has established policies and/or ordinances within the General Plan and Municipal
Code that are related to the protection of biological resources.
City of Cupertino General Plan 2000-2020
The City of Cupertino’s 2000-2020 General Plan, adopted on November 15, 2005 includes the
Environmental Resources/Sustainability Element in Section 5 of the General Plan. This section contains
2 Santa Clara Valley Habitat Conservation Plan, Chapter 1, Introduction, Figure 1-1, Regional Location of the Habitat Plan Study Area.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
4.3-4 JUNE 18, 2014
policies and strategies that, once adopted, would encourage the conservation and proper management of the
community’s resources and to promote sustainability.
As part of the proposed Project, some General Plan policies would be amended. Substantive policy changes
under the proposed Project include the addition, removal, or functional revision (e.g. not purely semantic)
of policies in ways that have the potential to result in a physical impact on the environment. Policies of the
2000-2020 General Plan that are relevant to biological resources and were not substantially modified (e.g.
renumbered or minor text change) are listed below in Table 4.3-1. A comprehensive list of policy changes is
provided in Appendix I, Proposed General Plan Policy Amendments, of this Draft EIR. Discussions of how
substantive policy changes may result in adverse physical changes are included in the analyses under each
impact criterion in Section 4.3.3, Impact Discussion, below.
TABLE 4.3‐1 POLICIES AND STRATEGIES OF THE CUPERTINO 2000‐2020 GENERAL PLAN
New Policy
Number
Original Policy
Number Policies and Strategies
Section 5, Environmental Resources/Sustainability
Policy 5‐14 Policy 5‐14 Recreation and Wildlife Trails. Provide open space linkages within and between properties for
both recreational and wildlife activities, most specifically for the benefit of wildlife that is
threatened, endangered or designated as species of special concern.
Strategy. Trail Easements. Require identification of creeks and water courses on site plans
and require that they be protected from adjacent development. State that trail easements for
trail linkages may be required if analysis determines that they are needed.
Policy 5‐21 Policy 5‐22 Compact Development Away from Sensitive Areas. Where such measures do not conflict with
other municipal purposes or goals, encourage, via zoning ordinances, compact development
located away from creeks, wetlands, and other sensitive areas.
Policy 5‐27 Policy 5‐27 Natural Water Courses. Retain and restore creek beds, riparian corridors, watercourses and
associated vegetation in their natural state to protect wildlife habitat and recreation potential
and assist groundwater percolation. Encourage land acquisition or dedication of such areas.
Strategy. Santa Clara Valley Water District. Work with the Santa Clara Valley Water District and
other relevant regional agencies to enhance riparian corridors and provide adequate flood
control by use of flow increase mitigation measures.
Source: City of Cupertino and Cupertino 2000‐2020 General Plan.
City of Cupertino Municipal Code
Besides the General Plan, the City of Cupertino Municipal Code is the primary tool that guides
development in the city. The City’s Municipal Code identifies land use categories, site development
regulations, and other general provisions that ensure consistency between the General Plan and proposed
development projects. The City of Cupertino Municipal Code contains all ordinances for the city. The
Municipal Code is organized by Title, Chapter, and Section. The current Municipal Code is up to date
through Ordinance 14-2117, passed March 18, 2014. The following provisions of the Municipal Code help
to minimize adverse effects to biological resources as a result of development in Cupertino:
Chapter 14.12, Protected Tree Ordinance, provides regulations for the protection, preservation, and
maintenance of trees of certain species and sizes. Removal of a protected tree requires a permit from
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
PLACEWORKS 4.3-5
the City. “Protected” trees include trees of a certain species and size in all zoning districts; heritage trees
in all zoning districts; any tree required to be planted or retained as part of an approved development
application, building permit, tree removal permit, or code enforcement action in all zoning districts;
and approved privacy protection planting in R-1 zoning districts.
Protected trees include trees of the following species that have a minimum single trunk diameter of 10
inches (31-inch circumference) or a minimum multi-trunk diameter of 20 inches (63-inch circumfer-
ence) measured as 4.5 feet from the natural grade: native oak tree species (Quercus spp.), including coast
live oak (Q. agrifolia), valley oak (Q. lobata), black oak (Q. kelloggii), blue oak (Q. douglasii), and interior
live oak (Q. wislizeni); California buckeye (Aesculus californica); big leaf maple (Acer macrophyllum); deodar
cedar (Cedrus deodara); blue atlas cedar (Cedrus atlantica ‘Glauca’); bay laurel or California bay (Umbellu-
laria californica); and western sycamore (Platanus racemosa).
The City is currently reviewing its Protected Tree Ordinance to evaluate the possibility of streamlining
the removal of Protected Trees and potentially allowing flexibility in the standards for allowing removal
of trees as long as adequate replacements are planted.
Chapter 9.19, Water Resource Protection, establishes regulations to obtain a streamside modification
permit for the streamside properties within the city. The provisions of this chapter require permit issu-
ance for any modification located on properties adjacent to a stream except when: (1) the modification
is not within a stream, including up to the top of bank; (2) less than 3 cubic yard of earthwork is provid-
ed; (2) a fence 6 feet or less in height is proposed; (3) an accessory structure 120 square feet or less in
size is proposed; (4) interior or exterior modification within the existing footprint is proposed; and (5)
the modification is for landscaping on existing single-family lots. The permit approval is based on con-
sistency guidelines and standards on streamside properties.
For a complete discussion of regulations related to water quality, see Chapter 4.8, Hydrology and Water
Quality, of the Draft EIR.
4.3.1.2 EXISTING CONDITIONS
This section describes the existing conditions of the plant and wildlife resources in Cupertino and the
Project Component areas. The following descriptions are based primarily on available background data and
review of aerial photographs of the Project Component areas.
Vegetation and Wildlife Habitat
The majority of the Cupertino city boundary has been urbanized and now supports roadways, structures,
other impervious surfaces, areas of turf, and ornamental landscaping. Remnant native trees are scattered
throughout the urbanized areas, together with non-native trees, shrubs, and groundcovers. The developed
areas within the city boundary are bordered by natural areas supporting a cover of grassland, chaparral and
brush lands, with woodlands and forest in the western portion of the city. Using data from the CALVEG
mapping program, Figure 4.3-1 shows the distribution of cover types in the city boundary based on habitat
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
4.3-6 JUNE 18, 2014
types and Table 4.3-2 provides a summary of the acreage
of each cover type. As shown, urban areas represent an
estimated 5,638 acres or roughly 78 percent of the city
boundary, with an estimated 21 percent or 1,541 acres
supporting natural vegetative cover (excludes mapped
areas of barren and cropland cover).
The proposed Project Component areas have been
developed and urbanized, including the Major Mixed-
Use Special Areas, Study Area locations, Special
Centers/Other Areas, Housing Element Sites, and the
General Plan and Zoning Consistency locations. Areas
within the Project Components are now dominated by
existing structures, pavement, and other impervious
surfaces, and are surrounded by development. Street
trees have been planted along the frontages of many of
these locations, and varying amounts of landscaping is
present on individual sites ranging from scattered tree
and shrub plantings to limited areas of turf and
groundcover plantings.
In general, urbanized areas tend to have low to poor
wildlife habitat value due to replacement of natural
communities, fragmentation of remaining open space
areas and parks, and intensive human disturbance. The diversity of urban wildlife depends on the extent and
type of landscaping and remaining open space, as well as the proximity to natural habitat. Trees and shrubs
used for landscaping provide nest sites and cover for wildlife adapted to developed areas. Typical native bird
species include the mourning dove, scrub jay, northern mockingbird, American robin, brown towhee,
American crow, and Anna’s hummingbird, among others. Introduced species include the rock dove,
European starling, house finch, and house sparrow.
Urban areas can also provide habitat for several species of native mammals such as the California ground
squirrel and striped skunk, as well as the introduced eastern fox squirrel and eastern red fox. Introduced
pest species such as the Norway rat, house mouse, and opossum are also abundant in developed areas.
Wetlands
Wetlands and jurisdictional waters within the city boundary include creek corridors and associated riparian
scrub and woodland, and areas of freshwater marsh around ponds, seeps, springs, and other waterbodies.
Some remnant stands of riparian scrub and woodland occur along segments of the numerous creeks through
the urbanized valley floor.
The following creeks run through Cupertino on their way to the South San Francisco Bay: Permanente
Creek, Heney Creek, Stevens Creek, Regnart Creek, Prospect Creek, Calabazas Creek, and Saratoga Creek.
TABLE 4.3‐2 ESTIMATED VEGETATION COVER IN
CITY BOUNDARY
Vegetation Cover
City Boundary
(Acres)
Annual Grass 329
Barren 15
Blue Oak Woodland 6
Coastal Oak Woodland 591
Chamise‐Redshank Chaparral 298
Cropland 36
Coastal Scrub 168
Lacustrine 6
Montane Hardwood 1
Urban 5,638
Montane Hardwood‐Conifer 1
Redwood 7
Valley Oak Woodland 37
Valley Foothill Riparian 103
Total 7,236
Source: CALVEG, 2007.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
PLACEWORKS 4.3-7
These creeks are shown on Figure 4.3-1. As shown on this figure, the Permanente Creek flows through the
northwest corner of Cupertino in a relatively unmodified natural channel. Stevens Creek bisects the
western portion of Cupertino. Calabazas Creek and its tributaries, Regnart Creek and Prospect Creek, run
through the eastern portion of Cupertino. The Calabazas Creek, a riparian corridor, runs under the eastern
portion of the Heart of the City Special Area and travels through the southeast corner of the North Vallco
Special Area.
Potential future development would not encompass these creek corridors or contain other regulated waters
because they are all developed and located in urbanized areas. For a detailed discussion on water quality
impacts to these waterway, see Chapter 4.8, Hydrology and Water Quality, of this Draft EIR.
Special-Status Species
Records maintained by the CNDDB and other information sources indicate that a number of special-status
plant and animal species have been historically reported from or are suspected to occur in the Cupertino
vicinity and surrounding area of Santa Clara County. Figure 4.3-2 shows the distribution of the CNDDB
records in the area surrounding Cupertino, including species name and extent of mapped occurrence. In
general, the larger the occurrence record that is shown in Figure 4.3-2, the less accurate and older the
record. Some historic occurrences, such as those for the California tiger salamander on the floor of the
Santa Clara Valley, are from collections made a century or more ago and are no longer believed to occur
where urbanization has replaced natural cover. Most of the CNDDB occurrence records in the Cupertino
vicinity are from the remaining natural lands in the western portion of the city boundary, or along the
remaining natural features like Stevens Creek. As shown on Figure 4.3-2, the natural portions of the other
creeks that run through the city do not have any CNDDB occurrence records.
In general, suitable habitat for special-status species is absent in the proposed Project Component locations
due to the extent of past disturbance or lack of essential habitat characteristics. No special-status plant or
animal species have been reported from within the actual limits of proposed Project Component locations
where any future development is anticipated. The proposed Project Component locations have been
improved with structures and paving, are heavily landscaped with non-native cover, or have been highly
disturbed by other human activities, limiting the likely presence of special-status plant or animal species.
There is a possibility that birds could nest in trees and other landscaping on the proposed Project
Component locations. The nests of most bird species are protected under the MBTA when in active use and
there is a remote possibility that one or more raptor species protected under the MBTA and CDFW Code
could nest on one or more of the proposed Project Component locations, particularly if located near creek
corridors or other heavily vegetated areas. These include both the Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperi) and
white-tailed kite (Elanus leuocurus), which have reported CNDDB occurrences within the city boundary (see
Figure 4.3-2), together with more common raptors such as red-tailed hawk, great horned owl, and
American kestrel, all of which are protected by the MBTA and CDFW Code when their nests are in active
use.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
4.3-8 JUNE 18, 2014
Sensitive Natural Communities
Several of the natural communities within the Cupertino city boundary are considered to have a high
inventory priority with the CNDDB, and should receive appropriate recognition as part of environmental
review. These natural communities have been designated as sensitive due to rarity and continuing loss as a
result of development, flood control improvements, and other factors. Sensitive natural communities that
may occur within the undeveloped, western portion of the city boundary include freshwater marsh,
freshwater seeps and springs, willow riparian scrub, riparian forest and woodland, valley oak woodland,
redwood forest, associations of chaparral, and native grasslands. Some remnant stands of riparian scrub and
woodland occur along segments of the numerous creeks through the urbanized valley floor, including
Stevens Creek, Calabazas Creek, Saratoga Creek, Regnart Creek and Heney Creek. However, none of the
proposed Project Component locations contain occurrences of sensitive natural communities because they
are all developed and located in urbanized areas.
4.3.2 THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
According to Appendix G, Environmental Checklist, of the CEQA Guidelines, the proposed Project would
have a potentially significant impact on biological resources if it would:
1. 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.
2. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community type.
3. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act, through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means.
4. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species,
their wildlife corridors or nursery sites.
5. Conflict with any local ordinances or policies protecting biological resources.
6. Conflict with an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan or other
approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan.
4.3.2.1 THRESHOLDS NOT DISCUSSED FURTHER
With regards to Threshold 6, as discussed in Section 4.3.3.1, no adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plans encompass the proposed Project Component locations, and the proposed
land use activities would not conflict with any adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved conservation plan, and no impact is therefore anticipated.
Accordingly, no further discussion of this topic is warranted in this Draft EIR.
|ÿ82
%&'(280
|ÿ82
|ÿ82
%&'(280
%&'(280
BOLLI
N
G
E
R
R
D
S
B
L
A
N
E
Y
A
V
E
RAINBOW DR
BOLLINGER RD
N
S
T
E
L
L
I
N
G
R
D
N
T
A
N
T
A
U
A
V
E
MCCLELLAN RD
S
D
E
A
N
Z
A
B
L
V
D
RAINBOW DR
BU
B
B
R
D
BL
A
N
E
Y
A
V
E
FO
O
T
H
I
L
L
B
L
V
D
N
F
O
O
T
H
I
L
L
B
L
V
D
N
D
E
A
N
Z
A
B
L
V
D
HOMESTEAD RD
STEVENS CREEK BLVD
S
TANTAU
AVE
P RO S P ECT RD
N
W
O
L
F
E
R
D
S
W
O
L
F
E
R
D
N
B
L
A
N
E
Y
A
V
E
BU
B
B
R
D
B
U
B
B
R
D
S
S
T
E
L
L
I
N
G
R
D
MI
L
L
E
R
A
V
E
MILLER
A
V
E
L O Y O L A C REEK
CALABAZ A S C R E E K
S A R A T O GACREEK
H E N E Y C R EEK
OHLONE CR E E K
PE R MANENTECRE E K
WEST BRANCHPER M A NENTECREEK
MON TE BELLO CREEK
REGNARTCREEK
R O DEOCREEK
STEVENSCRE E KSWISSCREEK
PROSPECT CREEK
JUNIPERO SERRA CHANNEL SU
N
N
Y
V
A
L
E
E
A
S
T
C
H
A
N
N
E
L
STEVENSCREEK
STEVENS CREEK BRANCH B
SAN TOMAS AQUINO CREEK
0 0.5 10.25
Miles
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCESCITY OF CUPERTINOGENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING PROJECT
Figure 4.3-1Vegetation and Habitat Types
Source: USDA Forest Service, CALVEG: A Classification of California Vegetation, 2007; City of Cupertino, 2013; PlaceWorks, 2014.
Chamise-Redshank ChaparralCroplandCoastal ScrubLacustrineBlue Oak WoodlandCoastal Oak Woodland
BarrenAnnual Grass
Montane Hardwood-Conifer
Montane HardwoodUrban
Redwood
Valley Oak WoodlandValley Foothill RiparianProject ComponentsCity Boundary
|ÿ82
%&'(280leo
ww
abm
SCrr
SCrr
SCrr
Am
Blb
Apf*lblTbb
uf SFgs*
SCrr
SCkr Crf
Crf
Cts
wl
wl
wk
ww Ch
LPh ww
IVb
hb
Ct
Cts
rs
Ch
abmhb
hp
bo
bo
BOLLINGER R D
S
B
L
A
N
E
Y
A
V
E
BO LLI N GE R RD
N
S
T
E
L
L
I
N
G
R
D
N
TANTAU
AVE
MCCLELLAN RD
S
D
E
A
N
Z
A
B
L
V
D
BU
B
B
R
D
BLANEY
A
V
E
N
FO
OT
H
I
LL
BLVD
HOMESTEAD RD
STEVENS CREEK BLVD
S
TANTAU
AVE
P R O S P ECT RD
N
B
L
A
N
E
Y
A
V
E
BU
B
B
R
D
S
S
T
E
L
L
I
N
G
R
D
MIL
L
E
R
AVE
L
O
Y
OLA
C
REEK
M AG D ALE N A C REE K
H
E
N
E
Y
CR E E K
DAVE S CREEKBOOKERCREEK
P U R ISSIM A C R E E K
O H L O N E C REEK
P E R M ANENTECREE
K
V ASONACANAL
M
I
S
T
L
E
T
O
E
C
R
E
E
K
W
EST
B
RANCHPERMANENTECREEK
MONTEBELLO CREEK
A D O B E C R E E K
H A L E C REEK
VAS O NA CREEK
S U M M E R HILLCHANNEL
SO BE Y C R E E K
CALABAZAS C R E E K
DEER C R E E K
SA R A TOGACREE K
REGNARTCREE K
PAGE DITCH
RODEOCREEK
SW I S S CREEK
ROSS
C
R
E
E
K
G
UADALU
PE
RI
V
E
R
SUNNYVALEEASTCHANNEL
LO S G A T O S C R E E K
PROS P E CTCREEK
S MITHCREEK
ST
E
V
E
NSCREEKBRAN
C
HC
EL C A M INO
STO
RM
DRAIN
PERMANENTE DIVERSION CHANNEL
WI LDCAT CREEK
STEVENSCREEKBRANCHB
SA N T O M A SAQ U I N O CREEK
S T E V E N S C R EE K
N O R T H F O R K A D O B E C R E E K
WEST
F
O
R
K
A
D
OBE
C
R
E
E
K
KIRK DISTRIBUTIONSYSTEM
B
U
C
K
E
Y
E
C
R
E
E
K
BAYCREEK
SARATOGA
CREEK
JUNIPEROSERRACHANNEL
IND
I
A
N
C
A
B
I
N
C
R
E
E
K
STEVENS C R E E K BRANCH D
I N D IA NCREEK
STEVENS CREEKBRAN C H A
G O L D M IN E CR EE K
PAGE DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM - UPPER
GUADALUPE SECONDARY CHANNEL
SANBORN CREEKCONGRESS SPRINGS CANYON
LOS TRANCOS CREEK
EAST SMITH CREEK
ADOBE CREEK DIVERSION
EAST BRANCH EL CAMINO STORM DRAIN
0 1 20.5
Miles
CNDDB Special-Status Plant SpeciesAnderson's manzanita (Am)Ben Lomond buckwheat (BLb)Congdon's tarplant (Ct)Indian Valley bush-mallow (IVb)Kings Mountain manzanita (KMm)Loma Prieta hoita (LPh)
Santa Clara red ribbons (SCrr)arcuate bush-mallow (abm)hairless popcornflower (hp)long-beard lichen (lbl)robust spineflower (rs)western leatherwood (wl)woodland woollythreads (ww)
CNDDB Special-Status Animal SpeciesAmerican peregrine falcon (Apf)* California red-legged frog (Crf)California tiger salamander (Cts)Cooper's hawk (Ch)San Francisco garter snake (SFgs)*Santa Cruz kangaroo rat (SCkr)
Townsend's big-eared bat (Tbb)Yuma myotis (Ym)burrowing owl (bo)hoary bat (hb)long-eared owl (leo)unsilvered fritillary(uf)white-tailed kite (wk)
Project ComponentsCity Boundary
Source: California Natural Diversity Database, 2008; City of Cupertino, 2013; PlaceWorks, 2014.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCESCITY OF CUPERTINOGENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING PROJECT
Figure 4.3-2Special-Status Plant and Animal Species
This species has sensitive location data not disclosed by CNDDB.Entire quadrangles are shown for the public record, encompassingareas with no suitable habitat in some locations.
*
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
PLACEWORKS 4.3-11
4.3.3 IMPACT DISCUSSION
This section discusses the impacts of the proposed Project Components on the biological resources in the
city. The discussion of potential project impacts is organized by and responds to each of the potential impacts
identified in the Thresholds of Significance.
BIO-1 Implementation of the proposed 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.
Development and land use activities as a result of implementation of the proposed Project would occur in
urbanized areas where special-status species are generally not expected to occur. The potential for
occurrence of special-status species in developed areas is generally very remote in comparison to
undeveloped lands with natural habitat that contain essential habitat characteristics for the range of species
known from the west Cupertino vicinity.
The General Plan includes policies and strategies that, once adopted, would minimize impacts to special-
status species associated with potential future development under the proposed Project. Policy 5-9,
Development Near Sensitive Areas, would require the City to encourage the clustering of new development
away from sensitive areas such as riparian corridors, wildlife habitat and corridors, public open space
preserves and ridgelines. Additionally, new developments in these areas must have a harmonious
landscaping plan approved prior to development. Strategy 1, Riparian Corridor Protection, would direct the
City to require riparian corridor protection through the development approval process. Policy 5-10,
Landscaping Near Natural Vegetation, would require the City to, per the City’s Water Efficient Landscaping
Ordinance, Environmentally Preferable Procurement Policy, and the Parks & Recreation Green Policies,
continue to Emphasize drought tolerant and pest resistant native and non-invasive, nonnative, drought
tolerant plants and ground covers when landscaping properties near natural vegetation, particularly for
control of erosion from disturbance to the natural terrain. The strategy for this policy, Native Plants, would
require the City to encourage drought tolerant native and drought tolerant, noninvasive, non-native plants
and trees, and minimize lawn area in the hillsides. Policy 5-14, Recreation and Wildlife Trails, would require
the City to provide open space linkages within and between properties for both recreational and wildlife
activities, most specifically for the benefit of wildlife that is threatened, endangered, or designated as species
of special concern. Policy 5-18, Natural Water Bodies and Drainage Systems, would require the City to
require that site design respect the natural topography and drainages to the extent practicable to reduce the
amount of grading necessary and limit disturbance to natural water bodies and natural drainage systems
caused by development including roads, highways, and bridges. Strategy 1 for this policy, Volunteer
Program, would require the City to encourage volunteer organizations to help restore and clean creek beds
in Cupertino to reduce pollution and help return waterways to their natural state. Policy 5-21, Compact
Development Away from Sensitive Areas, would require the City to, where such measures do not conflict
with other municipal purposes or goals, encourage, via zoning ordinances, compact development located
away from creeks, wetlands, and other sensitive areas. Policy 5-27, Natural Water Courses, would require
the City to retain and restore creek beds, riparian corridors, watercourses and associated vegetation in their
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
4.3-12 JUNE 18, 2014
natural state to protect wildlife habitat and recreation potential and assist groundwater percolation.
Encourage land acquisition dedication of such areas. Strategy 4 under Proposed Policy 2-20 would require
the City to avoid the use of invasive, non-native trees when conducting new or replacement street tree
planting. This policy would serve to improve urban habitat for native and special-status species.
However, 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 proposed Project Component locations. Given the remote potential for occurrence of
nesting birds at one or more of the proposed 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.
Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measure is recommended to minimize the possible loss or abandonment of nests of
birds protected under the federal MBTA and CDFG Code:
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.
Significance With Mitigation: Less than significant.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
PLACEWORKS 4.3-13
BIO-2 Implementation of the proposed Project would not have a substantial
adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community
type.
Development and land use activities consistent with the proposed Project Components would occur in
urbanized areas where sensitive natural communities are absent; therefore, no impact would occur.
Significance Without Mitigation: No impact.
BIO-3 Implementation of the proposed Project would not have a substantial
adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of
the Clean Water Act, through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means.
Development and land use activities consistent with the proposed Project Components would occur in ur-
banized areas where jurisdictional waters are absent. Indirect impacts to wetlands and jurisdictional other
waters include: 1) an increase in the potential for sedimentation due to construction grading and ground
disturbance, 2) an increase in the potential for erosion due to increased runoff volumes generated by imper-
vious surfaces, and 3) an increase in the potential for water quality degradation due to increased levels in
non-point pollutants. However, indirect impacts could be largely avoided through effective implementation
of Best Management Practices (BMP) during construction and compliance with water quality controls. As
discussed in Section 4.8.1.1, Regulatory Framework, Chapter 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, of this
Draft EIR, water quality in stormwater runoff is regulated locally by the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff
Pollution Prevention Program, which includes provision C.3 of the Municipal Regional Storm Water Na-
tional Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit (MRP) adopted by the San Francisco Bay
RWQCB. Adherence to these permit conditions requires new development or redevelopment projects to
incorporate treatment measures, an agreement to maintain them, and other appropriate source control and
site design features that reduce pollutants in runoff to the maximum extent practicable. Many of the re-
quirements involve low impact development (LID) practices such as the use of onsite infiltration that reduce
pollutant loading. Incorporation of these measures can even improve on existing conditions.
In addition, future development would be required to comply with the NPDES Permit (Municipal Code
Chapter 9.18, Storm Water Pollution Prevention and Watershed Protection) and implement a construction
Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that require the incorporation of BMPs to control sedi-
mentation, erosion, and hazardous materials contamination of runoff during construction.
The indirect water quality-related issues are discussed further in Chapter 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality,
of this Draft EIR. As discussed in Impact HYDRO-1, water quality impacts would be less than significant.
Significance Without Mitigation: Less than significant.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
4.3-14 JUNE 18, 2014
BIO-4 Implementation of the proposed Project would not interfere substantially
with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife
species, their wildlife corridors or nursery sites.
Development and land use activities consistent with the proposed Project Components would occur in
urbanized areas where sensitive wildlife resources and important wildlife movement corridors are no longer
present because of existing development. Wildlife species common to urban and suburban habitat could be
displaced where existing structures are demolished and landscaping is removed as part of future
development, but these species are relatively abundant, and adapted to human disturbance. Compliance with
the General Plan policies and strategies would ensure that new structures and landscaping installed as part
of future development would provide replacement habitat for wildlife species adapted to urban areas.
Additionally, Strategy 4 under Proposed Policy 2-20 would require the City to avoid use of invasive non-
native trees when conducting new or replacement street tree planting. This policy would serve to improve
urban habitat linkages for migration of native and special-status species. Potential impacts on the movement
of fish and wildlife, wildlife corridors, or wildlife nursery sites would be considered less than significant.
Significance Without Mitigation: Less than significant.
BIO-5 Implementation of the proposed Project would not conflict with any local
ordinances or policies protecting biological resources.
Development and land use activities consistent with the proposed Project would occur in urbanized areas
where sensitive biological and wetland resources are generally considered to be absent, and no major
conflicts with the relevant policies or ordinances in the Cupertino General Plan and/or Municipal Code are
anticipated.
With adherence to the General Plan policies listed in impact discussion BIO-1, and the Protected Tree
Ordinance and Water Protection Ordinance, no conflicts with local plans and policies are anticipated, and
impacts would be considered less than significant.
Significance Without Mitigation: Less than significant.
BIO-6 Implementation of the No Project alternative, in combination with past,
present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, would not result in significant
cumulative impacts with respect to biological resources.
As discussed in Chapter 4, Environmental Evaluation, of this Draft EIR, this EIR takes into account growth
projected by the proposed 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). The geographic scope of the
cumulative analysis for biological resources considers the surrounding incorporated and unincorporated
lands, and the region.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
PLACEWORKS 4.3-15
The potential impacts of proposed development on biological resources tend to be site-specific, and the
overall cumulative effect would be dependent on the degree to which significant vegetation and wildlife
resources are protected on a particular site. This includes preservation of well-developed native vegetation
(native grasslands, oak woodlands, riparian woodland, etc.), populations of special-status plant or animal
species, and wetland features (including freshwater seeps and tributary drainages).
To some degree, cumulative development contributes to an incremental reduction in the amount of existing
wildlife habitat, particularly for birds and larger mammals. Habitat for species intolerant of human
disturbance can be lost as development encroaches into previously undeveloped areas, disrupting or
eliminating movement corridors and fragmenting the remaining suitable habitat retained within parks,
private open space, or undeveloped properties. New development in the region would result in further
conversion of existing natural habitats to urban and suburban conditions, limiting the existing habitat values
of the surrounding area. This could include further loss of wetlands and sensitive natural communities,
reduction in essential habitat for special-status species, removal of mature native trees and other important
wildlife habitat features, and obstruction of important wildlife movement corridors. Additional
development may also contribute to degradation of the aquatic habitat in the creeks throughout the region,
including the Project Study Area.
Grading associated with construction activities generally increases erosion and sedimentation, and urban
pollutants from new development would reduce water quality. However, most of the parcels within Project
Component locations are already developed and occur within urbanized areas, thus avoiding or diminishing
effects on biological resources. With implementation of the Mitigation Measures BIO-1 identified above, the
proposed Project would not make a significant contribution to cumulative impacts to biological resources.
Therefore, the proposed Project would result in a less-than-significant cumulative impact on biological
resources.
Significance With Mitigation: Less than significant.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
4.3-16 JUNE 18, 2014
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
CULTURAL RESOURCES
PLACEWORKS 4.4-1
4.4 CULTURAL RESOURCES
This chapter describes existing cultural resources in the City of Cupertino and evaluates the potential
environmental consequences on cultural resources from future development that could occur by adopting
and implementing the proposed Project. Cultural resources include historically and architecturally
significant resources, as well as archaeological and paleontological resources. The analysis in this chapter is
based in part on the Cultural Resources Study prepared for the proposed Project dated July 24, 2013, by
Tom Origer & Associates. The Cultural Resources Study is included in this Draft EIR as Appendix D,
Cultural Resources Data.
4.4.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
4.4.1.1 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
This section summarizes the existing federal, State, and local policies and regulations that apply to cultural
resources. There are no regional policies or regulations regarding this subject.
Federal Regulations
National Historic Preservation Act
The National Register of Historic Places (National Register) established by the National Historic
Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended, recognizes properties that are significant at local, State, and
national levels. Officially, designated historical resources include districts, sites, buildings, structures, and
objects.
Properties that are eligible for listing in the National Register are afforded the same protection given to
properties that are listed in the National Register.
For a property to be eligible for listing in the National Register, it must be significant in American history,
architecture, archaeology, engineering, or culture, and must retain integrity in terms of location, design,
setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. Resources less than 50 years in age, unless of
exceptional importance, are not eligible for the National Register. Though a listing in the National Register
does not prohibit demolition or alteration of a property, California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
requires the evaluation of project effects on properties that are listed in the National Register.
American Indian Religious Freedom Act and Native American Graves and
Repatriation Act
The American Indian Religious Freedom Act recognizes that Native American religious practices, sacred
sites, and sacred objects have not been properly protected under other statutes. It establishes as national
policy that traditional practices and beliefs, sites (including right of access), and the use of sacred objects
shall be protected and preserved. Additionally, Native American remains are protected by the Native
American Graves and Repatriation Act of 1990.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
CULTURAL RESOURCES
4.4-2 JUNE 18, 2014
Paleontological Resources Preservation Act
The Federal Paleontological Resources Preservation Act of 2002 codifies the generally accepted practice of
limited vertebrate fossil collection and limited collection of other rare and scientifically significant fossils by
qualified researchers. Researchers must obtain a permit from the appropriate State or federal agency and
agree to donate any materials recovered to recognized public institutions, where they will remain accessible
to the public and to other researchers.
State Regulations
California Environmental Quality Act
Public Resources Code Section 21083.2 provides for protection of unique archaeological resources.
Preservation of unique archaeological sites is the preferred treatment (21083.2[b]) however, if sites are not
be preserved in place, mitigation measures shall be required as provided in 21083.2(c).
Section 21084.1 addresses the issue of historical resources, which includes prehistoric Native American
resources, historical-era archaeological deposits, buildings, structures, objects, and districts. Historical
resources are defined as resources that are listed in or determined to be eligible for listing in the California
Register of Historical Resources. It also includes resources included in a local register of historical resources
or otherwise determined to be historically significant under section 5024.1.
Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines states that a project that may cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of a historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment. The
CEQA Guidelines define four ways that a property can qualify as a historical resource for purposes of
CEQA compliance:
The resource is listed in or determined eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical
Resources, as determined by the State Historical Resources Commission.
The resource is included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in Section 5020.1(k) of the
Public Resources Code, or identified as significant in a historical resource survey meeting the
requirements of Section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code, unless the preponderance of evidence
demonstrates that it is not historically or culturally significant.
The lead agency determines the resource to be significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific,
economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California, as
supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record.
The lead agency determines that the resource may be a historical resource as defined in Public
Resources Code Sections 5020.1(j) or 5024.1 (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5) which means, in
part, that it may be eligible for the California Register.
In addition, Public Resources Code Section 21083.2 and Sections 15064.5(c), 15064(f), and 15126.4(b) of
the CEQA Guidelines specify lead agency responsibilities to determine whether a project may have a
significant effect on unique archaeological resources. If it can be demonstrated that a project will damage a
unique archaeological resource, the lead agency may require reasonable efforts for the resources to be
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
CULTURAL RESOURCES
PLACEWORKS 4.4-3
preserved in place or left in an undisturbed state. Preservation in place is the preferred approach to
mitigation. The Public Resources Code also details required mitigation if unique archaeological resources
are not preserved in place.
Section 15064.5(d) and (e) of the CEQA Guidelines specifies procedures to be used in the event of a
discovery of Native American human remains on non-federal land. Section 15064.5(d) addresses procedures
when an initial study identifies the existence or probable likelihood of Native American human remains
within a project area. Section 15064.5(e) provides guidance for accidental discovery of any human remains
after a project is already under way. These provisions protect such remains from disturbance, vandalism, and
inadvertent destruction, establish procedures to be implemented if Native American skeletal remains are
discovered during construction of a project, and establish the Native American Heritage Commission
(NAHC) as the authority to identify the Most Likely Descendant (MLD) and mediate any disputes regarding
disposition of such remains.
California Register of Historic Resources
The California Register of Historic Places (California Register) establishes a list of properties to be
protected from substantial adverse change (Public Resources Code Section 5024.1). The office of Historic
Preservation (OHP) advocates that all historical resources over 45 years old be recorded for inclusion in the
OHP filing system, although the use of professional judgment is urged in determining whether a resource
warrants documentation.1 A historical resource may be listed in the California Register if it meets any of the
following criteria.
It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or
regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the United States.
It is associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history.
It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction;
represents the work of a master; or possesses high artistic value.
It has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in the pre-history or history of the local
area, California, or the nation.
In addition to meeting one or more of the four criteria listed above, a property must possess “integrity,”
defined as the ability to convey its significance. Seven elements are considered key in considering a
property’s integrity: location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association.
The California Register includes properties that are listed or have been formally determined eligible for
listing in the National Register, State Historical Landmarks, and eligible Points of Historical Interest. Other
resources that may be eligible for the California Register, and which require nomination and approval for
listing by the State Historic Resources Commission, include:
Resources contributing to the significance of a local historic district;
1 Office of Historic Preservation, Instructions For Recording Historical Resources, March 1995, page 2.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
CULTURAL RESOURCES
4.4-4 JUNE 18, 2014
Individual historical resources;
Historical resources identified in historic surveys conducted in accordance with OHP procedures;
Historic resources or districts designated under a local ordinance consistent with the procedures of the
State Historic Resources Commission; and
Local landmarks or historic properties designated under local ordinance.
Additionally, for a resource to be eligible for the California Register of Historic Resources, it must retain
sufficient integrity to be recognizable as a historical resource and to convey its significance.
2010 California Historical Building Code, California Code of Regulations, Title 24,
Part 8
The California Historical Building Code (CHBC) (as set forth in Sections 18950 to 18961 of Division 13,
Part 2.7 of Health and Safety Code and as subject to the rules and regulations set forth in 24 CCR Part 8),
provides regulations and standards for the rehabilitation, preservation, restoration (including related
reconstruction) or relocation of historical buildings, structures, and properties determined by any level of
government as having importance to the history, architecture, or culture of an area.
Health and Safety Code Sections 7052 and 7050.5
Section 7052 of the Health and Safety Code states that the disinterment of remains known to be human,
without authority of law, is a felony. Section 7050.5 requires that construction or excavation be stopped in
the vicinity of discovered human remains until the county coroner can determine whether the remains are
those of a Native American. If determined to be Native American, the coroner must contact the NAHC.
California State Senate Bill 18
Senate Bill (SB) 18, which went into effect January 1, 2005, set forth requirements for local governments
(cities and counties) to consult with Native American tribes to aid in the protection of traditional tribal
cultural places through local land use planning.2 The intent of SB 18 is to provide California Native American
tribes an opportunity to participate in local land use decisions at an early stage of planning for the purpose
of protecting, or mitigating impacts to, cultural places. The purpose of involving tribes at these early
planning stages is to allow consideration of cultural places in the context of broad local land use policy prior
to individual site-specific, project-level land use designations are made by a local government.
In compliance with SB 18, the NAHC, members of the Amah Mutsun Tribal Band, the Amah Mutsun Tribal
Band of Mission San Juan Bautista, the Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of Costanoan, the Muwekma Ohlone
Indian Tribe of the SF Bay Area, the Ohnlone Indian Tribe, the Trina Marine Ruano Family, Jakki Kehl,
Katherine Erolinda Perez, and Linda G. Yamane were contacted in writing on July 25, 2013 as part of the
2 SB 18 amends Government Sections (GC) 65040.2, 65092, 65351 and 65560, while adding GC sections 65352.3, 65352.4 and
65562.5.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
CULTURAL RESOURCES
PLACEWORKS 4.4-5
preparation of the EIR. As of April 4, 2014, no responses from the Native American community were
received. Copies of correspondence letters are included in Appendix D, Cultural Resources Data, of this
Draft EIR.
Public Resources Code Section 5097
Public Resources Code Section 5097 specifies the procedures to be followed in the event of the unexpected
discovery of human remains on non-federal public lands. The disposition of Native American burials falls
within the jurisdiction of the NAHC, which prohibits willfully damaging any historical, archaeological, or
vertebrate paleontological site or feature on public lands.
Local Regulations
City of Cupertino General Plan 2000-2020
The City of Cupertino’s 2000-2020 General Plan, adopted on November 15, 2005, contains the Land
Use/Community Design Element in Section 2 of the General Plan. This section contains goals and policies
meant to encourage the conservation and proper management of the community’s historic and cultural
resources. As part of the proposed Project, some General Plan policies would be amended. Substantive
policy changes under the proposed Project include the addition, removal, or functional revision (e.g. not
purely semantic) of policies in ways that have the potential to result in a physical impact on the environment.
Policies of the 2000-2020 General Plan that are relevant to cultural resources and were not substantially
modified (e.g. renumbered or minor text change) are listed below in Table 4.4-1. A comprehensive list of
policy changes is provided in Appendix I, Proposed General Plan Policy Amendments, of this Draft EIR.
Discussions of how substantive policy changes may result in adverse physical changes are included in the
analyses under each impact criterion in Section 4.4.3, Impact Discussion, below.
TABLE 4.4‐1 POLICIES AND STRATEGIES OF THE CUPERTINO 2000‐2020 GENERAL PLAN
New Policy
Number
Original Policy
Number Policies and Strategies
Section 2, Land Use/Community Design
Policy 2‐68 Policy 2‐62C Community Landmarks. Projects on Landmark Sites shall provide a plaque, reader board and/or
other educational tools on the site to explain the historic significance of the resource. The plaque
shall include the city seal, name of resource, date it was built, a written description and
photograph and shall be placed in a location where the public can view the information.
Policy 2‐69 Policy 2‐62D Historic Mention/Interest Sites. Encourage agencies that have jurisdiction over the historical
resource to encourage rehabilitation of the resource and provide public access to foster public
awareness and provide educational opportunities. These are sites outside the City’s jurisdiction,
but have contributed to the City’s historic past.
Source: City of Cupertino and the Cupertino 2000‐2020 General Plan.
City of Cupertino Municipal Code
Besides the General Plan, the City of Cupertino Municipal Code is the primary tool that shapes the form
and character of physical development in the Cupertino. The Municipal Code contains all ordinances for the
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
CULTURAL RESOURCES
4.4-6 JUNE 18, 2014
city, and identifies land use categories, site development regulations, and other general provisions that
ensure consistency between the General Plan and proposed development projects. The Municipal Code is
organized by Title, Chapter, and Section. The current Municipal Code is up to date through Ordinance 14-
2117, passed March 18, 2014.Title 19 of the Municipal Code is the City’s Zoning Ordinance, which, among
other purposes, is intended to assure the orderly and beneficial development of the city, attain a desirable
balance of residential and employment opportunities, and promote efficient urban design and arrangement.
The Zoning Ordinance contains the standards for architectural and site review and aesthetic criteria for new
development. For instance, a proposed development should ensure compatibility to adjacent uses in terms
of architectural style and building size.
4.4.1.2 EXISTING CONDITIONS
This section provides an overview of the history of Cupertino and of resources of paleontological,
archeological, and historical significance that may be affected by the proposed Project.
Methods
The cultural resources analysis conducted by Tom Origer & Associates on July 24, 2013, included as
Appendix D, Cultural Resources Data, of this Draft EIR, consists of archival research at the Northwest
Information Center at Sonoma State University, examination of the library and files, field inspection, and
contact with the Native American community.
Record Searches
Records searches were conducted to identify cultural resources within the city. Records searches were
conducted at the Northwest Information Center (NWIC) of the California Historical Resources
Information System, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park; the California NAHC, Sacramento; and the
University of California Museum of Paleontology (UCMP), Berkeley. The NWIC, an affiliate of the State of
California Office of Historic Preservation, is the official State repository of cultural resources records and
reports for Santa Clara County. The NAHC maintains the Sacred Lands File, which includes the locations of
sites with cultural significance to Native American groups. The UCMP’s database includes information on
locations where fossils have been identified, the taxa of fossils found at a particular location, and the
geological formations associated with a fossil locality.
As part of the records search, the following State and local inventories were reviewed for cultural resources:
California Inventory of Historic Resources;
California Historical Landmarks;
California Points of Historical Interest;
Directory of Properties in the Historic Property Data File. The directory includes the listings of the
National Register of Historic Places, National Historic Landmarks, the California Register of Historical
Resources, California Historical Landmarks, and California Points of Historical Interest; and
City of Cupertino General Plan.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
CULTURAL RESOURCES
PLACEWORKS 4.4-7
Table 4.4-2 includes a list of all the identified cultural resources by the source they are listed under, and
Figure 4.4-1 identifies the location of the resource as it relates to the Project Component locations. Where
resources are identified more than once, Figure 4.4-1 shows the Cultural Resource Site with more than one
identifying number. For example, the Arroyo de San Joseph cultural resources is listed on the Office of
Historic Preservation Directory Listings, which is number 26 in Table 4.4-2, and it also listed on the City of
Cupertino Commemorative Sites list from the current General Plan, which is number 51.
Literature Review
Publications, maps, historical aerial photographs, including an examination of the library and project files at
Tom Origer & Associates, and internet sites were reviewed for archaeological, ethnographic, and historical
information about the proposed Project site and its vicinity. The purpose of this review was to identify
known cultural resources within the city and its surroundings. As shown in Table 4.4-2 and Figure 4.4-1
there are 22 recorded cultural resources (sites 1 to 22) within the City of Cupertino and its Sphere of
Influence (SOI) that are documented on the Office of Historic Preservation’s recording forms. Site 19 is
listed on the National Register of Historic Resources. One, Site 21, was demolished circa 2007. Two of the
22 resources are prehistoric archaeological sites with confidential locations. The remaining resources are
historic-era buildings or sites.
As of March 2011, there were 13 properties listed in the California Office of Historic Preservation’s
Directory of Historic Properties (sites 23 to 35), also shown in Table 4.4-2 and Figure 4.4-1. These
resources have been evaluated for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, and most have been
evaluated for state or local listing as well. Sites 27, 28, and 33 are listed on the National Register of Historic
Places, and Sites 26, 27, 28, and 32 are listed on the California Register of Historic Resources. Site 23,
Seven Springs Ranch, has been nominated for inclusion in the National Register, however it is not currently
listed in either the National Register of Historic Places or the California Register of Historical Resources.
Additionally, the City has identified locally important cultural resources in the current General Plan (sites
36 to 73), as shown in Table 4.4-2. Although, most have not been evaluated for listing on the National
Register or State Register, they are still recognized as sites to be protected under the current General Plan.
The properties considered locally important are unique to the lists where they appear, including
Commemorative Sites, Community Landmarks, and Sites of Historic Mention. The sites of Historic
Mention are sites outside of the City’s jurisdiction, but still recognized as locally important to Cupertino.
Cultural Resources Sites 26/51, 32/33/57, 35/70, 27/72, and 28/73 appear on both the Office of
Historic Preservation list and on the City of Cupertino lists, and therefore appear on the table multiple
times. For example, Arroyo de San Joseph Cupertino is listed on the OHP directory listing, which is shown
as Cultural Resource Site 26 and the City of Cupertino Commemorative Sites list, which is shown as
Cultural Resources Site 51. The remaining properties are unique to the lists where they appear. Overall,
approximately 25 percent of the land within the city boundaries and existing SOI has been surveyed for
cultural resources. The unincorporated areas outside of the city boundaries have had approximately one-
third of the land surveyed for cultural resources. Consequently, there is potential for archaeological deposits
throughout the Santa Clara Valley area.
GE
N
E
R
A
L
P
L
A
N
A
M
E
N
D
M
E
N
T
,
H
O
U
S
I
N
G
E
L
E
M
E
N
T
U
P
D
A
T
E
,
A
N
D
A
S
S
O
C
I
A
T
E
D
R
E
Z
O
N
I
N
G
D
R
A
F
T
E
I
R
CI
T
Y
O
F
C
U
P
E
R
T
I
N
O
CU
L
T
U
R
A
L
R
E
S
O
U
R
C
E
S
4.
4
-
8
JUNE 18, 2014
TAB
L
E
4.
4
‐2
CUL
T
U
R
A
L
RES
O
U
R
C
E
S
IN
TH
E
PRO
J
E
C
T
STU
D
Y
ARE
A
AN
D
VIC
I
N
I
T
Y
Si
t
e
#
Si
t
e
Id
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
r
/
Na
m
e
Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
Ty
p
e
Si
t
e
Na
m
e
Ad
d
r
e
s
s
Ye
a
r
Bu
i
l
t
St
a
t
u
s
Project Components Inclusive of Cultural Resources
Re
c
o
r
d
e
d
Cu
l
t
u
r
a
l
Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
1
P‐43
‐06
7
6
Hi
s
t
o
r
i
c
a
l
–
Fo
r
e
s
t
Fi
r
e
St
a
t
i
o
n
St
e
v
e
n
s
Cr
e
e
k
Fo
r
e
s
t
Fi
r
e
St
a
t
i
o
n
13
3
2
6
St
e
v
e
n
s
Ca
n
y
o
n
Bl
v
d
.
19
5
3
Ap
p
e
a
r
s
el
i
g
i
b
l
e
fo
r
NR
N/A (outside City jurisdiction)
2
P‐43
‐18
3
3
CA
‐SC
L
‐89
2
H
Hi
s
t
o
r
i
c
a
l
– Ra
i
l
r
o
a
d
Se
g
m
e
n
t
24
0
0
1
St
e
v
e
n
s
Cr
e
e
k
Bl
v
d
.
Un
k
n
o
w
n
No
t
ev
a
l
u
a
t
e
d
fo
r
NR
or
CR
el
i
g
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
N/A
3
P‐43
‐18
6
7
Hi
s
t
o
r
i
c
a
l
– Qu
a
r
r
y
24
0
0
1
St
e
v
e
n
s
Cr
e
e
k
Bl
v
d
.
Un
k
n
o
w
n
No
t
ev
a
l
u
a
t
e
d
fo
r
NR
or
CR
el
i
g
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
N/A
4
P‐43
‐18
6
8
Hi
s
t
o
r
i
c
a
l
– Ro
a
d
24
0
0
1
St
e
v
e
n
s
Cr
e
e
k
Bl
v
d
.
Un
k
n
o
w
n
No
t
ev
a
l
u
a
t
e
d
fo
r
NR
or
CR
el
i
g
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
N/A
5
P‐43
‐18
6
9
Hi
s
t
o
r
i
c
a
l
– Ca
b
i
n
24
0
0
1
St
e
v
e
n
s
Cr
e
e
k
Bl
v
d
.
Un
k
n
o
w
n
No
t
ev
a
l
u
a
t
e
d
fo
r
NR
or
CR
el
i
g
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
N/A
6
P‐43
‐18
7
0
Hi
s
t
o
r
i
c
a
l
–
Pu
m
p
h
o
u
s
e
24
0
0
1
St
e
v
e
n
s
Cr
e
e
k
Bl
v
d
.
Un
k
n
o
w
n
No
t
ev
a
l
u
a
t
e
d
fo
r
NR
or
CR
el
i
g
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
N/A
7
P‐43
‐22
5
3
CA
‐SC
L
‐88
1
H
Hi
s
t
o
r
i
c
a
l
– Ro
o
t
Ce
l
l
a
r
24
0
0
1
St
e
v
e
n
s
Cr
e
e
k
Bl
v
d
.
Un
k
n
o
w
n
No
t
ev
a
l
u
a
t
e
d
fo
r
NR
or
CR
el
i
g
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
N/A
8
P‐43
‐22
6
4
CA
‐SC
L
‐88
2
H
Hi
s
t
o
r
i
c
a
l
– Or
c
h
a
r
d
24
0
0
1
St
e
v
e
n
s
Cr
e
e
k
Bl
v
d
.
Un
k
n
o
w
n
No
t
ev
a
l
u
a
t
e
d
fo
r
NR
or
CR
el
i
g
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
N/A
9
P‐43
‐22
6
7
Hi
s
t
o
r
i
c
a
l
–
Ho
m
e
s
t
e
a
d
24
0
0
1
St
e
v
e
n
s
Cr
e
e
k
Bl
v
d
.
Un
k
n
o
w
n
No
t
ev
a
l
u
a
t
e
d
fo
r
NR
or
CR
el
i
g
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
N/A
10
P‐43
‐22
6
8
CA
‐SC
L
‐88
3
H
Hi
s
t
o
r
i
c
a
l
–
Ho
m
e
s
t
e
a
d
24
0
0
1
St
e
v
e
n
s
Cr
e
e
k
Bl
v
d
.
Un
k
n
o
w
n
No
t
ev
a
l
u
a
t
e
d
fo
r
NR
or
CR
el
i
g
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
N/A
11
P‐43
‐22
6
9
CA
‐SC
L
‐88
4
H
Hi
s
t
o
r
i
c
a
l
–
Ho
m
e
s
t
e
a
d
24
0
0
1
St
e
v
e
n
s
Cr
e
e
k
Bl
v
d
.
Un
k
n
o
w
n
No
t
ev
a
l
u
a
t
e
d
fo
r
NR
or
CR
el
i
g
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
N/A
12
P‐43
‐22
7
0
Hi
s
t
o
r
i
c
a
l
–
Ho
m
e
s
t
e
a
d
24
0
0
1
St
e
v
e
n
s
Cr
e
e
k
Bl
v
d
.
Un
k
n
o
w
n
No
t
ev
a
l
u
a
t
e
d
fo
r
NR
or
CR
el
i
g
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
N/A
13
P‐43
‐23
5
0
Hi
s
t
o
r
i
c
a
l
– Ra
n
c
h
Co
m
p
l
e
x
Se
v
e
n
Sp
r
i
n
g
s
Ra
n
c
h
11
8
0
1
Do
r
o
t
h
y
An
n
e
Wa
y
18
6
6
No
t
ev
a
l
u
a
t
e
d
fo
r
NR
or
CR
el
i
g
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
N/A
14
P‐43
‐26
2
0
Hi
s
t
o
r
i
c
a
l
– Ch
u
r
c
h
Go
o
d
Sh
e
p
h
e
r
d
Ch
u
r
c
h
94
0
So
u
t
h
St
e
l
l
i
n
g
Ro
a
d
19
6
0
In
e
l
i
g
i
b
l
e
fo
r
NR
;
no
t
ev
a
l
u
a
t
e
d
for
CR
el
i
g
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
N/A
15
P‐43
‐26
4
4
Hi
s
t
o
r
i
c
a
l
–
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
10
2
9
1
So
u
t
h
De
An
z
a
Bl
v
d
.
Un
k
n
o
w
n
No
t
ev
a
l
u
a
t
e
d
fo
r
NR
or
CR
el
i
g
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
South De Anza Special Area
16
P‐43
‐26
9
0
Hi
s
t
o
r
i
c
a
l
– Co
n
v
e
y
o
r
Sy
s
t
e
m
24
0
0
1
St
e
v
e
n
s
Cr
e
e
k
Bl
v
d
.
Un
k
n
o
w
n
No
t
ev
a
l
u
a
t
e
d
fo
r
NR
or
CR
el
i
g
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
N/A
17
P‐43
‐26
9
1
Hi
s
t
o
r
i
c
a
l
– Cr
u
s
h
e
r
24
0
0
1
St
e
v
e
n
s
Cr
e
e
k
Bl
v
d
.
Un
k
n
o
w
n
No
t
ev
a
l
u
a
t
e
d
fo
r
NR
or
CR
el
i
g
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
N/A
18
CA
‐SC
L
‐69
Pr
e
h
i
s
t
o
r
i
c
– Na
t
i
v
e
Am
e
r
i
c
a
n
Si
t
e
N/
A
Un
k
n
o
w
n
No
t
ev
a
l
u
a
t
e
d
fo
r
NR
or
CR
el
i
g
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
N/A
GE
N
E
R
A
L
P
L
A
N
A
M
E
N
D
M
E
N
T
,
H
O
U
S
I
N
G
E
L
E
M
E
N
T
U
P
D
A
T
E
,
A
N
D
A
S
S
O
C
I
A
T
E
D
R
E
Z
O
N
I
N
G
D
R
A
F
T
E
I
R
CITY OF CUPERTINO
CU
L
T
U
R
A
L
R
E
S
O
U
R
C
E
S
PL
A
C
E
W
O
R
K
S
4.4-9
TAB
L
E
4.
4
‐2
CUL
T
U
R
A
L
RES
O
U
R
C
E
S
IN
TH
E
PRO
J
E
C
T
STU
D
Y
ARE
A
AN
D
VIC
I
N
I
T
Y
Si
t
e
#
Si
t
e
Id
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
r
/
Na
m
e
Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
Ty
p
e
Si
t
e
Na
m
e
Ad
d
r
e
s
s
Ye
a
r
Bu
i
l
t
St
a
t
u
s
Project Components Inclusive of Cultural Resources
19
P‐43
‐03
9
2
CA
‐SC
L
‐38
6
H
Hi
s
t
o
r
i
c
a
l
– Ma
n
s
i
o
n
Le
Pe
t
i
t
Tr
i
a
n
o
n
21
2
5
0
St
e
v
e
n
s
Cr
e
e
k
Bl
v
d
.
18
9
2
NR
/ CR
/ LL
Heart of the City Special Area
20
CA
‐SC
L
‐41
4
H
Hi
s
t
o
r
i
c
a
l
– Wi
n
e
r
y
Co
m
p
l
e
x
Pi
c
c
h
e
t
t
i
Br
o
t
h
e
r
s
Wi
n
e
r
y
an
d
Ra
n
c
h
13
1
0
0
Mo
n
t
e
b
e
l
l
o
Ro
a
d
18
8
0
LL
,
ap
p
e
a
r
s
el
i
g
i
b
l
e
fo
r
NR
N/A (outside City jurisdiction)
21
CA
‐SC
L
‐44
9
H
Hi
s
t
o
r
i
c
a
l
– Ho
u
s
e
an
d
Ou
t
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
10
5
0
5
Mi
l
l
e
r
Av
e
n
u
e
Un
k
n
o
w
n
De
m
o
l
i
s
h
e
d
ci
r
c
a
20
0
7
.
Do
c
u
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
up
d
a
t
e
d
.
N/A
22
CA
‐SC
L
‐71
5
Pr
e
h
i
s
t
o
r
i
c
– Na
t
i
v
e
Am
e
r
i
c
a
n
Si
t
e
N/
A
Un
k
n
o
w
n
No
t
ev
a
l
u
a
t
e
d
fo
r
NR
or
CR
el
i
g
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
N/A
Of
f
i
c
e
of
Hi
s
t
o
r
i
c
Pr
e
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
Di
r
e
c
t
o
r
y
Li
s
t
i
n
g
s
23
17
9
4
4
3
Se
v
e
n
Sp
r
i
n
g
s
Ra
n
c
h
11
8
0
1
Do
r
o
t
h
y
An
n
e
Wa
y
18
6
6
No
m
i
n
a
t
e
d
fo
r
in
c
l
u
s
i
o
n
in
th
e
NR.
No
t
cu
r
r
e
n
t
l
y
li
s
t
e
d
in
NR
or
CR
.
N/A
24
91
3
2
6
Sa
n
An
t
o
n
i
o
Sc
h
o
o
l
24
7
2
Fo
o
t
h
i
l
l
Bl
v
d
.
Un
k
n
o
w
n
LL
/ NR
/ No
t
ev
a
l
u
a
t
e
d
fo
r
CR
el
i
g
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
N/A
25
91
2
0
4
E.
J
.
Pa
r
r
i
s
h
Ho
u
s
e
Ma
r
y
Av
e
n
u
e
18
9
5
Bu
r
n
e
d
in
19
7
7
.
Do
c
u
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
up
d
a
t
e
d
.
Heart of the City Special Area
26
89
4
3
7
Ar
r
o
y
o
de
Sa
n
Jo
s
e
p
h
Cu
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
21
8
4
0
Mc
C
l
e
l
l
a
n
Ro
a
d
Un
k
n
o
w
n
CR
/ El
i
g
i
b
l
e
fo
r
NR
N/A (on Fremont High School District property)
27
13
1
8
8
Pi
c
c
h
e
t
t
i
Br
o
t
h
e
r
s
Wi
n
e
r
y
an
d
Ra
n
c
h
13
1
0
0
Mo
n
t
e
b
e
l
l
o
Ro
a
d
18
8
0
LL
/ NR
/ CR
N/A (outside city jurisdiction)
28
13
1
8
7
Wo
o
d
h
i
l
l
s
Es
t
a
t
e
(F
r
e
m
o
n
t
an
d
Co
r
a
Ol
d
e
r
Ra
n
c
h
)
22
8
0
0
We
s
t
Pr
o
s
p
e
c
t
Ro
a
d
19
1
3
NR
/ CR
N/A (outside City jurisdiction)
29
17
9
1
5
8
Go
o
d
Sh
e
p
h
e
r
d
Ch
u
r
c
h
94
0
So
u
t
h
St
e
l
l
i
n
g
Ro
a
d
19
6
0
In
e
l
i
g
i
b
l
e
fo
r
NR
,
no
t
ev
a
l
u
a
t
e
d
for
NR
or
CR
el
i
g
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
N/A
30
10
5
9
8
4
St
e
v
e
n
s
Cr
e
e
k
Fo
r
e
s
t
Fi
r
e
St
a
t
i
o
n
13
3
2
6
St
e
v
e
n
s
Ca
n
y
o
n
Ro
a
d
Un
k
n
o
w
n
Ap
p
e
a
r
s
el
i
g
i
b
l
e
fo
r
NR
N/A (outside city jurisdiction)
31
17
2
9
9
5
N/
A
20
5
1
0
St
e
v
e
n
s
Cr
e
e
k
Bl
v
d
.
19
5
9
In
e
l
i
g
i
b
l
e
fo
r
NR
,
no
t
ev
a
l
u
a
t
e
d
for
CR
el
i
g
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Heart of the City Special Area
32
75
8
2
1
Le
Pe
t
i
t
Tr
i
a
n
o
n
21
2
5
0
St
e
v
e
n
s
Cr
e
e
k
Bl
v
d
.
18
9
2
CR
/ LL
Heart of the City Special Area
33
13
1
8
6
Le
Pe
t
i
t
Tr
i
a
n
o
n
21
2
5
0
St
e
v
e
n
s
Cr
e
e
k
Ro
a
d
18
9
2
NR
N/A
GE
N
E
R
A
L
P
L
A
N
A
M
E
N
D
M
E
N
T
,
H
O
U
S
I
N
G
E
L
E
M
E
N
T
U
P
D
A
T
E
,
A
N
D
A
S
S
O
C
I
A
T
E
D
R
E
Z
O
N
I
N
G
D
R
A
F
T
E
I
R
CI
T
Y
O
F
C
U
P
E
R
T
I
N
O
CU
L
T
U
R
A
L
R
E
S
O
U
R
C
E
S
4.
4
-
1
0
JUNE 18, 2014
TAB
L
E
4.
4
‐2
CUL
T
U
R
A
L
RES
O
U
R
C
E
S
IN
TH
E
PRO
J
E
C
T
STU
D
Y
ARE
A
AN
D
VIC
I
N
I
T
Y
Si
t
e
#
Si
t
e
Id
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
r
/
Na
m
e
Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
Ty
p
e
Si
t
e
Na
m
e
Ad
d
r
e
s
s
Ye
a
r
Bu
i
l
t
St
a
t
u
s
Project Components Inclusive of Cultural Resources
34
91
2
0
8
Fr
e
m
o
n
t
an
d
Co
r
a
Ol
d
e
r
Ra
n
c
h
(W
o
o
d
h
i
l
l
s
Es
t
a
t
e
)
22
8
0
0
We
s
t
Pr
o
s
p
e
c
t
Ro
a
d
19
1
3
LL
,
no
t
ev
a
l
u
a
t
e
d
fo
r
NR
or
CR
el
i
g
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
N/A (outside City jurisdiction)
35
91
2
1
0
Mo
n
t
e
b
e
l
l
o
Sc
h
o
o
l
Mo
n
t
e
b
e
l
l
o
Ro
a
d
18
9
2
LL
/ no
t
ev
a
l
u
a
t
e
d
fo
r
NR
or
CR
N/A (outside City jurisdiction)
Ci
t
y
of
Cu
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
Hi
s
t
o
r
i
c
a
l
l
y
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
Ci
t
y
o
f
C
u
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
H
i
s
t
o
r
i
c
S
i
t
e
s
36
Hi
s
t
o
r
i
c
Si
t
e
1
Ma
r
y
k
n
o
l
l
Se
m
i
n
a
r
y
23
0
0
Cr
i
s
t
o
Re
y
Dr
i
v
e
Un
k
n
o
w
n
No
t
ev
a
l
u
a
t
e
d
fo
r
NR
or
CR
el
i
g
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
N/A (outside City jurisdiction)
37
Hi
s
t
o
r
i
c
Si
t
e
2
Sn
y
d
e
r
Ha
m
m
o
n
d
Ho
u
s
e
22
9
6
1
St
e
v
e
n
s
Cr
e
e
k
Bl
v
d
.
Un
k
n
o
w
n
No
t
ev
a
l
u
a
t
e
d
fo
r
NR
or
CR
el
i
g
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
N/A
38
Hi
s
t
o
r
i
c
Si
t
e
3
De
La
Ve
g
a
Ta
c
k
Ho
u
s
e
Ra
n
c
h
o
De
e
p
Cl
i
f
f
Cl
u
b
Ho
u
s
e
Un
k
n
o
w
n
No
t
ev
a
l
u
a
t
e
d
fo
r
NR
or
CR
el
i
g
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
N/A
39
Hi
s
t
o
r
i
c
Si
t
e
4
Ba
e
r
Bl
a
c
k
s
m
i
t
h
22
2
2
1
Mc
C
l
e
l
l
a
n
Ro
a
d
(M
c
C
l
e
l
l
a
n
Ra
n
c
h
Pa
r
k
)
Un
k
n
o
w
n
No
t
ev
a
l
u
a
t
e
d
fo
r
NR
or
CR
el
i
g
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
N/A
40
Hi
s
t
o
r
i
c
Si
t
e
5
En
o
c
h
J.
Pa
r
r
i
s
h
Ta
n
k
Ho
u
s
e
22
2
2
1
Mc
C
l
e
l
l
a
n
Ro
a
d
(M
c
C
l
e
l
l
a
n
Ra
n
c
h
Pa
r
k
)
Un
k
n
o
w
n
No
t
ev
a
l
u
a
t
e
d
fo
r
NR
or
CR
el
i
g
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
N/A
41
Hi
s
t
o
r
i
c
Si
t
e
6
Na
t
h
a
n
Ha
l
l
Ta
n
k
Ho
u
s
e
22
1
0
0
St
e
v
e
n
s
Cr
e
e
k
Bl
v
d
.
Un
k
n
o
w
n
No
t
ev
a
l
u
a
t
e
d
fo
r
NR
or
CR
el
i
g
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Conformance Sites 44 and 45
42
Hi
s
t
o
r
i
c
Si
t
e
7
Ga
z
e
b
o
Tr
i
m
Ma
r
y
Av
e
n
u
e
an
d
St
e
v
e
n
s
Cr
e
e
k
Bl
v
d
.
(M
e
m
o
r
i
a
l
Pa
r
k
)
Un
k
n
o
w
n
No
t
ev
a
l
u
a
t
e
d
fo
r
NR
or
CR
el
i
g
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Heart of the City Special Area
43
Hi
s
t
o
r
i
c
Si
t
e
8
Un
i
o
n
Ch
u
r
c
h
of
Cu
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
20
9
0
0
St
e
v
e
n
s
Cr
e
e
k
Bl
v
d
.
Un
k
n
o
w
n
No
t
ev
a
l
u
a
t
e
d
fo
r
NR
or
CR
el
i
g
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Heart of the City Special Area
44
Hi
s
t
o
r
i
c
Si
t
e
9
Ol
d
Co
l
l
i
n
s
Sc
h
o
o
l
20
4
4
1
Ho
m
e
s
t
e
a
d
Ro
a
d
Un
k
n
o
w
n
No
t
ev
a
l
u
a
t
e
d
fo
r
NR
or
CR
el
i
g
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Homestead Special Area
45
Hi
s
t
o
r
i
c
Si
t
e
10
Mi
l
l
e
r
Ho
u
s
e
10
5
1
8
Ph
i
l
Pl
a
c
e
Un
k
n
o
w
n
No
t
ev
a
l
u
a
t
e
d
fo
r
NR
or
CR
el
i
g
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
N/A
46
Hi
s
t
o
r
i
c
Si
t
e
11
Gl
e
n
d
e
n
n
i
n
g
Ba
r
n
10
9
5
5
No
r
t
h
Ta
n
t
a
u
Av
e
n
u
e
Un
k
n
o
w
n
No
t
ev
a
l
u
a
t
e
d
fo
r
NR
or
CR
el
i
g
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
North Vallco Park Special Area
Ci
t
y
o
f
C
u
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
C
o
m
m
e
m
o
r
a
t
i
v
e
S
i
t
e
s
47
Co
m
m
e
m
o
r
a
t
i
v
e
Si
t
e
1
De
An
z
a
Kn
o
l
l
Of
f
of
Cr
i
s
t
o
Re
y
Dr
i
v
e
Un
k
n
o
w
n
No
t
ev
a
l
u
a
t
e
d
fo
r
NR
or
CR
el
i
g
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
N/A
48
Co
m
m
e
m
o
r
a
t
i
v
e
Si
t
e
2
Do
y
l
e
Wi
n
e
r
y
"C
u
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
Wi
n
e
Co
m
p
a
n
y
"
Vi
s
i
b
l
e
fr
o
m
Mc
C
l
e
l
l
a
n
Ra
n
c
h
Pa
r
k
Un
k
n
o
w
n
No
t
ev
a
l
u
a
t
e
d
fo
r
NR
or
CR
el
i
g
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
N/A
GE
N
E
R
A
L
P
L
A
N
A
M
E
N
D
M
E
N
T
,
H
O
U
S
I
N
G
E
L
E
M
E
N
T
U
P
D
A
T
E
,
A
N
D
A
S
S
O
C
I
A
T
E
D
R
E
Z
O
N
I
N
G
D
R
A
F
T
E
I
R
CITY OF CUPERTINO
CU
L
T
U
R
A
L
R
E
S
O
U
R
C
E
S
PL
A
C
E
W
O
R
K
S
4.4-11
TAB
L
E
4.
4
‐2
CUL
T
U
R
A
L
RES
O
U
R
C
E
S
IN
TH
E
PRO
J
E
C
T
STU
D
Y
ARE
A
AN
D
VIC
I
N
I
T
Y
Si
t
e
#
Si
t
e
Id
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
r
/
Na
m
e
Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
Ty
p
e
Si
t
e
Na
m
e
Ad
d
r
e
s
s
Ye
a
r
Bu
i
l
t
St
a
t
u
s
Project Components Inclusive of Cultural Resources
49
Co
m
m
e
m
o
r
a
t
i
v
e
Si
t
e
3
St
o
c
k
l
m
e
i
r
Fa
r
m
h
o
u
s
e
22
1
2
0
St
e
v
e
n
s
Cr
e
e
k
Ro
a
d
Un
k
n
o
w
n
No
t
ev
a
l
u
a
t
e
d
fo
r
NR
or
CR
el
i
g
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Conformance Site 44
50
Co
m
m
e
m
o
r
a
t
i
v
e
Si
t
e
4
El
i
s
h
a
St
e
p
h
e
n
s
Pl
a
c
e
22
1
0
0
St
e
v
e
n
s
Cr
e
e
k
Bl
v
d
.
Un
k
n
o
w
n
No
t
ev
a
l
u
a
t
e
d
fo
r
NR
or
CR
el
i
g
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
N/A
51
Co
m
m
e
m
o
r
a
t
i
v
e
Si
t
e
5
Ar
r
o
y
o
De
Sa
n
Jo
s
e
p
h
Cu
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
21
8
4
0
Mc
C
l
e
l
l
a
n
Ro
a
d
Un
k
n
o
w
n
Au
t
o
m
a
t
i
c
a
l
l
y
el
i
g
i
b
l
e
fo
r
NR
N/A (Fremont High Unified High School District property)
52
Co
m
m
e
m
o
r
a
t
i
v
e
Si
t
e
6
Ha
z
e
l
Go
l
d
s
t
o
n
e
Va
r
i
e
t
y
St
o
r
e
21
7
0
0
St
e
v
e
n
s
Cr
e
e
k
Bl
v
d
.
Un
k
n
o
w
n
No
t
ev
a
l
u
a
t
e
d
fo
r
NR
or
CR
el
i
g
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Monta Vista Village Neighborhood
53
Co
m
m
e
m
o
r
a
t
i
v
e
Si
t
e
7
Wo
e
l
f
f
e
l
Ca
n
n
e
r
y
10
1
2
0
Im
p
e
r
i
a
l
Av
e
n
u
e
Un
k
n
o
w
n
No
t
ev
a
l
u
a
t
e
d
fo
r
NR
or
CR
el
i
g
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Monta Vista Village Neighborhood
54
Co
m
m
e
m
o
r
a
t
i
v
e
Si
t
e
8
En
g
l
e
s
Gr
o
c
e
r
y
"P
a
u
l
an
d
Ed
d
i
e
'
s
"
21
6
1
9
St
e
v
e
n
s
Cr
e
e
k
Bl
v
d
.
Un
k
n
o
w
n
No
t
ev
a
l
u
a
t
e
d
fo
r
NR
or
CR
el
i
g
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Monta Vista Village Neighborhood
55
Co
m
m
e
m
o
r
a
t
i
v
e
Si
t
e
9
Ap
p
l
e
On
e
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
10
2
4
0
Bu
b
b
Ro
a
d
Un
k
n
o
w
n
No
t
ev
a
l
u
a
t
e
d
fo
r
NR
or
CR
el
i
g
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Bubb Road Special Area
56
Co
m
m
e
m
o
r
a
t
i
v
e
Si
t
e
10
Ba
l
d
w
i
n
Wi
n
e
r
y
12
5
0
St
e
v
e
n
s
Cr
e
e
k
Bl
v
d
.
–
De
An
z
a
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
Co
l
l
e
g
e
Un
k
n
o
w
n
No
t
ev
a
l
u
a
t
e
d
fo
r
NR
or
CR
el
i
g
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Heart of the City Special Area
57
Co
m
m
e
m
o
r
a
t
i
v
e
Si
t
e
11
Le
Pe
t
i
t
Tr
i
a
n
o
n
12
5
0
St
e
v
e
n
s
Cr
e
e
k
Bl
v
d
.
–D
e
An
z
a
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
Co
l
l
e
g
e
Un
k
n
o
w
n
No
t
ev
a
l
u
a
t
e
d
fo
r
NR
or
CR
el
i
g
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Heart of the City Special Area
58
Co
m
m
e
m
o
r
a
t
i
v
e
Si
t
e
12
In
t
e
r
i
m
Ci
t
y
Ha
l
l
10
3
2
1
So
u
t
h
De
An
z
a
Bl
v
d
.
Un
k
n
o
w
n
No
t
ev
a
l
u
a
t
e
d
fo
r
NR
or
CR
el
i
g
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
South De Anza Special Area
59
Co
m
m
e
m
o
r
a
t
i
v
e
Si
t
e
13
Ci
t
y
of
Cu
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
Cr
o
s
s
r
o
a
d
s
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
at
St
e
v
e
n
s
Cr
e
e
k
Bl
v
d
.
an
d
De
An
z
a
Bl
v
d
.
Un
k
n
o
w
n
No
t
ev
a
l
u
a
t
e
d
fo
r
NR
or
CR
el
i
g
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Heart of the City Special Area
60
Co
m
m
e
m
o
r
a
t
i
v
e
Si
t
e
14
St
.
Jo
s
e
p
h
'
s
Ch
u
r
c
h
10
1
1
0
No
r
t
h
de
An
z
a
Bl
v
d
.
Un
k
n
o
w
n
No
t
ev
a
l
u
a
t
e
d
fo
r
NR
or
CR
el
i
g
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Heart of the City Special Area
Ci
t
y
o
f
C
u
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
s
61
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
La
n
d
m
a
r
k
A
Ha
n
s
o
n
Pe
r
m
a
n
e
n
t
e
Un
k
n
o
w
n
No
t
ev
a
l
u
a
t
e
d
fo
r
NR
or
CR
el
i
g
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
N/A (outside City jurisdiction)
62
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
La
n
d
m
a
r
k
B
Do
w
n
t
o
w
n
Mo
n
t
a
Vi
s
t
a
Un
k
n
o
w
n
No
t
ev
a
l
u
a
t
e
d
fo
r
NR
or
CR
el
i
g
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Monta Vista Village Neighborhood
63
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
La
n
d
m
a
r
k
C
Cu
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
Hi
s
t
o
r
i
c
a
l
Mu
s
e
u
m
(Q
u
i
n
l
a
n
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
Ce
n
t
e
r
)
Un
k
n
o
w
n
No
t
ev
a
l
u
a
t
e
d
fo
r
NR
or
CR
el
i
g
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Heart of the City Special Area
GE
N
E
R
A
L
P
L
A
N
A
M
E
N
D
M
E
N
T
,
H
O
U
S
I
N
G
E
L
E
M
E
N
T
U
P
D
A
T
E
,
A
N
D
A
S
S
O
C
I
A
T
E
D
R
E
Z
O
N
I
N
G
D
R
A
F
T
E
I
R
CI
T
Y
O
F
C
U
P
E
R
T
I
N
O
CU
L
T
U
R
A
L
R
E
S
O
U
R
C
E
S
4.
4
-
1
2
JUNE 18, 2014
TAB
L
E
4.
4
‐2
CUL
T
U
R
A
L
RES
O
U
R
C
E
S
IN
TH
E
PRO
J
E
C
T
STU
D
Y
ARE
A
AN
D
VIC
I
N
I
T
Y
Si
t
e
#
Si
t
e
Id
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
r
/
Na
m
e
Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
Ty
p
e
Si
t
e
Na
m
e
Ad
d
r
e
s
s
Ye
a
r
Bu
i
l
t
St
a
t
u
s
Project Components Inclusive of Cultural Resources
64
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
La
n
d
m
a
r
k
D
Me
m
o
r
i
a
l
Pa
r
k
,
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
Ce
n
t
e
r
,
Sp
o
r
t
s
co
m
p
l
e
x
Un
k
n
o
w
n
No
t
ev
a
l
u
a
t
e
d
fo
r
NR
or
CR
el
i
g
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Heart of the City Special Area
65
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
La
n
d
m
a
r
k
E
De
An
z
a
Co
l
l
e
g
e
Un
k
n
o
w
n
No
t
ev
a
l
u
a
t
e
d
fo
r
NR
or
CR
el
i
g
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Heart of the City Special Area
66
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
La
n
d
m
a
r
k
F
De
An
z
a
In
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
Pa
r
k
Un
k
n
o
w
n
No
t
ev
a
l
u
a
t
e
d
fo
r
NR
or
CR
el
i
g
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
N. De Anza Special Area
67
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
La
n
d
m
a
r
k
G
Cu
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
Ci
v
i
c
Ce
n
t
e
r
Un
k
n
o
w
n
No
t
ev
a
l
u
a
t
e
d
fo
r
NR
or
CR
el
i
g
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Heart of the City Special Area
68
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
La
n
d
m
a
r
k
H
Va
l
l
c
o
Fa
s
h
i
o
n
Pa
r
k
Un
k
n
o
w
n
No
t
ev
a
l
u
a
t
e
d
fo
r
NR
or
CR
el
i
g
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Heart of the City Special Area , Study Area 6 (Vallco Shopping District), Housing Element Site 11 (Vallco Shopping District except Rosebowl)
69
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
La
n
d
m
a
r
k
I
Va
l
l
c
o
In
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
Pa
r
k
Un
k
n
o
w
n
No
t
ev
a
l
u
a
t
e
d
fo
r
NR
or
CR
el
i
g
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
North Vallco Park Special Area
Ci
t
y
o
f
C
u
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
S
i
t
e
s
o
f
H
i
s
t
o
r
i
c
M
e
n
t
i
o
n
70
Si
t
e
of
Hi
s
t
o
r
i
c
Me
n
t
i
o
n
1
Mo
n
t
e
b
e
l
l
o
Sc
h
o
o
l
Mo
n
t
e
b
e
l
l
o
Ro
a
d
Un
k
n
o
w
n
No
t
ev
a
l
u
a
t
e
d
fo
r
NR
or
CR
el
i
g
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
N/A (outside city jurisdiction)
71
Si
t
e
of
Hi
s
t
o
r
i
c
Me
n
t
i
o
n
2
Pe
r
r
o
n
e
Ra
n
c
h
St
o
n
e
Ce
l
l
a
r
Un
k
n
o
w
n
No
t
ev
a
l
u
a
t
e
d
fo
r
NR
or
CR
el
i
g
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
N/A (outside city jurisdiction)
72
Si
t
e
of
Hi
s
t
o
r
i
c
Me
n
t
i
o
n
3
Pi
c
c
h
e
t
t
i
Br
o
t
h
e
r
s
Wi
n
e
r
y
an
d
Ra
n
c
h
13
1
0
0
Mo
n
t
e
b
e
l
l
o
Ro
a
d
18
8
0
No
t
ev
a
l
u
a
t
e
d
fo
r
NR
or
CR
el
i
g
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
N/A (outside city jurisdiction)
73
Si
t
e
of
Hi
s
t
o
r
i
c
Me
n
t
i
o
n
4
Wo
o
d
h
i
l
l
s
Es
t
a
t
e
(F
r
e
m
o
n
t
an
d
Co
r
a
Ol
d
e
r
Ra
n
c
h
)
22
8
0
0
We
s
t
Pr
o
s
p
e
c
t
Ro
a
d
19
1
3
Ap
p
e
a
r
s
el
i
g
i
b
l
e
fo
r
NR
N/A (outside city jurisdiction)
No
t
e
s
:
NR
= Na
t
i
o
n
a
l
Re
g
i
s
t
e
r
;
CR
= Ca
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
Re
g
i
s
t
e
r
;
LL
= Lo
c
a
l
La
n
d
m
a
r
k
;
N/
A
= Cu
l
t
u
r
a
l
Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
no
t
wi
t
h
i
n
a Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Co
m
p
o
n
e
n
t
.
Cu
l
t
u
r
a
l
Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
id
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d
in
th
i
s
ta
b
l
e
in
c
l
u
d
e
s
th
o
s
e
re
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
el
i
g
i
b
l
e
,
de
s
i
g
n
a
t
e
d
on
th
e
Na
t
i
o
n
a
l
Re
g
i
s
t
e
r
,
Ca
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
Re
g
i
s
t
e
r
,
or
id
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d
by
th
e
Ci
t
y
of
Cu
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
in
the 2000‐2020 General Plan.
Si
t
e
18
an
d
22
ar
e
co
n
f
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
lo
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
.
So
u
r
c
e
:
To
m
Or
i
g
e
r
& As
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s
,
20
1
3
;
Ci
t
y
of
Cu
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
20
0
0
‐20
2
0
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
Pl
a
n
,
20
0
5
.
#*
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
%&'(280
|ÿ82
%&'(280
%&'(280
|ÿ85
!(71
1/2 milewest
2-1216-17
!(1
!(13
!(14
!(15
!(19
!(20
!(21
!(23
!(24
!(25
!(26
!(27
!(28
!(29
!(30
!(31
!(32!(33
!(34
!(35
!(36
!(37
!(39
!(40
!(41 !(42 !(43
!(44
!(45
!(46
!(38
!(49
!(50
!(51
!(52
!(53
!(54
!(55
!(56
!(58
!(60
!(47
!(48
!(57!(59
!(61
!(62
!(63
!(64
!(65
!(66
!(67
!(68
!(69
!(70!(72
!(73
PRUNERIDGE AVE
BOLLI
N
G
E
R
R
D
S
B
L
A
N
E
Y
A
V
E
RAINBOW DR
BOLLINGER RD
N
S
T
E
L
L
I
N
G
R
D
NTANTAU
AVE
MCCLELLAN RD
S
D
E
A
N
Z
A
B
L
V
D
RAINBOW DR
BU
B
B
R
D
BL
A
N
E
Y
A
V
E
FO
O
T
H
I
L
L
B
L
V
D
N
F
O
O
T
H
I
L
L
B
L
V
D
N
D
E
A
N
Z
A
B
L
V
D
HOMESTEAD RD
STEVENS CREEK BLVD
S
TANTAU
AVE
PROSPE C T RD
N
W
O
L
F
E
R
D
S
W
O
L
F
E
R
D
N
B
L
A
N
E
Y
A
V
E
BU
B
B
R
D
B
U
B
B
R
D
S
S
T
E
L
L
I
N
G
R
D
MI
L
L
E
R
A
V
E
M
I
L
L
E
R
AVE
N
BLANEY
AVE
0 0.25 0.50.125
Miles
CULTURAL RESOURCESCITY OF CUPERTINOGENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING PROJECT
Figure 4.4-1Cultural Resources
Source: City of Cupertino, 2013; Tom Origer and Associates, 2014; PlaceWorks, 2014.
Sites 18 and 22 are prehistoric location and not shown here because their locations are confidential.NOTE:
General Plan and Zoning Conformance SitesProject ComponentsCity BoundarySphere of Influence
#*Cultural Resources
!(1 Cupertino Historically Significant Resources!(1 Office of Historic Preservation Directory Listings!(1 Recorded Cultural Resources
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
CULTURAL RESOURCES
PLACEWORKS 4.4-15
Historical Overview
This section describes the prehistory and ethnography, history, and paleontology of Cupertino as
determined by the records searches and literature review described above.
Prehistory and Ethnography
Archaeological evidence indicates that human occupation of California began at least 12,000 years ago. Early
occupants appear to have had an economy based largely on hunting, with limited exchange, and social
structures based on extended family units. Later, milling technology and an inferred acorn economy were
introduced. This diversification of economy appears coeval with the development of sedentism,3 population
growth, and expansion. Sociopolitical complexity and status distinctions based on wealth are also observable
in the archaeological record, as evidenced by an increased range and distribution of trade goods (e.g. shell
beads, obsidian tool stone), which are possible indicators of both status and increasingly complex exchange
systems.
At the time of European settlement, the Project Study Area was situated within the area controlled by the
Tamyen linguistic group of the Ohlone/Costanoan, near the linguistic boundary with the Ramaytush group.
The Ohlone/Costanoan hunter-gatherers who lived in rich environments that allowed for dense populations
with complex social structures.4 They settled in large, permanent villages about which were distributed
seasonal camps and task-specific sites. Primary village sites were occupied throughout the year and other
sites were visited in order to procure particular resources that were especially abundant or available only
during certain seasons. Sites often were situated near fresh water sources and in ecotones where plant life
and animal life were diverse and abundant.
General History
Colonel Juan Bautista de Anza's party passed through the arroyo of San Joseph de Cupertino during
exploration in March of 1776. One year later, the first Christian baptisms began in the Santa Clara Valley.
Despite rampant disease and humiliation, recruitment escalated at the missions of the San Francisco Bay
area. By the end of 1795, all of the Tamyen/Tamien villages had been abandoned and their former
inhabitants baptized.
During the 19th century, the area was planted with vineyards and orchards by early European settlers and
flourished well enough to draw more settlers to the area. Due to French and European vineyards failing in
the late 1870s by phylloxera, California vineyards and wines did well, leading small communities to have
wide-scale development and expansion. By the 1890s, phylloxera had spread from Europe, and the
community shifted toward more fruit production.
3 Sedentism means the transition from a nomadic lifestyle to a society which remains in one place.
4 Barrett, S. 1908 The Ethno-Geography of the Pomo and Neighboring Indians. University of California Publications in American
Archaeology and Ethnology Vol. 6, No. 1. University of California Press, Berkeley.
Kroeber, A. 1925 Handbook of the Indians of California. Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 78, Smithsonian Institution,
Washington, D.C.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
CULTURAL RESOURCES
4.4-16 JUNE 18, 2014
Before the community at the crossroads of Stevens Creek Road and Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road (De Anza
Boulevard) changed their name to Cupertino in 1904, it was known simply as West Side. 'Cupertino' was
taken from John T. Doyle's naming his winery Cupertino after the name given to the nearby creek by Petrus
Font during De Anza's 1776 expedition.
By the 1920s, Cupertino had a population of about 500, and development of the area centered around the
agricultural economy, with a focus on wineries, canneries, and fruit drying and packing facilities. The
Permanente Corporation was formed in 1939 to provide cement for the construction of Shasta Dam, with a
huge plant and quarry just west of Cupertino. During the war, the plant also made record shipments of
cement to the Pacific theatres. As the gateway to the Pacific theatre, the San Francisco Bay area experienced
a post-war population boom, which in turn created a need for urban planning. In 1955, Cupertino was
incorporated as Santa Clara County's 13th city in part to combat the annexation encroachment by the
surrounding cities of Santa Clara, San Jose, Sunnyvale, and Los Altos.
In the 1960s, Cupertino transitioned from farming to industry and commercial expansion. This transition
was done in anticipation, rather than as a reaction. One early successful example of this is the coalition of
families that created Vallco park, which currently includes the Vallco Fashion Park.
Today, Cupertino is part of Silicon Valley, a world-renowned high-technology center and is home to many
companies at the forefront of innovation.
Paleontology
The majority of the City of Cupertino is on recent alluvium deposits of the Holocene (11,700 years ago to
present). Holocene deposits are too recent to contain fossils. The western edge of Cupertino heading into
the hills contains quaternary non-marine terrace and Plio-Pleistocene non marine deposits. These deposits
date from the late Pleistocene (126,000 – 11,700 years ago) and the Pliocene/Pleistocene boundary
(around 2,588,000 years ago).
4.4.2 THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
According to Appendix G, Environmental Checklist, of the CEQA Guidelines, the proposed Project would
result in a significant cultural resources impact if it would:
1. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section
15064.5.
2. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource5 pursuant to Section
15064.5.
3. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site, or unique geologic feature.
4. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries.
5 As required by Public Resource Code Section 21083.2(a), an EIR shall only address unique archaeological resources.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
CULTURAL RESOURCES
PLACEWORKS 4.4-17
4.4.3 IMPACT DISCUSSION
This section analyzes the proposed Project’s potential impacts and cumulative impacts to cultural resources.
CULT-1 Implementation of the proposed Project would not have the potential to
cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical
resource as defined in Section 15064.5.
The types of cultural resources that meet the definition of historical resources under CEQA generally
consist of districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that are significant for their traditional, cultural,
and/or historical associations. Historical architectural resources may be impacted by development allowed
under the proposed Project. Archaeological deposits are addressed in CULT-2, and human remains are
addressed below in impact discussion CULT-4, below.
As shown on Figure 4.4-1 and listed in Section 4.4.2.3, Historic Sites Within Project Components, several
historical resources are within the boundaries of some Project Component locations. Therefore,
implementation of the proposed Project could have the potential to directly impact cultural resources, by
increasing commercial, office, hotel, and residential development allocations and providing for potential
new development at the following Project Component locations:
Special Areas Along Major Transportation Corridors
South De Anza Special Area
Cultural Resource Site 15 (Not evaluated for National and/or California Register eligibility)
Cultural Resource Site 58 (City of Cupertino Commemorative Site)
Heart of the City Special Area
Cultural Resource Site 19 (National Register/California Register/Local Landmark)
Cultural Resource Site 25 (Local Landmark, National Register/Not evaluated for California Register
eligibility)
Cultural Resource Site 31 (Ineligible for National Register/Not evaluated for California Register
eligibility)
Cultural Resource Site 32 (California Register/Local Landmark)
Cultural Resource Site 42 (City of Cupertino Local Historic Site)
Cultural Resource Site 43 (City of Cupertino Local Historic Site)
Cultural Resource Site 44 (City of Cupertino Local Historic Site)
Cultural Resource Site 57 (National Register/Commemorative Site)
Cultural Resource Site 59 (City of Cupertino Commemorative Site)
Cultural Resource Site 60 (City of Cupertino Commemorative Site)
Cultural Resource Site 64 (City of Cupertino Community Landmark)
Cultural Resource Site 65 (City of Cupertino Community Landmark)
Cultural Resource Site 67 (City of Cupertino Community Landmark)
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
CULTURAL RESOURCES
4.4-18 JUNE 18, 2014
Cultural Resource Site 686 (City of Cupertino Community Landmark)
North De Anza Special Area
Cultural Resource Site 66 (City of Cupertino Community Landmark)
Study Area
Study Area 6 (Vallco Shopping District)
Cultural Resource Site 687 (City of Cupertino Community Landmark)
Neighborhoods
Monta Vista Village Neighborhood
Cultural Resource Site 52 (California Register/Eligible for National Register)
Cultural Resource Site 53 (City of Cupertino Commemorative Site)
Cultural Resource Site 54 (City of Cupertino Commemorative Site)
Cultural Resource Site 62 (City of Cupertino Community Landmark)
Non-Residential/Mixed-use Special Area
Bubb Road Special Area
Cultural Resource Site 55 (City of Cupertino Commemorative Site)
Housing Element Site
Housing Element Site 11 (Vallco Shopping District except Rosebowl)
Cultural Resource Site 688 (City of Cupertino Community Landmark)
General Plan and Zoning Ordinance Conformance Sites
Cultural Resource Site 41 (City of Cupertino Local Historic Site)
Cultural Resource Site 49 (City of Cupertino Commemorative Site)
Cultural Resource Site 50 (City of Cupertino Commemorative Site)
Where Project Component locations listed above and their immediate surroundings do not contain
properties currently on the California Register or appear to be eligible for listing on the California Register,
as described above, impacts from implementation of the proposed Project would result in less-than-
significant impacts on historical resources at these sites. However, for Project Component locations that
6 Cultural Resource Site 68 is also in Study Area 6 (Vallco Shopping District ) and Housing Element Site 11 (Vallco Mall).
7 Cultural Resource Site 68 is also in Heart of the City Special Area and Housing Element Site 11 (Vallco Mall).
8 Cultural Resource Site 68 is also in Heart of the City Special Area and Study Area 6 (Vallco Shopping District).
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
CULTURAL RESOURCES
PLACEWORKS 4.4-19
contain properties currently on the California Register or appear to be eligible for listing on the California
Register where the historical buildings might be demolished or materially altered to allow future
development, the proposed Project would cause significant impacts. The following Project Component
locations could be impacted by future development under the proposed Project:
Heart of the City Special Area
Cultural Resource Site 19 (National Register/California Register/Local Landmark)
Cultural Resource Site 25 (Local Landmark, National Register/Not evaluated for California Register
eligibility)
Cultural Resource Site 32 (California Register/Local Landmark)
Cultural Resource Site 57 (National Register/Commemorative Site)
Monta Vista Village Neighborhood
Cultural Resource Site 52 (California Register/Eligible for National Register)
Even if the historical resources were retained, future development under the proposed Project permitted by
the General Plan could cause a significant impact on the historical resource in question if the new
construction were incompatible with the Cultural Resources Site relationships that characterize the existing
property (for example, new construction which extends to all property lines where the historical pattern is
to have setbacks), or if the massing (height and bulk) of the new construction were incompatible with the
historical resource. Lastly, the design characteristics and materials of the new construction could cause an
impact on adjoining or nearby historical buildings (for example, a flat-roofed building with aluminum
windows and a rain-screen wall finish next to a gable-roofed building with period-revival stucco walls).
Because the purpose of the proposed Project is to allow denser new development and because the factors
described above which could impair the historic integrity of resources are generally more important with
larger and denser new construction, the impacts on historical resources could be significant.
However, the General Plan includes policies and strategies that, once adopted, would minimize potential
impacts to historic resources. Within the Land Use and Community Design Element, Policy 2-66, Historic
Sites, would require future development projects under the proposed Project that would occur on Historic
Sites to meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standard for Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines
for Preserving, Rehabilitating, and Restoring Historic Buildings and provide a plaque, reader board and/or
other educational tools on the site to explain the historic significance of the resource(s). The plaque shall
include the city seal, name of resource, date it was built, a written description and photograph and shall be
placed in a location where the public can view the information. For public and quasi-public sites, the City
shall coordinate with property owner to allow public access of the historical site to foster public awareness
and provide educational opportunities. For privately-owned sites, property owners should be encouraged,
but not required, to provide access to the public. Strategy 1, Historic Resource Study, states that the City
shall require project applicants to prepare site-specific evaluations to determine if the project is subject to
completion of a site-specific historic resources study where development would have the potential to
adversely impact a building more than 45 years old or any site adjoining a property with a building more
than 45 years old. Strategy 2, Protection Measure, states that if it is determined that a site-specific historic
resources study is required, the study shall be prepared by a qualified architectural historian meeting the
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
CULTURAL RESOURCES
4.4-20 JUNE 18, 2014
Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Architecture or Architectural History. Site-specific historic resource
studies required under Strategy 1 could include a records search of the California Historical Resources
Information System, an intensive-level pedestrian field survey, an evaluation of significance using standard
National Register Historic Preservation and California Register Historic Preservation evaluation criteria,
and recordation of all identified historic buildings and structures on California Department of Parks and
Recreation 523 Site Record forms. These studies also provide a description of the historic context and
setting, methods used in the investigation, results of the evaluation, and recommendations for management
of identified resources. When applicable, the specific requirements for inventory areas and documentation
format required by certain agencies, such as the Federal Highway Administration and California Department
of Transportation (Caltrans), would also be required to be adhered to. Where future development or
adjacent properties are found to be eligible for listing on the California Register, Policy 2-67,
Commemorative Sites, would require that projects on Commemorative Sites are required to provide a
plaque, reader board and/or other educational tool on the site to explain the historic significance of the
resource. The plaque shall include the city seal, name of resource, date it was built, a written description and
photograph and shall be placed in a location where the public can view the information. For public and
quasi-public sites, the City shall coordinate with property owner to allow public access to the historical site
to foster public awareness and provide educational opportunities. For privately-owned sites, property
owners should be encouraged, but not required, to provide access to the public. Policy 2-68, Community
Landmarks, would require that projects on Landmark Sites provide a plaque, reader board and/or other
educational tools on the site to explain the historic significance of the resource. The plaque shall include the
city seal, name of resource, date it was built, a written description and photograph and shall be placed in a
location where the public can view the information. Policy 2-69, Historic Mention/Interest Sites, would
require the City to encourage agencies that have jurisdiction over the historical resource to encourage
rehabilitation of the resource and provide public access to foster public awareness and provide educational
opportunities. These are sites outside the City’s jurisdictions, but have contributed to the City’s historic past.
Policy 2-70, Incentives for Preservation of Historic Resources, would require the City to utilize a variety of
techniques to serve as incentives toward fostering the preservation and rehabilitation of Historic Sites
including 1) allowing flexible interpretation of zoning ordinance not essential to public health and safety.
This could include flexibility as to use, parking requirements and/or setback requirements; 2) using the
California Building Code for rehabilitation of historic structures; 3) tax rebates; and 4) financial incentives
such as grants/loans to assist rehabilitation efforts. Policy 2-71, Recognizing Historical Resources, would
require the City to maintain an inventory of historically significant structures and periodically updated in
order to promote awareness of these community resources. Furthermore, as part of the proposed Project,
Site 23, the Seven Springs Ranch, would be added to the City’s list of Historically Significant Resources,
which would further protect historic resources.
Potential impacts from future development on historical architectural resources could lead to: 1)
demolition, which by definition results in the material impairment of a resource’s ability to convey its
significance; 2) inappropriate modification, which may use incompatible materials, designs, or construction
techniques in a manner that alters character-defining features; and 3)Inappropriate new construction, which
could introduce incompatible new buildings that clash with an established architectural context. While any
of these scenarios, especially demolition and alteration, have the potential to change the historic fabric or
setting of an architectural resource such that the resource’s ability to convey its significance may be
materially impaired, implementation of the General Plan policies and strategies identified above, as well as
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
CULTURAL RESOURCES
PLACEWORKS 4.4-21
compliance with federal and State laws, as described in Section 4.4.1.1, Regulatory Framework, above,
would ensure future development would not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in
the vicinity and impacts would be less than significant.
Significance Without Mitigation: Less than significant.
CULT-2 Implementation of the proposed Project would not have the potential to
cause substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological
resource pursuant to Section 15064.5.
Historical and pre-contact archaeological deposits that meet the definition of historical resources under
CEQA could be damaged or destroyed by ground-disturbing activities associated with future development
allowed under the proposed Project. Should this occur, the ability of the deposits to convey their
significance, either as containing information important in prehistory or history, or as possessing traditional
or cultural significance to Native American or other descendant communities, would be materially impaired.
Although the locations identified as potential for future development would be concentrated on sites and in
areas either already developed, and/or in close proximity to existing residential and residential-serving
development, where development would have a lesser impact on historical archeological resources, the
potential remains that archaeological deposits could be discovered because Project Components would
result in development on, or within the vicinity of, several identified cultural resources as shown on Figure
4.4-1, and identified in Section 4.4.2.3, Historic Sites Within Project Components, of this chapter. In
addition, the Project Study Area in its entirety has not been systematically surveyed, and much of the land
remains unsurveyed. Approximately 25 percent of the land within the city boundaries and existing SOI has
been surveyed for cultural resources. Therefore, it is probable that unrecorded Native American prehistoric
archaeological sites exist in the areas identified for potential future development, including those that are
buried under alluvial or fill soils due to the age of geologic deposits within the city, which have the potential
to contain prehistoric archaeological resources. Furthermore, prior to its development, much of the land
within the Project Study Area was used as ranches and/or vineyards. Therefore, there is a potential for
significant subsurface historical archaeological features, including hollow-filled features (e.g. privies and
wells) and other historic debris.
Although the Project Study Area soils and any potential historic features have been disturbed by farming
operations and grading and trenching for development of existing buildings and structures, the Project
Component locations could still contain subsurface archaeological deposits. Any project-related ground-
disturbing activities have the potential to affect subsurface prehistoric archaeological resources that may be
present. Based on the significance criteria identified above, the proposed Project would have a significant
impact on the environment if these ground-disturbing activities cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical archaeological resource. A substantial adverse change in the significance of an
historical archaeological resource would occur from its demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration
such that the significance of the resource would be materially impaired (CEQA Guidelines Section
15064.5(b)(1)).
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
CULTURAL RESOURCES
4.4-22 JUNE 18, 2014
The General Plan includes a policy and supporting strategies that, once adopted, would protect
archaeologically sensitive areas and would provide for the identification of archaeological deposits prior to
actions that may disturb such deposits. Within the Land Use and Community Design Element, Policy 2-72,
Archaeologically Sensitive Areas, would require the City to protect archaeologically sensitive areas, through
supporting Strategy 1, Development Investigation, which would require an investigation for development
proposed in areas likely to be archaeologically sensitive, such as along stream courses and in oak groves, to
determine if significant archaeological resources may be affected by the project. This strategy would also
require appropriate mitigation measures in the project design. In addition, Strategy 2, Code Compliance,
would require the City to ensure that City, State, and federal historic preservations laws, regulations, and
Codes are enforced, including laws related to archaeological and paleontological resources, to ensure the
adequate protection of historic and pre-historic resources. Therefore, compliance of the General Plan policy
and strategies and with federal and State laws described in Section 4.4.1.1, Regulatory Framework, above,
potential impacts would be less than significant.
Significance Without Mitigation: Less than significant.
CULT-3 Implementation of the proposed Project would not have the potential to
directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site, or
unique geologic feature.
A review of the University of California’s Museum of Paleontology’s (UCMP) fossil locality database was
conducted for the entire Project Study Area. No paleontological resources have been identified within the
Project Component locations; however, the presence of Pleistocene deposits that are known to contain
fossils indicates that the overall Project Study Area could contain paleontological resources.
Consequently, the proposed Project would have a significant effect on the environment if it would directly
or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site. Although the proposed Project would not in
and of itself result in direct physical development, future development as a result of implementation of the
proposed Project could result in potentially significant impacts to a unique paleontological resources or site,
or unique geologic feature. However, the General Plan includes policies and strategies that, once adopted,
would minimize impacts to unique paleontological resources. Within the Land Use and Community Design
Element, Policy 2-72, Archaeologically Sensitive Areas, would require the City to protect paleontological
sensitive areas, through supporting Strategy 2, Code Compliance, which would require the City to ensure
that City, State, and Federal historic preservations laws, regulations, and Codes are enforced, including laws
related to archaeological and paleontological resources, to ensure the adequate protection of historic and
pre-historic resources. Therefore, compliance with Policy 2-72, Archaeologically Sensitive Areas, along with
compliance with federal and State laws described in Section 4.4.1.1, Regulatory Framework, above, would
minimize the potential impact related to directly or indirectly destroying a unique paleontological resource
or site relating to construction and other ground-disturbing activities associated with future development,
would be less than significant.
Significance Without Mitigation: Less than significant.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
CULTURAL RESOURCES
PLACEWORKS 4.4-23
CULT-4 Implementation of the proposed Project would not have the potential to
disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal
cemeteries.
Human remains associated with pre-contact archaeological deposits could exist in the Project Study Area,
and could be encountered at the time potential future development occurs. The associated ground-
disturbing activities, such as site grading and trenching for utilities, have the potential to disturb human
remains interred outside of formal cemeteries. Descendant communities may ascribe religious or cultural
significance to such remains, and may view their disturbance as an unmitigable impact. Disturbance of
unknown human remains would be a significant impact.
However, any human remains encountered during ground-disturbing activities associated with future
development under implementation of the proposed Project would be subject to federal, State, and local
regulations, such as the California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, Public Resources Code Section
5097.98, and the California Code of Regulations Section 15064.5(e) (CEQA), which state the mandated
procedures of conduct following the discovery of human remains. According to the provisions in CEQA, if
human remains are encountered at the site, all work in the immediate vicinity of the discovery shall cease
and necessary steps to ensure the integrity of the immediate area shall be taken. The Santa Clara County
Coroner shall be notified immediately. The Coroner shall then determine whether the remains are Native
American. If the Coroner determines the remains are Native American, the Coroner shall notify the NAHC
within 24 hours, who will, in turn, notify the person the NAHC identifies as the MLD of any human
remains. Further actions shall be determined, in part, by the desires of the MLD. The MLD has 48 hours to
make recommendations regarding the disposition of the remains following notification from the NAHC of
the discovery. If the MLD does not make recommendations within 48 hours, the owner shall, with
appropriate dignity, reinter the remains in an area of the property secure from further disturbance.
Alternatively, if the owner does not accept the MLD’s recommendations, the owner or the descendent may
request mediation by the NAHC. In addition, within the Land Use and Community Design Element, Policy
2-73, Native American Burials, would require the City to protect Native American burial sites and the
supporting strategy would require that upon the discovery of such burials during construction, project
applicants shall take action prescribed by State law.
Therefore, with the mandatory regulatory procedures and compliance with the General Plan policy and
strategy described above, potential impacts related to the potential discovery or disturbance of any human
remains accidently unearthed during construction activities associated with future development as a result
of implementation of the proposed Project would be less than significant.
Significance Without Mitigation: Less than significant.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
CULTURAL RESOURCES
4.4-24 JUNE 18, 2014
CULT-5 Implementation of the proposed Project, in combination with past, present,
and reasonably foreseeable projects, would not result in cumulative impacts
with respect to cultural resources.
As discussed in Chapter 4, Environmental Evaluation, of this Draft EIR, this EIR takes into account growth
projected by the proposed Project within the Cupertino city boundary and 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 future development permitted under the
proposed Project within the Project Component locations, in conjunction with buildout of the city and the
region, has the potential to cumulatively impact historical resources. Such impacts could result from more
intensive land uses, incompatible site designs that impact the historical integrity of nearby historical
buildings and districts, and demolition of historical resources. Further, development within the Project
Study Area also has the potential to adversely affect archaeological resources, paleontological resources, and
human remains through their destruction or disturbance. Therefore, before mitigation, development
allowed by the proposed Project, in combination with other future development in the city and the region,
has the potential to cause adverse cumulative impacts to cultural resources due to their destruction or loss
of integrity. However, the General Plan policies and strategies, and mandatory regulation described above in
Section 4.4.3, Impact Discussion, and Section 4.4.1, Regulatory Framework, above would avoid impacts to
such resources that would occur from development and land use changes allowed by the proposed Project.
Therefore, past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future development in Cupertino is not expected to
have a significant effect on cultural resources.
The proposed Project is not anticipated to have a significant impact on cultural resources. Therefore,
implementation of the proposed Project would result in a less-than-significant contribution to cumulative
cultural resources impacts.
Significance Without Mitigation: Less than significant.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
GEOLOGY, SOILS, & SEISMICITY
PLACEWORKS 4.5-1
4.5 GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND SEISMICITY
This chapter describes potential impacts associated with the adoption and implementation of the proposed
Project that are related to geology, soils, and seismicity. Additionally, this chapter describes the
environmental setting, including the regulatory framework and existing conditions, and identifies policies
and mitigation measures that would avoid or reduce significant impacts.
4.5.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
4.5.1.1 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
The State of California as well as the City of Cupertino have established laws and regulations that pertain to
geology, soils, and seismicity. There are no federal laws or regulations related to geology, soils and seismicity
that are applicable to the proposed Project. The following laws and regulations are relevant to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review process for the proposed Project.
State Regulations
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act
The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act was passed in 1972 to mitigate the hazard of surface fault
rupture to structures used for human occupancy.1 The main purpose of the Act is to prevent the
construction of buildings used for human occupancy on top of the traces of active faults. It was passed into
law in the wake of the February 1971 magnitude (Mw) 6.5 San Fernando (Sylmar) Earthquake that resulted
in over 500 million dollars in property damage and 65 deaths.2 Although this Act addresses the hazards
associated with surface fault rupture, it does not address other earthquake-related hazards, such as
seismically induced ground shaking, liquefaction, or landslides.
This Act requires the State Geologist to establish regulatory zones (formerly known as Special Studies
Zones, now referred to as Earthquake Fault Zones) around the surface traces of mapped active faults, and to
publish appropriate maps that depict these zones.3 The maps are made publicly available and distributed to
all affected cities, counties, and State agencies for their use in planning and controlling new or renewed
construction. In general, the law prohibits construction within 50 feet of an active fault trace.
1 Originally titled the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zones Act until renamed in 1993, California Public Resources Code, Division 2,
Chapter 7.5, Section 2621. The entire Act can be found at California Public Resources Code Section 2690 et seq.
2 Southern California Earthquake Data Center, 2014. http://www.data.scec.org/significant/sanfernando1971.html, accessed on April
18, 2014.
3 California Geological Survey, Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones, http://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/rghm/ap/
Pages/index.aspx, accessed on March 21, 2014.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
GEOLOGY, SOILS, & SEISMICITY
4.5-2 JUNE 18, 2014
Seismic Hazards Mapping Act
The Seismic Hazards Mapping Act,4 which was passed by the California legislature in 1990, addresses
earthquake hazards related to liquefaction and seismically induced landslides. Under the Act, seismic hazard
zones are mapped by the State Geologist in order to assist local governments in land use planning. The Act
states that “it is necessary to identify and map seismic hazard zones in order for cities and counties to
adequately prepare the safety element of their general plans and to encourage land use management policies
and regulations to reduce and mitigate those hazards to protect public health and safety.”5 Section 2697(a) of
the Act states that “cities and counties shall require, prior to the approval of a project located in a seismic
hazard zone, a geotechnical report defining and delineating any seismic hazard.”6
California Building Code
The California Building Code (CBC), known as the California Building Standards Code, is found in Title 24
of the California Code of Regulations. The CBC incorporates the International Building Code, a model
building code adopted across the United States. Current State law requires every local agency enforcing
building regulations, such as cities and counties, to adopt the provisions of the CBC within 180 days of its
publication. The publication date of the CBC is established by the California Building Standards
Commission. The most recent building standard adopted by the legislature and used throughout the state is
the 2013 version of the CBC, which took effect on January 1, 2014. The CBC, as adopted by local cities or
counties, is often modified with more restrictive amendments that are based on local geographic,
topographic, or climatic conditions. These codes provide minimum standards to protect property and public
safety by regulating the design and construction of excavations, foundations, building frames, retaining
walls, and other building elements to mitigate the effects of seismic shaking and adverse soil conditions.7 It
also regulates grading activities, including drainage and erosion control.
Local Regulations
City of Cupertino General Plan 2000-2020
The City of Cupertino’s 2000-2020 General Plan, adopted on November 15, 2005, includes policies and
strategies that, once adopted, would seek to reduce the risks associated with geologic and seismic hazards in
Section 6, Health and Safety Element. As part of the proposed Project, some General Plan policies would be
amended. As part of the proposed Project, some General Plan policies would be amended. Substantive
policy changes under the proposed Project include the addition, removal, or functional revision (e.g. not
purely semantic) of policies in ways that have the potential to result in a physical impact on the environment.
Policies of the 2000-2020 General Plan that are relevant to geologic resources and were not substantially
modified (e.g. renumbered or minor text change) are listed below in Table 4.5-1. A comprehensive list of
policy changes is provided in Appendix I, Proposed General Plan Policy Amendments, of this Draft EIR.
4 California Public Resources Code, Division 2, Chapter 7.8, Section 2690 et seq.
5 California Public Resources Code, Division 2, Chapter 7.8, Section 2691(c).
6 California Public Resources Code, Division 2, Chapter 7.8, Section 2697(a).
7 California Building Standards Commission, http://www.bsc.ca.gov/codes.aspx , accessed on March 20, 2014.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
GEOLOGY, SOILS, & SEISMICITY
PLACEWORKS 4.5-3
Discussions of how substantive policy changes may result in adverse physical changes are included in the
analyses under each impact criterion in Section 4.5.3, Impact Discussion, below.
TABLE 4.5‐1 POLICIES AND STRATEGIES OF THE CUPERTINO 2000‐2020 GENERAL PLAN
New Policy
Number
Original Policy
Number Policies and Strategies
Section 6, Health and Safety
Policy 6‐3 Policy 6‐2 Public Education on Seismic Safety. Reinforce the existing public education program to help
residents reduce earthquake hazards.
Strategy 1. Covenant on Seismic Risk. Require developers to record a covenant to tell future
residents in high‐risk areas about the risk and inform them that more information is in City
Hall records. This is in addition to the State requirement that information on the geological
report is recorded on the face of subdivision maps.
Strategy 2. Emergency Preparedness. Publish and promote emergency preparedness
activities and drills. Use the Cupertino Scene, City social media, and website to provide
safety tips that may include identifying and correcting household hazards, knowing how and
when to turn off utilities, helping family members protect themselves during and after an
earthquake, recommending neighborhood preparation activities, and advising residents to
maintain an emergency supply kit containing first‐aid supplies, food, drinking water and
battery operated radios and flashlights.
Strategy 3. Neighborhood Response Groups. Encourage participation in Community
Emergency Response Team (CERT) training. Train neighborhood groups to care for
themselves during disasters. Actively assist in neighborhood drills and safety excercises to
increase participation and build community support.
Strategy 4. Dependent Populations. As part of community‐wide efforts, actively cooperate
with State agencies that oversee facilities for persons with disabilities and those with access
and functional needs, to ensure that such facilities conform to all health and safety
requirements, including emergency planning, training, exercises and employee education.
Strategy 5. Foreign Language Emergency Information. Obtain translated emergency
preparedness materials and make them available to appropriate foreign language
populations.
Source: City of Cupertino and Cupertino 2000‐2020 General Plan.
City of Cupertino Municipal Code
The City of Cupertino Municipal Code contains all ordinances for the city. The Municipal Code is organized
by Title, Chapter, and Section. The current Municipal Code is up to date through Ordinance 14-2117,
passed March 18, 2014. The following provisions of the Municipal Code apply to building structure and
safety with regards to reducing impacts related to geologic hazards:
Chapter 16.04, Building Code, of Title 16, Buildings and Construction includes the City of Cupertino
2013 CBC, adopted by reference, as the basis for the City’s Building Code. A number of additional
building-related requirements were appended to the CBC as it was adopted. The Cupertino Building
Code prohibits most uses of structural plain concrete in structures assigned to Seismic Design Category
C, D, E, or F. The following provides a discussion of additional chapters in Title 16 that include
provisions to minimize impacts related to geology, soils, and seismicity.
Chapter 16.08, Excavations, Grading and Retaining Walls, includes provisions that govern construction-
related excavation and grading. Section 16.08.110 requires the preparation and submittal of Interim
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
GEOLOGY, SOILS, & SEISMICITY
4.5-4 JUNE 18, 2014
Erosion and Sediment Control Plans for all projects subject to City-issued grading permits, and Sections
16.08.120, Engineering Geological Reports, and 16.08.130, Soils and Engineering Reports, give the
City the discretionary authority to require geological engineering and soils engineering investigations
where potential geological hazards warrant.
Additionally, Sections 16.08.170, Grading Permit – Approval, and 16.08.180, Grading Permit – Denial,
set forth the standards for issuing and denying grading permits. Specifically, grading permits are denied
where such activity could interfere with a drainage system, if the area is subject to geological or flood
hazards to the extent that no reasonable amount of corrective work can eliminate or sufficiently reduce
the hazard to human life or property, and where interim plan is inadequate to certain sediment on-site
or control erosion.
Chapter 16.12, Soils and Foundations, requires the conduct of a detailed soils investigation for proposed
subdivision construction projects that are subject to the Cupertino Building Code.
For a complete discussion on soil erosion prevention as it relates to water quality, see Chapter 4.8,
Hydrology and Water Quality, of this Draft EIR.
4.5.1.2 EXISTING CONDITIONS
This section includes a discussion of the existing geologic, soil, and seismic conditions in Cupertino.
Geology
The City of Cupertino lies in the west-central part of the Santa Clara Valley, a broad, mostly flat alluvial
plain that extends southward from San Francisco Bay. Major right-lateral strike-slip faults occur on either
side of the valley, including the San Andreas Fault on the west and the Hayward and Calaveras Faults on the
east. The general pattern of surficial geology as one traverses the City of Cupertino (from northeast to
southwest) can be described as young, unconsolidated Quaternary alluvium, followed by lower Pleistocene
to Upper Pliocene fluvial deposits of the Santa Clara Formations, then the sedimentary, low-grade
metamorphic, and igneous rocks of the Late Jurassic to Early Cretaceous Franciscan Complex;8as shown in
Figure 4.5-1.
The shallowest alluvium (and youngest geologic deposits) in the Project Study Area consist of
unconsolidated sediment that is exposed along the lower reaches of present-day drainages, such as Stevens,
Regnart, and Calabazas Creeks, as well as the flanking alluvium that reflects both recent and former stream
courses. These sediments have been described as Holocene-age younger alluvium and coarse-grained
alluvium that are composed of unconsolidated, poorly sorted gravel, silt, sand, and clay and organic matter.
More often than not, these sediments are encountered in active modern drainage channels and small alluvial
fans where they tend to grade into fine- to coarse-grained alluvial deposits such as levees and fans.
8 US Geological Survey, 1994, Preliminary Quaternary Geologic Maps of Santa Clara Valley, Santa Clara, Alameda, and San Mateo
Counties, California: A Digital Database, Open-File Report 94-231, by E.J. Helley, R.W. Graymer, G.A. Phelps, P.K. Showalter, and C.M.
Wentworth.
PlaceWorks
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
GEOLOGY, SOILS, & SEISMICITY
4.5-6 JUNE 18, 2014
Underlying the above-referenced younger alluvium is the Santa Clara Formation, a lower Pleistocene to
Upper Pliocene age assemblage of moderately to well-consolidated fluvial deposits of pebble and cobble
gravel with lesser amounts of sand, silt, and clay.9 Clay matrix in this sedimentary bedrock is reported to be
moderately expansive, and as a rule, the typical permeability and porosity is low. The depositional
environmental has been interpreted as various non-marine environments that were formed in response to
late Cenozoic tectonism and uplift of the nearby Coast Ranges. The Santa Clara Formation is believed to be
as much as 500 feet thick in the Project Study Area, and it typically lies unconformably on older Pliocene-
age rocks, often as a thin sedimentary veneer.
Elsewhere in the southwestern Santa Clara Valley, to the east of the San Andreas Fault, fossiliferous
sandstones of Pliocene age have been documented in outcrops northwest of the Project Study Area. These
outcrops of friable, fossil-bearing, fine-grained sandstone have been mapped as the Merced Formation. The
Merced formation reportedly attains a maximum thickness approaching 100 feet and the presence of locally
abundant mollusk fossils suggests a shallow marine depositional environment. The Merced formation
reportedly attains a maximum thickness approaching 100 feet and the presence of locally abundant mollusk
fossils suggests a shallow marine depositional environment.10
Finally, the sandstones, chert, shale, limestone, low-grade metamorphic, and igneous rocks of the Late
Jurassic to Early Cretaceous Franciscan Complex represent the oldest rocks exposed in the Project Study
Area. The Franciscan Complex rocks appear to be geographically widespread, and they are inferred to occur
at depth beneath the entire southwestern Santa Clara Valley.11 Masses of partially to completely
serpentinized peridotite occur as fault-bounded bodies within the Franciscan Complex and in places, it has
been hydrothermally altered to silica-carbonate rock.
Soils
Web-accessible soil mapping data compiled by the USDA’s Soil Conservation Survey and the California Soil
Resource Laboratory hosted by University of California-Davis was used to identify the major soil types
within the Project Study Area. In the east and central parts of the Project Study Area, the predominant soil
types include soils of the Urban Land-Flaskan, Urban-Land Stevens Creek, and Urban Land-Botella
complexes generally formed on slopes of 0 to 2 percent, whereas soils in the western and southwestern
parts of the Project Study Area largely consist of soils of the Literr-Urban Land-Merbeth and Merbeth-
9 US Geological Survey, 2002. Subsurface and Petroleum Geology of the Southwestern Santa Clara Valley (“Silicon Valley"), California,
Professional Paper 1663, by Richard G. Stanley, Robert C. Jachens, Paul G. Lillis, Robert J. McLaughlin, Keith A. Kvenvolden, Frances D.
Hostettler, Kristin A. McDougall, and Leslie B. Magoon.
10 US Geological Survey, 2002. Subsurface and Petroleum Geology of the Southwestern Santa Clara Valley (“Silicon Valley"),
California, Professional Paper 1663, by Richard G. Stanley, Robert C. Jachens, Paul G. Lillis, Robert J. McLaughlin, Keith A. Kvenvolden,
Frances D. Hostettler, Kristin A. McDougall, and Leslie B. Magoon.
11 US Geological Survey, 2002. Subsurface and Petroleum Geology of the Southwestern Santa Clara Valley (“Silicon Valley"),
California, Professional Paper 1663, by Richard G. Stanley, Robert C. Jachens, Paul G. Lillis, Robert J. McLaughlin, Keith A. Kvenvolden,
Frances D. Hostettler, Kristin A. McDougall, and Leslie B. Magoon.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
GEOLOGY, SOILS, & SEISMICITY
PLACEWORKS 4.5-7
Literr complex formed on slopes of 5 to 30 percent. In almost all instances, these soils are reportedly deep
and well drained, and are typified by low runoff.12
Soils in the vicinity of Cupertino are known to be expansive in places.13 A number of widely used treatments
are available to mitigate expansive soils, including soil grouting, recompaction, and replacement with a non-
expansive material. The CBC requires that each construction location be evaluated to determine the most
appropriate treatment for expansive soils. Local-area construction contractors and soil testing firms are well
acquainted with the procedures used to identify and mitigate expansive soils.
Regional Faulting, Seismicity, and Related Seismic Hazards
The Earth’s crust includes tectonic plates that locally collide with or slide past one another along plate
boundaries. California is particularly susceptible to such plate movements, notably, the largely horizontal or
“strike-slip” movement of the Pacific Plate, as it impinges on and slides past the west margin of the North
American Plate. In general, earthquakes occur when the accumulated stress along a plate boundary or fault
is suddenly released, resulting in seismic slippage. The amount (i.e. distance) of slippage can vary widely,
ranging in scale from a few millimeters or centimeters, to tens of feet.
The performance of man-made structures during a major seismic event varies widely due to a number of
factors: location with respect to active fault traces or areas prone to liquefaction or seismically-induced
landslides; the type of building construction (i.e. wood frame, unreinforced masonry, non-ductile concrete
frame); the proximity, magnitude, and intensity of the seismic event itself; and many other factors. In
general, evidence from past earthquakes shows that wood frame structures tend to perform well, especially
when their foundations are properly designed and anchored. Older, unreinforced masonry structures, on
the other hand, do not perform as well, especially if they have not undergone appropriate seismic
retrofitting. Applicable building code requirements, such as those found in the CBC, include seismic
requirements that are designed to ensure the satisfactory performance of building materials under
prescribed seismic conditions.
The Project Study Area, like much of the San Francisco Bay Area, is vulnerable to seismic activity due to the
presence of several active faults in the region. As shown on Figure 4.5-2, the closest and most prominent
active fault near the Project Study Area is the San Andreas Fault System, whose closest approach lies less
than one mile southwest of the Project Study Area. Other active earthquake faults in the Santa Clara Valley
region include the Hayward Fault which lies roughly 8 miles to the east, the Calaveras Fault which is
approximately 15 miles to the east, and the San Gregorio Faults, which passes as close as 15 miles southwest
of the Project Study Area. Based on the maps published by the California Geological Survey, the only
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone that has been mapped in the Project Study Area is the one that flanks
the San Andreas Fault. This is shown on Figure 4.5-2.
12 UC Davis Soil Resource Laboratory, 2014. California Soil Resource Lab, Online Soil Survey, URL:
http://casoilresource.lawr.ucdavis.edu/soilweb/, accessed on April 16, 2014.
13 Cornerstone Earth Group, 2010, Current Conditions, Geology, Soil and Seismic Hazards, San Jose General Plan Update.
PLACEWORKS
Source: US Geological Survey, 2004; Earthquakes and Faults in the San Francisco Bay Area (1970-2003); Scientific Investigations Map 2848.
Figure 4.5-2Earthquakes and Faults in the San Francisco Bay Area
GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMICITY
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, ASSOCIATED REZONING PROJECT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
City of
Cupertino
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
GEOLOGY, SOILS, & SEISMICITY
PLACEWORKS 4.5-9
Other potentially significant mapped faults within the Project Study Area include the Sargent-Berrocal and
Monte Vista-Shannon Fault systems, both of which are northwest-southeast trending reverse faults with
reported dips toward the southwest.14 Neither fault has been mapped by the California Geological Survey as
an “active” fault (sensu stricto) for want of conclusive evidence of Holocene displacement, such that the
faults would meet current criteria of being "sufficiently active" for zoning under the Alquist-Priolo Act.15
Such mapping criteria notwithstanding, both fault zones reportedly exhibit geomorphic evidence of faulting
(i.e. lineament patterns, offset drainages, sag ponds, and faceted ridge spurs) and a November 1973
earthquake of magnitude (Mw) 4.7 to 4.9 near the neighboring community of Los Gatos was tentatively
linked to movement on the Sargent-Berrocal Fault.16
Ground Shaking
The severity of ground shaking depends on several variables, such as earthquake magnitude, hypocenter
proximity, local geology (including the properties of unconsolidated sediments), groundwater conditions,
and topographic setting. In general, ground-shaking hazards are most pronounced in areas that are underlain
by loosely consolidated soil/sediment.
When earthquake faults within the Bay Area’s nine-county area were considered, the USGS estimated that
the probability of a MW 6.7 or greater earthquake prior to year 2036 is 63 percent, or roughly a two-thirds
probability over this timeframe.17 Individually, the forecasted probability for a given earthquake fault to
produce a MW 6.7 or greater seismic event by the year 2036 is as follows: 31 percent for the Hayward Fault,
21 percent for the San Andreas Fault, 7 percent for the Calaveras Fault, and 6 percent for the San Gregorio
Fault, as shown in Figure 4.5-2. Earthquakes of this magnitude can create ground accelerations severe
enough to cause major damage to structures and foundations not designed to resist the forces generated by
earthquakes. Underground utility lines are also susceptible where they lack sufficient flexibility to
accommodate the seismic ground motion. In the event of an earthquake of this magnitude, the seismic
forecasts presented on the Association of Bay Area Governments’ website (developed by a cooperative
working group that included the USGS and the CGS) suggest that most parts of Project Study Area are
expected to experience “strong” shaking (i.e. Modified Mercali Intensity [MMI] VII).18
The April 1906 earthquake on the San Andreas Fault, estimated between MW 7.7 and 8.3, was the largest
seismic event in recent history that affected the City of Cupertino. More recently, the MW 6.9 Loma Prieta
earthquake of October 1989 on the San Andreas Fault caused significant damage throughout the San
Francisco Bay Area, although no deaths were reported in Santa Clara County.
14 US Geological Survey, 1994, Geomorphic Investigations of Deformation Along the Northeastern Margin of the Santa Cruz
Mountains, by Christopher S. Hitchcock, Keith I. Kelson and Stephen C. Thompson, Open File Report 94-187.
15 California Division of Mines and Geology, 1980, Fault Evaluation Report FER-98, dated June 26, 1980.
16 US Geological Survey, 1975, Geologic Map of the Sargent-Berrocal Fault Zone between Los Gatos and Los Altos Hills, Santa Clara
County, California, by Dennis Sorg and Robert McLaughlin, Map MF-643.
17 U.S. Geological Survey, 2014. 2008 Bay Area Earthquake Probabilities, http://earthquake.usgs.gov/regional/nca/ucerf/, accessed
April 1, 2014.
18 Association of Bay Area Governments, 2014. Geographic Information Systems, Earthquake Shaking Scenarios, 2012, source: USGS,
2013, http://gis3.abag.ca.gov/Website/Shaking-Maps/viewer.htm , accessed April 16, 2014.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
GEOLOGY, SOILS, & SEISMICITY
4.5-10 JUNE 18, 2014
Landslides
Landslides are gravity-driven movements of earth materials that may include rock, soil, unconsolidated
sediment, or combinations of such materials. The rate of landslide movement can vary considerably. Some
move rapidly as in a soil or rock avalanche, while other landslides creep or move slowly for extended
periods of time. The susceptibility of a given area to landslides depends on many variables, although the
general characteristics that influence landslide hazards are well understood. The factors that influence the
probability of a landslide and its relative level of risk include the following:
Slope Material: Loose, unconsolidated soils and soft, weak rocks are more hazardous than are firm,
consolidated soils or hard bedrock.
Slope Steepness: Most landslides occur on moderate to steep slopes.
Structure and Physical Properties of Materials: This includes the orientation of layering and
zones of weakness relative to slope direction.
Water Content: Increased water content increases landslide hazard by decreasing friction and adding
weight to the materials on a slope.
Vegetation Coverage: Abundant vegetation with deep roots promote slope stability.
Proximity to Areas of Erosion or Man-made Cuts: Undercutting slopes can greatly increase
landslide potential.
Earthquake Ground Motions: Strong seismic ground motions can trigger landslides in marginally
stable slopes or loosen slope materials, and also increase the risk of future landslides.
Earthquake-induced landslides have the potential to occur within the Project Study Area, most notably on
some of the hilly slopes in the southwest part of the community, as shown in Figure 4.5-3. In general,
landslides are commonly associated with bedrock outcrops of the Franciscan Complex, which frequently
form steeper slopes. Earthquake hazard maps prepared by the California Geological Survey show many
small seismic-induced landslide hazard areas in the southwest part of the Project Study Area.19 These zones
are almost exclusively limited to steeper hillsides. Landslides are not an issue in parts of the Project Study
Area where the topography is flat. Due to the differences in the physical characteristics of slope materials,
which markedly influence landslide potential, some superficially similar areas may differ widely in terms of
landslide hazards. For this reason, site-specific geotechnical analyses are essential to the accurate assessment
of potential landslide hazards at any given project.
19 California Geological Survey (CGS), 2002. Seismic Hazards Zone, Cupertino Quadrangle, Official Map, released September 23,
2002. Scale 1:24,000.
280
580
880
680
17
1
1
80
101
101
101
21%
3%
6%
7%
3%
31%
probabilityÊforÊoneÊorÊmore
magnitudeÊ6.7ÊorÊgreater
earthquakesÊfromÊ2007ÊtoÊ2036.
63%
1%
C
A
L
A
V
E
R
A
S
F
A
U
L
T
R
O
D
G
E
R
S
C
R
E
E
K
F
A
U
L
T
C
O
N
C
O
R
D
Ð
G
R
E
E
N
V
A
L
L
E
Y
F
A
U
L
T
H
A
Y
W
A
R
D
F
A
U
L
T
G
R
E
E
N
V
I
L
L
E
F
A
U
L
T
G
R
E
E
N
V
I
L
L
E
MT
.
D
I
A
B
L
O
TH
R
U
S
T
F
A
U
L
T
MT
.
D
I
A
B
L
O
TH
R
U
S
T
F
A
U
L
T
C
A
L
A
V
E
R
A
S
F
A
U
L
T
F
A
U
L
T
C
O
N
C
O
R
D
Ð
G
R
E
E
N
V
A
L
L
E
Y
F
A
U
L
T
S
A
N
A
N
D
R
E
A
S
F
A
U
L
T
P
a
c
i
f
i
c
O
c
e
a
n
S
A
N
G
R
E
G
O
R
I
O
F
A
U
L
T
R
O
D
G
E
R
S
C
R
E
E
K
F
A
U
L
T
H
A
Y
W
A
R
D
F
A
U
L
T
Monterey
Bay
S
a
n
F
r
a
n
cisc
o
Bay
Probability of magnitude
6.7 or greater quakes
before 2036 on the
indicated fault
Expanding urban areas
Increasing probability
along fault segments
0
0 20 KILOMETERS
20 MILES
NN
%
San Francisco
Half MoonBay
Pacifica
Oakland
Sacramento
Stockton
DanvilleDanville
Antioch
PaloAlto
SanMateo
WalnutCreekWalnutCreek
LivermorePleasantonHayward
Tracy
Santa CruzWatsonville
GilroyGilroy
Monterey
Salinas
SanJose
SantaRosa
Petaluma
NovNovato
SanRafael
NapaSonoma
Vallejo
E
X
T
E
N
T
O
F
R
U
P
T
U
R
E
IN
L
O
M
A
P
R
I
E
T
A
Q
U
A
K
E
E
X
T
E
N
T
O
F
R
U
P
T
U
R
E
IN
L
O
M
A
P
R
I
E
T
A
Q
U
A
K
E
Source: US Geological Survey, 2008 Bay Area Earthquake Probabilities, 2014.
Figure 4.5-3Bay Area Earthquake Probabilities
GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMICITY
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, ASSOCIATED REZONING PROJECT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
City of Cupertino
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
GEOLOGY, SOILS, & SEISMICITY
4.5-12 JUNE 18, 2014
Liquefaction
Liquefaction generally occurs in areas where moist, fine-grained, cohesionless sediment or fill materials are
subjected to strong, seismically induced ground shaking. Under certain circumstances, the ground shaking
can temporarily transform an otherwise solid, granular material to a fluid state. Liquefaction is a serious
hazard because buildings in areas that experience liquefaction may subside and suffer major structural
damage. Liquefaction is most often triggered by seismic shaking, but it can also be caused by improper
grading, landslides, or other factors. In dry soils, seismic shaking may cause soil to consolidate rather than
flow, a process known as densification.
Assuming a 7.8 MW earthquake on the San Andreas Fault, the USGS estimated that the liquefaction potential
ranges from 0 to 5 percent throughout most of the Project Study Area, as shown in Figure 4.5-4.20 This
USGS evaluation did not consider parts of the Project Study Area to the southwest in the foothills, where
liquefaction hazards were judged low and specific risks were therefore not assigned.
Unstable Geologic Units
Expansive soils can change dramatically in volume depending on moisture content. When wet, these soils
can expand; conversely, when dry, they can contract or shrink. Sources of moisture that can trigger this
shrink-swell phenomenon can include seasonal rainfall, landscape irrigation, utility leakage, and/or perched
groundwater. Expansive soil can develop wide cracks in the dry season, and changes in soil volume have the
potential to damage concrete slabs, foundations, and pavement. Special building/structure design or soil
treatment are often needed in areas with expansive soils.
Expansive soils are typically very fine-grained with a high to very high percentage of clay, typically
montmorillonite, smectite, or bentonite clay. Two types of soil tests are used to identify expansive soils. The
first is referred to as a linear extensibility test, which measures the change in length of an unconfined clod as
the moisture content is decreased from a moist to dry state. The volume change is reported as a percent
change for the entire sample. In the linear extensibility test, shrink-swell potential is considered low if the
soil has a linear extensibility of less than 3 percent; moderate, if 3 to 6 percent; high, if 6 to 9 percent; and
very high, if more than 9 percent.21 A linear extensibility of 3 percent or greater indicates that shrinking and
swelling has the potential to cause damage to buildings, roads, and other structures. Previous USDA soil
surveys notwithstanding, the shrink-swell potential at a given project within the Project Study Area may be
highly site-specific, requiring careful geotechnical investigation prior to project design and construction.
20 U.S. Geological Survey, Open File Report 2008-1270, 2008.
21 Army Corps of Engineers Field Manual TM 5-818-7, 1985. Accessed November 2012 from: http://armypubs.
army.mil/eng/DR_pubs/DR_a/pdf/tm5_818_7.pdf.
PLACEWORKS
Liquefaction probability
30 to 40%
20 to 30%
10 to 20%
5 to 10%
0 to 5%
Not assigned
Legend
Not studied
Water
Bedrock
San Andreas Fault
Major highways
Streets
Liquefaction probability for M7.8 San Andreas Fault earthquake scenario, Santa Clara County, CA
280
280
680
680
880
85
85
237
17
17
101
101
121°45'0"W
121°52'30"W
121°52'30"W
122°0'0"W
122°0'0"W
122°7'30"W
122°7'30"W
37°22'30"N
37°22'30"N
37°15'0"N37°15'0"N
S
a
n
A
n
d
r
e
a
s
F
a
u
l
t
San Francisco Bay
San Jose
0 5Miles
0 8Kilometers
Open File Report 2008-1270
This map shows the likelihood of liquefaction in Northern Santa Clara County during a magnitude 7.8 earthquake on the northernmost segments of the San Andreas Fault. This earthquake is similar to the 1906 San Francisco earthquake.
At each location, the map predicts the approximate probability that shallow wet sands will liquefy and cause surface manifestations of liquefaction such as sand boils and ground cracking. Liquefaction is a phenomenon that is caused by earthquake shaking.
Wet sand can become liquid-like when strongly shaken. The liquefied sand may flow and the ground may move and crack, causing damage to surface structures and underground utilities.The map depicts the hazard at a regional scale and should not
be used for site-specific design and consideration. Subsurface conditions can vary abruptly and borings are required to address the hazard at a given location. The map assumes the historically shallowest water table conditions and does not reflect
current ground-water conditions. If the current water table is deeper, the probability of liquefaction is reduced. The map includes the communities of San Jose, Campbell, Cupertino, Los Altos, Los Gatos, Milpitas, Mountain View, Palo Alto, Santa Clara,
Saratoga, and Sunnyvale.
by Thomas L. Holzer, Thomas E. Noce, and Michael J. Bennett
Location map
Sunnyvale
MilpitasPalo Alto
Source: US Geological Survey, 2008 Bay Area Earthquake Probabilities, 2014.
Figure 4.5-4Liquefaction Probability for Mw 7.8 San Andreas Fault Earthquake Scenario, Santa Clara County, California
GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMICITY
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, ASSOCIATED REZONING PROJECT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Cupertino
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
GEOLOGY, SOILS, & SEISMICITY
4.5-14 JUNE 18, 2014
4.5.2 THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
According to Appendix G, Environmental Checklist, of the CEQA Guidelines, the proposed Project would
have a significant impact with regard to geology, soils, and/or seismicity if it would:
1. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or
death involving:
Surface rupture along a known active fault, including those faults identified on recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Maps issued by the State Geologist, or active faults identified through
other means (i.e. site-specific geotechnical studies, etc.).
Strong seismic ground shaking.
Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction.
Landslides.
2. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil.
3. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the
Project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landsliding, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction,
or collapse.
4. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Section 1803.5.3 of the California Building Code, creating
substantial risks to life or property.
5. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal
systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater.
4.5.2.1 THRESHOLDS NOT DISCUSSED FURTHER
With regards to Threshold 5 above, future development associated with buildout of the Project Study Area
will not require the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. Wastewater will be
discharged into the existing public sanitary sewer system in the Project Study Area, which is served by the
Cupertino Sanitary District whose systems capture and convey wastewater to the San Jose/Santa Clara
Water Pollution Control Plant (WPCP), where the waste water is cleaned and recycled. Therefore, there
would be no impact from development sites where soils may not be capable of supporting the use of septic
tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. Accordingly, no further discussion of this topic is
warranted in this Draft EIR.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
GEOLOGY, SOILS, & SEISMICITY
PLACEWORKS 4.5-15
4.5.3 IMPACT DISCUSSION
This section analyzes the Project’s impacts and cumulative impacts related to geology, soils, and seismicity.
GEO-1 Implementation of the proposed Project would not expose people or
structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss,
injury, or death involving surface rupture along a known active fault;
strong seismic ground shaking; seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction; and landslides.
To date, only one Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone has been mapped within the Project Study Area,
namely, the zone that flanks the San Andreas Fault in the southwestern most part of the Project Study Area.
However, as shown on Figure 4.5-2, none of the Project Component Locations are located on this fault
zone. Protections afforded by the Alquist-Priolo Act, as well as Municipal Code ordinances that empower
the City to require detailed geotechnical reports in areas of suspected geological hazards, suggest that the
potential for ground rupture would be mitigated for future development or construction in the Project
Study Area. However, in the event of a large, MW 6.7 or greater seismic event, much of the Project Study
Area is projected to experience “strong” ground shaking, with the most intense shaking forecast for the
northeast part of the Project Study Area. Based on published studies and maps of the Project Study Area, the
potential for seismically induced liquefaction appears low and limited to narrow areas that flank natural
drainages such as Stevens, Regnart, and Calabazas Creeks. Future development permitted by the proposed
Project would be concentrated on sites either developed and/or underutilized, and would not be in
proximity to these natural drainages. In contrast, the State-mapped hazards for seismic-induced landslides
appear to be extensive in the Foothills that occupy the southwest part of the Project Study Area. Municipal
Code ordinances that empower the City to require detailed soils and/or geotechnical reports in areas of
suspected geological hazards, would minimize the potential for seismically induced landsliding for future
development or construction in the southwest part of the Project Study Area.
In addition to compliance with the Municipal Code building standards, the proposed Project includes
General Plan policies and strategies that, once adopted, would minimize risk from seismic hazards. Within
the Health and Safety Element, Policy 6-1, Regional Hazard Risk Reduction Planning, would require the
City to coordinate with Santa Clara County and local agencies to implement the Multi-Jurisdictional Local
Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) for Santa Clara County. The following strategies would help in the
implementation of this policy. Strategy 1, Monitoring and Budgeting, would require the City to monitor and
evaluate the success of the LHMP, including local strategies provided in the Cupertino Annex and work with
Santa Clara County to ensure that strategies are prioritized and implemented through the Capital
Improvement Program and provide adequate budget for on-going programs and department operations.
Strategy 2, Mitigation Incorporation, would require the City to ensure that mitigation actions identified in
the LHMP are being incorporated into upcoming City sponsored projects, where appropriate. Strategy 3,
Hazard Mitigation Plan Amendments and Updates, would require the City to support Santa Clara County in
its role as the lead agency that prepares and updates LHMP. Policy 6-2, Seismic/Geologic Review Process,
would require the City to evaluate new development proposals within mapped potential hazard zones using
a formal seismic/geologic review process and use Table 6-D, Technical Investigations Required based on
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
GEOLOGY, SOILS, & SEISMICITY
4.5-16 JUNE 18, 2014
Acceptable Risk, to determine the level of review required. Table 6-D would apply the land use activity
category group provided in Table 6-C, Acceptable Exposure to Risk Related to Various Land Uses, to
determine what type of evaluation is required. For example, Group 4, involuntary occupancy facilities such
as schools, and high occupancy buildings, such as large office or apartment buildings, would be required to
comply with the CBC, complete a soils and foundation investigation, determine ability of local soil
conditions to support structures, determine subsidence potential, faulting hazard, slope stability, and
prepare a detailed Soils/Structural evaluation to certify adequacy of normal CBC earthquake regulations or
to recommend more stringent measures. Strategy 1, Geotechnical and Structural Analysis, would require
any site with a slope exceeding 10 percent to reference the Landslide Hazard Potential Zone maps of the
State of California for all required geotechnical and structural analysis. Strategy 2, Residential Upgrade
Requirements, would require that any residential facility that is being increased more than 50 percent in
price or physical size conform to all provisions of the current building code throughout the entire structure.
Owners of residential buildings with known structural defects, such as un-reinforced garage openings, “Soft
first story” construction, unbolted foundations, or inadequate sheer walls are encouraged to take steps to
remedy the problem and bring their buildings up to the current building code. Strategy 3, Geologic Review
Procedure, would require the City to continue to implement geologic review procedure for Geologic
Reports required by Chapter 19 of the Municipal Code that incorporates these concerns into the
development review process. Policy 6-3, Public Education on Seismic Safety, would require the City to
encourage various public education programs to help residents reduce earthquake hazards. Strategy 1,
Covenant on Seismic Risk, would require developers to record a covenant to tell future residents in high-
risk areas about the risk and inform them that more information is in City Hall records. This is in addition to
the State requirement that information on the geological report is recorded on the face of subdivision maps.
Strategy 2, Emergency Preparedness, would require the City to publish and promote emergency
preparedness activities and drills. Use the Cupertino Scene and website to provide safety tips that may
include identifying and correcting household hazards, knowing how and when to turn off utilities, helping
family members protect themselves during and after an earthquake, recommending neighborhood
preparation activities, and advising residents to maintain an emergency supply kit containing first-aid
supplies, food, drinking water and battery operated radios and flashlight. Strategy 3, Neighborhood
Response Groups, would require the City to encourage participation in Community Emergency Response
Team (CERT) training, train neighborhood groups to care for themselves during disasters, and assist in
neighborhood drills. Strategy 4, Dependent Populations, would require the City to actively cooperate with
State agencies that oversee facilities for vulnerable populations, to ensure that such facilities conform to all
health and safety requirements, including emergency planning, training, exercises, and employee education.
Strategy 5, Foreign Language Emergency Information, would require the City to obtain translated
emergency preparedness materials and make them available to appropriate foreign language populations.
In addition, new development in Cupertino would be required to comply with the CBC and the City’s
Building Code, which contain criteria and standards that are designed to reduce ground rupture risks to
acceptable levels. Through the implementation of the policies and strategies discussed above, along with
compliance with the CBC and City Building Code, the City would mitigate the risks associated with fault
rupture, and the impact would be less than significant.
Significance Without Mitigation: Less than significant.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
GEOLOGY, SOILS, & SEISMICITY
PLACEWORKS 4.5-17
GEO-2 Implementation of the proposed Project would not result in substantial soil
erosion or the loss of topsoil.
Substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil during construction could undermine structures and minor slopes,
and this could be a concern during buildout of the Project Study Area. However, compliance with existing
regulatory requirements, such as implementation of grading erosion control measures as specified in the
City of Cupertino’s Municipal Code, would reduce impacts from erosion and the loss of topsoil. Specifically,
Section 16.08.110, would require the preparation of an Interim Erosion and Sediment Control Plan, either
integrated with the site map/grading plan or submitted separately, to the Director of Public Works that
calculates the maximum runoff from the site for the 10-year storm event and describes measures to be
undertaken to retain sediment on the site, a brief description of the surface runoff and erosion control
measures to be implemented, and vegetative measures to be undertaken. In addition, the proposed Project
includes policies and supporting strategies, that once adopted, would reduce soil erosion, thereby
minimizing impacts related to loss of topsoil.
Within the Environmental Resources Element, Policy 5-10, Landscaping Near Natural Vegetation, would
continue to implement the city’s Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinance, Environmentally Preferable
Procurement Policy, and the Parks & Recreation Green Policies, and would require the City to continue to
emphasize drought tolerant and pest-resistant native and non-invasive, non-native, drought tolerant plants
and ground covers when landscaping public and private properties near natural vegetation, particularly for
control of erosion from disturbance to the natural terrain. Policy 5-19, Reduction of Impervious Surfaces,
would require the City to minimize storm water flow and erosion impacts resulting from development.
Strategy 1 would require the City to change City codes to include a formula regulating how much paved
surface is allowable on each lot. This would include driveways and patios installed at the time of building or
remodeling. Strategy 2 would require the City to encourage the use of non-impervious materials for
walkways and driveways. If used in a City or quasi-public area, mobility and access for the disabled should
always take precedent. Strategy 3 would require the City to minimize impervious surface areas, minimizing
directly connected impervious surfaces, maximizing onsite infiltration and using on-site retaining facilities.
Finally, Policy 6-47, Hillside Grading, would require the City to restrict the extent and timing of hillside
grading operation to April through October. Require performance bonds during the remaining time to
guarantee the repair of any erosion damage. All graded slopes must be planted as soon as practical after
grading is complete. Furthermore, the future development permitted by the proposed Project would be
concentrated on sites either developed and/or underutilized, where development would result in limited
soil erosion or loss of topsoil. Therefore, adherence to existing regulatory requirements in the Municipal
Code and implementation of the proposed General Plan policies would ensure that impacts associated with
substantial erosion and loss of topsoil during the buildout of the Project Study Area would be less than
significant.
Significance Without Mitigation: Less than significant.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
GEOLOGY, SOILS, & SEISMICITY
4.5-18 JUNE 18, 2014
GEO-3 Implementation of the proposed Project would not result in a significant
impact related to development on unstable geologic units and soils or
result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction, or collapse.
Unstable geologic units are known to be present within the Project Study Area. The impacts of such unstable
materials include, but may not be limited to, subsidence where fill material may be highly compressible.
Such subsidence has been exacerbated by historical groundwater overdraft. Areas underlain by thick
colluvium or poorly engineered fill, as well as low-lying areas, may also be prone to subsidence. Future
development in Cupertino in areas limited to land flanking natural drainages such as Stevens, Regnart, and
Calabazas Creeks may be at greater risk for seismically induced liquefaction. However, the Project
Component Locations where new development would occur is not in these areas. Compliance with
Municipal Code requirements and General Plan policies outlined under Impact GEO-1 and GEO-2 above,
which can require site-specific soils and/or geotechnical studies for land development or construction in
areas of potential geologic instability (as shown on the City’s geologic hazard maps), would reduce the
potential impacts associated with soil instability to a less-than-significant level.
Significance Without Mitigation: Less than significant.
GEO-4 Implementation of the proposed Project would not create substantial risks
to life or property as a result of its location on expansive soil, as defined
Section 1803.5.3 of the California Building Code, creating substantial risks
to life or property.
As previously discussed, the pattern of expansive soils within the Project Study Area is such that expansive
soils (denoted by soils with high linear extensibility and plasticity index) are most prevalent in the northeast
part of the Project Study Area as shown in Figure 4.5-1. However, future development in these areas would
be subject to the CBC regulations and provisions, as adopted in Chapter 12.04 of the City’s Municipal Code
and enforced by the City during plan review prior to building permit issuance. The CBC contains specific
requirements for seismic safety, excavation, foundations, retaining walls, and site demolition, and also
regulates grading activities, including drainage and erosion control. General Plan Policies 6-1, 6-2 and 6-3,
and supporting strategies in the Safety Element outlined in Impact GEO-1 above, require the formal seismic
and geologic evaluation of new development proposals that lie within mapped potential hazard zones. Thus,
compliance with existing regulations and policies would ensure that the potential future development
impacts permitted under the proposed Project would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.
Significance Without Mitigation: Less than significant.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
GEOLOGY, SOILS, & SEISMICITY
PLACEWORKS 4.5-19
GEO-5 Implementation of the proposed Project, in combination with past, present,
and reasonably foreseeable projects, would result in less than significant
cumulative impacts with respect to geology and soils.
As discussed in Chapter 4, Environmental Evaluation, of this Draft EIR, this EIR takes into account growth
projected by the proposed 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 geological
impacts could arise from a combination of the development of the proposed Project together with future
development in the immediate vicinity of the adjoining jurisdictions.
Only one active earthquake fault (i.e. the San Andreas Fault Zone) has been mapped by the State of
California within the Project Study Area, which is approximately 5 miles from the proposed Project
Component Locations, the risk of primary fault rupture on occupied buildings is judged low. Furthermore,
new development in the Project Study Area would be subject to CBC and Municipal Code requirements.
Compliance with these building code requirements would, to the maximum extent practicable, reduce
cumulative, development-related impacts that relate to seismically induced ground shaking, liquefaction, and
expansive soils. Similarly, compliance with the General Plan policies and strategies, as well as the City’s
Ordinances pertaining to excavation and grading (i.e. Municipal Code Chapter 16.08), including
implementation of an Interim Erosion Control Plan and various control measures, would minimize the
cumulative impacts associated with soil erosion and loss of topsoil to the maximum extent practicable.
The proposed Project would not result in a significant impact with respect to geology, soils, and seismicity
and would not make a significant contribution to cumulative impacts in this regard. Therefore, the
cumulative impacts associated with implementation of the proposed Project, together with growth in the
immediate vicinity of the Project Study Area, would result in a less-than-significant cumulative impact
with respect to geology, soils, and seismicity.
Significance Without Mitigation: Less than significant.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
GEOLOGY, SOILS, & SEISMICITY
4.5-20 JUNE 18, 2014
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
PLACEWORKS 4.6-1
4.6 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
This chapter evaluates the potential for land use changes associated with adopting and implementing the
proposed Project to cumulatively contribute to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions impacts. Because no single
project is large enough individually to result in a measurable increase in global concentrations of GHG
emissions, global warming impacts of a project are considered on a cumulative basis. This chapter is based
on the methodology recommended by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) for plan-
level review. The analysis is in this section is based on the population and employment projections
anticipated within the City of Cupertino at 2040 buildout. The transportation sector is based on vehicle
miles traveled (VMT) provided by Hexagon Transportation Consultants, as modeled using Santa Clara Valley
Transportation Authority’s (VTA) regional transportation demand model. The GHG emissions modeling is
included in Appendix C of this EIR, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Data and Calculation Sheet.
4.6.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Scientists have concluded that human activities are contributing to global climate change by adding large
amounts of heat-trapping gases, known as GHG, to the atmosphere. The primary source of these GHG is
fossil fuel use. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has identified four major GHG—
water vapor, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and ozone (O3)—that are the likely cause of an increase
in global average temperatures observed within the 20th and 21st centuries. Other GHG identified by the
IPCC that contribute to global warming to a lesser extent include nitrous oxide (N2O), sulfur hexafluoride
(SF6), hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and chlorofluorocarbons.1,2 The major GHG are briefly
described below.
Carbon dioxide (CO2) enters the atmosphere through the burning of fossil fuels (oil, natural gas, and
coal), solid waste, trees and wood products, and respiration, and also as a result of other chemical
reactions (e.g. manufacture of cement). Carbon dioxide is removed from the atmosphere (sequestered)
when it is absorbed by plants as part of the biological carbon cycle.
Methane (CH4) is emitted during the production and transport of coal, natural gas, and oil. Methane
emissions also result from livestock and other agricultural practices and from the decay of organic waste
in municipal landfills and water treatment facilities.
Nitrous oxide (N2O) is emitted during agricultural and industrial activities as well as during
combustion of fossil fuels and solid waste.
Fluorinated gases are synthetic, strong GHGs that are emitted from a variety of industrial processes.
Fluorinated gases are sometimes used as substitutes for ozone-depleting substances. These gases are
typically emitted in smaller quantities, but because they are potent GHGs, they are sometimes referred
to as high global warming potential (GWP) gases.
1 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2001. Third Assessment Report: Climate Change 2001, New York: Cambridge University
Press.
2 Water vapor (H2O) is the strongest GHG and the most variable in its phases (vapor, cloud droplets, ice crystals). However, water
vapor is not considered a pollutant because it is considered part of the feedback loop of changing radiative forcing rather than a primary cause of
change.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
4.6-2 JUNE 18, 2014
Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are GHGs covered under the 1987 Montreal Protocol and used for
refrigeration, air conditioning, packaging, insulation, solvents, or aerosol propellants. Since they are not
destroyed in the lower atmosphere (troposphere, stratosphere), CFCs drift into the upper atmosphere
where, given suitable conditions, they break down ozone. These gases are also ozone-depleting gases and
are therefore being replaced by other compounds that are GHGs covered under the Kyoto Protocol.
Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) contain only hydrogen, fluorine, and carbon atoms. They were
introduced as alternatives to ozone-depleting substances to serve many industrial, commercial, and
personal needs. HFCs are emitted as by-products of industrial processes and are also used in
manufacturing. They do not significantly deplete the stratospheric ozone layer, but they are strong
GHGs.3,4
Perfluorocarbons (PFCs) are a group of human-made chemicals composed of carbon and fluorine
only. These chemicals (predominantly perfluoromethane [CF4] and perfluoroethane [C2F6]) were
introduced, along with HFCs, as alternatives to the ozone-depleting substances. In addition, PFCs are
emitted as by-products of industrial processes and are used in manufacturing. PFCs do not harm the
stratospheric ozone layer, but they have a high global warming potential.
Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6) is a colorless gas soluble in alcohol and ether, slightly soluble in water. SF6
is a strong GHG used primarily in electrical transmission and distribution systems as an insulator.
Hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) contain hydrogen, fluorine, chlorine, and carbon atoms.
Although ozone-depleting substances, they are less potent at destroying stratospheric ozone than CFCs.
They have been introduced as temporary replacements for CFCs and are also GHGs.
GHGs are dependent on the lifetime, or persistence, of the gas molecule in the atmosphere. Some GHGs
have a stronger greenhouse effect than others. These are referred to as high GWP gases. Table 4.6-1 lists the
GHG and their relative GWP compared to CO2. The GWP is used to convert GHGs to CO2-equivalent
(CO2e) to show the relative potential that different GHGs have to retain infrared radiation in the
atmosphere and contribute to the greenhouse effect. For example, under IPCC’s Second Assessment Report
GWP values for CH4, a project that generates 10 metric tons (MT) of CH4 would be equivalent to 210 MT
of CO2.
3 United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2012. Greenhouse Gas Emissions, http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/
ghgemissions/gases.html.
4 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2001. Third Assessment Report: Climate Change 2001, New York: Cambridge University
Press.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
PLACEWORKS 4.6-3
TABLE 4.6‐1 GHG EMISSIONS AND THEIR RELATIVE GLOBAL WARMING POTENTIAL COMPARED TO CO2
GHGs
Atmospheric Lifetime
(Years)
Second Assessment Report
Global Warming
Potential Relative to CO2
a
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 50 to 200 1
Methane (CH4)b 12 (±3) 21
Nitrous Oxide (N2O) 120 310
Hydrofluorocarbons:
HFC‐23 264 11,700
HFC‐32 5.6 650
HFC‐125 32.6 2,800
HFC‐134a 14.6 1,300
HFC‐143a 48.3 3,800
HFC‐152a 1.5 140
HFC‐227ea 36.5 2,900
HFC‐236fa 209 6,300
HFC‐4310mee 17.1 1,300
Perfluoromethane: CF4 50,000 6,500
Perfluoroethane: C2F6 10,000 9,200
Perfluorobutane: C4F10 2,600 7,000
Perfluoro‐2‐methylpentane: C6F14 3,200 7,400
Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6) 3,200 23,900
Notes: The IPCC has published updated global warming potential (GWP) values in its Fourth and Fifth Assessment Reports that reflect new information
on atmospheric lifetimes of GHGs and an improved calculation of the radiative forcing of CO2. However, GWP values identified above are still used by
BAAQMD to maintain consistency in GHG emissions modeling and with BAAQMD’s significance thresholds. In addition, the 2008 Scoping Plan was based
on the GWP values in the Second Assessment Report.
a. Based on 100‐Year Time Horizon of the GWP of the air pollutant relative to CO2. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2001. Third Assessment
Report: Climate Change 2001. New York: Cambridge University Press.
b. The methane GWP includes direct effects and indirect effects due to the production of tropospheric ozone and stratospheric water vapor. The indirect
effect due to the production of CO2 is not included.
Source: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2001, Third Assessment Report: Climate Change 2001, New York: Cambridge University Press.
Human Influence on Climate Change
For approximately 1,000 years before the Industrial Revolution, the amount of GHG in the atmosphere
remained relatively constant. During the 20th century, however, scientists observed a rapid change in the
climate and the quantity of climate change pollutants in the Earth’s atmosphere that are attributable to
human activities. The amount of CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere has increased by more than 35 percent since
preindustrial times, and the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased at an average rate of 1.4
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
4.6-4 JUNE 18, 2014
parts per million (ppm) per year since 1960, mainly due to combustion of fossil fuels and deforestation.5
These recent changes in the quantity and concentration of climate change pollutants far exceed the extremes
of the ice ages, and the global mean temperature is warming at a rate that cannot be explained by natural
causes alone.6 Human activities are directly altering the chemical composition of the atmosphere through
the buildup of climate change pollutants.7
Projections of climate change depend heavily upon future human activity. Therefore, climate models are
based on different emission scenarios that account for historic trends in emissions, as well as, observations
on the climate record that assess the human influence of the trend and projections for extreme weather
events. Climate-change scenarios are affected by varying degrees of uncertainty. For example, climate trends
include varying degrees of certainty on the magnitude of the direction of the trends for:
warmer and fewer cold days and nights over most land areas;
warmer and more frequent hot days and nights over most land areas;
an increase in frequency of warm spells/heat waves over most land areas;
an increase in frequency of heavy precipitation events (or proportion of total rainfall from heavy falls)
over most areas; areas affected by drought increases;
intense tropical cyclone activity increases; and
increased incidence of extreme high sea level (excludes tsunamis).
IPCC’s “2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report” projects that the global mean temperature increase from
1990 to 2100 under different climate-change scenarios will range from 1.4 to 5.8 degrees Celsius (2.5 to
10.4 degrees Fahrenheit). In the past, gradual changes in the earth’s temperature changed the distribution of
species, availability of water, etc. However, human activities are accelerating this process so that
environmental impacts associated with climate change no longer occur in a geologic time frame but within a
human lifetime.8
California’s Greenhouse Gas Sources and Relative Contribution
California is the tenth largest GHG emitter in the world and the second largest emitter of GHG in the
United States, surpassed only by Texas; however, California also has over 12 million more people than the
state of Texas.9 Because of more stringent air emission regulations, in 2001 California ranked fourth lowest
in carbon emissions per capita and fifth lowest among states in CO2 emissions from fossil fuel consumption
per unit of Gross State Product (total economic output of goods and services).10
5 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007. Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007, New York: Cambridge
University Press.
6 At the end of the last ice age, the concentration of CO2 increased by around 100 ppm (parts per million) over about 8,000 years, or
approximately 1.25 ppm per century. Since the start of the industrial revolution, the rate of increase has accelerated markedly. The rate of CO2
accumulation currently stands at around 150 ppm/century—more than 200 times faster than the background rate for the past 15,000 years.
7 California Climate Action Team, 2006. Climate Action Team Report to Governor Schwarzenegger and the Legislature, March.
8 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007. Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007, New York: Cambridge University
Press.
9 California Energy Commission, 2005. Climate Change Emissions Estimates from Bemis, Gerry and Jennifer Allen, Inventory of
California Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990 to 2002 Update, California Energy Commission Staff Paper CEC-600-2005-025,
Sacramento, California, June.
10 California Energy Commission, 2006. Inventory of California Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks 1990 to 2004, Report CEC-600-2006-
013-SF, December.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
PLACEWORKS 4.6-5
The California Air Resources Board (CARB)’s latest update to the statewide GHG emissions inventory that
utilized the Second Assessment Report GWPs was conducted in 2012 for year 2009 emissions.11 In 2009,
California produced 457 million metric tons (MMT) of CO2e GHG emissions. California’s transportation
sector is the single largest generator of GHG emissions, producing 37.9 percent of the State’s total
emissions. Electricity consumptions and production is the second largest source, comprising 22.7 percent.
Industrial activities are California’s third largest source of GHG emissions, comprising 17.8 percent of the
state’s total emissions. Other major sectors of GHG emissions include commercial and residential, recycling
and waste, high global warming potential GHGs, agriculture, and forestry.12,13
In 2013, the statewide GHG emissions inventory was updated for 2000 to 2012 emissions that utilized the
GWPs in IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report. Based on the Fourth Assessment Report GWPs, in 2012,
California produced 459 MMTCO2e GHG emissions. California’s transportation sector remains the single
largest generator of GHG emissions, producing 36.5 percent of the State’s total emissions. Electricity
consumption and production is the second largest source, comprising of 20.7 percent. Industrial activities
are California’s third largest source of GHG emissions, comprising of 19.4 percent of the State’s total
emissions. Other major sectors of GHG emissions include commercial and residential, recycling and waste,
high global warming potential GHGs, agriculture, and forestry.14
Potential Climate Change Impacts for California
Like the variability in the projections of the expected increase in global surface temperatures, the
environmental consequences of gradual changes in the Earth’s temperature are also hard to predict. In
California and western North America, observations of the climate have shown: 1) a trend toward warmer
winter and spring temperatures, 2) a smaller fraction of precipitation falling as snow, 3) a decrease in the
amount of spring snow accumulation in the lower and middle elevation mountain zones, 4) shift in the
timing of snowmelt of 5 to 30 days earlier in the spring, and 5) a similar shift (5 to 30 days earlier) in the
timing of spring flower blooms.15 According to the California Climate Action Team—a committee of State
agency secretaries and the heads of agency, boards, and departments, led by the Secretary of the California
Environmental Protection Agency—even if actions could be taken to immediately curtail climate change
emissions, the potency of emissions that have already built up, their long atmospheric lifetimes (see Table
4.6-1), and the inertia of the Earth’s climate system could produce as much as 0.6 degrees Celsius (1.1
degrees Fahrenheit) of additional warming. Consequently, some impacts from climate change are now
considered unavoidable. Global climate change risks to California are shown in Table 4.6-2 and include
public health impacts, water resources impacts, agricultural impacts, coastal sea level impacts, forest and
biological resource impacts, and energy impacts. Specific climate change impacts that could affect Cupertino
11 Methodology for determining the statewide GHG inventory is not the same as the methodology used to determine statewide GHG
emissions under Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32) (2006).
12 CO2-equivalence is used to show the relative potential that different GHGs have to retain infrared radiation in the atmosphere and
contribute to the greenhouse effect. The global warming potential of a GHG is also dependent on the lifetime, or persistence, of the gas
molecule in the atmosphere.
13 California Air Resources Board, 2012. California Greenhouse Gas Inventory for 2000–2009: By Category as Defined by the Scoping Plan,
April.
14 California Air Resources Board, 2014. California Greenhouse Gas Inventory for 2000–2009: By Category as Defined by the Scoping
Plan, March 24.
15 California Climate Action Team, 2006. Climate Action Team Report to Governor Schwarzenegger and the Legislature, March.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
4.6-6 JUNE 18, 2014
include health impacts from deterioration of air quality, water resources impacts from a reduction in water
supply, and increased energy demand.
TABLE 4.6‐2 SUMMARY OF GHG EMISSIONS RISKS TO CALIFORNIA
Impact Category Potential Risk
Public Health Impacts Poor air quality made worse
More severe heat
Water Resources Impacts
Decreasing Sierra Nevada snow pack
Challenges in securing adequate water supply
Potential reduction in hydropower
Loss of winter recreation
Agricultural Impacts
Increasing temperature
Increasing threats from pests and pathogens
Expanded ranges of agricultural weeds
Declining productivity
Irregular blooms and harvests
Coastal Sea Level Impacts
Accelerated sea level rise
Increasing coastal floods
Worsened impacts on infrastructure
Forest and Biological Resource Impacts
Increased risk and severity of wildfires
Lengthening of the wildfire season
Movement of forest areas
Conversion of forest to grassland
Declining forest productivity
Increasing threats from pest and pathogens
Shifting vegetation and species distribution
Altered timing of migration and mating habits
Loss of sensitive or slow‐moving species
Energy Demand Impacts Potential reduction in hydropower
Increased energy demand
Sources: California Energy Commission, 2006, Our Changing Climate: Assessing the Risks to California, 2006 Biennial Report, California Climate Change
Center, CEC‐500‐2006‐077; California Energy Commission, 2008, The Future Is Now: An Update on Climate Change Science, Impacts, and Response
Options for California, CEC‐500‐2008‐0077.
4.6.1.1 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
This section describes the federal, State and local regulations applicable to GHG emissions.
Federal Regulations
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) announced on December 7, 2009, that GHG
emissions threaten the public health and welfare of the American people and that GHG emissions from on-
road vehicles contribute to that threat. The USEPA’s final findings respond to the 2007 U.S. Supreme Court
decision that GHG emissions fit within the Clean Air Act definition of air pollutants. The findings did not in
and of themselves impose any emission reduction requirements, but allowed the USEPA to finalize the GHG
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
PLACEWORKS 4.6-7
standards proposed in 2009 for new light-duty vehicles as part of the joint rulemaking with the Department
of Transportation.16
The USEPA’s endangerment finding covers emissions of six key GHGs—CO2, CH 4, N 2O,
hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and SF6—that have been the subject of scrutiny and intense analysis
for decades by scientists in the United States and around the world. The first three are applicable to
Cupertino’s community GHG emissions inventory because they constitute the majority of GHG emissions
from land uses in the city, and per BAAQMD guidance are the GHG emissions that should be evaluated as
part of a community GHG emissions inventory.
US Mandatory Report Rule for GHGs (2009)
In response to the endangerment finding, the USEPA issued the Mandatory Reporting of GHG Rule that
requires substantial emitters of GHG emissions (large stationary sources, etc.) to report GHG emissions
data. Facilities that emit 25,000 metric tons (MT) or more of CO2 per year are required to submit an annual
report.
Update to Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards (2010/2012)
The current Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards (for model years 2011 to 2016)
incorporate stricter fuel economy requirements promulgated by the federal government and California into
one uniform standard. Additionally, automakers are required to cut GHG emissions in new vehicles by
roughly 25 percent by 2016 (resulting in a fleet average of 35.5 miles per gallon [mpg] by 2016).
Rulemaking to adopt these new standards was completed in 2010. California agreed to allow automakers
who show compliance with the national program to also be considered to be in compliance with State
requirements. The federal government issued new standards in 2012 for model years 2017–2025, which
will require a fleet average of 54.5 mpg in 2025.
EPA Regulation of Stationary Sources Under the Clean Air Act (Ongoing)
Pursuant to its authority under the CAA, the EPA has been developing regulations for new stationary
sources such as power plants, refineries, and other large sources of emissions. Pursuant to the President’s
2013 Climate Action Plan, the EPA will be directed to also develop regulations for existing stationary
sources.
State Regulations
Current State of California guidance and goals for reductions in GHG emissions are generally embodied in
Executive Order S-03-05, Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32), and Senate Bill 375 (SB 375).
16 United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2009. Greenhouse Gases Threaten Public Health and the Environment. Science
overwhelmingly shows GHG concentrations at unprecedented levels due to human activity, December, http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/
admpress.nsf/0/08D11A451131BCA585257685005BF252.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
4.6-8 JUNE 18, 2014
Executive Order S-03-05
Executive Order S-3-05, signed June 1, 2005, set the following GHG reduction targets for the State:
2000 levels by 2010.
1990 levels by 2020.
80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.
Assembly Bill 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act (2006)
In 2006, AB 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act, was passed by the California state legislature on August
31, 2006, to place the State on a course toward reducing its contribution of GHG emissions. AB 32 follows
the 2020 tier of emissions reduction targets established in Executive Order S-3-05.
AB 32 directed CARB to adopt discrete early action measures to reduce GHG emissions and outline
additional reduction measures to meet the 2020 target. In response to AB 32, CARB developed a Scoping
Plan outlining California’s approach to achieving the goal of reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by
2020. Based on the GHG emissions inventory conducted for the Scoping Plan, GHG emissions in California
by 2020 are anticipated to be approximately 596 MMTCO2e. In December 2007, CARB approved a 2020
emissions limit of 427 MMTCO2e (471 million tons) for the State. The 2020 target requires a total
emissions reduction of 169 MMTCO2e, 28.5 percent from the projected emissions of the business-as-usual
(BAU) scenario for the year 2020 (i.e. 28.5 percent of 596 MMTCO2e).17 CARB defines BAU in its Scoping
Plan as emissions levels that would occur if California continued to grow and add new GHG emissions but
did not adopt any measures to reduce emissions. Projections for each emission-generating sector were
compiled and used to estimate emissions for 2020 based on 2002–2004 emissions intensities. Under
CARB’s definition of BAU, new growth is assumed to have the same carbon intensities as was typical from
2002 through 2004.
In order to effectively implement the emissions cap, AB 32 directed CARB to establish a mandatory
reporting system to track and monitor GHG emissions levels for large stationary sources that generate more
than 25,000 MT of CO2 per year, prepare a plan demonstrating how the 2020 deadline can be met, and
develop appropriate regulations and programs to implement the plan by 2012.
CARB 2008 Scoping Plan
The Scoping Plan is the State’s plan to achieve the GHG reductions of AB 32. It includes key strategies that
state agencies must implement to achieve the 2020 target for the State. The final Scoping Plan was adopted
by CARB on December 11, 2008. Key elements of CARB’s GHG reduction plan that may be applicable to
the proposed Project include:
Expanding and strengthening existing energy efficiency programs as well as building and appliance
standards (adopted and cycle updates in progress);
Achieving a mix of 33 percent for energy generation from renewable sources (anticipated by 2020);
17 California Air Resources Board, 2008, Climate Change Scoping Plan: A Framework for Change.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
PLACEWORKS 4.6-9
A California cap-and-trade program that links with other Western Climate Initiative partner programs
to create a regional market system for large stationary sources (adopted 2011);
Establishing targets for transportation-related GHG emissions for regions throughout California, and
pursuing policies and incentives to achieve those targets (several Sustainable Communities Strategies
have been adopted);
Adopting and implementing measures pursuant to State laws and policies, including California’s clean
car standards (amendments to the Pavley Standards adopted 2009; Advanced Clean Car standard
adopted 2012), goods movement measures, and the Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) (adopted
2009).18
Creating target fees, including a public goods charge on water use, fees on high global warming
potential gases, and a fee to fund the administrative costs of the state’s long-term commitment to AB 32
implementation (in progress).
Table 4.6-3 shows the anticipated reductions from proposed regulations and programs outlined in the
Scoping Plan. Though local government operations were not accounted for in achieving the 2020 emissions
reduction, CARB estimates that land use changes implemented by local governments that integrate jobs,
housing, and services result in a reduction of 5 MMTCO2e, which is approximately 3 percent of the 2020
GHG emissions reduction goal. In recognition of the critical role local governments play in the successful
implementation of AB 32, CARB is recommending GHG reduction goals of 15 percent of 2014 levels by
2020 to ensure that municipal and community-wide emissions match the State’s reduction target.19
Measures that local governments take to support shifts in land use patterns are anticipated to emphasize
compact, low-impact growth over development in greenfields, resulting in fewer VMT.20
TABLE 4.6‐3 SCOPING PLAN GHG REDUCTION MEASURES AND REDUCTIONS TOWARD 2020 TARGET
Recommended Reduction Measures
Reductions Counted
toward 2020 Target of
169 MMT CO2e
Percentage of
Statewide 2020
Target
Cap and Trade Program and Associated Measures
California Light‐Duty Vehicle GHG Standards 31.7 19%
Energy Efficiency 26.3 16%
Renewable Portfolio Standard (33 percent by 2020) 21.3 13%
Low Carbon Fuel Standard 15 9%
18 On December 29, 2011, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California issued several rulings in the federal lawsuits
challenging the LCFS. One of the court’s rulings preliminarily enjoined the CARB from enforcing the regulation during the pendency of the
litigation. In January 2012, CARB appealed the decision and on April 23, 2012, the Ninth Circuit Court granted CARB’s motion for a stay of
the injunction while it continued to consider CARB’s appeal of the lower court’s decision. On July 15, 2013, the State of California Court of
Appeals held that the LCFS would remain in effect and that CARB can continue to implement and enforce the 2013 regulatory standards while
it corrects certain aspects of the procedures by which the LCFS was adopted. Accordingly, CARB is continuing to implement and enforce the
LCFS while addressing the court’s concerns.
19 The Scoping Plan references a goal for local governments to reduce community GHG emissions by 15 percent from current
(interpreted as 2008) levels by 2020, but it does not rely on local GHG reduction targets established by local governments to meet the State’s
GHG reduction target of AB 32.
20 California Air Resources Board, 2008. Climate Change Scoping Plan, a Framework for Change.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
4.6-10 JUNE 18, 2014
TABLE 4.6‐3 SCOPING PLAN GHG REDUCTION MEASURES AND REDUCTIONS TOWARD 2020 TARGET
Recommended Reduction Measures
Reductions Counted
toward 2020 Target of
169 MMT CO2e
Percentage of
Statewide 2020
Target
Regional Transportation‐Related GHG Targetsa 5 3%
Vehicle Efficiency Measures 4.5 3%
Goods Movement 3.7 2%
Million Solar Roofs 2.1 1%
Medium/Heavy Duty Vehicles 1.4 1%
High Speed Rail 1.0 1%
Industrial Measures 0.3 0%
Additional Reduction Necessary to Achieve Cap 34.4 20%
Total Cap and Trade Program Reductions 146.7 87%
Uncapped Sources/Sectors Measures
High Global Warming Potential Gas Measures 20.2 12%
Sustainable Forests 5 3%
Industrial Measures (for sources not covered under cap and trade
program) 1.1 1%
Recycling and Waste (landfill methane capture) 1 1%
Total Uncapped Sources/Sectors Reductions 27.3 16%
Total Reductions Counted toward 2020 Target 174 100%
Other Recommended Measures – Not Counted toward 2020 Target
State Government Operations 1.0 to 2.0 1%
Local Government Operationsb To Be Determined NA
Green Buildings 26 15%
Recycling and Waste 9 5%
Water Sector Measures 4.8 3%
Methane Capture at Large Dairies 1 1%
Total Other Recommended Measures – Not Counted toward 2020 Target 42.8 NA
Notes: The percentages in the right‐hand column add up to more than 100 percent because the emissions reduction goal is 169 MMTCO2e and the
Scoping Plan identifies 174 MTCO2e of emissions reductions strategies.
MMTCO2e: million metric tons of CO2e
a Reductions represent an estimate of what may be achieved from local land use changes. It is not the SB 375 regional target.
b According to the Measure Documentation Supplement to the Scoping Plan, local government actions and targets are anticipated to reduce vehicle
miles by approximately 2 percent through land use planning, resulting in a potential GHG reduction of 2 million metric tons of CO2e (or approximately
1.2 percent of the GHG reduction target). However, these reductions were not included in the Scoping Plan reductions to achieve the 2020 target.
Source: California Air Resources Board, 2008, Climate Change Scoping Plan: A Framework for Change.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
PLACEWORKS 4.6-11
Scoping Plan Update
Since release of the 2008 Scoping Plan, CARB has updated the Statewide GHG emissions inventory to
reflect GHG emissions in light of the economic downturn and of measures not previously considered in the
2008 Scoping Plan baseline inventory. The updated forecast predicts emissions to be 507 MMTCO2e by
2020. The new inventory identifies that an estimated 80 MMTCO2e of reductions are necessary to achieve
the statewide emissions reduction of AB 32 by 2020, 15.7 percent of the projected emissions compared to
BAU in year 2020 (i.e. 15.7 percent of 507 MMTCO2e).21
CARB completed an update to the 2008 Scoping Plan, as required by AB 32. The Update to the Scoping
Plan was adopted by CARB on May 22, 2014. The Update to the Scoping Plan defines CARB’s climate
change priorities for the next five years and lays the groundwork to reach post-2020 goals in Executive
Orders S-3-05 and B-16-2012 (which set a declining standard for GHGs in fuel and accommodate zero-
emissions vehicles, respectively). The update includes the latest scientific findings related to climate change
and its impacts, including short-lived climate pollutants, such as black carbon, CH4, and
hydrofluorocarbons.
The GHG target identified in the 2008 Scoping Plan is based on IPCC’s GWPs identified in the Second and
Third Assessment Reports (see Table 4.6-1). IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report identified more recent GWP
values based on the latest available science. CARB recalculated the 1990 GHG emission levels with these
updated GWPs, and the 427 MMTCO2e 1990 emissions level and 2020 GHG emissions limit, established in
response to AB 32, is slightly higher, at 431 MMTCO2e.22
The update highlights California’s progress toward meeting the near-term 2020 GHG emission reduction
goals, defined in the original 2008 Scoping Plan. As identified in the Update to the Scoping Plan, California
is on track to meeting the goals of AB 32. However, the Update to the Scoping Plan also addresses the State’s
longer-term GHG goals within a post-2020 element. The post-2020 element provides a high-level view of a
long-term strategy for meeting the 2050 GHG goals, including a recommendation for the State to adopt a
midterm target. According to the Update to the Scoping Plan, reducing emissions to 80 percent below 1990
levels will require a fundamental shift to efficient, clean energy in every sector of the economy. Progressing
toward California’s 2050 climate targets will require significant acceleration of GHG reduction rates.
Emissions from 2020 to 2050 will have to decline several times faster than the rate needed to reach the
2020 emissions limit.23
Senate Bill 375
In 2008, SB 375, the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act, was adopted to connect the
Scoping Plan’s GHG emissions reductions targets for the transportation sector to local land use decisions
that affect travel behavior. Its intent is to reduce GHG emissions from light-duty trucks and automobiles
21 California Air Resources Board, 2012. Status of Scoping Plan Recommended Measures, http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/
status_of_scoping_plan_measures.pdf.
22 California Air Resources Board (CARB), 2014. Proposed First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan: Building on the Framework,
http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/2013_update/draft_proposed_first_update.pdf, May 15, 2014..
23 California Air Resources Board (CARB), 2014. Proposed First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan: Building on the Framework,
http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/2013_update/draft_proposed_first_update.pdf, May 15, 2014.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
4.6-12 JUNE 18, 2014
(excludes emissions associated with goods movement) by aligning regional long-range transportation plans,
investments, and housing allocations to local land use planning to reduce VMT and vehicle trips. Specifically,
SB 375 required CARB to establish GHG emissions reduction targets for each of the 17 regions in California
managed by a metropolitan planning organization (MPO). The Metropolitan Transportation Commission
(MTC) is the MPO for the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area region. MTC’s targets are a 7 percent per
capita reduction in GHG emissions from 2005 by 2020, and 15 percent per capita reduction from 2005
levels by 2035.24
Plan Bay Area: Strategy for a Sustainable Region
Plan Bay Area is the Bay Area’s Regional Transportation Plan (RTP)/Sustainable Community Strategy (SCS).
The Plan Bay Area was adopted jointly by ABAG and MTC July 18, 2013.25 The SCS lays out a development
scenario for the region, which, when integrated with the transportation network and other transportation
measures and policies, would reduce GHG emissions from transportation (excluding goods movement)
beyond the per capita reduction targets identified by CARB. According to Plan Bay Area, the Plan meets a
16 percent per capita reduction of GHG emissions by 2035 and a 10 percent per capita reduction by 2020
from 2005 conditions.
As part of the implementing framework for Plan Bay Area, local governments have identified Priority
Development Areas (PDAs) to focus growth. PDAs are transit-oriented, infill development opportunity
areas within existing communities. Overall, well over two-thirds of all regional growth in the Bay Area by
2040 is allocated within PDAs. PDAs are expected to accommodate 80 percent (or over 525,570 units) of
new housing and 66 percent (or 744,230) of new jobs in the region.26 Plan Bay Area includes the following
PDA in Cupertino:
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority – City Cores, Corridors, and Station Areas
PDA. This PDA includes transit-rich areas in the cities of Campbell, Cupertino, Gilroy, Los Altos, Los
Gatos, Milpitas, Morgan Hill, Mountain View, Palo Alto, San Jose, Santa Clara, Saratoga, and Sunnyvale,
and in unincorporated Santa Clara County. Within these cities, a mix of housing and job growth is
planned. These areas have urban characteristics, including residential and commercial land uses and/or
downtown center attractions combined with transit connectivity. This PDA supports Plan Bay Area’s
vision for pedestrian- and transit-oriented development. It would encourage residential, commercial,
and recreational development in key areas that meets the smart growth practice of increasing the live-
work-play balance within walking distance or within walking distance of a transit route that connects
these land use types together. In Cupertino, this Mixed-Use Special Area PDA is located along Stevens
Creek Boulevard between State Route 85 and the City’s eastern City limits and along De Anza
Boulevard between Stevens Creek Boulevard and the City of Sunnyvale.27,28
24 California Air Resources Board, 2010. Staff Report, Proposed Regional Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Targets for
Automobiles and Light Trucks Pursuant to Senate Bill 375, August.
25 It should be noted that the Bay Area Citizens filed a lawsuit on MTC’s and ABAG’s adoption of Plan Bay Area.
26 Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), 2013. Plan Bay Area: Strategy
for a Sustainable Region, July 18.
27 Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), 2013. Plan Bay Area,
http://geocommons.com/maps/141979.
28 Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), 2012. Visions for Priority
Development Areas Jobs-Housing Connection Strategy, May. http://onebayarea.org/file10010.html.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
PLACEWORKS 4.6-13
This PDA is also shown in Chapter 4.11, Population and Housing, of this Draft EIR on Figure 4.11-1,
Cupertino Priority Development Areas.
Assembly Bill 1493
California vehicle GHG emission standards were enacted under AB 1493 (Pavley I). Pavley I is a clean-car
standard that reduces GHG emissions from new passenger vehicles (light-duty auto to medium-duty
vehicles) from 2009 through 2016 and is anticipated to reduce GHG emissions from new passenger vehicles
by 30 percent in 2016. California implements the Pavley I standards through a waiver granted to California
by the EPA. In 2012, the EPA issued a Final Rulemaking that sets even more stringent fuel economy and
GHG emissions standards for model year 2017 through 2025 light-duty vehicles.29
Executive Order S-01-07
On January 18, 2007, the State set a new Low Carbon Fuel Standard for transportation fuels sold in
California. Executive Order S-1-07 sets a declining standard for GHG emissions measured in carbon
dioxide equivalent gram per unit of fuel energy sold in California. The LCFS requires a reduction of 2.5
percent in the carbon intensity of California’s transportation fuels by 2015 and a reduction of at least 10
percent by 2020. The LCFS applies to refiners, blenders, producers, and importers of transportation fuels
and would use market-based mechanisms to allow these providers to choose how they reduce emissions
during the “fuel cycle,” using the most economically feasible methods.
Executive Order B-16-2012
On March 23, 2012, the State identified that CARB, the California Energy Commission (CEC), the Public
Utilities Commission, and other relevant agencies worked with the Plug-in Electric Vehicle Collaborative
and the California Fuel Cell Partnership to establish benchmarks to accommodate zero-emissions vehicles in
major metropolitan areas, including infrastructure to support them (e.g. electric vehicle charging stations).
The executive order also directs the number of zero-emission vehicles in California’s State vehicle fleet to
increase through the normal course of fleet replacement so that at least 10 percent of fleet purchases of
light-duty vehicles are zero-emission by 2015 and at least 25 percent by 2020. The executive order also
establishes a target for the transportation sector of reducing GHG emissions from the transportation sector
80 percent below 1990 levels.
Senate Bills 1078 and 107, and Executive Order S-14-08
A major component of California’s Renewable Energy Program is the renewable portfolio standard (RPS)
established under Senate Bills 1078 (Sher) and 107 (Simitian). Under the RPS, certain retail sellers of
electricity were required to increase the amount of renewable energy each year by at least 1 percent in
29 See also the discussion on the update to the CAFE standards under Federal Laws, above. In January 2012, CARB approved the
Advanced Clean Cars program (formerly known as Pavley II) for model years 2017 through 2025. The program combines the control of smog,
soot and global warming gases and requirements for greater numbers of zero-emission vehicles into a single package of standards. Under
California’s Advanced Clean Car program, by 2025, new automobiles will emit 34 percent fewer global warming gases and 75 percent fewer
smog-forming emissions.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
4.6-14 JUNE 18, 2014
order to reach at least 20 percent by December 30, 2010. CARB has now approved an even higher goal of
33 percent by 2020. In 2011, the State legislature adopted this higher standard in Senate Bill X 1-2.
Executive Order S-14-08 was signed in November 2008, which expands the State’s Renewable Energy
Standard to 33 percent renewable power by 2020. Renewable sources of electricity include wind, small
hydropower, solar, geothermal, biomass, and biogas. The increase in renewable sources for electricity
production will decrease indirect GHG emissions from development projects because electricity production
from renewable sources is generally considered carbon neutral.
California Building Code
Energy conservation standards for new residential and nonresidential buildings were adopted by the
California Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission (now the CEC) in June 1977 and
most recently revised in 2008 (Title 24, Part 6, of the California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Title 24
requires the design of building shells and building components to conserve energy. The standards are
updated periodically to allow for consideration and possible incorporation of new energy efficiency
technologies and methods. On May 31, 2012, the CEC adopted the 2013 Building and Energy Efficiency
Standards, which went into effect on January 1, 2014. Buildings that are constructed in accordance with the
2013 Building and Energy Efficiency Standards are 25 percent (residential) to 30 percent (nonresidential)
more energy efficient than the 2008 standards as a result of better windows, insulation, lighting, ventilation
systems, and other features that reduce energy consumption in homes and businesses.
On July 17, 2008, the California Building Standards Commission adopted the nation’s first green building
standards. The California Green Building Standards Code (Part 11, Title 24, known as “CALGreen”) was
adopted as part of the California Building Standards Code (Title 24, California Code of Regulations).
CALGreen established planning and design standards for sustainable site development, energy efficiency (in
excess of the California Energy Code requirements), water conservation, material conservation, and
internal air contaminants.30 The mandatory provisions of the California Green Building Code Standards
became effective January 1, 2011.
2006 Appliance Efficiency Regulations
The 2006 Appliance Efficiency Regulations (Title 20, CCR Sections 1601 through 1608) were adopted by
the California Energy Commission on October 11, 2006, and approved by the California Office of
Administrative Law on December 14, 2006. The regulations include standards for both federally regulated
appliances and non–federally regulated appliances. Though these regulations are now often viewed as
“business-as-usual,” they exceed the standards imposed by all other states, and they reduce GHG emissions
by reducing energy demand.
30 The green building standards became mandatory in the 2010 edition of the code.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
PLACEWORKS 4.6-15
LOCAL REGULATIONS
City of Cupertino General Plan 2000-2020
The City of Cupertino’s 2000-2020 General Plan, adopted on November 15, 2005, includes policies that
are relevant to GHG emissions are primarily in Section 5, Environmental Resources/Sustainability, and also
Section 2, Land Use/Community Design, Section 4, Circulation, and Section 6, Health and Safety. As part
of the proposed Project, some General Plan policies would be amended. Substantive policy changes under
the proposed Project include the addition, removal, or functional revision (e.g. not purely semantic) of
policies in ways that have the potential to result in a physical impact on the environment. Policies of the
2000-2020 General Plan that are relevant to greenhouse gas emissions and were not substantially modified
(e.g. renumbered or minor text change) are listed below in Table 4.6-4. A comprehensive list of policy
changes is provided in Appendix I, Proposed General Plan Policy Amendments, of this Draft EIR.
Discussions of how substantive policy changes may result in adverse physical changes are included in the
analyses under each impact criterion in Section 4.6.3, Impact Discussion, below.
TABLE 4.6‐4 POLICIES AND STRATEGIES OF THE CUPERTINO 2000‐2020 GENERAL PLAN
New Policy
Number
Original Policy
Number Policies and Strategies
Section 4, Circulation
Policy 4‐13 Policy 4‐11 Safe Parking Lots. Require parking lots that are safe for pedestrians.
Strategy. Safe Spaces for Pedestrians. Require parking lot design and construction to
include clearly defined spaces for pedestrians so that foot traffic is separated from the
hazards of car traffic and people are directed from their cars to building entries.
Section 5, Environmental Resources/Sustainability
Policy 5‐44 Policy 5‐44 Reuse of Building Materials. Encourage the recycling and reuse of building materials,
including recycling materials generated by the demolition and remodeling of buildings.
Strategy 1. Post Demolition and Remodeling Projects. Encourage contractors to post
demolition and remodeling projects on the Internet announcing the availability of
potential reusable materials.
Strategy 2. Public and Private Projects. Require contractors working on City projects to use
recycled building materials and sustainably harvested wood products to the maximum
extent possible and encourage them to do the same on private projects.
Source: City of Cupertino and Cupertino 2000‐2020 General Plan.
City of Cupertino Municipal Code
The City of Cupertino Municipal Code contains all ordinances for the city. The Municipal Code is organized
by Title, Chapter, and Section. The current Municipal Code is up to date through Ordinance 14-2117,
passed March 18, 2014. The following provisions of the Municipal Code apply to building structure and
safety with regards to reducing impacts related to GHG emissions:
Chapter 16.58, Green Building Ordinance, includes the CAlGreen requirements with local
amendments for projects in the city. As part of the City’s Green Building Ordinance, the City of
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
4.6-16 JUNE 18, 2014
Cupertino requires new construction over certain sizes (greater than 9 residential units or 25,000
square feet of non-residential development and greater) to build to Leadership in Energy and
Environmental Design (LEED) or alternative reference standards. The LEED construction and/or other
types of equivalent green building verification systems typically require enhanced building energy
efficiency, which reduces heating and cooling requirements of a building and therefore also reduces
GHG emissions.
Chapter 16.72, Recycling and Diversion of Construction and Demolition Waste, establishes regulations
to comply with the California Waste Management Act of 1989. The City of Cupertino has adopted
construction and demolition debris diversion requirements that are consistent with the new
requirements under CALGreen for mandatory construction recycling. Construction and demolition
debris recycling requirements vary by project type. Pursuant to the Chapter 16.72, projects that involve
the construction, demolition, or renovation of 3,000 square feet or more are required to adhere to the
City’s construction and demolition diversion requirements. Applicants for any covered project are
required to recycle or divert (recycle or salvage) at least 60 percent of all generated construction and
demolition debris tonnage. Applicants are required to prepare and submit a Waste Management Plan to
the Public Works Department that outlines:
The estimated volume or weight of project construction and demolition debris, by material type, to
be generated.
The maximum volume or weight of such materials that can feasibly be diverted via reuse or
recycling.
The vendor that the applicant proposes to use to haul the materials (consistent with the provisions
of Municipal Code Chapter 6.24).
The facility to which the materials will be hauled (approved by the City).
The estimated volume or weight of construction and demolition debris that will be land-filled.
Draft Cupertino Climate Action Plan
The City of Cupertino is preparing a Climate Action Plan (CAP). The City’s CAP would align the City’s
GHG reduction goals with the statewide targets of AB 32. Once adopted, the City’s CAP would outline
local measures and policies to reduce GHG emissions.
4.6.1.2 EXISTING CONDITIONS
The GHG emissions generated by existing land uses in Cupertino are shown in Table 4.6-5.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
PLACEWORKS 4.6-17
TABLE 4.6‐5 GHG EMISSIONS GENERATED BY EXISTING LAND USES IN CUPERTINO
Category
GHG Emissions (MTCO2e/Year)
Existing 2013 Percent of Total
Transportationa 123,518 40%
Residential (Natural Gas and Electricity)b 74,579 24%
Nonresidential* (Natural Gas and Electricity)b 85,416 28%
City (Natural Gas and Electricity)b 1,081 0.3%
Wastec 7,095 2%
Water/Wastewaterd 3,712 1%
Other – Off‐Road Equipmente 14,006 5%
Total Community Emissions 309,406 100%
Service Populationf 85,689 —
MTCO2e/Service Population (SP) 3.6 —
BAAQMD GHG Plan‐Level Threshold NA —
Industrial – Permittedg 3,355 —
Total Community Emissions w/Permitted Sources 312,761 —
Notes: Emissions may not total to 100 percent due to rounding.Based on GWPs in the IPCC Second Assessment Report.
a. Transportation. VMT is based on data provided by Hexagon based on VTA model for Cupertino and modeled with EMFAC2011‐PL for running exhaust
emissions using 2013 emission rates. VMT is multiplied by 347 days/year to account for reduced traffic on weekends and holidays.
b. Energy. Based on three‐year average (2012–2010) of energy use provided by PG&E. The nonresidential sector includes direct access customers,
county facilities, and other district facilities within the City boundaries. PG&E energy based on PG&E’s carbon intensity. Direct access energy based on
the eGRID carbon intensity.
c. Waste. Based on CARB Landfill Emissions Tool Version 1_2013. Waste generation based on three year average (2012‐2010) waste commitment for
the City of Cupertino obtained from CalRecycle. Assumes 75 percent of fugitive GHG emissions are captured within the landfill's Landfill Gas Capture
System with a landfill gas capture efficiency of 75 percent. The landfill gas capture efficiency is based on the CARB’s LGOP, Version 1.1.
d. Water/Wastewater. Includes fugitive emissions from wastewater processing and energy associated with water/wastewater treatment and
conveyance. Existing water use is estimated based on per capita demand rates included in the California Water Company’s (Los Altos District) and the
San Jose Water Company’s 2010 Urban Water Management Plans.
e . Area Sources – Off‐Road Emissions. Generated using OFFROAD2007. Estimated based on population (Landscaping), employment (Light Commercial
Equipment), and construction building permits (Construction) for Cupertino as a percentage of Santa Clara County. Excludes BAAQMD permitted
sources. Daily construction emissions multiplied by 347 days/year to account for reduced/limited construction activity on weekends and holidays.
Excludes fugitive emissions from construction sites.
f. Based on a service population of 85,689 people (58,302 residents and 27,387 employees).
g. Industrial – Industrial sector emissions are "point" sources that are permitted by BAAQMD. Because the reductions associated with the Industrial
sector are regulated separately by BAAQMD and CARB (e.g. through the cap and trade program and industry‐specific sector reductions) and are not
under the jurisdiction of the City of Cupertino, these emissions are shown for informational purposes only. Excludes the Lehigh Southwest Cement
Company GHG emissions, which are 676,615 MTCO2e, because the actual emissions occur in unincorporated Santa Clara County and not the City of
Cupertino.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
4.6-18 JUNE 18, 2014
4.6.2 THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the proposed Project would result in a significant GHG
emissions impact if it would:
1. Generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the
environment.
2. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing
the emissions of GHGs.
4.6.2.1 BAAQMD PLAN-LEVEL SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
The BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines were prepared to assist in the evaluation of air quality impacts
of projects and plans proposed within the Bay Area. The guidelines provide recommended procedures for
evaluating potential air impacts during the environmental review process, consistent with CEQA
requirements, and include recommended thresholds of significance, mitigation measures, and background
air quality information. They also include recommended assessment methodologies for air toxics, odors, and
greenhouse gas emissions. In June 2010, the BAAQMD's Board of Directors adopted CEQA thresholds of
significance and an update of the CEQA Guidelines. In May 2011, the updated BAAQMD CEQA Air
Quality Guidelines were amended to include a risk and hazards threshold for new receptors and modified
procedures for assessing impacts related to risk and hazard impacts.
On March 5, 2012, the Alameda County Superior Cour t issued a judgment finding that the BAAQMD had
failed to comply with CEQA when it adopted the thresholds of significance in the BAAQMD CEQA Air
Quality Guidelines. The court did not determine whether the thresholds of significance were valid on their
merits, but found that the adoption of the thresholds was a project under CEQA. The court issued a writ of
mandate ordering the BAAQMD to set aside the thresholds and cease dissemination of them until the
BAAQMD complied with CEQA.
Following the court's order, the BAAQMD released revised CEOA Air Quality Guidelines in May of 2012
that include guidance on calculating air pollution emissions, obtaining information regarding the health
impacts of air pollutants, and identifying potential mitigation measures, and which set aside the significance
thresholds. The BAAQMD recognizes that lead agencies may rely on the previously recommended
Thresholds of Significance contained in its CEQA Guidelines adopted in 1999. The Alameda County
Superior Court, in ordering BAAQMD to set aside the thresholds, did not address the merits of the science
or evidence supporting the thresholds. The City finds, therefore, that despite the Superior Court’ ruling,
and in light of the subsequent case history discussed below, the science and reasoning contained in the
BAAQMD 2011 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines provide the latest state-of-the-art guidance available. For that
reason, substantial evidence supports continued use of the BAAQMD 2011 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines.
On August 13, 2013, the First District Court of Appeal ordered the trial court to reverse the judgment and
upheld the BAAQMD’s CEQA Guidelines. California Building Industry Ass’n v.Bay Area Air Quality Mgmt.
Dist., Case No. A135335 and A136212 (Court of Appeal, First District, August 13, 2013). In addition to the
City’s independent determination that use of the BAAQMD’s CEQA Guidelines is supported by substantial
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
PLACEWORKS 4.6-19
evidence, they have been found to be valid guidelines for use in the CEQA environmental review process.
On November 26, 2013, the California Supreme Court granted review on the issue of whether the toxic air
contaminants thresholds are consistent with CEQA; specifically, whether CEQA requires analysis of
exposing project residents or users to existing environmental hazards. Briefing was completed on May 27,
2014, but the hearing has not yet been set.
While the outcome of this case presents uncertainty for current project applicants and local agencies
regarding proper evaluation of toxic air contaminants in CEQA documents, local agencies still have a duty
to evaluate impacts related to air quality and greenhouse gas emissions. In addition, CEQA grants local
agencies broad discretion to develop their own thresholds of significance, or to rely on thresholds previously
adopted or recommended by other public agencies or experts so long as they are supported by substantial
evidence. Accordingly, the City of Cupertino is using the BAAQMD's 2011 thresholds to evaluate project
impacts in order to protectively evaluate the potential effects of the project on air quality and greenhouse
gas emissions.
General Plan-Level GHG Criteria
The BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines include methodology and thresholds for GHG impacts for general plan
analyses that are consistent with the GHG reduction goals of AB 32. Therefore, the impact of a project that
is a general plan is less than significant if it:
Complies with a qualified GHG emissions reduction strategy, or
Meets BAAQMD’s efficiency target plan efficiency threshold based on the project’s service population,
discussed below. Service population is the total number of employees and residents within the city.
Consistency with a Qualified GHG Reduction Plan
The CEQA, allows cities to tier from plans adopted to mitigate the effects of GHG emissions on a
city/town level, consistent with AB 32 goals. An AB 32 consistency determination is considered equivalent
to a qualified GHG reduction strategy so long as it achieves one of the following GHG emissions reduction
goals within its jurisdiction:
Reduces emissions to 1990 GHG emission levels by 2020.
Reduces emissions to 15 percent below 2008 or earlier emission levels by 2020.
Meets the plan efficiency threshold of 6.6 MTCO2e per service population per year.
Plan-Level Efficiency Target
For general plan level analyses, BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines recommend that GHG emissions from direct
and indirect community-wide emission sources be quantified for the baseline year, the year 2020, and the
projected year of buildout. Direct sources of emissions include on-site combustion of energy such as natural
gas used for heating and cooking, emissions from industrial processes, and fuel combustion from mobile
sources. Indirect emissions are emissions produced off-site from energy production and water conveyance
due to a project’s energy use and water consumption. Biogenic CO2 emissions are not included in the
quantification of a project’s GHG emissions because biogenic CO2 is derived from living biomass (e.g.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
4.6-20 JUNE 18, 2014
organic matter present in wood, paper, vegetable oils, animal fat, food, animal, and yard waste) as opposed
to fossil fuels. Total emissions are then compared to the 2020 GHG target of 6.6 MTCO2e per service
population, per year.
The proposed Project horizon year is 2040; therefore, the BAAQMD efficiency target has been extrapolated
to 2040 based on the GHG reduction goal of Executive Order S-03-05, which is to reduce GHG emissions
80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. The City’s2040 GHG estimated efficiency target would be 3.1
MTCO2e per service population, per year.
4.6.3 IMPACT DISCUSSION
The City’s community-wide GHG emissions inventory for the proposed Project follows BAAQMD’s GHG
Plan Level Guidance31 and ICLEI’s US Community Protocol for Accounting and Reporting of GHG
Emissions32 and includes the following sectors:
Transportation: Transportation emissions forecasts were modeled using CARB’s EMFAC2011-PL.33
Model runs were based on daily per capita VMT data provided by Hexagon using the VTA model and
2013 (existing), 2020, and 2035 emission rates for 2040 emissions.34 Modeling was conducted for both
a BAU scenario, which does not include GHG emissions reduction from the Pavley Fuel Efficiency
Standard and LCFS and for the Adjusted BAU (ABAU) scenario, which includes these statewide
regulations that were adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. Adjusted daily VMT was
multiplied by 347 days per year to account for reduced traffic on weekends and holidays to determine
annual emissions. This assumption is consistent with CARB’s methodology within the Climate Change
Scoping Plan Measure Documentation Supplement.35
Residential: Purchased electricity and natural gas use for residential land uses in the city were
modeled using data provided by PG&E.36 Per BAAQMD’s Guidelines, residential natural gas and
electricity use are based on a three-year average (2012, 2011, and 2010) to account for fluctuation in
annual energy use as a result of natural variations in climate.37 Forecasts are adjusted for increases in
housing units in the city. The carbon intensity of PG&E’s purchased electricity is based on the average
carbon intensity of their electricity supply (2012, 2011, and 2010)38 and methane and nitrous oxide
emissions from natural gas and purchased electricity.39 The ABAU scenario for residential electricity use
includes a reduction in carbon intensity of PG&E’s energy supply identified by PG&E, which includes
31 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), 2012. GHG Plan Level Guidance, May. http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/
media/Files/Planning%20and%20Research/CEQA/GHG%20Quantification%20Guidance%20May%202012.ashx?la=en.
32 ICLEI – Local Governments for Sustainability USA, 2012. US Community Protocol for Accounting and Reporting of Greenhouse
Gas Emissions. Version 1.0, October.
33 California Air Resources Board (CARB), 2011. EMFAC2011-PL.
34 CARB has not yet compiled emission rates post-2035 in the EMFAC model. Therefore, 2035 emission rates were used to represent
emissions at buildout of the proposed Project in 2040.
35 California Air Resources Board (CARB), 2008. Climate Change Proposed Scoping Plan, a Framework for Change, October.
36 Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E), 2014. Communitywide GHG Inventory Report for Cupertino 2005 to 2012. Provided by John
Joseph, April.
37 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), 2012. GHG Plan Level Guidance, May. http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/
media/Files/Planning%20and%20Research/CEQA/GHG%20Quantification%20Guidance%20May%202012.ashx?la=en.
38 Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E), 2013. Greenhouse Gas Emission Factors Info Sheet, April. http://www.pge.com/
includes/docs/pdfs/shared/environment/calculator/pge_ghg_emission_factor_info_sheet.pdf.
39 California Air Resources Board (CARB), 2010. Local Government Operations Protocol (LGOP), Version 1.1, May.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
PLACEWORKS 4.6-21
33 percent RPS, Cap-and-Trade, and other regulatory reductions for High GWP gases, such as
reductions of SF6.40
Non-residential: Purchased electricity and natural gas use for non-residential land uses in the city
were modeled using data provided by PG&E and include direct access energy.41 Per BAAQMD’s
Guidelines, non-residential natural gas and electricity use are based on a 3-year average (2012, 2011,
and 2010) to account for fluctuations in annual energy use as a result of natural variations in climate in
the city.42 The carbon intensity of PG&E’s purchased electricity is based on the average carbon intensity
of their electricity supply (2012, 2011, and 2010)43 and methane and nitrous oxide emissions from
natural gas and purchased electricity.44 The carbon intensity of direct access electricity is based on the
average carbon intensity of the California electricity supply based on eGRID rates.45 Forecasts are
adjusted for increases in employment in the city. The ABAU scenario for non-residential electricity use
includes a reduction in carbon intensity of PG&E’s energy supply identified by PG&E, which includes
33 percent RPS, Cap-and-Trade, and other regulatory reductions for High GWP gases, such as
reductions of SF6.46 The ABAU scenario for direct access electricity use includes a reduction in carbon
intensity of grid energy supply to account for a 33 percent RPS for grid electricity.47
Cupertino: Purchased electricity and natural gas use from City facilities were modeled using data
provided by PG&E.48 Per BAAQMD’s Guidelines, non-residential natural gas and electricity use are
based on a three-year average (2012, 2011, and 2010) to account for fluctuations in annual energy use
as a result of natural variations in climate in the city.49 The carbon intensity of PG&E’s purchased
electricity is based on the average carbon intensity of their electricity supply (2012, 2011, and 2010)50
and methane and nitrous oxide emissions from natural gas and purchased electricity.51 Forecasts are
adjusted for increases in service population in the city. The ABAU scenario for non-residential electricity
use includes a reduction in carbon intensity of PG&E’s energy supply identified by PG&E, which
40 Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E), 2013. Greenhouse Gas Emission Factors Info Sheet, April. http://www.pge.com/
includes/docs/pdfs/shared/environment/calculator/pge_ghg_emission_factor_info_sheet.pdf.
41 Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E). 2014, April. Communitywide GHG Inventory Report for Cupertino 2005 to 2012.
Provided by John Joseph.
42 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), 2012. GHG Plan Level Guidance, May. http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/
media/Files/Planning%20and%20Research/CEQA/GHG%20Quantification%20Guidance%20May%202012.ashx?la=en.
43 Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E), 2013. Greenhouse Gas Emission Factors Info Sheet, April. http://www.pge.com/
includes/docs/pdfs/shared/environment/calculator/pge_ghg_emission_factor_info_sheet.pdf.
44 California Air Resources Board (CARB), 2010. Local Government Operations Protocol (LGOP), Version 1.1, May.
45 California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), 2010. WCI Final Default Emission Factor Calculator 2008 Data, Version 2, WECC Region,
September.
46 Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E), 2013. Greenhouse Gas Emission Factors Info Sheet, April. http://www.pge.com/
includes/docs/pdfs/shared/environment/calculator/pge_ghg_emission_factor_info_sheet.pdf.
47 Based on the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). California RPS Procurement Summary 2003-2010.
http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/PUC/energy/Renewables/index.htm.
48 Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E), 2014. Communitywide GHG Inventory Report for Cupertino 2005 to 2012. Provided by John
Joseph, , April.
49 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), 2012. GHG Plan Level Guidance, May. http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/
Files/Planning%20and%20Research/CEQA/GHG%20Quantification%20Guidance%20May%202012.ashx?la=en.
50 Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E), 2013. Greenhouse Gas Emission Factors Info Sheet, April. http://www.pge.com/
includes/docs/pdfs/shared/environment/calculator/pge_ghg_emission_factor_info_sheet.pdf.
51 California Air Resources Board (CARB), 2010. Local Government Operations Protocol (LGOP), Version 1.1, May.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
4.6-22 JUNE 18, 2014
includes 33 percent RPS, Cap-and-Trade, and other regulatory reductions for High GWP gases such as
reductions of SF6.52
Water/Wastewater: GHG emissions from water and wastewater include indirect GHG emissions
from the embodied energy of water and wastewater. Total water generation in the city is based on
existing water use estimated from generation rates identified in the California Water Company Los Altos
District and the San Jose Water Company's 2010 Urban Water Management Plans.53,54 Energy use from
water use and wastewater treatment is estimated using energy rates identified by the CEC55 and PG&E’s
carbon intensity of energy.56 In addition to the indirect emissions associated with the embodied energy
of water use and wastewater treatment, wastewater treatment also results in fugitive GHG emissions
from wastewater processing. Fugitive emissions from wastewater treatment in the city were calculated
using the emission factor’s in CARB’s Local Government Operations Protocol (LGOP), Version 1.1.57
The net increase in water use was based on the Water Supply Evaluation prepared for the proposed
Project.58
Waste: Modeling of waste disposed of by residents and employees in the city is based on the waste
commitment method using CARB’s Landfill Emissions Tool Version 1_2013, based on waste disposal
(municipal solid waste and alternative daily cover) and waste characterization data from CalRecycle.59
Because the landfill gas captured is not under the jurisdiction of Cupertino, the landfill gas emissions
from the capture system are not included in Cupertino's inventory. Only fugitive sources of GHG
emissions from landfill are included. Modeling assumes a 75 percent reduction in fugitive GHG
emissions from the landfill's Landfill Gas Capture System. The Landfill gas capture efficiency is based on
CARB’s LGOP, Version 1.1.60 Forecasts are adjusted for increases in service population in the city.
Other – Off-Road Equipment: OFFROAD2007 was used to estimate GHG emissions from
landscaping equipment, light commercial equipment, and construction equipment in the city.
OFFROAD2007 is a database of equipment use and associated emissions for each county compiled by
CARB. Annual emissions were compiled using OFFROAD2007 for the County of Santa Clara for year
2013. In order to determine the percentage of emissions attributable to the City of Cupertino,
landscaping and light commercial equipment is estimated based on population, (Landscaping),61
employment (Light Commercial Equipment),62 and construction building permits (Construction)63 for
52 Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E), 2013. Greenhouse Gas Emission Factors Info Sheet, April. http://www.pge.com/
includes/docs/pdfs/shared/environment/calculator/pge_ghg_emission_factor_info_sheet.pdf.
53 California Water Service Company, 2011. 2010 Urban Water Management Plan, Los Altos Suburban District, June.
54 San Jose Water Company (SJWC), 2011. 2010 Urban Water Management Plan, April
55 California Energy Commission (CEC), 2006. Refining Estimates of Water-Related Energy Use in California. CEC-500-2006-118.
Prepared by Navigant Consulting, Inc., December. Based on the electricity use for Northern California.
56 Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E), 2013. Greenhouse Gas Emission Factors Info Sheet, April. http://www.pge.com/
includes/docs/pdfs/shared/environment/calculator/pge_ghg_emission_factor_info_sheet.pdf.
57 California Air Resources Board (CARB), 2010. Local Government Operations Protocol (LGOP), Version 1.1, May.
58 Yarne & Associates, Inc., 2014. City of Cupertino, California Proposed General Plan Amendment Water Supply Evaluation, April.
59 California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), Disposal Reporting System, 2014. 2012-2010 Cupertino
Jurisdiction Disposal By Facility with Reported Alternative Daily Cover (ADC) and Alternative Intermediate Cover (AIC). Accessed April,
http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/LGCentral/Reports/DRS/Destination/JurDspFa.aspx.
60 California Air Resources Board (CARB), 2010. Local Government Operations Protocol (LGOP), Version 1.1, May.
61 U.S. Census Bureau, 2010.
62 U.S. Census Bureau. 2010. Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics. http://lehd.ces.census.gov/.
63 U.S. Census Bureau, 2010. Building Permits, http://censtats.census.gov/bldg/bldgprmt.shtml.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
PLACEWORKS 4.6-23
Cupertino as a percentage of Santa Clara County. Daily off-road construction emissions are multiplied
by 347 days per year to account for reduced/limited construction activity on weekends and holidays.
This section analyzes potential cumulative impacts to GHG emissions.
GHG-1 Implementation of the proposed Project would not directly or indirectly
generate GHG emissions that may have a significant impact on the
environment.
Development under the proposed Project would contribute to global climate change through direct and
indirect emissions of GHG from transportation sources, energy (natural gas and purchased energy), water
use and wastewater generation, waste generation, and other, off-road equipment (e.g. landscape equipment,
construction activities).
Community-Wide GHG Emissions – 2020 AB 32 Target Year
The BAAQMD has adopted a 2020 per capita GHG threshold for operation-related GHG emissions of 6.6
MTCO2e per service population per year for general plans. The community-wide GHG BAU and ABAU
emissions inventory for the city compared to existing conditions is included in Table 4.6-5. The ABAU
inventory includes reductions from federal and state measures identified in CARB’s Scoping Plan, including
the Pavley fuel efficiency standards, LCFS for fuel use (transportation and off-road), and a reduction in
carbon intensity from electricity use (see the discussion of the inventory methodology). For 2020, the
Scoping Plan measures account for a reduction of 62,205 MTCO2e compared to BAU (18 percent reduction
from BAU).
As shown in Table 4.6-5, community-wide GHG emissions in the city at 2020 would meet the 6.6 MTCO2e
threshold, which is consistent with the GHG reduction target of AB 32. In addition, GHG emissions would
be less than current conditions even though population and employment in the city are anticipated to
increase. Impacts would be less than significant for short-term growth anticipated under the proposed
Project.
Community-Wide GHG Emissions – 2040 Proposed Project
BAAQMD has not adopted a 2040 per capita GHG threshold for operation-related GHG emissions.
However, a 2040 efficiency target was derived for the proposed Project based on the long-term GHG
reduction target for 2050 interpolated from Executive Order S-03-05, which is an 80 percent reduction
from 1990 levels by 2020. This methodology is consistent with CARB’s recommendations in the Update to
the Scoping Plan.64 The 2040 efficiency target would be 3.1 MTCO2e per service population for the city.
The community-wide GHG emissions inventory for the city compared to existing conditions is included in
Table 4.6-6.
64 California Air Resources Board (CARB), 2014, Proposed First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan: Building on the
Framework, http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/2013_update/draft_proposed_first_update.pdf, February
GE
N
E
R
A
L
P
L
A
N
A
M
E
N
D
M
E
N
T
,
H
O
U
S
I
N
G
E
L
E
M
E
N
T
U
P
D
A
T
E
,
A
N
D
A
S
S
O
C
I
A
T
E
D
R
E
Z
O
N
I
N
G
D
R
A
F
T
E
I
R
CI
T
Y
O
F
C
U
P
E
R
T
I
N
O
GR
E
E
N
H
O
U
S
E
G
A
S
E
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
S
4.
6
-
2
4
JU
N
E
1
8
,
2
0
1
4
TAB
L
E
4.
6
‐6
20
2
0
CUP
E
R
T
I
N
O
COM
M
U
N
I
T
Y
GH
G
EM
I
S
S
I
O
N
S
INV
E
N
T
O
R
Y
Ca
t
e
g
o
r
y
GH
G
Em
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
(M
T
C
O
2e/
Y
e
a
r
)
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
20
1
3
20
2
0
BA
U
(W
i
t
h
o
u
t
St
a
t
e
an
d
Fe
d
e
r
a
l
GH
G
Re
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
s
)
20
2
0
Ad
j
u
s
t
e
d
BA
U
(W
i
t
h
St
a
t
e
an
d
Fe
d
e
r
a
l
GH
G
Re
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
s
)
Ch
a
n
g
e
fr
o
m
20
1
3
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
Ch
a
n
g
e
Change
fr
o
m
BAU Percent Change
Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
a
13
7
,
2
8
4
10
4
,
6
9
9
‐
18
,
8
1
9
‐
15
%
‐
32
,
5
8
5
137,284 ‐24%
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
(N
a
t
u
r
a
l
Ga
s
an
d
El
e
c
t
r
i
c
i
t
y
)
b
74
,
5
7
9
78
,
5
7
4
70
,
3
2
4
‐
4,
2
5
5
‐
6%
‐
8,250 ‐10%
No
n
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
*
(N
a
t
u
r
a
l
Ga
s
an
d
El
e
c
t
r
i
c
i
t
y
)
b
85
,
4
1
6
99
,
0
4
5
80
,
4
9
9
‐
4,
9
1
7
‐
6%
‐
18,546 ‐19%
Ci
t
y
(N
a
t
u
r
a
l
Ga
s
an
d
El
e
c
t
r
i
c
i
t
y
)
b
1,
0
8
1
1,
1
7
8
89
1
‐
18
9
‐
18
%
‐287 ‐24%
Wa
s
t
e
c
7,
0
9
5
7,
7
3
6
7,
7
3
6
64
1
9%
0 0%
Wa
t
e
r
/
W
a
s
t
e
w
a
t
e
r
d
3,
7
1
2
3,
9
4
1
2,
8
3
8
‐
87
4
‐
24
%
‐
1,104 ‐28%
Ot
h
e
r
– Of
f
‐Ro
a
d
Eq
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
e
14
,
0
0
6
14
,
3
3
1
12
,
8
9
8
‐
1,
1
0
8
‐
8%
‐
1,433 ‐10%
To
t
a
l
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
Em
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
30
9
,
4
0
6
34
2
,
0
8
9
27
9
,
8
8
4
‐
29
,
5
2
2
‐
10
%
‐
62,205 ‐18%
Se
r
v
i
c
e
Po
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
f
85
,
6
8
9
93
,
4
2
9
—
—
— —
MT
C
O
2e/
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
Po
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
(S
P
)
3.
6
3.
7
3.
0
—
—
— —
BA
A
Q
M
D
GH
G
20
2
0
Pl
a
n
‐Le
v
e
l
Th
r
e
s
h
o
l
d
—
—
6.
6
—
—
— —
Ac
h
i
e
v
e
s
BA
A
Q
M
D
GH
G
Pl
a
n
‐Le
v
e
l
Th
r
e
s
h
o
l
d
?
—
—
Ye
s
—
—
— —
No
t
e
s
:
Em
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
ma
y
no
t
to
t
a
l
to
10
0
pe
r
c
e
n
t
du
e
to
ro
u
n
d
i
n
g
.
BA
U
:
bu
s
i
n
e
s
s
as
us
u
a
l
;
AB
A
U
:
ad
j
u
s
t
e
d
bu
s
i
n
e
s
s
as
us
u
a
l
.
Ba
s
e
d
on
GW
P
s
in
th
e
IP
C
C
Se
c
o
n
d
As
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
Re
p
o
r
t
.
a.
Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
.
VM
T
is
ba
s
e
d
on
da
t
a
pr
o
v
i
d
e
d
by
He
x
a
g
o
n
ba
s
e
d
on
VT
A
mo
d
e
l
fo
r
Cu
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
an
d
mo
d
e
l
e
d
wi
t
h
EM
F
A
C
2
0
1
1
‐PL
fo
r
ru
n
n
i
n
g
ex
h
a
u
s
t
em
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
us
i
n
g
20
3
5
em
i
s
s
i
o
n
rates (note: 2040
em
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
ra
t
e
s
ar
e
no
t
av
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
)
.
VM
T
is
mu
l
t
i
p
l
i
e
d
by
34
7
da
y
s
/
y
e
a
r
to
ac
c
o
u
n
t
fo
r
re
d
u
c
e
d
tr
a
f
f
i
c
on
we
e
k
e
n
d
s
an
d
ho
l
i
d
a
y
s
.
b.
En
e
r
g
y
.
Ba
s
e
d
on
th
r
e
e
‐ye
a
r
av
e
r
a
g
e
(2
0
1
2
–
2
0
1
0
)
of
en
e
r
g
y
us
e
pr
o
v
i
d
e
d
by
PG
&
E
an
d
fo
r
e
c
a
s
t
ba
s
e
d
on
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
ho
u
s
i
n
g
un
i
t
s
(r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
)
,
em
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t
(n
o
n
‐re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
)
,
and service
po
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
(C
i
t
y
)
pr
o
j
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
.
Th
e
no
n
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
se
c
t
o
r
in
c
l
u
d
e
s
di
r
e
c
t
ac
c
e
s
s
cu
s
t
o
m
e
r
s
,
co
u
n
t
y
fa
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
,
an
d
ot
h
e
r
di
s
t
r
i
c
t
fa
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
wi
t
h
i
n
th
e
ci
t
y
bo
u
n
d
a
r
i
e
s
.
PG
&
E
en
e
r
g
y
ba
s
e
d
on PG&E’s carbon
in
t
e
n
s
i
t
y
fo
r
20
2
0
.
Th
e
20
2
0
em
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
ra
t
e
is
es
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
by
PG
&
E
.
It
in
c
l
u
d
e
s
re
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
s
fr
o
m
33
pe
r
c
e
n
t
RP
S
,
Ca
p
‐an
d
‐Tr
a
d
e
,
an
d
ot
h
e
r
re
g
u
l
a
t
o
r
y
re
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
s
fo
r
hi
g
h
GW
P
ga
s
e
s
such as reductions of SF6.
Di
r
e
c
t
ac
c
e
s
s
en
e
r
g
y
ba
s
e
d
on
th
e
eG
R
I
D
ca
r
b
o
n
in
t
e
n
s
i
t
y
an
d
as
s
u
m
e
s
33
pe
r
c
e
n
t
RP
S
.
c.
Wa
s
t
e
.
Ba
s
e
d
on
CA
R
B
La
n
d
f
i
l
l
Em
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
To
o
l
Ve
r
s
i
o
n
1_
2
0
1
3
.
Wa
s
t
e
ge
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
ba
s
e
d
on
th
r
e
e
ye
a
r
av
e
r
a
g
e
(2
0
1
2
‐20
1
0
)
wa
s
t
e
co
m
m
i
t
m
e
n
t
fo
r
th
e
Ci
t
y
of
Cu
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
ob
t
a
i
n
e
d
from CalRecycle and
fo
r
e
c
a
s
t
ba
s
e
d
on
th
e
se
r
v
i
c
e
po
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
.
As
s
u
m
e
s
75
pe
r
c
e
n
t
of
fu
g
i
t
i
v
e
GH
G
em
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
ar
e
ca
p
t
u
r
e
d
wi
t
h
i
n
th
e
la
n
d
f
i
l
l
'
s
La
n
d
f
i
l
l
Ga
s
Ca
p
t
u
r
e
Sy
s
t
e
m
wi
t
h
a la
n
d
f
i
l
l
ga
s
ca
p
t
u
r
e
efficiency of 75
pe
r
c
e
n
t
.
Th
e
La
n
d
f
i
l
l
ga
s
ca
p
t
u
r
e
ef
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y
is
ba
s
e
d
on
th
e
CA
R
B
’
s
LG
O
P
,
Ve
r
s
i
o
n
1.
1
.
d.
Wa
t
e
r
/
W
a
s
t
e
w
a
t
e
r
.
In
c
l
u
d
e
s
fu
g
i
t
i
v
e
em
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
fr
o
m
wa
s
t
e
w
a
t
e
r
pr
o
c
e
s
s
i
n
g
an
d
en
e
r
g
y
as
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
d
wi
t
h
wa
t
e
r
/
w
a
s
t
e
w
a
t
e
r
tr
e
a
t
m
e
n
t
an
d
co
n
v
e
y
a
n
c
e
.
Th
e
ne
t
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
in
wa
t
e
r
use was based on the
Wa
t
e
r
Su
p
p
l
y
Ev
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
pr
e
p
a
r
e
d
fo
r
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
.
e.
Ar
e
a
So
u
r
c
e
s
– Of
f
‐ro
a
d
Em
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
.
Ge
n
e
r
a
t
e
d
us
i
n
g
OF
F
R
O
A
D
2
0
0
7
.
Es
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
ba
s
e
d
on
po
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
(L
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
i
n
g
)
,
em
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t
(L
i
g
h
t
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
Eq
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
)
,
an
d
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
building permits
(C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
)
fo
r
Cu
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
as
a pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
of
Sa
n
t
a
Cl
a
r
a
Co
u
n
t
y
.
An
n
u
a
l
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
em
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
fo
r
e
c
a
s
t
s
ar
e
as
s
u
m
e
d
to
be
si
m
i
l
a
r
to
hi
s
t
o
r
i
c
le
v
e
l
s
Fo
r
e
c
a
s
t
s
fo
r
la
n
d
s
c
a
p
i
n
g
equipment use are based
on
ar
e
ba
s
e
d
on
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
po
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
pr
o
j
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
an
d
li
g
h
t
co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
eq
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
us
e
ar
e
ba
s
e
d
on
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
em
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t
pr
o
j
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
.
Ex
c
l
u
d
e
s
BA
A
Q
M
D
permitted sources. Daily
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
em
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
mu
l
t
i
p
l
i
e
d
by
34
7
da
y
s
/
y
e
a
r
to
ac
c
o
u
n
t
fo
r
re
d
u
c
e
d
/
l
i
m
i
t
e
d
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
ac
t
i
v
i
t
y
on
we
e
k
e
n
d
s
an
d
ho
l
i
d
a
y
s
.
Ex
c
l
u
d
e
s
fu
g
i
t
i
v
e
em
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
fr
o
m
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
sites.
f.
Ba
s
e
d
on
:
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
se
r
v
i
c
e
po
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
of
85
,
6
8
9
pe
o
p
l
e
(5
8
,
3
0
2
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
an
d
27
,
3
8
7
em
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
)
.
20
2
0
se
r
v
i
c
e
po
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
of
93
,
4
2
9
pe
o
p
l
e
(6
1
,
6
7
2
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
an
d
31
,
7
5
7
em
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
)
.
GE
N
E
R
A
L
P
L
A
N
A
M
E
N
D
M
E
N
T
,
H
O
U
S
I
N
G
E
L
E
M
E
N
T
U
P
D
A
T
E
,
A
N
D
A
S
S
O
C
I
A
T
E
D
R
E
Z
O
N
I
N
G
D
R
A
F
T
E
I
R
CI
T
Y
O
F
C
U
P
E
R
T
I
N
O
GR
E
E
N
H
O
U
S
E
G
A
S
E
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
S
PL
A
C
E
W
O
R
K
S
4.6-25
TAB
L
E
4.
6
‐6
20
4
0
CUP
E
R
T
I
N
O
COM
M
U
N
I
T
Y
GH
G
EM
I
S
S
I
O
N
S
INV
E
N
T
O
R
Y
Ca
t
e
g
o
r
y
GH
G
Em
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
(M
T
C
O
2e/
Y
e
a
r
)
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
20
1
3
20
4
0
BA
U
(W
i
t
h
o
u
t
St
a
t
e
an
d
Fe
d
e
r
a
l
GH
G
Re
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
s
)
20
4
0
AB
A
U
(W
i
t
h
St
a
t
e
an
d
Fe
d
e
r
a
l
GH
G
Re
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
s
)
Ch
a
n
g
e
fr
o
m
20
1
3
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
Ch
a
n
g
e
Ch
a
n
g
e
fr
o
m
BA
U
Percent Change
Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
a
12
3
,
5
1
8
17
7
,
3
7
5
12
3
,
2
6
6
‐
25
2
<‐1%
‐
54
,
1
0
9
‐31%
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
(N
a
t
u
r
a
l
Ga
s
an
d
El
e
c
t
r
i
c
i
t
y
)
b
74
,
5
7
9
89
,
9
8
7
80
,
5
3
9
5,
9
6
0
8%
‐
9,
4
4
8
‐10%
No
n
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
*
(N
a
t
u
r
a
l
Ga
s
an
d
El
e
c
t
r
i
c
i
t
y
)
b
85
,
4
1
6
13
7
,
9
8
4
11
2
,
1
4
7
26
,
7
3
1
31
%
‐
25
,
8
3
7
‐19%
Ci
t
y
(N
a
t
u
r
a
l
Ga
s
an
d
El
e
c
t
r
i
c
i
t
y
)
b
1,
0
8
1
1,
1
7
8
1,
1
0
2
21
2%
‐
76
‐6%
Wa
s
t
e
c
7,
0
9
5
9,
5
6
7
9,
5
6
7
2,
4
7
2
35
%
0
0%
Wa
t
e
r
/
W
a
s
t
e
w
a
t
e
r
d
3,
7
1
2
3,
9
9
6
2,
8
7
7
‐
83
5
‐
23
%
‐
1,
1
1
9
‐28%
Ot
h
e
r
‐
Of
f
r
o
a
d
Eq
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
e
14
,
0
0
6
15
,
2
5
9
13
,
7
3
3
‐
27
3
‐
2%
‐
1,
5
2
6
‐10%
To
t
a
l
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
Em
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
30
9
,
4
0
6
43
5
,
3
4
5
34
3
,
2
2
9
33
,
8
2
3
11
%
‐
92
,
1
1
6
‐21%
Se
r
v
i
c
e
Po
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
f
85
,
6
8
9
11
5
,
5
4
2
—
—
—
—
MT
C
O
2e/
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
Po
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
(S
P
)
3.
6
3.
8
3.
0
—
—
—
—
BA
A
Q
M
D
GH
G
20
4
0
Pl
a
n
‐Le
v
e
l
Th
r
e
s
h
o
l
d
—
—
3.
1
—
—
—
—
Ac
h
i
e
v
e
s
BA
A
Q
M
D
GH
G
Pl
a
n
‐Le
v
e
l
Th
r
e
s
h
o
l
d
?
—
—
Ye
s
—
—
—
—
No
t
e
s
:
Em
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
ma
y
no
t
to
t
a
l
to
10
0
pe
r
c
e
n
t
du
e
to
ro
u
n
d
i
n
g
.
BA
U
:
bu
s
i
n
e
s
s
as
us
u
a
l
;
AB
A
U
:
ad
j
u
s
t
e
d
bu
s
i
n
e
s
s
as
us
u
a
l
.
Ba
s
e
d
on
GW
P
s
in
th
e
IP
C
C
Se
c
o
n
d
As
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
Re
p
o
r
t
.
a.
Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
.
VM
T
is
ba
s
e
d
on
da
t
a
pr
o
v
i
d
e
d
by
He
x
a
g
o
n
ba
s
e
d
on
VT
A
mo
d
e
l
fo
r
Cu
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
an
d
mo
d
e
l
e
d
wi
t
h
EM
F
A
C
2
0
1
1
‐PL
fo
r
ru
n
n
i
n
g
ex
h
a
u
s
t
em
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
us
i
n
g
20
3
5
em
i
s
s
i
o
n
rates
(n
o
t
e
:
20
4
0
em
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
ra
t
e
s
ar
e
no
t
av
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
)
.
VM
T
is
mu
l
t
i
p
l
i
e
d
by
34
7
da
y
s
/
y
e
a
r
to
ac
c
o
u
n
t
fo
r
re
d
u
c
e
d
tr
a
f
f
i
c
on
we
e
k
e
n
d
s
an
d
ho
l
i
d
a
y
s
.
b.
En
e
r
g
y
.
Ba
s
e
d
on
3‐ye
a
r
av
e
r
a
g
e
(2
0
1
2
–
2
0
1
0
)
of
en
e
r
g
y
us
e
pr
o
v
i
d
e
d
by
Pa
c
i
f
i
c
Ga
s
& El
e
c
t
r
i
c
(P
G
&
E
)
an
d
fo
r
e
c
a
s
t
ba
s
e
d
on
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
ho
u
s
i
n
g
un
i
t
s
(r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
)
,
em
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t
(n
o
n
‐re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
)
,
an
d
se
r
v
i
c
e
po
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
(C
i
t
y
)
pr
o
j
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
.
Th
e
no
n
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
se
c
t
o
r
in
c
l
u
d
e
s
di
r
e
c
t
ac
c
e
s
s
cu
s
t
o
m
e
r
s
,
co
u
n
t
y
fa
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
,
an
d
ot
h
e
r
di
s
t
r
i
c
t
fa
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
wi
t
h
i
n
th
e
ci
t
y
boundaries.
PG
&
E
en
e
r
g
y
ba
s
e
d
on
PG
&
E
’
s
ca
r
b
o
n
in
t
e
n
s
i
t
y
fo
r
20
2
0
.
Th
e
20
2
0
em
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
ra
t
e
is
es
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
by
PG
&
E
.
It
in
c
l
u
d
e
s
re
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
s
fr
o
m
33
pe
r
c
e
n
t
RP
S
,
Ca
p
‐an
d
‐Tr
a
d
e
,
an
d
ot
h
e
r
re
g
u
l
a
t
o
r
y
re
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
s
fo
r
HG
W
P
ga
s
e
s
su
c
h
as
re
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
s
of
SF
6. Di
r
e
c
t
ac
c
e
s
s
en
e
r
g
y
ba
s
e
d
on
th
e
eG
R
I
D
ca
r
b
o
n
in
t
e
n
s
i
t
y
an
d
as
s
u
m
e
s
33
pe
r
c
e
n
t
RP
S
.
c.
Wa
s
t
e
.
Ba
s
e
d
on
CA
R
B
La
n
d
f
i
l
l
Em
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
To
o
l
Ve
r
s
i
o
n
1_
2
0
1
3
.
Wa
s
t
e
ge
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
ba
s
e
d
on
3‐ye
a
r
av
e
r
a
g
e
(2
0
1
2
‐20
1
0
)
wa
s
t
e
co
m
m
i
t
m
e
n
t
fo
r
th
e
Ci
t
y
of
Cu
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
ob
t
a
i
n
e
d
fr
o
m
CalRecycle
an
d
fo
r
e
c
a
s
t
ba
s
e
d
on
th
e
se
r
v
i
c
e
po
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
.
As
s
u
m
e
s
75
pe
r
c
e
n
t
of
fu
g
i
t
i
v
e
GH
G
em
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
ar
e
ca
p
t
u
r
e
d
wi
t
h
i
n
th
e
la
n
d
f
i
l
l
'
s
La
n
d
f
i
l
l
Ga
s
Ca
p
t
u
r
e
Sy
s
t
e
m
wi
t
h
a la
n
d
f
i
l
l
gas capture
ef
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y
of
75
pe
r
c
e
n
t
.
Th
e
La
n
d
f
i
l
l
ga
s
ca
p
t
u
r
e
ef
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y
is
ba
s
e
d
on
th
e
CA
R
B
’
s
LG
O
P
,
Ve
r
s
i
o
n
1.
1
.
d.
Wa
t
e
r
/
W
a
s
t
e
w
a
t
e
r
.
In
c
l
u
d
e
s
fu
g
i
t
i
v
e
em
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
fr
o
m
wa
s
t
e
w
a
t
e
r
pr
o
c
e
s
s
i
n
g
an
d
en
e
r
g
y
as
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
d
wi
t
h
wa
t
e
r
/
w
a
s
t
e
w
a
t
e
r
tr
e
a
t
m
e
n
t
an
d
co
n
v
e
y
a
n
c
e
.
Th
e
ne
t
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
in
wa
t
e
r
use was
ba
s
e
d
on
th
e
Wa
t
e
r
Su
p
p
l
y
Ev
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
pr
e
p
a
r
e
d
fo
r
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
.
e.
Ar
e
a
So
u
r
c
e
s
– Of
f
‐Ro
a
d
Em
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
.
Ge
n
e
r
a
t
e
d
us
i
n
g
OF
F
R
O
A
D
2
0
0
7
.
Es
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
ba
s
e
d
on
po
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
(L
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
i
n
g
)
,
em
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t
(L
i
g
h
t
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
Eq
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
)
,
an
d
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
building
pe
r
m
i
t
s
(C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
)
fo
r
Cu
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
as
a pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
of
Sa
n
t
a
Cl
a
r
a
Co
u
n
t
y
.
An
n
u
a
l
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
em
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
fo
r
e
c
a
s
t
s
ar
e
as
s
u
m
e
d
to
be
si
m
i
l
a
r
to
hi
s
t
o
r
i
c
le
v
e
l
s
Fo
r
e
c
a
s
t
s
fo
r
la
n
d
s
c
a
p
i
n
g
eq
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
us
e
ar
e
ba
s
e
d
on
ar
e
ba
s
e
d
on
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
po
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
pr
o
j
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
an
d
li
g
h
t
co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
eq
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
us
e
ar
e
ba
s
e
d
on
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
em
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t
pr
o
j
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
.
Ex
c
l
u
d
e
s
BA
A
Q
M
D
pe
r
m
i
t
t
e
d
so
u
r
c
e
s
.
Da
i
l
y
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
em
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
mu
l
t
i
p
l
i
e
d
by
34
7
da
y
s
/
y
e
a
r
to
ac
c
o
u
n
t
fo
r
re
d
u
c
e
d
/
l
i
m
i
t
e
d
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
ac
t
i
v
i
t
y
on
we
e
k
e
n
d
s
an
d
ho
l
i
d
a
y
s
.
Ex
c
l
u
d
e
s
fugitive
em
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
fr
o
m
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
si
t
e
s
.
f.
Ba
s
e
d
on
:
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
se
r
v
i
c
e
po
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
of
85
,
6
8
9
pe
o
p
l
e
(5
8
,
3
0
2
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
an
d
27
,
3
8
7
em
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
)
.
20
4
0
se
r
v
i
c
e
po
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
of
11
5
,
5
4
2
pe
o
p
l
e
(7
1
,
3
0
0
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
an
d
44
,
2
4
2
em
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
)
.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
4.6-26 JUNE 18, 2014
The GHG emissions in the City of Cupertino under the proposed Project would increase by 33,823
MTCO2e in 2040. As shown in Table 4.6-6, community-wide GHG emissions in the city at 2040 would
meet the 3.1 MTCO2e threshold, which is based on the long-term GHG reduction goal of Executive Order
S-03-05. Impacts from GHG emissions within the City of Cupertino would be less than significant for
long-term growth anticipated under the proposed Project
The General Plan includes policies and strategies that, once adopted, would reduce GHG emissions from
development projects to the maximum extent practicable. Within the Community Design Element, Policy
2-2, Connections Between Special Areas, Employment Centers and the Community, would require the City
to provide strong connections between the major mixed-use Special Areas, employment centers, and the
surrounding community. Supporting strategies would require the City to enhance pedestrian and bicycle
connections from the major mixed-use Special Areas and employment centers to surrounding
neighborhoods and provide pedestrian and bicycle paths through new and redevelopment projects to
enhance public access to and through the development. Policy 2-12, Long Term Growth Boundary, would
require the City to allow modification of the long-term growth boundary only in conjunction with a
comprehensive review of the City’s General Plan. Policy 2-22, Jobs/Housing Balance, would require the
City to strive for a more balanced ratio of jobs and housing units. Policy 2-26, Heart of the City Special
Area, would require the City to create a positive and memorable image along Stevens Creek Boulevard of
mixed-use development; enhanced activity gateways and nodes; and safe and efficient circulation and access
for all modes of transportation. Supporting strategies 1 and 2 require the City to maintain the Heart of the
City Specific Plan as the primary implementation tool for the City to use for this area and evaluate options
on Stevens Creek Boulevard to improve the pedestrian environment by proactively managing speed limits
and traffic signal synchronization. Policy 4-5, Pedestrian Access, require the City to create pedestrian access
between new subdivisions and school sites. Review existing neighborhood circulation plans to improve
safety and access for pedestrians and bicyclists to school sites, including completing accessible network of
sidewalks and paths. Supporting strategies require the City to implement the recommendations of the
Cupertino Pedestrian Transportation Plan and trail projects, evaluate any safety, security and privacy impacts
and mitigations associated with trail development and work with affected neighborhoods in locating trails.
Within the Environmental Resources/Sustainability Element, Policy 5-1, Principles of Sustainability, would
require the City to incorporate the principles of sustainability into Cupertino’s planning and development
system. Supporting strategies include requiring the City to appoint a Task Force or Commission to develop
an appropriate comprehensive annual Sustainability and Resource Plan for the City to write and keep
current the annual Tactical Plan and measurement of City-wide programs to help achieve the Environmental
Resources and Sustainability section of the General Plan; identify and evaluate resources, technologies,
products and the lifecycle cost of ownership for each recommended; and work with City staff to evaluate
the financial feasibility of the recommendations. The City would be required to encourage community
gardens, which provide a more livable environment by controlling physical factors such as temperature,
noise, and pollution. In addition, the City is required to adopt and implement energy policies and
implementation programs that include the City’s planning and regulatory process; conduct a Citywide
sustainability inventory in order to identify issues, opportunities and planning alternatives; and prepare and
implement a comprehensive sustainability energy plan as a part of the City’s General Plan. The supporting
energy plan would be designed to include the following:
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
PLACEWORKS 4.6-27
Reduction of energy consumption.
Reduction of fossil fuels.
Use of renewable energy resources whenever possible.
Improve City-wide water usage and conservancy.
Reduce water consumption by the City.
Promote residential and business water reduction.
Policy 5-3, Conservation and Efficient Use of Energy Resources, would require the City to encourage the
maximum feasible conservation and efficient use of electrical power and natural gas resources for new and
existing residences, businesses, industrial and public uses. Supporting strategies require the City to do the
following:
Prepare and implement a comprehensive energy management plan for all applicable public facilities,
equipment and procurement and construction practices.
Review and evaluate applicable City codes, ordinances, and procedures for inclusion of local, state and
federal policies and standards that promote the conservation and efficient use of energy and for
consistency with the goal of sustainability. Change those that will promote energy efficiency without a
punitive effect.
Using life cycle cost analysis, identify City assets for replacement with more energy efficient
replacements.
Implement an incentive program to include such items as reduced permit fees for building projects that
exceed Title 24 requirements. Promote other incentives from the State, County and Federal
Governments for improving energy efficiency by posting information regarding incentive, rebate and
tax credit programs on the City’s web site. Let’s make learning about this easy and help those interested
get started!
Encourage the use of energy cogeneration systems through the provision of an awareness program
targeting the larger commercial and industrial users and public facilities.
Ensure designer, developers, applicants and builders meet California Title 24 Energy Efficient Building
Standards and encourage architects, building designers and contractors to exceed “Title 24”
requirements for new projects through the provision of incentives. Encourage either passive solar
heating and/or dark plaster interior with a cover for swimming pools, cabanas and other related
accessory uses where solar access is available. Encourage the use of alternative renewable sources where
feasible, and develop energy audits or subvention programs.
Require, as conditions of approval for new and renovated projects, the provision of energy
conservation/efficiency applications.
Encourage alternative, energy efficient transportation modes such as “clean” multi-modal public transit,
car and vanpooling, flexible work hours, and pedestrian and bicycle paths.
Policy 5-4, Green Building Design, would require the City to set standards for the design and construction
of energy and resource conserving/efficient building (Green Building Design). Supporting strategies require
the City to prepare and implement “Green Building” standards for all major private and public projects that
ensure reduction in energy consumption for new development through site and building design. The City
would be required to participate in and encourage building energy audits, where feasible, for commercial,
industrial and city facilities and convey to the business and industrial communities that energy
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
4.6-28 JUNE 18, 2014
conservation/efficiency is, in the long term, economically beneficial. PG&E also offers energy evaluation
tools and services free of charge. In addition, the City would prepare a “Green Buildings” evaluation guide
for use by the city staff when reviewing projects, train appropriate staff in the design principles, costs and
benefits of energy conservation/efficient buildings and landscape design, conduct and/or participate in
“Green Buildings” informational seminars and workshops to include people involved in the design and
construction industry, land development, real estate sales, lending institutions, landscaping and design, the
building maintenance industry and prospective project applicants, and become a regular feature article in
the Cupertino Scene, do media outreach to the Courier and the Guide (San Jose Mercury) tape the
Sustainable Building and other conservation courses, or seminars and broadcast them on the City Channel as
well, and make them available at the Library. Policy 5-6, Air Pollution Effects of Existing Development,
would require the City to minimize the air quality impacts of existing development. Supporting strategies
require the City to establish a Citywide public education program regarding the implications of the Clean
Air Act and provide information on ways to reduce and control emissions; provide information about
carpooling and restricting physical activities on “Spare the Air” high-pollution days, expand the allowable
home occupations in residentially zoned properties to reduce the need to commute to work, increase
planting of trees on City property and encourage the practice on private property, maintain City use of fuel-
efficient and low polluting vehicles, and work with County to monitor and influence improvement of
emissions and dust from the Hanson and Stevens Creek Quarries on the West end of the City. Policy 5-7,
Use of Open Fires and Fireplaces, would require the City to discourage high pollution fireplace use. Policy
5-28, Interagency Coordination, actively pursue interagency coordination for regional water supply
problem solving. Policy 5-29, Coordination of Local Conservation Policies with Regionwide Conservation
Policies, would require the City to coordinate city-wide water conservation efforts with the Santa Clara
Valley Water District efforts being conducted on a regional scale. Many of these conservation efforts are
outlined in the Santa Clara Valley Water District Drought Plan and Countywide Water Use Reduction
program. Policy 5-30, Public Information Effort, would require the City to provide the public information
regarding water conservation/efficiency techniques, including how paving and other impervious surfaces
impact runoff. Policy 5-31, Water Use Efficiency, would require the City to promote efficient use of water
throughout the City. Policy 5-38, Commercial/Industrial Recycling, would require the City to expand
existing commercial and industrial recycling programs to meet and surpass AB939 waste stream reduction
goals. Policy 5-39, Residential Recycling, would require the City to streamline the residential curbside
recycling program in the next decade. Include all city-wide residential zoning districts in the curbside
recycling program. Policy 5-40, On-Site Garbage and Organic Collection Area Dedication, would require
the City to modify existing, and require for new developments, on-site waste facility requirements for all
multi-family residential, commercial and industrial land uses. Supporting strategy, Ordinance Revisions,
would require the City to revise existing ordinances relative to on-site waste facility requirements for all
multi-family residential, commercial and industrial zoning districts to require an adequate covered area for a
combination of garbage, recycling and organic collection. Policy 5-41, Public Education, would require the
City to promote the existing public education program regarding the reduction of solid waste disposal and
recycling. Supporting strategy, Recycling Program Information, would require the City to use the local
television channel, the Cupertino Scene, the Internet and other available media to provide information to
the residents about the objectives of the City’s recycling program. Policy 5-42, City Recycling and Organic
Diversion, would require the City to encourage City staff to recycle and compost at all City facilities. Policy
5-43, Re-distribution of Reusable Materials, would require the City to re-distribute reusable materials, e.g.
garage sales, materials exchange through public education, encourage residents and businesses. Policy 5-44,
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
PLACEWORKS 4.6-29
Reuse of Building Materials, would require the City to encourage the recycling and reuse of building
materials, including recycling materials generated by the demolition and remodeling of buildings.
Within the Circulation Element, Policy 4-1, City Participation in Regional Transportation Planning, would
require the City to participate actively in developing regional approaches to meeting the transportation
needs of the residents of the Santa Clara Valley. Work closely with neighboring jurisdictions and agencies
responsible for roadways, transit facilities and transit services in Cupertino. Supporting strategies require
the City to minimize regional traffic impacts on Cupertino by supporting regional planning programs to
manage the jobs-housing balance throughout Santa Clara County and the Silicon Valley; ensure that
connections are provided to enable travelers to transition from one mode of transportation to another, e.g.
bicycle to bus ;support the expansion of the VTA’s regional bus transit system and extension of bus and/or
light rail rapid transit into the Stevens Creek and De Anza Special Areas to fulfill the “spoke and wheel”
transit system designed to serve all of Santa Clara County. Policy 4-3, Reduced Reliance on the Use of
Single-Occupant Vehicles, require the City to promote a general decrease in reliance on private, mostly
single-occupant vehicles (SOV) by encouraging attractive alternatives. Supporting strategies require the City
to encourage the use of alternatives to the SOV including increased car-pooling, use of public transit,
bicycling and walking; encourage TSM programs for employees in both the public and private sectors by
including preferred parking for carpools, providing bus passes, encouraging compressed workweeks, and
providing incentives and rewards for bicycling and walking; encourage employers to use the internet to
reduce commute travel. Encourage schools, particularly at the college and high school levels, to make
maximum use of the internet to limit the need to travel to and from the campus; encourage new
commercial developments to provide shared office facilities, cafeterias, day-care facilities, lunchrooms,
showers, bicycle parking, home offices, shuttle buses to transit facilities and other amenities that encourage
the use of transit, bicycling, walking or telecommuting as commute modes to work. Provide pedestrian
pathways and orient buildings to the street to encourage pedestrian activity; provide space on appropriate
streets for bus turnouts, or safe and accessible bike lanes or pedestrian paths; use the Cupertino Scene and
other media to provide educational material on alternatives to the SOV; continue to work with the City
Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Committee, community groups and residents to eliminate hazards and barriers
to bicycle and pedestrian transportation.
Applicable Regulations
California Global Warming Solutions Act (AB 32)
Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act (SB 375)
Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Targets (Executive Order S-3-05)
Clean Car Standards – Pavely (AB 1493)
Renewable Portfolio Standards (SB 1078)
California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939)
California Mandatory Commercial Recycling Law (AB 341)
California Advanced Clean Cars CARB/ Low-Emission Vehicle Program – LEV III (Title 13 CCR)
Heavy-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Measure (Title 17 CCR)
Low Carbon Fuel Standard (Title 17 CCR)
California Water Conservation in Landscaping Act of 2006 (AB 1881)
California Water Conservation Act of 2009 (SBX7-7)
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
4.6-30 JUNE 18, 2014
Statewide Retail Provider Emissions Performance Standards (SB 1368).
Airborne Toxics Control Measure to Limit School Bus Idling and Idling at Schools (13 CCR 2480)
Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Limit Diesel-Fuel Commercial Vehicle Idling (13 CCR 2485)
In-Use Off-Road Diesel Idling Restriction (13 CCR 2449)
Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 24, Part 6)
California Green Building Code (Title 24, Part 11)
Appliance Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 20)
The General Plan establishes the framework for future growth and development in Cupertino. A General
Plan does not directly result in development without additional approvals. Before any development can
occur in the City, it is required to be analyzed for consistency with the General Plan, zoning requirements,
and other applicable local and state requirements; comply with the requirements of CEQA; and obtain all
necessary clearances and permits. As identified in Tables 4.5-5 and 4.5-6, the proposed Project would
achieve the 2020 and 2035 performance criteria, respectively, which would ensure that the City is on a
trajectory that is consistent with the statewide GHG reduction goals. Consequently, short-term and long-
term GHG emissions impacts of the proposed Project are less than significant.
Significance Without Mitigation: Less than significant.
GHG-2 Implementation of the proposed Project would not conflict with an
applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose
of reducing the emissions of GHGs.
The following plans have been adopted and are applicable for development in the City of Cupertino:
CARB’s Scoping Plan
In accordance with AB 32, CARB developed the Scoping Plan to outline the State’s strategy to achieve 1990
level emissions by year 2020. To estimate the reductions necessary, CARB projected statewide 2020 BAU
GHG emissions (i.e. GHG emissions in the absence of statewide emission reduction measures). CARB
identified that the State as a whole would be required to reduce GHG emissions by 28.5 percent from year
2020 BAU to achieve the targets of AB 32.65The revised BAU 2020 forecast shows that the state would have
to reduce GHG emissions by 21.6 percent from BAU without implementation of the Pavley GHG emission
standards for passenger vehicles and the 33 percent renewable portfolio standard (RPS) for electricity, or
15.7 percent from the adjusted baseline (i.e. with Pavley and 33 percent RPS).66
Statewide strategies to reduce GHG emissions include the LCFS; California Appliance Energy Efficiency
regulations; California Building Standards (i.e. CALGreen and the 2008 Building and Energy Efficiency
Standards); California Renewable Energy Portfolio standard (33 percent RPS); changes in the corporate
average fuel economy standards (e.g. Pavley I and Pavley II); and other measures that would ensure the State
65 California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2008. October. Climate Change Proposed Scoping Plan, a Framework for Change.
66 California Air Resources Board (CARB), 2012. Status of Scoping Plan Recommended Measures, http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/
scopingplan/status_of_scoping_plan_measures.pdf.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
PLACEWORKS 4.6-31
is on target to achieve the GHG emissions reduction goals of AB 32. Statewide GHG emissions reduction
measures that are being implemented over the next six years would reduce the City’s GHG emissions.
As shown in Table 4.6-5, the City would achieve the 2020 target of AB 32 for cities within the San Francisco
Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB). New residential and non-residential construction in the City would achieve
the current building and energy efficiency standards. The new buildings would be constructed in
conformance with CALGreen, which requires high-efficiency water fixtures for indoor plumbing and water
efficient irrigation systems. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
MTC’s Plan Bay Area
To achieve ABAG’s/MTC’s sustainable vision for the Bay Area, the Plan Bay Area land use concept plan for
the region concentrates the majority of new population and employment growth in the region in PDAs.
PDAs are transit-oriented, infill development opportunity areas within existing communities. Overall, well
over two-thirds of all regional growth by 2040 is allocated within PDAs. PDAs are expected to
accommodate 80 percent (or over 525,570 units) of new housing and 66 percent (or 744,230) of new jobs.
In Cupertino, Plan Bay Area includes the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority – City Cores,
Corridors & Station Areas PDA.
The General Plan includes policies and strategies that, once adopted, would encourage use of alternative
modes of travel, and encourage new growth in this Mixed-Use Special Area, consistent with Plan Bay Area’s
vision. Within the Circulation Element, Policy 4-3, Reduced Reliance on the Use of Single-Occupant
Vehicles, would require the City to promote a general decrease in reliance on private, mostly single-
occupant vehicles (SOV) by encouraging attractive alter natives. Supporting strategies require the City to do
the following:
Encourage the use of alternatives to the SOV including increased car-pooling, use of public transit,
bicycling and walking.
Encourage TSM programs for employees in both the public and private sectors by including preferred
parking for carpools, providing bus passes, encouraging compressed workweeks, and providing
incentives and rewards for bicycling and walking.
Encourage employers to use the internet to reduce commute travel. Encourage schools, particularly at
the college and high school levels, to make maximum use of the internet to limit the need to travel to
and from the campus.
Encourage new commercial developments to provide shared office facilities, cafeterias, day-care
facilities, lunchrooms, showers, bicycle parking, home offices, shuttle buses to transit facilities and other
amenities that encourage the use of transit, bicycling, walking or telecommuting as commute modes to
work. Provide pedestrian pathways and orient buildings to the street to encourage pedestrian activity.
Provide space on appropriate streets for bus turnouts, or safe and accessible bike lanes or pedestrian
paths.
Use the Cupertino Scene and other media to provide educational material on alternatives to the SOV.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
4.6-32 JUNE 18, 2014
Continue to work with the City Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Committee, community groups and
residents to eliminate hazards and barriers to bicycle and pedestrian transportation.
Policy 4-4, Improved Pedestrian and Bicycle Circulation Throughout Cupertino, would require the City
Expand city-wide pedestrian and bicycle circulation in order to provide improved recreation, mobility and
safety. Supporting strategies require the City to implement the projects recommended in the Pedestrian
Guidelines including consider developing a quarter-mile grid of safe, walk-able sidewalks and paths to
provide pedestrian access among residential, shopping, recreation and business locations and work with the
School Districts to promote the Safe Route to Schools program. The City is also required to provide
additional time for pedestrians to cross streets at appropriate intersections, consider various improvements
to roadways to make them more pedestrian friendly and less auto-centric, encourage all public construction
and private development projects to submit a Pedestrian/Bicycle Impact Statement to assess the impact of
the project on pedestrians and bicycles. The City is required to implement Bicycle Plan, encourage the
developers of major new or remodeled buildings to include secure interior and/or fully weather protected
bicycle parking, and provide bicycle parking in multi-family residential developments and in commercial
districts as required under Section 19.100.040 of the City code. Policy 4-6, Regional Trail Development,
would require the City to continue to plan and provide for a comprehensive system of trails and pathways
consistent with regional systems. Policy 4-7, Increased Use of Public Transit, would require the City to
support and encourage the increased use of public transit. Policy 4-9, Traffic Service and Pedestrians Needs,
would require the City to balance the needs of pedestrians with desired traffic service. Policy 4-12, Street
Improvement Planning, would require the City to plan street improvements such as curb cuts, sidewalks,
bus stop turnouts, bus shelters, light poles, benches and trash containers as an integral part of a project to
ensure an enhanced streetscape and the safe movement of people and vehicles with the least possible
disruption to the streetscape. The Land Use/Community Design Element includes Policy 2-1, which would
encourage new growth in the PDA mixed-and focuses new development in major mixed-use corridors in
the City by allowing higher intensity development and increased building heights where appropriate in
designated special areas, gateways, and nodes.
As identified by these polices and strategies, which encourage use of alternative modes of transportation and
focus new growth in mixed-use areas, the proposed Project is consistent with the objectives of Plan Bay Area
for growth within this PDA. Therefore, the proposed Project is consistent with land use concept plan for
Cupertino identified in Plan Bay Area. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Applicable Regulations
California Global Warming Solutions Act (AB 32)
Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act (SB 375)
Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Targets (Executive Order S-3-05)
Clean Car Standards – Pavely (AB 1493)
Renewable Portfolio Standards (SB 1078)
California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939)
California Mandatory Commercial Recycling Law (AB 341)
California Advanced Clean Cars CARB/ Low-Emission Vehicle Program – LEV III (Title 13 CCR)
Heavy-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Measure (Title 17 CCR)
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
PLACEWORKS 4.6-33
Low Carbon Fuel Standard (Title 17 CCR)
California Water Conservation in Landscaping Act of 2006 (AB 1881)
California Water Conservation Act of 2009 (SBX7-7)
Statewide Retail Provider Emissions Performance Standards (SB 1368).
Airborne Toxics Control Measure to Limit School Bus Idling and Idling at Schools (13 CCR 2480)
Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Limit Diesel-Fuel Commercial Vehicle Idling (13 CCR 2485)
In-Use Off-Road Diesel Idling Restriction (13 CCR 2449)
Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 24, Part 6)
California Green Building Code (Title 24, Part 11)
Appliance Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 20)
Implementation of the proposed Project policies as well as compliance with applicable State standards listed
and described above would ensure consistency with state and regional GHG reduction planning efforts;
therefore, this impact would be less than significant.
Significance Without Mitigation: Less than significant.
GHG-3 Implementation of the proposed Project, in combination with past, present,
and reasonably foreseeable projects, would not result in significant
cumulative impacts with respect to GHG emissions.
As described above, GHG emissions related to the proposed Project are not confined to a particular air
basin but are dispersed worldwide. Therefore, the analysis of impacts in Section 4.6.3, Impact Discussion,
above, also addresses cumulative impacts.
As identified in Section 4.6.3, the General Plan is a regulatory document that sets the framework for future
growth and development. A General Plan does not directly result in development without approvals. Any
development in the city is required to be analyzed for conformance with the General Plan, zoning
requirements, and other applicable local and state requirements; comply with the requirements of CEQA;
and obtain all necessary clearances and permits. Furthermore, existing federal, State, and local regulations
and policies, including the City’s draft CAP, described throughout this chapter serve to reduce community-
wide GHG emissions. Continued compliance with these regulations and implementation of General Plan
policies would reduce the Projects’ contribution to this impact. As identified in Impact GHG-1, Tables 4.5-5
and 4.5-6 show that the proposed Project would achieve the 2020 and 2035 performance criteria, which
would ensure that the City is on a trajectory that is consistent with the statewide GHG reduction goals.
Consequently, short-term and long-term cumulative GHG emissions impacts of the proposed Project are
less than significant.
Significance Without Mitigation: Less than significant.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
4.6-34 JUNE 18, 2014
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
HAZARDS & HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
PLACEWORKS 4.7-1
4.7 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
This chapter describes the potential impacts associated with the adoption and implementation of the
proposed Project that are related to hazardous materials, airport hazards, emergency response plans, and
wildland fires. Additionally, this chapter describes the environmental setting, including regulatory
framework and existing conditions, and identifies policies and mitigation measures that would avoid or
reduce significant impacts.
4.7.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
4.7.1.1 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
Hazardous materials refer generally to hazardous substances, hazardous waste, and other materials that
exhibit corrosive, poisonous, flammable, and/or reactive properties and have the potential to harm human
health and/or the environment. Hazardous materials are used in products (e.g. household cleaners,
industrial solvents, paint, pesticides, etc.) and in the manufacturing of products (e.g. electronics,
newspapers, plastic products, etc.). Hazardous materials can include petroleum, natural gas, synthetic gas,
acutely toxic chemicals, and other toxic chemicals that are used in agriculture, commercial, and industrial
uses; businesses; hospitals; and households. Accidental releases of hazardous materials have a variety of
causes, including highway incidents, warehouse fires, train derailments, shipping accidents, and industrial
incidents.
The term “hazardous materials” as used in this section includes all materials defined in the California Health
and Safety Code (H&SC):
“A material that, because of its quantity, concentration, or physical or chemical characteristics, poses a
significant present or potential hazard to human health and safety or to the environment if released into
the workplace or the environment. ‘Hazardous materials’ include, but are not limited to, hazardous
substances, hazardous waste, and any material that a handler or the unified program agency has a
reasonable basis for believing that it would be injurious to the health and safety of persons or harmful to
the environment if released into the workplace or the environment.”
The term includes chemicals regulated by the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT), the
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), the California Department of Toxic Substances
Control (DTSC), the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (CalOES), and other agencies as
hazardous materials, wastes, or substances. “Hazardous waste” is any hazardous material that has been
discarded, except those materials specifically excluded by regulation. Hazardous materials that have been
intentionally disposed of or inadvertently released fall within the definition of “discarded” materials and can
result in the creation of hazardous waste. Hazardous wastes are broadly characterized by their ignitability,
toxicity, corrosivity, reactivity, radioactivity, or bioactivity. Federal and State hazardous waste definitions are
similar, but contain enough distinctions that separate classifications are in place for federal Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) hazardous wastes and State non-RCRA hazardous wastes.
Hazardous wastes require special handling and disposal because of their potential to impact public health and
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
HAZARDS & HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
4.7-2 JUNE 18, 2014
the environment. Some materials are designated “acutely” or “extremely” hazardous under relevant statutes
and regulations.
Hazardous materials and wastes can pose a significant actual or potential hazard to human health and the
environment when improperly treated, stored, transported, disposed of, or otherwise managed. Many
federal, State, and local programs that regulate the use, storage, and transportation of hazardous materials
and hazardous waste are in place to prevent these unwanted consequences. These regulatory programs are
designed to reduce the danger that hazardous substances may pose to people and businesses under normal
daily circumstances and as a result of emergencies and disasters.
Federal Regulations
The following federal agencies oversee hazards and hazardous materials concerns.
United States Environmental Protection Agency
The USEPA laws and regulations ensure the safe production, handling, disposal, and transportation of
hazardous materials. Laws and regulations established by the USEPA are enforced in Santa Clara County by
the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA).
United States Department of Transportation
The USDOT has the regulatory responsibility for the safe transportation of hazardous materials between
states and to foreign countries. The USDOT regulations govern all means of transportation, except for those
packages shipped by mail, which are covered by United States Postal Service regulations. The federal
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 imposes additional standards for the transport of
hazardous wastes.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) oversees the administration of the
Occupational Safety and Health Act, which requires specific training for hazardous materials handlers,
provision of information to employees who may be exposed to hazardous materials, and acquisition of
material safety data sheets (MSDS) from materials manufacturers. The MSDS describe the risks, as well as
proper handling and procedures, related to particular hazardous materials. Employee training must include
response and remediation procedures for hazardous materials releases and exposures.
State Regulations
California Health and Safety Code and Code of Regulations
California Health and Safety Code Chapter 6.95 and California Code of Regulations, Title 19, Section 2729
set out the minimum requirements for business emergency plans and chemical inventory reporting. These
regulations require businesses to provide emergency response plans and procedures, training program
information, and a hazardous material chemical inventory disclosing hazardous materials stored, used, or
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
HAZARDS & HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
PLACEWORKS 4.7-3
handled on-site. A business which uses hazardous materials or a mixture containing hazardous materials
must establish and implement a business plan if the hazardous material is handled in certain quantities.
California Environmental Protection Agency
One of the primary agencies that regulate hazardous materials is the CalEPA. The State, through CalEPA, is
authorized by the USEPA to enforce and implement certain federal hazardous materials laws and regulations.
The California DTSC, a department of the CalEPA, protects California and Californians from exposure to
hazardous waste, primarily under the authority of the RCRA and the California Health and Safety Code.1
The DTSC requirements include the need for written programs and response plans, such as Hazardous
Materials Business Plans (HMBPs). The DTSC programs include dealing with aftermath clean-ups of
improper hazardous waste management, evaluation of samples taken from sites, enforcement of regulations
regarding use, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials, and encouragement of pollution prevention.
California Division of Occupational Safety and Health
Like OSHA at the federal level, the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (CalOSHA) is the
responsible state-level agency for ensuring workplace safety. The CalOSHA assumes primary responsibility
for the adoption and enforcement of standards regarding workplace safety and safety practices. In the event
that a site is contaminated, a Site Safety Plan must be crafted and implemented to protect the safety of
workers. Site Safety Plans establish policies, practices, and procedures to prevent the exposure of workers
and members of the public to hazardous materials originating from the contaminated site or building.
California Building Code
The State of California provided a minimum standard for building design through the California Building
Code (CBC), which is located in Part 2 of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR). The CBC is
based on the 1997 Uniform Building Code, but has been modified for California conditions. The CBC is
updated every three years, and the current CBC went into effect in January 2014. It is generally adopted on
a jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction basis, subject to further modification based on local conditions. Commercial
and residential buildings are plan-checked by local city and county building officials for compliance with the
CBC typical fire safety requirements of the CBC included; the installation of sprinklers in all high-rise
buildings; the establishment of fire resistance standards for fire doors, building materials, and particular
types of construction; and the clearance of debris and vegetation within a prescribed distance from occupied
structures in wildlife hazard areas.
California Emergency Management Agency
The California Emergency Management Agency (CalEMA) was established as part of the Governor’s Office
on January 1, 2009 – created by Assembly Bill 38 (Nava), which merged the duties, powers, purposes, and
responsibilities of the former Governor’s Office of Emergency Services with those of the Governor’s Office
1Hazardous Substance Account, Chapter 6.5 (Section 25100 et seq.) and the Hazardous Waste Control Law, Chapter 6.8 (Section
25300 et seq.) of the Health and Safety Code.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
HAZARDS & HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
4.7-4 JUNE 18, 2014
of Homeland Security. The CalEMA is responsible for the coordination of overall State agency response to
major disasters in support of local government. The agency is responsible for assuring the State’s readiness
to respond to and recover from all hazards – natural, manmade, emergencies, and disasters – and for
assisting local governments in their emergency preparedness, response, recovery, and hazard mitigation
efforts.
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection
The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) has mapped fire threat potential
throughout California.2 The CAL FIRE ranks fire threat based on the availability of fuel and the likelihood of
an area burning (based on topography, fire history, and climate). The rankings include no fire threat,
moderate, high, and very high fire threat. Additionally, the CAL FIRE produced the 2010 Strategic Fire Plan
for California, which contains goals, objectives, and policies to prepare for and mitigate for the effects of fire
on California’s natural and built environments.3
California Fire Code
California Code of Regulations, Title 24, also known as the California Building Standards Code, contains the
California Fire Code (CFC), included as Part 9 of that Title. Updated every three years, the CFC includes
provisions and standards for emergency planning and preparedness, fire service features, fire protection
systems, hazardous materials, fire flow requirements, and fire hydrant locations and distribution. Similar to
the CBC, the CFC is generally adopted on a jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction basis, subject to further
modification based on local conditions.
California Department of Transportation and California Highway Patrol
Two State agencies have primary responsibility for enforcing federal and State regulations and responding to
hazardous materials transportation emergencies: the California Highway Patrol (CHP) and the California
Department of Transportation (Caltrans). Caltrans manages more than 50,000 miles of California’s highway
and freeway lanes, provides intercity rail services, permits more than 400 public-use airports and special-use
hospital heliports, and works with local agencies. Caltrans is also the first responder for hazardous material
spills and releases that occur on those highway and freeway lanes and intercity rail services.
The CHP enforces hazardous materials and hazardous waste labeling and packing regulations designed to
prevent leakage and spills of materials in transit and to provide detailed information to cleanup crews in the
event of an accident. Vehicle and equipment inspection, shipment preparation, container identification, and
shipping documentation are all part of the responsibility of the CHP, which conducts regular inspections of
licensed transporters to assure regulatory compliance. In addition, the State of California regulates the
transportation of hazardous waste originating or passing through the State.
2 CalFIRE, http://www.fire.ca.gov/fire_prevention/fire_prevention_wildland_zones_development.php, accessed on April 15, 2014.
3 CalFIRE, 2010 Strategic Fire Plan for California, http://cdfdata.fire.ca.gov/pub/fireplan/fpupload/fpppdf668.pdf, accessed on April
15, 2014.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
HAZARDS & HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
PLACEWORKS 4.7-5
Common carriers are licensed by the CHP, pursuant to the California Vehicle Code, Section 32000. This
section requires licensing every motor (common) carrier who transports, for a fee, in excess of 500 pounds
of hazardous materials at one time and every carrier, if not for hire, who carries more than 1,000 pounds of
hazardous material of the type requiring placards. Common carriers conduct a large portion of the business
in the delivery of hazardous materials.
Federal and State Hazardous Materials-Specific Programs and Regulations
Asbestos-Containing Materials Regulations
Asbestos-containing materials (ACM) are materials that contain asbestos, a naturally occurring fibrous
mineral that has been mined for its useful thermal properties and tensile strength. ACM is generally defined
as either friable or non-friable. Friable ACM is defined as any material containing more than one percent
asbestos. Friable ACM is more likely to produce airborne fibers than non-friable ACM, and can be
crumpled, pulverized, or reduced to powder by hand pressure. Non-friable ACM is defined as any material
containing one percent or less asbestos. Non-friable ACM cannot be crumpled, pulverized, or reduced to
powder by hand pressure. When left intact and undisturbed, ACM does not pose a health risk to building
occupants. Potential for human exposure occurs when ACM becomes damaged to the extent that asbestos
fibers become airborne and are inhaled. Inhalation of asbestos airborne fibers can lead to various health
problems, the most serious of which includes lung disease.
State-level agencies, in conjunction with the USEPA and OSHA, regulate removal, abatement, and transport
procedures for ACMs. Releases of asbestos from industrial, demolition, or construction activities are
prohibited by these regulations and medical evaluation and monitoring is required for employees
performing activities that could expose them to asbestos. Additionally, the regulations include warnings that
must be heeded and practices that must be followed to reduce the risk for asbestos emissions and exposure.
Finally, federal, State, and local agencies must be notified prior to the onset of demolition or construction
activities with the potential to release asbestos Specifically, BAAQMD Regulation 11, Rule 2, requires a
written plan or notification of intent to demolish or renovate be provided to the District at least ten
working days prior to commencement of demolition or renovation.
Lead-based Paint
Lead-based paint (LBP), which can result in lead poisoning when consumed or inhaled, was widely used in
the past to coat and decorate buildings. Lead poisoning can cause anemia and damage to the brain and
nervous system, particularly in children. Like ACM, LBP generally does not pose a health risk to building
occupants when left undisturbed; however, deterioration, damage, or disturbance will result in hazardous
exposure. In 1978, the use of LBP was federally banned by the Consumer Product Safety Commission.
Therefore, only buildings built before 1978 are presumed to contain LBP, as well as buildings built shortly
thereafter, as the phase-out of LBP was gradual.
Polychlorinated Biphenyls
The USEPA prohibited the use of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in the majority of new electrical
equipment starting in 1979, and initiated a phase-out for much of the existing PCB-containing equipment.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
HAZARDS & HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
4.7-6 JUNE 18, 2014
The inclusion of PCBs in electrical equipment and the handling of those PCBs are regulated by the
provisions of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), 15 United States Code Section 2601 et seq.
Relevant regulations include labeling and periodic inspection requirements for certain types of PCB-
containing equipment and outline highly specific safety procedures for their disposal. The State of California
likewise regulates PCB-laden electrical equipment and materials contaminated above a certain threshold as
hazardous waste; these regulations require that such materials be treated, transported, and disposed
accordingly. At lower concentrations for non-liquids, regional water quality control boards may exercise
discretion over the classification of such wastes.
CalOSHA’s Lead in Construction Standard is contained in Title 8, Section 1532.1 of the California Code of
Regulations. The regulations address all of the following areas: permissible exposure limits (PELs); exposure
assessment; compliance methods; respiratory protection; protective clothing and equipment; housekeeping;
medical surveillance; medical removal protection (MRP); employee information, training, and certification;
signage; record keeping; monitoring; and agency notification.
Regional Regulations
San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board
The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act4 established the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and
divided the state into nine regional basins, each under the jurisdiction of a Regional Water Quality Control
Board (RWQCB). The San Francisco Bay Region (Region 2) is the Regional Water Quality Control Board
(San Francisco Bay RWQCB) which regulates water quality in the Project Study Area. The San Francisco Bay
RWQCB has the authority to require groundwater investigations when the quality of groundwater or
surface waters of the state is threatened, and to require remediation actions, if necessary.
Bay Area Air Quality Management District
The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) has primary responsibility for control of air
pollution from sources other than motor vehicles and consumer products (which are the responsibility of
CalEPA and California Air Resources Board [CARB]). The BAAQMD is responsible for preparing attainment
plans for non-attainment criteria pollutants, control of stationary air pollutant sources, and the issuance of
permits for activities including demolition and renovation activities affecting asbestos containing materials
(District Regulation 11, Rule 2) and lead (District Regulation 11, Rule 1).
Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health
The routine management of hazardous materials in California is administered under the Unified Hazardous
Waste and Hazardous Materials Management Program (“Unified Program”),, and most of the City of
Cupertino’s hazardous materials programs are administered and enforced under the Unified Program.5 The
CalEPA has granted responsibilities to the Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health (DEH)
4 California Water Code Sections 13000 et seq.
5 California Health and Safety Code, Chapter 6.11, Sections 25404-25404.8.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
HAZARDS & HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
PLACEWORKS 4.7-7
Hazardous Materials Compliance Division (HMCD) for implementation and enforcement of hazardous
material regulations under the Unified Program as a Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA). The
HMCD also enforces additional hazardous materials storage requirements in accordance with the Santa
Clara County Hazardous Materials Storage Ordinance and Toxic Gas Ordinance.6
Under authority from the RWQCB, the Santa Clara County DEH implements the Local Oversight Program
(LOP) to oversee the investigation and remediation of leaking underground storage tanks (USTs) in Santa
Clara County, including the City of Cupertino.
Businesses storing hazardous materials over threshold quantities are required to submit Hazardous Materials
Business Plans (HMBPs) to the HMCD. A HMBP must include measures for safe storage, transportation, use,
and handling of hazardous materials. A HMBP must also include a contingency plan that describes the
facility’s response procedures in the event of a hazardous materials release.
Santa Clara County Fire Department
The Santa Clara Fire Department (SCCFD), through a formal agreement with the HMCD, implements
hazardous materials programs for the City of Cupertino as a Participating Agency within the Unified
Program.7 The HMCD also enforces storage, handling, and dispensing requirements for hazardous materials
and other regulated materials according to the City of Cupertino Hazardous Materials Storage Ordinance,
described below.8
Santa Clara County Office of Emergency Services
The Santa Clara County Office of Emergency Services has adopted an Emergency Operations Plan (EOP),9
which identifies emergency response programs related to hazardous waste incidents.
Local Regulations
City of Cupertino
City of Cupertino General Plan 2000-2020
The City of Cupertino’s 2000-2020 General Plan, adopted on November 15, 2005, contains the Health and
Safety Element in Section 6 of the General Plan. This section contains goals and policies that seek to reduce
the risks associated with hazards in the community, including fire hazards, hazardous materials, and
hazardous wastes. As part of the proposed Project, some General Plan policies would be amended.
6 Santa Clara County Ordinance Code, Division B11, Chapters XIII – XIV.
7 Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health. Unidocs. Who Regulates What in Santa Clara County. http://www.unidocs.org/
members/whoregulateswhat.html, accessed November 22, 2013.
8 Cupertino City Code, Chapter 9.12. Hazardous Materials Storage.
9 Santa Clara County, Operational Area Emergency Operations Plan. March 2008.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
HAZARDS & HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
4.7-8 JUNE 18, 2014
Substantive policy changes under the proposed Project include the addition, removal, or functional revision
(e.g. not purely semantic) of policies in ways that have the potential to result in a physical impact on the
environment. Policies of the 2000-2020 General Plan that are relevant to hazards in the community and
were not substantially changed (e.g. renumbered or minor text change) are listed below in Table 4.7-1. A
comprehensive list of policy changes is provided in Appendix I, Proposed General Plan Policy Amendments,
of this Draft EIR. Discussions of how substantive policy changes may result in adverse physical changes are
included in the analyses under each impact criterion in Section 4.7.3, Impact Discussion, below.
TABLE 4.7‐1 POLICIES AND STRATEGIES OF THE CUPERTINO 2000‐2020 GENERAL PLAN
New Policy
Number
Original Policy
Number Policies and Strategies
Section 6, Health and Safety
Policy 6‐4 Policy 6‐3 Wild Fire Prevention Efforts. Coordinate wild fire prevention efforts with adjacent jurisdictions.
Policy 6‐5 Policy 6‐4 County Fire Hazard Reduction. Encourage the County to put into effect the fire reduction
policies of the County Public Safety Element.
Policy 6‐6 Policy 6‐5 Fuel Management to Reduce Fire Hazard. Encourage the Midpeninsula Open Space District and
the County Parks Department to continue efforts in fuel management to reduce fire hazards.
Policy 6‐7 Policy 6‐6 Green Fire Breaks. Encourage the Midpeninsula Open Space District to consider “green” fire
break uses for open space lands..
Policy 6‐8 Policy 6‐7 Early Project Review. Involve the Fire Department in the early design stage of all projects
requiring public review to assure Fire Department input and modifications as needed.
Policy 6‐9 Policy 6‐8 Commercial and Industrial Fire Protection Guidelines. Coordinate with the Fire Department to
develop new guidelines for fire protection for commercial and industrial land uses.
Policy 6‐10 Policy 6‐9
Fire Prevention and Emergency Preparedness. Promote fire prevention and emergency
preparedness through city‐initiated public education programs, through the government television
channel, the Internet and the Cupertino Scene.
Policy 6‐13 Policy 6‐14
Roadway Design. Involve the Fire Department in the design of public roadways for review and
comments. Attempt to ensure that roadways have frequent median breaks for timely access to
properties.
Policy 6‐14 Policy 6‐15
Dead‐End Street Access. Allow public use of private roadways during an emergency for hillside
subdivisions that have dead‐end public streets longer than 1,000 feet or find a secondary means of
access.
Policy 6‐15 Policy 6‐16 Hillside Access Routes. Require new hillside development to have frequent grade breaks in
access routes to ensure a timely response from fire personnel.
Policy 6‐16 Policy 6‐17 Hillside Road Upgrades Require new hillside development to upgrade existing access roads to meet
Fire Code and City standards.
Policy 6‐27 Policy 6‐28 Hazardous Materials Storage and Disposal. Require the proper storage and disposal of
hazardous materials to prevent leakage, potential explosions, fire or the release of harmful fumes.
Policy 6‐29 Policy 6‐30 Electromagnetic Fields. Consider potential hazards from Electromagnetic Fields in the
project review process.
Policy 6‐33 Policy 6‐34
Promote Emergency Preparedness. Distribute multi‐hazard emergency preparedness
information for all threats identified in the emergency plan. Information will be provided through
Cardio‐Pulmonary Resuscitation (CPR), First Aid and Community Emergency Response Team
(CERT) training, lectures and seminars on emergency preparedness, publication of monthly safety
articles in the Cupertino Scene, posting of information on the Emergency Preparedness website
and coordination of video and printed information at the library.
Policy 6‐42 Policy 6‐42 Evacuation Map. Prepare and update periodically an evacuation map for the flood hazard areas
and distribute it to the general public.
Source: City of Cupertino and the Cupertino 2000‐2020 General Plan.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
HAZARDS & HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
PLACEWORKS 4.7-9
City of Cupertino Municipal Code
Besides the General Plan, the City of Cupertino Municipal Code is the primary tool that guides
development in the city. The City’s municipal code identifies land use categories, site development
regulations, and other general provisions that ensure consistency between the General Plan and proposed
development projects. The City of Cupertino Municipal Code contains all ordinances for the city. The
Municipal Code is organized by Title, Chapter, and Section. The current Municipal Code is up to date
through Ordinance 14-2117, passed March 18, 2014. The following chapters and sections of the Municipal
Code would apply to the proposed Project to minimize impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials:
Chapter 9.12, Hazardous Materials Storage, in Title 9, Health and Sanitation, contains the standards for
the protection of health, life, resources, and property through prevention and control of unauthorized
discharges of hazardous materials in the City of Cupertino. The Hazardous Materials Storage Ordinance
regulates the storage, handling, and dispensing requirements for hazardous materials and other
regulated materials in the city. Under Section 9.12.012, any person, firm or corporation which stores
any material regulated by the City is required to have a current Hazardous Materials Storage Permit.
Chapter 16.74, Wildland Urban Interface Fire Area Adopted, in Title 16, Buildings and Construction,
includes the City’s Wildland Urban Interface Fire Area map, which was adopted in 2009. This Map is
located in Section 16.74.010.
Emergency Response Plan
The City of Cupertino Office of Emergency Services is responsible for coordinating agency response to
disasters or other large-scale emergencies in the City of Cupertino with assistance from the Santa Clara
County Office of Emergency Services and the SCCFD. The Cupertino Emergency Operations Plan (EOP)10
establishes policy direction for emergency planning, mitigation, response, and recovery activities within the
city. The Cupertino EOP addresses interagency coordination, procedures to maintain communications with
county and State emergency response teams, and methods to assess the extent of damage and management
of volunteers. The Cupertino EOP uses the Standardized Emergency Management System as required by
California Government Code Section 8607(a) for managing responses to multi-agency and multi-
jurisdiction emergencies in California, including those related to hazardous materials.
4.7.1.2 EXISTING CONDITIONS
This section describes existing conditions related to hazardous materials, airport hazards, and wildlife fires
in those areas of Cupertino where implementation of the proposed Project would involve potential land use
changes and possible increases to development allocations.
10 City of Cupertino, Office of Emergency Services. Emergency Operations Plan. September 2005.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
HAZARDS & HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
4.7-10 JUNE 18, 2014
Hazardous Materials Sites
California Government Code Section 65962.5 requires the CalEPA to compile, maintain, and update
specified lists of hazardous material release sites. CEQA (California Public Resources Code Section 21092.6)
require the lead agency to consult the lists compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 to
determine whether the project and any alternatives are identified on any of the following lists:
EPA NPL: The EPA’s National Priorities List includes all sites under the USEPA’s Superfund program,
which was established to fund cleanup of contaminated sites that pose risk to human health and the
environment.
EPA CERCLIS and Archived Sites: The EPA’s Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Information System includes a list of 15,000 sites nationally identified as hazardous sites.
This would also involve a review for archived sites that have been removed from CERCLIS due to No
Further Remedial Action Planned (NFRAP) status.
EPA RCRIS (RCRA Info): The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Information System (RCRIS or
RCRA Info) is a national inventory system about hazardous waste handlers. Generators, transporters,
handlers, and disposers of hazardous waste are required to provide information for this database.
DTSC Cortese List: The DTSC maintains the Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites (Cortese) list as a
planning document for use by the State and local agencies to comply with the CEQA requirements in
providing information about the location of hazardous materials release sites. This list includes the Site
Mitigation and Brownfields Reuse Program Database (CalSites).
DTSC HazNet: The DTSC uses this database to track hazardous waste shipments.
SWRCB LUSTIS: This stands for the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Information System and the
SWRCB maintains an inventory of USTs and leaking USTs, which tracks unauthorized releases.
The required lists of hazardous material release sites are commonly referred to as the “Cortese List” after the
legislator who authored the legislation. Because the statute was enacted more than 20 years ago, some of the
provisions refer to agency activities that were conducted many years ago and are no longer being
implemented and, in some cases, the information required in the Cortese List does not exist. Those
requesting a copy of the Cortese Lists are now referred directly to the appropriate information resources
contained on internet websites hosted by the boards or departments referenced in the statute, including
DTSC’s online EnviroStor database and the SWRCB’s online GeoTracker database. These two databases
include hazardous material release sites, along with other categories of sites or facilities specific to each
agency’s jurisdiction. As shown on Table 4.7-2 and Figure 4.7-1, a search of the online databases on August
29, 2013 and revisited on April 10, 2014, identified five hazardous materials sites and revealed 27 LUST
sites, in the Project Study Area. All but one of these sites (Hazardous Waste Site #30, Unocal Service Station
at 22390 Homestead Road) is within the Project Component locations.
GE
N
E
R
A
L
P
L
A
N
A
M
E
N
D
M
E
N
T
,
H
O
U
S
I
N
G
E
L
E
M
E
N
T
U
P
D
A
T
E
,
A
N
D
A
S
S
O
C
I
A
T
E
D
R
E
Z
O
N
I
N
G
D
R
A
F
T
E
I
R
CITY OF CUPERTINO
HA
Z
A
R
D
S
&
H
A
Z
A
R
D
O
U
S
M
A
T
E
R
I
A
L
S
PL
A
C
E
W
O
R
K
S
4.7-11
TAB
L
E
4.
7
‐2
HAZ
A
R
D
O
U
S
MAT
E
R
I
A
L
S
AND
LUS
T
SIT
E
S
Si
t
e
#
Na
m
e
Ad
d
r
e
s
s
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Co
m
p
o
n
e
n
t
Lo
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
Ty
p
e
Status
En
v
i
r
o
s
t
o
r
Cl
e
a
n
u
p
Pr
o
g
r
a
m
Si
t
e
s
1
Cu
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
Vi
l
l
a
g
e
Cl
e
a
n
e
r
s
10
9
8
9
No
r
t
h
Wo
l
f
e
Ro
a
d
No
r
t
h
Va
l
l
c
o
Pa
r
k
Sp
e
c
i
a
l
Ar
e
a
No
r
t
h
Va
l
l
c
o
Ga
t
e
w
a
y
St
u
d
y
Ar
e
a
5 (C
u
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
Vi
l
l
a
g
e
)
Vo
l
u
n
t
a
r
y
Cl
e
a
n
u
p
Active
2
An
d
e
r
s
o
n
Ch
e
v
r
o
l
e
t
De
a
l
e
r
s
h
i
p
20
9
5
5
St
e
v
e
n
s
Cr
e
e
k
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
He
a
r
t
of
th
e
Ci
t
y
Sp
e
c
i
a
l
Ar
e
a
No
r
t
h
Cr
o
s
s
r
o
a
d
s
No
d
e
Ev
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
Refer: 1248 Local Agency
3
Fo
w
‐Ph
a
s
e
Sy
s
t
e
m
In
c
.
10
7
0
0
N.
De
A
n
z
a
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
So
u
t
h
De
An
z
a
Sp
e
c
i
a
l
Ar
e
a
Ha
z
a
r
d
o
u
s
Wa
s
t
e
Fa
c
i
l
i
t
y
Undergoing Closure
4
In
t
e
r
s
i
l
10
9
1
0
N.
Ta
n
t
a
u
Av
e
n
u
e
No
r
t
h
Va
l
l
c
o
Pa
r
k
Sp
e
c
i
a
l
Ar
e
a
St
a
t
e
Re
s
p
o
n
s
e
Si
t
e
Referred to RWQCB
5
Ac
r
i
a
n
In
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
e
d
10
1
3
1
Bu
b
b
Ro
a
d
Bu
b
b
Ro
a
d
Sp
e
c
i
a
l
Ar
e
a
Co
r
r
e
c
t
i
v
e
Ac
t
i
o
n
Inactive‐Needs Evaluation
Ge
o
T
r
a
c
k
e
r
Si
t
e
s
6
Ma
r
i
a
n
i
Pa
c
k
i
n
g
10
9
3
0
De
An
z
a
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
Ho
m
e
s
t
e
a
d
Sp
e
c
i
a
l
Ar
e
a
LU
S
T
Cl
e
a
n
u
p
Si
t
e
Completed‐Case Closed (2/19/1991)
7
Te
x
a
c
o
/
E
x
x
o
n
69
5
W.
Ho
m
e
s
t
e
a
d
Ro
a
d
Ho
m
e
s
t
e
a
d
Sp
e
c
i
a
l
Ar
e
a
St
e
l
l
i
n
g
Ga
t
e
w
a
y
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
El
e
m
e
n
t
Si
t
e
12
(H
o
m
e
s
t
e
a
d
La
n
e
s
an
d
Ad
j
a
c
e
n
c
y
)
LU
S
T
Cl
e
a
n
u
p
Si
t
e
Completed‐Case Closed (1/23/1996)
8
Te
x
a
c
o
10
0
0
2
De
A
n
z
a
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
He
a
r
t
of
th
e
Ci
t
y
Sp
e
c
i
a
l
Ar
e
a
LU
S
T
Cl
e
a
n
u
p
Si
t
e
Completed‐Case Closed (10/18/1996)
9
Ch
e
v
r
o
n
#9
‐59
5
4
10
0
2
3
S.
De
A
n
z
a
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
He
a
r
t
of
th
e
Ci
t
y
Sp
e
c
i
a
l
Ar
e
a
LU
S
T
Cl
e
a
n
u
p
Si
t
e
Completed‐Case Closed (8/13/2002)
10
Cu
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
Ci
t
y
Ce
n
t
e
r
20
4
3
0
St
e
v
e
n
s
Cr
e
e
k
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
He
a
r
t
of
th
e
Ci
t
y
Sp
e
c
i
a
l
Ar
e
a
LU
S
T
Cl
e
a
n
u
p
Si
t
e
Completed‐Case Closed (1/22/2002)
11
Cu
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
Fi
r
e
St
a
t
i
o
n
20
2
1
5
St
e
v
e
n
s
Cr
e
e
k
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
2 (C
i
t
y
Ce
n
t
e
r
)
He
a
r
t
of
th
e
Ci
t
y
Sp
e
c
i
a
l
Ar
e
a
LU
S
T
Cl
e
a
n
u
p
Si
t
e
Completed‐Case Closed (5/16/2002)
12
Ha
l
l
e
r
Lu
m
b
e
r
20
1
9
5
St
e
v
e
n
s
Cr
e
e
k
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
He
a
r
t
of
th
e
Ci
t
y
Sp
e
c
i
a
l
Ar
e
a
LU
S
T
Cl
e
a
n
u
p
Si
t
e
Completed‐Case Closed (7/2/1991)
13
PG
&
E
10
9
0
0
No
r
t
h
Bl
a
n
e
y
Av
e
n
u
e
Ho
m
e
s
t
e
a
d
Sp
e
c
i
a
l
Ar
e
a
LU
S
T
Cl
e
a
n
u
p
Si
t
e
Completed‐Case Closed (6/29/2005)
14
Ch
e
v
r
o
n
#9
‐47
0
3
19
9
9
8
Ho
m
e
s
t
e
a
d
Ro
a
d
Ho
m
e
s
t
e
a
d
Sp
e
c
i
a
l
Ar
e
a
LU
S
T
Cl
e
a
n
u
p
Si
t
e
Completed‐Case Closed (10/12/1990)
GE
N
E
R
A
L
P
L
A
N
A
M
E
N
D
M
E
N
T
,
H
O
U
S
I
N
G
E
L
E
M
E
N
T
U
P
D
A
T
E
,
A
N
D
A
S
S
O
C
I
A
T
E
D
R
E
Z
O
N
I
N
G
D
R
A
F
T
E
I
R
CI
T
Y
O
F
C
U
P
E
R
T
I
N
O
HA
Z
A
R
D
S
&
H
A
Z
A
R
D
O
U
S
M
A
T
E
R
I
A
L
S
4.
7
-
1
2
JUNE 18, 2014
TAB
L
E
4.
7
‐2
HAZ
A
R
D
O
U
S
MAT
E
R
I
A
L
S
AND
LUS
T
SIT
E
S
Si
t
e
#
Na
m
e
Ad
d
r
e
s
s
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Co
m
p
o
n
e
n
t
Lo
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
Ty
p
e
Status
15
Sh
e
l
l
11
1
1
1
Wo
l
f
e
Ro
a
d
No
r
t
h
Va
l
l
c
o
Pa
r
k
Sp
e
c
i
a
l
Ar
e
a
No
r
t
h
Va
l
l
c
o
Ga
t
e
w
a
y
St
u
d
y
Ar
e
a
5 (C
u
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
Vi
l
l
a
g
e
)
LU
S
T
Cl
e
a
n
u
p
Si
t
e
Completed‐Case Closed (9/1/1993)
16
AR
C
O
#6
0
9
1
16
9
7
5
S.
Wo
l
f
e
Ro
a
d
He
a
r
t
of
th
e
Ci
t
y
Sp
e
c
i
a
l
Ar
e
a
LU
S
T
Cl
e
a
n
u
p
Si
t
e
Completed‐Case Closed (4/11/1991)
17
BP
/
T
O
S
C
O
St
a
t
i
o
n
#1
1
2
3
0
16
9
8
S.
Wo
l
f
e
Ro
a
d
He
a
r
t
of
th
e
Ci
t
y
Sp
e
c
i
a
l
Ar
e
a
LU
S
T
Cl
e
a
n
u
p
Si
t
e
Completed‐Case Closed (3/4/1996)
18
Mo
b
i
l
e
16
9
8
S.
Wo
l
f
e
Ro
a
d
He
a
r
t
of
th
e
Ci
t
y
Sp
e
c
i
a
l
Ar
e
a
LU
S
T
Cl
e
a
n
u
p
Si
t
e
Completed‐Case Closed (11/13/1990)
19
He
w
l
e
t
t
‐Pa
c
k
a
r
d
Co
m
p
a
n
y
10
9
0
0
No
r
t
h
Wo
l
f
e
Ro
a
d
No
r
t
h
Va
l
l
c
o
Pa
r
k
Sp
e
c
i
a
l
Ar
e
a
No
r
t
h
Va
l
l
c
o
Ga
t
e
w
a
y
St
u
d
y
Ar
e
a
5 (C
u
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
Vi
l
l
a
g
e
)
Cl
e
a
n
u
p
Pr
o
g
r
a
m
Si
t
e
Completed‐Case Closed (10/17/2001)
20
Ap
p
l
e
‐Fo
r
m
e
r
He
w
l
e
t
t
‐
Pa
c
k
a
r
d
‐
Wo
l
f
e
Ro
a
d
a
10
9
0
0
No
r
t
h
Wo
l
f
e
Ro
a
d
No
r
t
h
Va
l
l
c
o
Pa
r
k
Sp
e
c
i
a
l
Ar
e
a
No
r
t
h
Va
l
l
c
o
Ga
t
e
w
a
y
St
u
d
y
Ar
e
a
5 (C
u
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
Vi
l
l
a
g
e
)
Cl
e
a
n
u
p
Pr
o
g
r
a
m
Si
t
e
Completed‐Case Closed (7/23/2012)
21
JC
Pe
n
n
y
10
1
5
0
N.
Wo
l
f
e
Ro
a
d
He
a
r
t
of
th
e
Ci
t
y
Sp
e
c
i
a
l
Ar
e
a
So
u
t
h
Va
l
l
c
o
Ga
t
e
w
a
y
We
s
t
St
u
d
y
Ar
e
a
6 (V
a
l
l
c
o
Sh
o
p
p
i
n
g
Di
s
t
r
i
c
t
)
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
El
e
m
e
n
t
Si
t
e
11
(V
a
l
l
c
o
Sh
o
p
p
i
n
g
Di
s
t
r
i
c
t
ex
c
e
p
t
Ro
s
e
b
o
w
l
)
LU
S
T
Cl
e
a
n
u
p
Pr
o
g
r
a
m
Completed‐Case Closed (9/1/1994)
22
Se
a
r
s
Au
t
o
m
o
t
i
v
e
Ce
n
t
e
r
10
1
0
1
N.
Wo
l
f
e
Ro
a
d
He
a
r
t
of
th
e
Ci
t
y
Sp
e
c
i
a
l
Ar
e
a
So
u
t
h
Va
l
l
c
o
Ga
t
e
w
a
y
We
s
t
St
u
d
y
Ar
e
a
6 (V
a
l
l
c
o
Sh
o
p
p
i
n
g
Di
s
t
r
i
c
t
)
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
El
e
m
e
n
t
Si
t
e
11
(V
a
l
l
c
o
Sh
o
p
p
i
n
g
Di
s
t
r
i
c
t
ex
c
e
p
t
Ro
s
e
b
o
w
l
)
LU
S
T
Cl
e
a
n
u
p
Pr
o
g
r
a
m
Completed‐Case Closed (12/6/1999)
23
To
s
c
o
#1
1
2
2
0
19
5
5
0
St
e
v
e
n
s
Cr
e
e
k
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
He
a
r
t
of
th
e
Ci
t
y
Sp
e
c
i
a
l
Ar
e
a
LU
S
T
Cl
e
a
n
u
p
Pr
o
g
r
a
m
Open‐Verification Monitoring
24
Mo
b
i
l
19
5
5
0
St
e
v
e
n
s
Cr
e
e
k
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
He
a
r
t
of
th
e
Ci
t
y
Sp
e
c
i
a
l
Ar
e
a
LU
S
T
Cl
e
a
n
u
p
Pr
o
g
r
a
m
Completed‐Case Closed (3/15/1996)
25
Sh
e
l
l
19
4
8
0
St
e
v
e
n
s
Cr
e
e
k
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
He
a
r
t
of
th
e
Ci
t
y
Sp
e
c
i
a
l
Ar
e
a
LU
S
T
Cl
e
a
n
u
p
Pr
o
g
r
a
m
Completed‐Case Closed (9/30/1994)
26
An
d
e
r
s
o
n
of
Cu
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
20
9
5
5
St
e
v
e
n
s
Cr
e
e
k
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
He
a
r
t
of
th
e
Ci
t
y
Sp
e
c
i
a
l
Ar
e
a
No
r
t
h
Cr
o
s
s
r
o
a
d
s
No
d
e
LU
S
T
Cl
e
a
n
u
p
Pr
o
g
r
a
m
Completed‐Case Closed (7/30/1998)
GE
N
E
R
A
L
P
L
A
N
A
M
E
N
D
M
E
N
T
,
H
O
U
S
I
N
G
E
L
E
M
E
N
T
U
P
D
A
T
E
,
A
N
D
A
S
S
O
C
I
A
T
E
D
R
E
Z
O
N
I
N
G
D
R
A
F
T
E
I
R
CITY OF CUPERTINO
HA
Z
A
R
D
S
&
H
A
Z
A
R
D
O
U
S
M
A
T
E
R
I
A
L
S
PL
A
C
E
W
O
R
K
S
4.7-13
TAB
L
E
4.
7
‐2
HAZ
A
R
D
O
U
S
MAT
E
R
I
A
L
S
AND
LUS
T
SIT
E
S
Si
t
e
#
Na
m
e
Ad
d
r
e
s
s
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Co
m
p
o
n
e
n
t
Lo
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
Ty
p
e
Status
27
Sh
e
l
l
20
9
9
9
St
e
v
e
n
s
Cr
e
e
k
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
He
a
r
t
of
th
e
Ci
t
y
Sp
e
c
i
a
l
Ar
e
a
No
r
t
h
Cr
o
s
s
r
o
a
d
s
No
d
e
LU
S
T
Cl
e
a
n
u
p
Pr
o
g
r
a
m
Completed‐Case Closed (6/27/2000)
28
AR
C
O
#5
3
3
3
St
e
v
e
n
s
Cr
e
e
k
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
/
S
t
e
l
l
i
n
g
Ro
a
d
He
a
r
t
of
th
e
Ci
t
y
Sp
e
c
i
a
l
Ar
e
a
No
r
t
h
Cr
o
s
s
r
o
a
d
s
No
d
e
LU
S
T
Cl
e
a
n
u
p
Pr
o
g
r
a
m
Completed‐Case Closed (11/16/1990)
29
Co
n
o
c
o
Ph
i
l
l
i
p
s
20
7
5
5
St
e
v
e
n
s
Cr
e
e
k
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
He
a
r
t
of
th
e
Ci
t
y
Sp
e
c
i
a
l
Ar
e
a
No
r
t
h
Cr
o
s
s
r
o
a
d
No
d
e
LU
S
T
Cl
e
a
n
u
p
Pr
o
g
r
a
m
Completed‐Case Closed (12/1/2006)
30
Un
o
c
a
l
Se
r
v
i
c
e
22
3
9
0
Ho
m
e
s
t
e
a
d
Ro
a
d
N/
A
LU
S
T
Cl
e
a
n
u
p
Si
t
e
Completed‐Case Closed (11/8/1994)
31
Ro
t
t
e
n
Ro
b
b
i
e
No
.
25
19
0
3
0
St
e
v
e
n
s
Cr
e
e
k
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
He
a
r
t
of
th
e
Ci
t
y
Sp
e
c
i
a
l
Ar
e
a
LU
S
T
Cl
e
a
n
u
p
Si
t
e
Completed‐Case Closed (4/7/2005)
32
SR
I
Se
r
v
i
c
e
s
13
2
5
Sa
r
a
t
o
g
a
‐Su
n
n
y
v
a
l
e
Ro
a
d
So
u
t
h
De
An
z
a
Sp
e
c
i
a
l
Ar
e
a
Lu
s
t
Cl
e
a
n
u
p
Si
t
e
Completed‐Case Closed (6/24/1993)
No
t
e
:
Ac
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
at
th
i
s
si
t
e
li
k
e
l
y
in
c
l
u
d
e
d
se
m
i
c
o
n
d
u
c
t
o
r
ma
n
u
f
a
c
t
u
r
i
n
g
in
th
e
19
7
0
s
an
d
19
8
0
s
.
So
u
r
c
e
:
DT
S
C
En
v
i
r
o
S
t
o
r
20
1
4
.
ht
t
p
:
/
/
e
n
v
i
r
o
s
t
o
r
.
d
t
s
c
.
c
a
.
g
o
v
/
p
u
b
l
i
c
an
d
SW
R
C
B
Ge
o
Tr
a
c
k
e
r
20
1
4
.
ht
t
p
:
/
/
g
e
o
t
r
a
c
k
e
r
.
w
a
te
r
b
o
a
r
d
s
.
c
a
.
g
o
v
/
.
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
City of Sunnyvale
%&'(280
|ÿ85
City of San Jose
City of
Santa
Clara
Santa Clara
County
Santa Clara
County
City of
Los Altos
City of Saratoga
H O ME STEAD R D
S
B
L
A
N
E
Y
A
V
E
N
B
L
A
N
E
Y
A
V
E
B O L L I N G E R RD
N
S
T
E
L
L
I
N
G
R
D
B
U
B
B
R
D
NTANTAU
AVE
S
D
E
A
N
Z
A
B
L
V
D
BLANEY
AVE
FO
O
T
H
I
L
L
B
L
V
D
N
FOOTHILL
BLVD
RAINBOW DR
S
ST
E
L
L
I
N
G
R
D
P R U N ER IDGE AVE
M
I
L
L
ER
AVE
STEVENS CREEK BLVD
S
TANTAUAVE
G
R
A
N
T
R
D
N
D
E
A
N
Z
A
B
L
V
D
P RO S P E C T RD
MCCLELLAN RD
N
W
O
L
F
E
R
D
!(1
!(2
!(3
!(4
!(5
!(6!(7
!(8
!(9 !(10 !(11 !(12
!(13!(14 !(15
!(16!(17
!(18
!(19
!(20
!(21
!(22
!(23
!(24 !(25!(26
!(27!(28 !(29
!(30
!(31
!(32 Hazardous Material Sites
!(Envirostor Cleanup Program Sites
!(GeoTracker SitesProject ComponentsCity Boundary
Figure 4.7-1Hazardous Material Sites
Source: City of Cupertino, 2013; MIG, Inc, 2014; California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, 2007; PlaceWorks, 2014.
HAZARD & HAZARDOUS MATERIALSCITY OF CUPERTINOGENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING PROJECT
00.250.50.125
Miles
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
HAZARDS & HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
PLACEWORKS 4.7-15
Historical land uses typically associated with significant use of hazardous materials (e.g. dry cleaners, gas
stations, industrial properties, oil refineries, chemical manufacturers, etc.) were not observed on the aerial
photographs of the Project Study Area, and specifically the Project Component locations, reviewed for this
EIR. Historical and contemporary land uses identified on the aerial photographs include agricultural
(orchards), residential, commercial, light industrial, open space, and the Permanente quarry and cement
plant located just west of Cupertino.
Airport Hazards
There are no heliports located within the city of Cupertino listed by the Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA).11 The nearest heliport is located approximately 3.4 miles to the east of Cupertino at the County
Medical Center in San Jose. Another nearby heliport is located at McCandless Towers in Sunnyvale, 3.6
miles to the northeast of Cupertino. There are no additional heliports within five miles of Cupertino.12 The
City of Cupertino does not host any public or private airports or airstrips. At the nearest points within city
boundaries, Cupertino is located approximately 4.0 miles to the southwest of the San Jose International
Airport. The Santa Clara County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) has adopted a Comprehensive
Land Use Plan (CLUP) for areas surrounding San Jose International Airport. The city is not located within
any protected airspace zones defined by the ALUC, including military airports and airspace zones.13 Other
large airports near Cupertino are located approximately 4.4 miles to the south of Moffett Federal Airfield,
8.4 miles to the southeast of the Palo Alto Airport, 24 miles to the southeast of San Francisco International
Airport, and 27 miles to the southeast of Oakland International Airport.14Additional small airports in the
vicinity include the San Carlos Airport, at 17 miles away, Hayward Executive Airport, at 23 miles away, and
the Half Moon Bay airport, at 26 miles away.
Wildland Fire Hazard
CAL FIRE evaluates fire hazard severity risks according to areas of responsibility (i.e. federal, state, and
local). According to CAL FIRE, and as depicted on Figure 4.7-2, there are no very high fire hazard severity
zones within the Local Responsibility Areas of Cupertino with the exception of a small area near the City’s
south center boundary.15 Also as depicted on Figure 4.7-3, there are no moderate, high, and very high fire
hazard severity zones in the State Responsibility Areas in the vicinity of the Project components.16 Further-
more, as discussed above in Section 4.7.1.1, Regulatory Setting, the City’s Wildland Urban Interface Fire
Area map, as shown on Figure 4.7-4 also identifies that there are no high or very high fire risk areas in the
immediate vicinity of the Project Components.
11 Federal Aviation Administration, 2011, Airport Facilities Data, www.faa.gov/airports/airport_safety/airportdata_5010/, accessed
August 13, 2013.
12 AirNav, http://www.airnav.com/airports/us/CA, accessed on April 12, 2014.
13 Santa Clara County Airport Land-Use Commission, 2011, Comprehensive Land Use Plan, Santa Clara County, Norman Y. Mineta, San Jose
International Airport.
14 AirNav.com, http://www.airnav.com/airports/us/CA, accessed on April 12, 2014.
15 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, 2008, Santa Clara County Very High Fire Hazard Severity in LRA map, accessed on
April 22, 2014.
16 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, 2007, Fire Hazards and Severity Zones in State Responsibility Areas,
http://frap.cdf.ca.gov/webdata/maps/santa_clara/fhszs_map.43.pdf, accessed on April 22, 2014.
P P
P
City of Sunnyvale
%&'(280
|ÿ85
City of San Jose
City of
Santa
Clara
Santa Clara
County
Santa Clara
County
City of
Los Altos
City of Saratoga
S
B
L
A
N
E
Y
A
V
E
BOLLINGER RD
N
S
T
E
L
L
I
N
G
R
D
N
T
A
N
T
A
U
A
V
E
MCCLELLAN RD
S
D
E
A
N
Z
A
B
L
V
D
RAINBOW DR BL
A
N
E
Y
A
V
E
FO
O
T
H
I
L
L
B
L
V
D
N
F
O
O
T
H
I
L
L
B
L
V
D
N
D
E
A
N
Z
A
B
L
V
D
HOMESTEAD RD
STEVENS CREEK BLVD
S
TANTAU
AVE
G
R
A
N
T
R
D
P R OS P ECT RD
N
W
O
L
F
E
R
D
S
W
O
L
F
E
R
D
N
B
L
A
N
E
Y
A
V
E
BU
B
B
R
D
S
S
T
E
L
L
I
N
G
R
D
M
ILLE
R
A
V
E
Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRAVery High
P Fire StationsProject ComponentsCity Boundary
Figure 4.7-2Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in Local Responsibility Areas
Source: City of Cupertino, 2013; MIG, Inc, 2014; California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, 2007; PlaceWorks, 2014.
HAZARD & HAZARDOUS MATERIALSCITY OF CUPERTINOGENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING PROJECT
0 0.5 10.25
Miles
P P
P
City of Sunnyvale
%&'(280
|ÿ85
City of San Jose
City of
Santa
Clara
Santa Clara
County
Santa Clara
County
City of
Los Altos
City of Saratoga
S
B
L
A
N
E
Y
A
V
E
BOLLINGER RD
N
S
T
E
L
L
I
N
G
R
D
N
T
A
N
T
A
U
A
V
E
MCCLELLAN RD
S
D
E
A
N
Z
A
B
L
V
D
RAINBOW DR BL
A
N
E
Y
A
V
E
FO
O
T
H
I
L
L
B
L
V
D
N
F
O
O
T
H
I
L
L
B
L
V
D
N
D
E
A
N
Z
A
B
L
V
D
HOMESTEAD RD
STEVENS CREEK BLVD
S
TANTAU
AVE
P R OS P ECT RD
N
W
O
L
F
E
R
D
N
B
L
A
N
E
Y
A
V
E
BU
B
B
R
D
S
S
T
E
L
L
I
N
G
R
D
M
ILLE
R
A
V
E
Fire Hazard Severity Zone in SRAModerate LevelHigh
P Fire StationsProject ComponentsCity Boundary
Figure 4.7-3Fire Hazard Severity Zones in State Responsibility Areas
Source: City of Cupertino, 2013; MIG, Inc, 2014; California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, 2007; PlaceWorks, 2014.
HAZARD & HAZARDOUS MATERIALSCITY OF CUPERTINOGENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING PROJECT
0 0.5 10.25
Miles
P P
P
City of Sunnyvale
%&'(280
|ÿ85
City of San Jose
City of
Santa
Clara
Santa Clara
County
Santa Clara
County
City of
Los Altos
City of Saratoga
S
B
L
A
N
E
Y
A
V
E
BOLLINGER RD
N
S
T
E
L
L
I
N
G
R
D
N
T
A
N
T
A
U
A
V
E
MCCLELLAN RD
S
D
E
A
N
Z
A
B
L
V
D
RAINBOW DR BL
A
N
E
Y
A
V
E
FO
O
T
H
I
L
L
B
L
V
D
N
F
O
O
T
H
I
L
L
B
L
V
D
N
D
E
A
N
Z
A
B
L
V
D
HOMESTEAD RD
STEVENS CREEK BLVD
S
TANTAU
AVE
P R OS P ECT RD
N
W
O
L
F
E
R
D
N
B
L
A
N
E
Y
A
V
E
BU
B
B
R
D
S
S
T
E
L
L
I
N
G
R
D
M
ILLE
R
A
V
E
Wildland Urban Interface Fire AreaHighVery High
P Fire StationsProject ComponentsCity Boundary
Figure 4.7-4Wildland Urban Interface Fire Area
Source: City of Cupertino, 2013; MIG, Inc, 2014; California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, 2007; PlaceWorks, 2014.
HAZARD & HAZARDOUS MATERIALSCITY OF CUPERTINOGENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING PROJECT
0 0.5 10.25
Miles
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
HAZARDS & HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
PLACEWORKS 4.7-19
Although this indicates that the wildland fire risk within the Project Component locations is low, there are
many resources available to address wildland fires should they arise, including the aforementioned CAL
FIRE Strategic Plan, the CFC, and cooperative fire services from Santa Clara County Fire Department
(SCCFD) and CAL FIRE.
Because the overall Project Study Area is located in a highly urbanized area at a distance from regional open
space areas, it is not subjected to wildland fires. However, if a wildland fire, or an urban fire, were to
threaten the central Cupertino areas, firefighting and emergency medical services would be provided by
SCCFD. The City of Cupertino has three fire stations, including the Cupertino Fire Station located at 20215
Stevens Creek Boulevard, Seven Springs Station located at 2100 Seven Springs Parkway, and the Monte Vista
Fire Station located at 22620 Stevens Creek Boulevard. The SCCFD also operates an additional 12 stations
that provide service throughout the entire district, including Cupertino, which offers services during
significant emergency events. For an additional discussion of fire protection services, see Chapter 4.12,
Public Services and Recreation, of this Draft EIR.
4.7.2 THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
According to Appendix G, Environmental Checklist, of the CEQA Guidelines, the proposed Project would
have a significant impact regarding hazards and hazardous materials if it would:
1. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials.
2. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment.
3. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school.
4. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment.
5. Be located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles
of a public airport or public use airport it results in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the
project area.
6. Be within the vicinity of a private airstrip and result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in
the project area.
7. Impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan.
8. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires,
including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with
wildlands.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
HAZARDS & HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
4.7-20 JUNE 18, 2014
4.7.2.1 THRESHOLDS NOT DISCUSSED FURTHER
With regard to Thresholds 5 and 6, as previously discussed in Section 4.7.1.2, Existing Conditions,
Cupertino is not within 2 miles of a public airport or within any protected airspace zones defined by the
Santa Clara County ALUC, and there are no private airstrips or heliports listed by FAA in Cupertino.
Therefore, no further discussion of the proposed Project’s impacts related to airport safety operations and
to people residing or living in Cupertino in close proximity to airports is warranted in this Draft EIR.
4.7.3 IMPACT DISCUSSION
This section analyzes the proposed Project’s potential impacts and cumulative impacts related to hazards and
hazardous materials.
HAZ-1 Implementation of the proposed Project would not create a significant
hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport,
use, or disposal of hazardous materials.
While commercially available hazardous materials (e.g. fuels, solvents, paints, and some consumer
electronics) would be used at various new construction sites and may generate small amounts of hazardous
waste, the waste would be handled in accordance with applicable federal, State, and local laws, policies, and
regulations, as described in Section 4.7.1.1, Regulatory Framework, of this chapter. As a general matter, the
proposed Project has office, commercial and residential land uses and, therefore, would not include
manufacturing or research processes that generate substantial quantities of hazardous materials. The SCCFD
and City of Cupertino Building Division coordinate the review of building permits to ensure that hazardous
materials requirements are met prior to construction, including required separation between hazardous
materials and sensitive land uses, and proper hazardous materials storage facilities. Any businesses that
transport, generate, use, and/or dispose of hazardous materials within the Project Study Area would also be
subject to existing hazardous materials regulations, such as those implemented by HMCD, and hazardous
materials permits from the SCCFD. The SCCFD also conducts inspections for fire safety and hazardous
materials management of businesses and multi-family dwellings, in accordance with the City of Cupertino
Hazardous Materials Storage Ordinance.
In addition, the General Plan contains the following policies and strategies that, once adopted, would
further ensure that new development would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Within the Health and Safety
Element, Policy 6-27, Hazardous Materials Storage and Disposal, directs the City to require the proper
storage and disposal of hazardous materials to prevent leakage, potential explosions, fire, or the release of
harmful fumes. Policy 6-28, Proximity of Residents to Hazardous Materials, would require the City to
assess future residents’ exposure to hazardous materials when new residential development or childcare
facilities are proposed in existing industrial and manufacturing areas and does not allow residential
development or childcare facilities if such hazardous conditions cannot be mitigated to an acceptable level of
risk. Policy 6-29, Electromagnetic Fields, would require the City to consider potential hazards from
Electromagnetic Fields in the project review process. Policy 6-30, Alternative Products, would require the
City to continue to encourage residents and businesses to use non- and less-hazardous products, especially
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
HAZARDS & HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
PLACEWORKS 4.7-21
less toxic pest control products, to slow the generation of new hazardous waste requiring disposal through
the county-wide program. Policy 6-31, Household Hazardous Wastes, would require the City to continue to
support and facilitate for residences and businesses a convenient opportunity to properly dispose of
hazardous waste. Policy 6-32, Hazardous Waste Dumping, would require the City to maintain information
channels to the residential and business communities about the illegality and danger of dumping hazardous
material and waste in the storm drain system or in creeks.
Compliance, with applicable federal, State, and local laws and regulations regarding handling of these
materials, as described in Section 4.7.1.1, Regulatory Framework, of this chapter and the General Plan
policies listed above would ensure the risks associated with release of hazardous materials into the
environment from the routine transport, use, storage, or disposal of hazardous materials following
construction would be less than significant.
Significance Without Mitigation: Less than significant.
HAZ-2 Implementation of the proposed Project would create a significant hazard
to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the
environment.
The proposed Project would facilitate new development, including residential, mixed-use, and commercial
uses, within Cupertino. Some of the new development could occur on properties that possibly are
contaminated and inactive, undergoing evaluation, and/or undergoing corrective action, as indicated in
Table 4.7.1. Construction of new buildings and improvements could have the potential to release potentially
hazardous soil-based materials into the environment during site grading and excavation operations.
Likewise, demolition of existing structures could potentially result in release of hazardous building materials
(e.g. asbestos, lead paint, etc.) into the environment. Use of hazardous materials on newly developed
properties after construction could potentially include cleaning solvents, fertilizers, pesticides, and other
materials used in the regular maintenance and operation of the proposed uses. Compliance with applicable
federal, State, and local laws and regulations regarding handling of these materials described in Section
4.7.1.1, Regulatory Framework, of this chapter, the General Plan policies listed under Impact HAZ-1, and
compliance with the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan and Best Management Practices required for the
proposed Project (see Chapter 4.8, Hydrology and Water Quality, for additional detail), would ensure
future development under the proposed Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the environment; therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Significance Without Mitigation: Less than significant.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
HAZARDS & HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
4.7-22 JUNE 18, 2014
HAZ-3 Implementation of the proposed Project would emit hazardous emissions
or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school.
Several public and private schools, including preschools, elementary, middle, and high schools, are located
within one-quarter mile of known hazardous wastes sites that may be redeveloped as part of the proposed
Project. The location of schools in proximity to each Project Component location is described in detail in
Chapter 3, Project Description, of this Draft EIR.
The SCCFD and City of Cupertino Building Division coordinate the review of building permits to ensure
that hazardous materials use requirements are met prior to construction, including required separation
between hazardous materials and sensitive land uses, and proper hazardous materials storage facilities. In
addition, the proposed Project could use hazardous materials. Future development under the proposed
Project would be required by the HMCD and the City of Cupertino to store, manage, and dispose of the
materials in accordance with the Unified Program.
While compliance with existing regulations described in Section 4.7.1.1, Regulatory Framework, of this
chapter along with the General Plan policies listed under Impact HAZ-1 would reduce the potential for
school children to be exposed to hazardous materials during both construction and operation from future
development permitted under the proposed Project, impacts would be potentially significant.
However, implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZ-4a and HAZ-4b, as discussed in Impact HAZ-4
below, would reduce the potential for school children to be exposed to hazardous materials from future
development permitted under the proposed Project to a less-than-significant level.
Significance With Mitigation: Less than significant.
HAZ-4 Implementation of the proposed Project would be located on a site which is
included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, create a significant
hazard to the public or the environment.
As shown on Table 4.7-2, the search of the DTSC’s EnviroStor Database revealed five sites, and the
GeoTracker database search revealed 27 LUST sites, on or within close proximity to the Project
Component locations. The status of the LUST sites that are listed as “Completed-Case Closed,” indicates that
appropriate response actions have been completed to the satisfaction of the San Francisco Bay RWQCB or
the Santa Clara Water District and, in recent years, the Santa Clara County DEH, as the local oversight
agency. The status of the Hazardous Site Number 23 (Tosco #11220), in the Heart of the City Special Area,
a listed LUST site, is “Open-Verification Monitoring,” indicating that remediation phases are essentially
completed and a monitoring program is occurring to confirm successful completion of cleanup at the Site.
The on-going monitoring at this Hazardous Material Site is currently being reviewed by Santa Clara County
DEH with RWQCB oversight.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
HAZARDS & HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
PLACEWORKS 4.7-23
Out of the 32 Hazardous Materials Sites, the following have a status that indicates additional action is
required to address the hazardous materials at these locations. These are described as follows:
Hazardous Site 1 (Cupertino Village Cleaners), located in the North Vallco Special Area, North Vallco
Gateway and Study Area 5 (Cupertino Village) is listed as “voluntary cleanup,” which means, in this case,
the Site has a confirmed release of tetrachloroethylene (PCE) that has impacted site soil, and the project
proponents have requested the DTSC to oversee evaluation, investigation, and/or cleanup activities and
have agreed to provide coverage for the DTSC’s costs. Based on the potential human health risk to
future tenants of the former dry cleaners tenant space, the DTSC has concluded that remediation (soil
excavation or soil vapor extraction [SVE]) would be required at this location.
Hazardous Site 2 (Anderson Chevrolet Dealership), located in the Heart of the City Special Area and
North Crossroads Node, is listed as sites where the DTSC has determined that a Preliminary
Endangerment Assessment (PEA) or other evaluation is required.
Hazardous Site 3 (Fow-Phase System), located in the South De Anza Special Area, is listed as undergoing
closure.
Hazardous Site 5 (Acrian Incorporated), located in the Bubb Road Special Area, is listed as sites where
the DTSC has determined that a Preliminary Endangerment Assessment (PEA) or other evaluation is
required.
Hazardous Site 13 (PG&E), located in Study Area 3 (PG&E), is a listed as LUST site. Case closure for
the Site was issued by the Santa Clara County DEH on June 29, 2005. However, Santa Clara County
DEH has determined that residual contamination in soil remains at the Site that could pose an
unacceptable risk under certain site development activities such as site grading, excavation, or the
installation of water wells. Therefore, the impact of the disturbance of any residual contamination or the
installation of water well(s) in the vicinity of the residual contamination must be assessed and
appropriate action taken so that there is no significant impact to human health, safety, or the
environment. This could necessitate additional sampling, health risk assessment, and mitigation
measures.
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 proposed 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.
Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measures are recommended to minimize potential impacts related to sites with
known hazardous materials:
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
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
HAZARDS & HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
4.7-24 JUNE 18, 2014
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 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).
Significance With Mitigation: Less than significant.
HAZ-5 Implementation of the proposed Project would not impair implementation
of, or physically interfere with, an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan.
As discussed previously, the City of Cupertino Office of Emergency Services is responsible for coordinating
agency response to disasters or other large-scale emergencies in the City of Cupertino with assistance from
the Santa Clara County Office of Emergency Services and the SCCFD. The Cupertino EOP establishes
policy direction for emergency planning, mitigation, response, and recovery activities within the city. The
Cupertino EOP addresses interagency coordination, procedures to maintain communications with county
and State emergency response teams, and methods to assess the extent of damage and management of
volunteers.
In addition, the General Plan contains policies and strategies that, once adopted, would ensure that new
development would not conflict with emergency operations in Cupertino. Within the Health and Safety
Element, Policy 6-1, Regional Hazard Risk Reduction Planning, directs the City to coordinate with Santa
Clara County and local agencies to implement the Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
HAZARDS & HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
PLACEWORKS 4.7-25
(LHMP) for Santa Clara County. This policy also includes three new strategies that would direct the City to
enact this Policy. Strategy 1, Monitoring and Budgeting, would require the City to monitor and fund the
LHMP program. Strategy 2, Mitigation Incorporation, would require the City to ensure that individual
projects and developments incorporate appropriate LHMP mitigation measures. Strategy 3, Hazard
Mitigation Plan Amendments and Updates, would suppor t Santa Clara County’s efforts as the lead agency
for the LHMP. Through Policy 6-1, Regional Hazard Risk Reduction Planning, and its attendant strategies,
the City of Cupertino would actively facilitate regional emergency response plans. Policy 6-8, Early Project
Review, would require the City to involve the Fire Department in the early design stage of all projects
requiring public review to assure Fire Department input and modifications as needed. Policy 6-9,
Commercial and Industrial Fire Protection Guidelines, would require the City to coordinate with the Fire
Department to develop new guidelines for fire protection for commercial and industrial land uses. Policy 6-
10, Fire Prevention and Emergency Preparedness, would require the City to promote fire prevention and
emergency preparedness through city-initiated public education programs, through the government
television channel, the Internet and the Cupertino Scene. Policy 6-13, Roadway Design, would require the
City to involve the Fire Department in the design of public roadways for review and comments. Attempt to
ensure that roadways have frequent median breaks for timely access to properties. Policy 6-14, Dead-End
Street Access, would require the City to allow the public use of private roadways during an emergency for
hillside subdivisions that have dead-end public streets longer than 1,000 feet or find a secondary means of
access. Policy 6-15, Hillside Access Routes, would direct the city to require new hillside development to
have frequent grade breaks in access routes to ensure a timely response from fire personnel. Policy 6-16,
Hillside Road Upgrades, would direct the city to require new hillside development to upgrade existing
access roads to meet Fire Code and City standards. Policy 6-17, Private Residential Electronic Security
Gates, would require the City to discourage the use of private residential electronic security gates that act as
a barrier to emergency personnel. Policy 6-33, Promote Emergency Preparedness, would require the City
to distribute multi-hazard emergency preparedness information for all threats identified in the emergency
plan. Information will be provided through Cardio-Pulmonary Resuscitation (CPR), First Aid and
Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) training, lectures and seminars on emergency preparedness,
publication of monthly safety articles in the Cupertino Scene, posting of information on the Emergency
Preparedness website and coordination of video and printed information at the library. Policy 6-38,
Emergency Operations Center, would require the City to ensure ongoing training of identified City
employees on their functions/responsibilities in the EOC. Policy 6-39, Emergency Public Information,
would require the City to maintain an Emergency Public Information program to be used during emergency
situations. Policy 6-42, Evacuation Map, would require the City to prepare and update periodically an
evacuation map for the flood hazard areas and distribute it to the general public.
Compliance with applicable federal, State, and local laws and regulations regarding handling of these
materials, as described in Section 4.7.1.1, Regulatory Framework, of this chapter, and the General Plan
policies listed above that require adequate access and prompt response time, would ensure future
development under the proposed Project would not interfere with an adopted emergency response plan, or
emergency evacuation plan and impacts would be less than significant.
Significance Without Mitigation: Less than significant.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
HAZARDS & HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
4.7-26 JUNE 18, 2014
HAZ-6 Implementation of the proposed Project would not expose people or
structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland
fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where
residences are intermixed with wildlands.
According to CAL FIRE, there are no very high fire hazard severity zones within the Local Responsibility
Areas of Cupertino. Furthermore, in 2009 the City adopted a Wildland Urban Interface Fire Area map,
which also identified that there are no high or very high fire risk areas near the proposed Project
Component locations. Although this information indicates that the wildfire risk in the Project Component
location areas is low, there are many resources available to address wildland fires should they arise, including
the aforementioned CAL FIRE Strategic Plan, the CFC, and cooperative fire services from SCCFD. Because
the overall Project Study Area is located in a highly urbanized area at a distance from regional open space
areas, they are not subjected to wildland fires.
In addition, the current General Plan contains the following policies that, once adopted, would further
ensure that wildfire hazards would be minimized. Within the Health and Safety Element, Policy 6-1,
Regional Hazard Risk Reduction Planning, directs the City to coordinate with Santa Clara County and local
agencies to implement the Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) for Santa Clara
County. This policy also includes three new strategies that would direct the City to enact this Policy.
Strategy 1, Monitoring and Budgeting, would require the City to monitor and fund the LHMP program.
Strategy 2, Mitigation Incorporation, ensures that individual projects and developments incorporate
appropriate LHMP mitigation measures. Strategy 3, Hazard Mitigation Plan Amendments and Updates,
would support Santa Clara County’s efforts as the lead agency for the LHMP. Through Policy 6-1, Regional
Hazard Risk Reduction Planning and its attendant strategies, the City of Cupertino would comply with
regional plans for addressing local hazards, including wildfire. Policy 6-4, Wild Fire Prevention Efforts,
would require the City to coordinate wild fire prevention efforts with adjacent jurisdictions. Policy 6-5,
County Fire Hazard Reduction, would require the City to encourage the County to put into effect the fire
reduction policies of the County Public Safety Element. Policy 6-6, Fuel Management to Reduce Fire
Hazard, would require the City to encourage the Midpeninsula Open Space District and the County Parks
Department to continue efforts in fuel management to reduce fire hazards. Policy 6-7, Green Fire Breaks,
would require the City to encourage the Midpeninsula Open Space District to consider “green” firebreak
uses for open space lands. Policy 6-8, Early Project Review, would require the City to involve the Fire
Department in the early design stage of all projects requiring public review to assure Fire Department input
and modifications as needed. Policy 6-9, Commercial and Industrial Fire Protection Guidelines, would
require the City to coordinate with the Fire Department to develop new guidelines for fire protection for
commercial and industrial land uses. Policy 6-11, Multi-Story Buildings Fire Risks, would require the City
to recognize that multi-story buildings of any land use type increase risks of fire, and ensure that adequate
fire protection is built into the design and require on-site fire suppression materials and equipment to
ensure the safety of the community. Policy 6-12, Smoke Detectors, would direct the City to require smoke
detectors in all new residential units, and in all residential units at time of sale or rental, in conformance
with State law, and to continue to use the Cupertino Scene to publicize fire hazards correction methods.
Strategy 1, Code Amendment, would require the City to adopt an ordinance to incorporate the smoke
detector requirement in Chapter 16.04 of the Cupertino Municipal Code.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
HAZARDS & HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
PLACEWORKS 4.7-27
Compliance with these General Plan policies and strategies, combined with the policies listed under Impact
HAZ-5, would ensure that impacts from wildland hazards would be less than significant.
Significance Without Mitigation: Less than significant.
HAZ-7 Implementation of the proposed 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.
As discussed in Chapter 4, Environmental Evaluation, of this Draft EIR, this EIR takes into account growth
projected by the proposed 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). This chapter analyzes potential
cumulative hazardous impacts that could arise from a combination of the development of the proposed
Project together with the regional growth in the immediate vicinity of the Project Study Area.
As discussed previously, development allowed by the proposed Project would not result in significant
impacts from the increased use of hazardous household materials and would not increase exposure to
potential hazards associated with wildland fires. The proposed Project would not interfere with
implementation of emergency response plans. In addition, potential project-level impacts associated with
hazards and hazardous materials would be further reduced through compliance with General Plan policies
and strategies, other local, regional, State, and federal regulations, and with implementation of Mitigation
Measures HAZ-4a and HAZ-4b. Since impacts associated with hazardous materials and wildland fire, are, by
their nature, focused on specific sites or areas, the less-than-significant impacts within the Project Study
Area from the proposed Project would not contribute to a cumulative increase in hazards in the immediate
vicinity of the Project Study Area or throughout the region. Therefore, the potential for cumulative impacts
associated with safety and hazards would be less than significant.
Significance With Mitigation: Less than significant.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
HAZARDS & HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
4.7-28 JUNE 18, 2014
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
HYDROLOGY & WATER QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 4.8-1
4.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
This chapter describes potential impacts associated with the adoption and implementation of the proposed
Project that are related to hydrology and water quality. Additionally, this chapter describes the
environmental setting, including regulatory framework and existing conditions, and identifies policies and
mitigation measures that would avoid or reduce significant impacts.
4.8.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
4.8.1.1 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
This section summarizes existing federal, State, regional, and local policies and regulations that apply to
hydrology and water quality.
Federal Programs and Regulations
Clean Water Act
Under the Clean Water Act (CWA) of 1977, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)
seeks to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation’s waters. The
statute employs a variety of regulatory and non-regulatory tools to reduce direct pollutant discharges into
waterways, finance municipal wastewater treatment facilities, and manage polluted runoff. The CWA
authorizes the USEPA to implement water quality regulations. The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permit program under Section 402(p) of the CWA controls water pollution by regulating
storm water discharges into the waters of the United States (US). California has an approved state NPDES
program. The USEPA has delegated authority for water permitting to the State Water Resources Control
Board (SWRCB), which has divided the state into nine regional basins, each under the jurisdiction of a
Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB).
Sections 401 and 404 of the CWA are administered through the Regulatory Program of the United States
Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and regulate the water quality of all discharges of fill or dredged
material into waters of the US including wetlands and intermittent stream channels. Section 401, Title 33,
Section 1341, of the CWA sets forth water-quality certification requirements for “any applicant applying for
a federal license or permit to conduct any activity including, but not limited to, the construction or
operation of facilities, which may result in any discharge into the navigable waters.” If there are ephemeral
drainages and wetlands identified within the Project Study Area, construction and other activities may
require the acquisition of a permit from the USACE under Section 404 of the CWA and water quality
certification from the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) prior to final
issuance of Section 404 permits by the USACE.
Section 303(d) of the CWA requires that each State identify water bodies or segments of water bodies that
are “impaired” (i.e. not meeting one or more of the water quality standards established by the State). These
waters are identified in the Section 303(d) list as waters that are polluted and need further attention to
support their beneficial uses. Once the water body or segment is listed, the state is required to establish
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
HYDROLOGY & WATER QUALITY
4.8-2 JUNE 18, 2014
Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for the pollutant causing the conditions of impairment. TMDL is the
maximum amount of a pollutant that a water body can receive and still meet water quality standards.
Typically, TMDL is the sum of the allowable loads of a single pollutant from all contributing point and non-
point sources (NPS). The intent of the Section 303(d) list is to identify water bodies that require future
development of a TMDL to maintain water quality. In accordance with Section 303(d), the RWQCB has
identified impaired water bodies within its jurisdiction, and the pollutant or stressor responsible for
impairing the water quality.
Federal Emergency Management Agency
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) administers the National Flood Insurance Program
(NFIP), which provides subsidized flood insurance to communities that comply with FEMA regulations,
which limit development in flood plains.1 FEMA also issues Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) that
identify which land areas are subject to flooding. These maps provide flood information and identify flood
hazard zones in the community. The design standard for flood protection is established by FEMA, with the
minimum level of flood protection for new development set as the 100-year flood event, also described as a
flood that has a 1-in-100 chance of occurring in any given year.
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
As previously discussed, the NPDES permit program was established by the CWA to regulate municipal and
industrial discharges to surface waters of the US from their municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s).
Under the NPDES Program, all facilities which discharge pollutants from any point source into waters of
the US are required to obtain an NPDES permit. Point source discharges include discharges from publicly
owned treatment works (POTWs), discharges from industrial facilities, and discharges associated with
urban runoff, such as storm water. The NPDES permit programs in California are administered by the
SWRCB and the nine RWQCBs.
The proposed Project lies within the jurisdiction of the San Francisco Bay RWQCB (Region 2) and is subject
to the Waste Discharge Requirements (WDR) of the MS4 Permit (Order Number R2-2009-0074) and
NPDES Permit Number CAS612008, as amended by Order Number R2-2011-0083. The City of
Cupertino, in addition to the cities of Campbell, Los Altos, Monte Sereno, Mountain View, Palo Alto, San
Jose, Santa Clara, Saratoga, and Sunnyvale, the towns of Los Altos Hills and Los Gatos, and the Santa Clara
Valley Water District, and Santa Clara County form the Santa Clara permittees under the MS4 permit.
Provision C.3 of the Municipal Regional Permit (MRP) for New Development and Redevelopment allows
the permittees to use their planning authorities to include appropriate source control, site design, and storm
water treatment measures in new development and redevelopment projects to address both soluble and
insoluble storm water runoff pollutant discharges and prevent increases in runoff flows from new
development and redevelopment projects. The goal is to be accomplished primarily through the
implementation of low impact development (LID) techniques.
1 Federal Emergency Management Agency’s Library, National Flood Insurance Program Description, http://www.fema.gov/library/
resultSearchTitle.do;jsessionid=DD174A565E1F55952F9B72CE7EC2818C.Worker2Library, accessed May 1, 2014.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
HYDROLOGY & WATER QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 4.8-3
State Regulations
Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act (Water Code Sections 13000 et seq.) is the basic water quality
control law for California. This Act established the SWRCB and divided the state into nine regional basins,
each under the jurisdiction of a RWQCB. The Porter-Cologne Act also authorizes the SWRCB and
RWQCBs to issue and enforce WDRs, NPDES permits, Section 401 water quality certifications, or other
approvals.
Other State agencies with jurisdiction over water quality regulation in California include the California
Department of Health Services (DHS) (for drinking water regulations), the California Department of
Pesticide Regulation, and the Office of Environmental Health and Hazard Assessment.
State Water Resources Control Board
The SWRCB is the primary Sate agency responsible for the protection of California’s water quality and
groundwater supplies. The SWRCB is responsible for developing statewide water quality policy and
exercises the powers delegated to the State by the federal government under the CWA.
Construction activities that disturb one or more acres of land that could impact hydrologic resources must
comply with the requirements of the SWRCB Construction General Permit (2009-0009-DWQ) as
amended by 2010-0014-DWQ. Under the terms of the permit, applicants must file Permit Registration
Documents (PRDs) with the SWRCB prior to the start of construction. The PRDs include a Notice of
Intent (NOI), risk assessment, site map, Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), annual fee, and a
signed certification statement. The PRDs are now submitted electronically to the SWRCB via the Storm
Water Multiple Application and Report Tracking System (SMARTS) website.
Applicants must also demonstrate conformance with applicable best management practices (BMPs) and
prepare a SWPPP, containing a site map that shows the construction site perimeter, existing and proposed
buildings, lots, roadways, storm water collection and discharge points, general topography both before and
after construction, and drainage patterns across the project locations. The SWPPP must list BMPs that
would be implemented to prevent soil erosion and discharge of other construction-related pollutants that
could contaminate nearby water resources. Additionally, the SWPPP must contain a visual monitoring
program, a chemical monitoring program for nonvisible pollutants if there is a failure of the BMPs, and a
sediment-monitoring plan if the site discharges directly to a water body listed on the 303(d) list for
sediment. Some sites also require implementation of a Rain Event Action Plan (REAP). The updated
Construction General Permit (2010-0014-DWQ), effective September 2, 2012, also requires applicants to
comply with post-construction runoff reduction requirements.
California Fish and Game Code
The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) protects streams, water bodies, and riparian
corridors through the streambed alteration agreement process under Section 1600 to 1616 of the California
Fish and Game Code. The California Fish and Game Code establishes that ”an entity may not substantially
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
HYDROLOGY & WATER QUALITY
4.8-4 JUNE 18, 2014
divert or obstruct the natural flow or substantially change the bed, channel or bank of any river, stream or
lake, or deposit or dispose of debris, waste, or other material containing crumbled, flaked, or ground
pavement where it may pass into any river stream, or lake” (Fish and Game Code Section 1602(a)) without
notifying the CDFW, incorporating necessary mitigation and obtaining a streambed alteration agreement.
The CDFW’s jurisdiction extends to the top of banks and often includes the outer edge of riparian
vegetation canopy cover.
Emergency Services Act
The Emergency Services Act, under California Government Code Section 8589.5(b), calls for public safety
agencies whose jurisdiction contains populated areas below dams, to adopt emergency procedures for the
evacuation and control of these areas in the event of a partial or total failure of the dam. The Governor's
Office of Emergency Services (OES), formerly the California Emergency Management Agency (CalEMA),
is responsible for the coordination of overall state agency response to major disasters and assisting local
governments in their emergency preparedness, response, recovery, and hazard mitigation efforts. In
addition, the Cal OES Dam Safety Program provides assistance and guidance to local jurisdictions on
emergency planning for dam failure events and is also the designated repository of dam failure inundation
maps.
Division of Safety of Dams
Since 1929, the State of California has supervised all non-federal dams in California through the Dam Safety
Program under the jurisdiction of the Department of Water Resources, Division of Safety of Dams (DSOD).
The DOSD came into existence as a direct result of the failure of St. Francis Dam in southern California in
1928, causing the deaths of more than 450 people.
The DSOD engineers and engineering geologists review and approve plans and specifications for the design
of dams and oversee their construction to ensure compliance with the approved plans and specifications.
Reviews include site geology, seismic setting, site investigations, construction material evaluation, dam
stability, hydrology, hydraulics, and structural review of appurtenant structures. In addition, the DSOD
engineers inspect over 1200 dams on a yearly schedule to ensure they are performing and being maintained
in a safe manner.
Water Conservation Act of 2009
The Water Conservation Act of 2009, Senate Bill X7 7, requires a statewide 20 percent reduction in urban
per capita water use by 2020. The SB X7 7 requires that urban water retail suppliers determine baseline
water use and set reduction targets according to specified standards, and requires that agricultural water
suppliers prepare plans and implement efficient water management practices.
State Updated Model Landscape Ordinance
Under Assembly Bill 1881 (AB 1881), the updated Model Landscape Ordinance requires cities and counties
to adopt landscape water conservation ordinances by January 31, 2010 or to adopt a different ordinance that
is at least as effective in conserving water as the updated Model Ordinance (MO). In accordance with AB
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
HYDROLOGY & WATER QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 4.8-5
1881, Cupertino has adopted its Landscape Ordinance on May 4, 2010. The ordinance has been in effect
since June 3, 2010.
Regional Regulations
San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board
Regional authority for planning, permitting, and enforcement is delegated to the nine RWQCBs. Each
regional board is required to adopt a water quality control plan or basin plan that recognizes and reflects the
regional differences in existing water quality, the beneficial uses of the region’s ground and surface water,
and local water quality conditions and problems. As previously stated, Cupertino is within the jurisdiction of
the San Francisco Bay RWQCB (Region 2), which covers most of the Bay Area region, including Santa Clara
County.
The San Francisco Bay RWQCB addresses region-wide water quality issues through the Water Quality
Control Plan for San Francisco Bay Region (Basin Plan), which is updated every 3 years. The Basin Plan was
adopted in 1993 and updated most recently in December 2013.2 The Basin Plan designates beneficial uses of
the State waters within Region 2, describes the water quality that must be maintained to support such uses,
and provides programs, projects, and other actions necessary to achieve the standards established in the
Basin Plan.
Santa Clara Valley Water District
The Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) is a water resources agency responsible for balancing flood
protection needs with the protection of natural watercourses and habitat in the Santa Clara Valley. The
SCVWD serves 16 cities and 1.8 million residents, provides wholesale water supply, operates three water
treatment plants, and provides flood protection along the creeks and rivers within the county. The Clean,
Safe Creeks and Natural Flood Protection (CSC) Plan was approved by Santa Clara County voters in
November 2000 to create a countywide special parcel tax to accomplish the following four goals:3
100-year flood protection for homes, schools, businesses, and transportation;
Clean, safe water in Santa Clara County creeks and bays;
Healthy creek and bay ecosystems; and
Trails, parks, and open space along waterways.
In addition, the SCVWD has developed the Water Supply and Infrastructure Master Plan, which provides
the strategy for meeting the County’s future water demands to the year 2035 with a combination of reliable
water supply sources and conservation programs. Groundwater in the Santa Clara Basin is also managed by
SCVWD through its 2012 Groundwater Management Plan.4 The SCVWD also prepares an Urban Water
Management Plan (UWMP) that provides information on water supply sources, historical water usage,
2 California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA), San Francisco Bay Area Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB),
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/rwqcb2/basin_planning.shtml, accessed March 28, 2014.
3 Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD). www.valleywater.org accessed April 3, 2014.
4 Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD), 2012. 2012 Groundwater Management Plan.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
HYDROLOGY & WATER QUALITY
4.8-6 JUNE 18, 2014
water conservation programs, demand projections, water shortage contingencies, and water quality. The
current SCVWD UWMP is dated 2010; however, the UWMP is required to be updated every 5 years.5
The SCVWD reviews plans for development projects near streams to ensure that the proposed storm drain
systems and wastewater disposal systems will not adversely impact water quality in the streams. In addition,
the SCVWD reviews projects for conformance to SCVWD flood control design criteria, stream
maintenance and protection plans, and groundwater protection programs.
Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program
The Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program (SCVURPPP) is an association of 13
cities and towns in the Santa Clara Valley, together with the County of Santa Clara and the SCVWD. The
RWQCB has conveyed responsibility for implementation of storm water regulations to the member
agencies of SCVURPPP. The SCVURPPP incorporates regulatory, monitoring, and outreach measures aimed
at improving the water quality of South San Francisco Bay and the streams of the Santa Clara Valley to reduce
pollution in urban runoff to the “maximum extent practicable.” The SCVURPPP maintains compliance with
the NPDES Permit and promotes storm water pollution prevention within that context. Participating
agencies (including the City of Cupertino) must meet the provisions of the Santa Clara County permit by
ensuring that new development and redevelopment mitigate water quality impacts to storm water runoff
both during the construction and operation of projects.6
The SCVURPPP has successively implemented a series of comprehensive storm water management plans
for urban runoff management meeting RWQCB standards. When the NPDES permit was reissued in 2009,
now known as the Municipal Regional Storm Water NPDES Permit (MRP), new design standards for runoff
treatment control measures from new development and significant redevelopment were required. An
amendment to the MRP was issued in 2011 (Order Number R2-2011-0083) and added Special
Development Project Categories and Biotreatment Soil and Green Roof Specifications to the MRP. The
current MRP also requires development of a Hydrograph Modification Management Plan (HMP) to manage
increased peak runoff flows and volumes (hydromodification) and avoid erosion of stream channels and
degradation of water quality caused by new and redevelopment projects. The MRP was issued to cover
“surface runoff generated from various land uses in all the hydrologic sub basins in the basin which discharge
into watercourses, which in turn flow into South San Francisco Bay.” The latest program activities conducted
by the SCVURPPP are described in the FY2012-2013 Annual Report.
Municipal Regional Storm Water NPDES Permit
As stated above, pursuant to Section 402 of the CWA and the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act,
municipal storm water discharges in the City of Cupertino is subject to the WDRs of the MS4 Permit
(Order Number R2-2009-0074) and NPDES Permit Number CAS612008, as amended by Order Number
R2-2011-0083.
5 Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD), 2010. Urban Water Management Plan 2010.
6 Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program (SCVURPPP), 2013. FY 2012-2103 Annual Report.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
HYDROLOGY & WATER QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 4.8-7
Provision C.3 of the MRP addresses post-construction storm water management requirements for new
development and redevelopment projects that add and/or replace 5,000 square feet or more of impervious
area. Provision C.3 of the MRP also mandates that Cupertino require the incorporation of site design,
source control, and storm water treatment measures into development projects, minimize the discharge of
pollutants in storm water runoff and non-storm water discharge, and prevent increases in runoff flows. LID
methods are the mechanisms for implementing such controls.
Provision C.3 of the MRP requires that storm water treatment BMPs be designed using the following
hydraulic sizing criteria:
Volume Hydraulic Design Basis: Treatment systems whose primary mode of action depends on volume
capacity shall be designed to treat storm water runoff equal to: (a) The maximized storm water capture
volume for the area, on the basis of historical rainfall records, determined using the formula and volume
capture coefficients set forth in Urban Runoff Quality Management, Water Environment Federation
Manual of Practice Number 23/American Society of Civil Engineers Manual of Practice Number 87,
(1998), pages 175-178 (e.g. approximately the 85th percentile 24-hour storm runoff event); or (b) The
volume of annual runoff required to achieve 80 percent or more capture, determined in accordance
with the methodology set forth in Section 5 of the California Storm Water Quality Association
(CASQA)’s Storm Water Best Management Practice Handbook, New Development and Redevelopment
(2003) using local rainfall data;
Flow Hydraulic Design Basis: Treatment systems whose primary mode of action depends on flow capacity
shall be sized to treat: (a) 10 percent of the 50-year peak flow rate; (b) the flow of runoff produced by a
rain event equal to at least two times the 85th percentile hourly rainfall intensity for the applicable area,
based on historical records of hourly rainfall depths; or (c) the flow of runoff resulting from a rain event
equal to an intensity of at least 0.2 inches per hour; and
Combination Flow and Volume Design Basis: Treatment systems that use a combination of flow and volume
capacity shall be sized to treat at least 80 percent of the total runoff over the life of the project, using
local rainfall data.
Effective December 1, 2011, projects must treat 100 percent of the calculated runoff (based on the sizing
criteria described above) with LID treatment measures that include harvesting and reuse, infiltration,
evapotranspiration, or biotreatment (biotreatment may only be used if the other options are infeasible). In
addition, projects that create and/or replace 5,000 square feet or more of impervious surface for auto
service facilities, retail gasoline outlets, restaurants, and/or surface parking lots will also be required to
provide LID treatment of storm water runoff.
In order to comply with Provision C.3 of the MRP, project sponsors are required to submit a Storm water
Management Plan (SWMP) with building plans, to be reviewed and approved by the City of Cupertino
Public Works Department, Environmental Programs Division. The SWMP must be prepared under the
direction of a licensed and qualified professional.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
HYDROLOGY & WATER QUALITY
4.8-8 JUNE 18, 2014
Santa Clara Basin Watershed Management Initiative
The Watershed Management Initiative (WMI) was initiated in 1996 by the USEPA, the SWRCB, and the San
Francisco Bay RWQCB to address all sources of pollution that threaten the Bay and to protect water quality
throughout Santa Clara Basin watersheds. In the past, specific issues affecting watersheds had been addressed
by separate regulatory actions, resulting in a "patchwork" approach. A major aim of the WMI is to
coordinate existing regulatory activities on a basin-wide scale, ensuring that problems are addressed
efficiently and cost-effectively.
The Santa Clara Basin WMI consists of 34 collaborative groups from regional and local public agencies;
civic, environmental, resource conservation and agricultural groups; professional and trade organizations;
business and industrial sectors; and the general public. The purpose of the WMI is “to develop and
implement a comprehensive watershed management program – one that recognizes that healthy watersheds
mean addressing water quality problems and quality of life issues for the people, animals, and plants that live
in the watershed.” The WMI has continued to develop its foundation by producing a watershed assessment
report (2003), a watershed action plan (2003), plastics pollution prevention summit (2011), impacts of
homelessness on creeks (2011), and educational materials to reduce water usage by the general public.7
Santa Clara County General Plan
The Santa Clara County General Plan contains the goals, strategies, policies, and implementing actions that
guide in the overall land use development of the county. Unincorporated lands within Santa Clara County
that are within Cupertino’s Sphere of Influence (SOI) are subject to land use jurisdiction and regulatory
authority by the County. In addition, the Santa Clara Valley Water District and the Santa Clara Basin
Watershed Management Initiative have jurisdiction for streams and watersheds within the city boundaries
and the SOI. Therefore, the Santa Clara County General Plan goals and policies relevant to hydrology and
water quality are listed in Table 4.8-1.
7 Santa Clara Basin Watershed Management Initiative (WMI), 2013. http://www.scbwmi.org/ accessed April 4, 2014.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
HYDROLOGY & WATER QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 4.8-9
TABLE 4.8‐1 SANTA CLARA COUNTY GENERAL PLAN POLICIES RELEVANT TO HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Number Policies and Strategies
Strategy #1 Reduce non‐point source pollution.
Policy C‐RC 22
Countywide, compliance should be achieved with the requirements of the National Pollution
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for discharges into S.F. Bay, and to that end, the
Countywide Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program should receive the full support and
participation of each member jurisdiction.
Policy C‐RC 23 The Countywide Storm Water Management Plan should be routinely reviewed and updated as
additional information is collected on the effectiveness of prescribed control measures.
Policy C‐RC 24 Efforts to increase public awareness and education concerning nonpoint source pollution control
should be encouraged.
Strategy #2 Restore wetlands, riparian areas, and other habitats which improve Bay water quality.
Policy C‐RC 25
Wetlands restoration for the purpose of enhancing municipal wastewater treatment processes,
improving habitat and passive recreational opportunities should be encouraged and developed
where cost‐effective and practical.
Strategy #3 Prepare and implement comprehensive watershed management plan.
Policy C‐RC 26
Comprehensive watershed management plans should be developed and implemented through
intergovernmental coordination. Water supply watersheds should receive special consideration
and additional protection.
Source: Santa Clara County General Plan, 1994, http://www.sccgov.org/portal/site/dpd/, accessed on April 3, 2014.
Water Resources Protection Collaborative
On October 24, 2006, the SCVWD adopted the Water Resources Protection Ordinance (Ordinance 06-1).8
Beginning on February 28, 2007, this ordinance established the policy through which the SCVWD issues
permits for modifications, entry, use, or access to SCVWD facilities or easements. This Ordinance was
adopted following the creation of the Guidelines and Standards for Land Use Near Streams: A Manual of
Tools, Standards, and Procedures to Protect Streams and Streamside Resource in Santa Clara County
(Guidelines) by the Santa Clara Valley Water Resources Protection Collaborative (Collaborative). The
Collaborative includes the SCVWD and representatives from the County of Santa Clara, the 15 cities within
the County, the Guadalupe-Coyote Resource Conservation District, the San Francisco Bay RWQCB, and
representatives of various community interests.9 The Collaborative members share the water and watershed
resources protection goals of flood management, drinking water quality and adequate quantity, surface and
groundwater quality and quantity, and habitat protection and enhancement throughout the county.
The City of Cupertino adopted these Guidelines and integrated them into their zoning/development/
review process, as codified in Chapter 9.19 (Water Resource Protection) of the Municipal Code. A property
8 Santa Clara Valley Water District, 2006. Water Resource Protection Ordinance 06-1, http://www.valleywater.org/uploadedFiles/
Programs/BusinessInformationPermits/Permits/Ordinance071213%281%29.pdf, accessed April 4, 2014.
9 Santa Clara Valley Water District, 2007. Water Resources Protection Collaboration, http://www.valleywater.org/index.htm,
accessed April 4, 2014.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
HYDROLOGY & WATER QUALITY
4.8-10 JUNE 18, 2014
is considered to be a streamside parcel and is subject to these guidelines if it contains or is adjacent to a
stream, including all properties located within 50 feet of the top of the bank.
Local Regulations
City of Cupertino General Plan 2000-2020
The City of Cupertino’s 2000-2020 General Plan, adopted on November 15, 2005, contains the
Environmental Resources/Sustainability Element in Section 5 of the General Plan. This section contains
goals and policies that, once adopted, would ensure adequate supply of clean water as well as the effective
management of natural watershed resources. As part of the proposed Project, some General Plan policies
would be amended. Substantive policy changes under the proposed Project include the addition, removal, or
functional revision (e.g. not purely semantic) of policies in ways that have the potential to result in a physical
impact on the environment. Policies of the 2000-2020 General Plan that are relevant to hydrology and
water quality resources and were not substantially modified (e.g. renumbered or minor text change) are
listed below in Table 4.8-2.
TABLE 4.8‐2 POLICIES AND STRATEGIES OF THE CUPERTINO 2000‐2020 GENERAL PLAN
New Policy
Number
Original Policy
Number Policies and Strategies
Section 5, Environmental Resources/Sustainability
Policy 5‐20 Policy 5‐21 Pollution and Flow Impacts. Prior to making land use decisions, estimate increases in
pollutant loads and flows resulting from projected future development to avoid surface and
groundwater quality impacts.
Strategy. Best Management Practices. Require incorporation of structural and non‐
structural Best Management Practices (BMPs) to mitigate the projected increases in
pollutant loads and flows.
Policy 5‐27 Policy 5‐27 Natural Water Courses. Retain and restore creek beds, riparian corridors, watercourses and
associated vegetation in their natural state to protect wildlife habitat and recreation
potential and assist groundwater percolation. Encourage land acquisition or dedication of
such areas.
Strategy. Santa Clara Valley Water District. Work with the Santa Clara Valley Water District
and other relevant regional agencies to enhance riparian corridors and provice adequate
flood control by use of flow increase mitigation measures.
Policy 5‐35 Policy 5‐35 Development on Septic Systems. Do not permit urban development to occur in areas not
served by a sanitary sewer system, except in the previously approved Regnart Canyon
development.
Policy 5‐36 Policy 5‐36 Mitigation for Potential Storm Water Impacts. Require mitigation measures for potential
storm water pollutant impacts for projects subject to environmental review.
Section 6, Health and Safety
Policy 6‐44 Policy 6‐45 Existing Uses in the Flood Plain. Allow commercial and recreational uses that are now
exclusively within the flood plain to remain in their present use or to be used for agriculture.
Policy 6‐47 Policy 6‐48 Hillside Grading. Restrict the extent and timing of hillside grading operation to April through
October. Require performance bonds during the remaining time to guarantee the repair of
any erosion damage. All graded slopes must be planted as soon as practical after grading is
complete.
Source: City of Cupertino and Cupertino 2000‐2020 General Plan.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
HYDROLOGY & WATER QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 4.8-11
A comprehensive list of policy changes is provided in Appendix I, Proposed General Plan Policy
Amendments, of this Draft EIR. Discussions of how substantive policy changes may result in adverse
physical changes are included in the analyses under each impact criterion in Section 4.8.3, Impact
Discussion, below.
City of Cupertino Municipal Code
Besides the General Plan, the City of Cupertino Municipal Code is the primary tool that guides
development in the city. The City’s Municipal Code identifies land use categories, site development
regulations, and other general provisions that ensure consistency between the General Plan and proposed
development projects. The Municipal Code contains all ordinances for the city. The Municipal Code is
organized by Title, Chapter, and Section. The current Municipal Code is up to date through Ordinance 14-
2117, passed March 18, 2014. The following chapters of the City of Cupertino’s Municipal Code contain
directives pertaining to hydrology and water quality issues:
Chapter 3.36, Storm Drainage Service Charge, outlines the requirements for the payment of fees to
conserve and protect the City’s storm drainage system from the burden placed on it by the increasing
flow of nonpoint source runoff and to otherwise meet the requirements developed by the Santa Clara
Valley Non-Point Source Control and Storm Water Management Program established to comply with
the CWA, California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) regulations and the City’s NPDES
permits. The specific purpose of the storm drainage service charges established pursuant to this chapter
is to derive revenue which shall only be used for the acquisition, construction, reconstruction,
maintenance, and operation of the storm drainage system of the City to repay principal and interest on
any bonds which may hereafter be issued for said purposes, to repay loans or advances which may
hereafter be made for said purposes and for any other purpose set forth in Section 3.36.160. However,
said revenue shall not be used for the acquisition or construction of new local street storm sewers or
storm laterals as distinguished from main trunk, interceptor, and outfall storm sewers.
Chapter 9.18, Storm Water Pollution Prevention and Watershed Protection, provides regulations and
gives legal effect to the MRP issued to the City of Cupertino and ensures ongoing compliance with the
most recent version of the City of Cupertino's NPDES permit regarding municipal storm water and
urban runoff requirements. This chapter applies to all water entering the storm drain system generated
on any private, public, developed, and undeveloped lands lying within the city. The code contains permit
requirements for construction projects and new development or redevelopment projects to minimize
the discharge of storm water runoff.
Chapter 9.19, Water Resources Protection, requires property owners to obtain permits for any
modifications to properties adjacent to a stream except when: 1) less than 3 cubic yards of earthwork is
planned provided it does not damage, weaken, erode or reduce the effectiveness of the stream to
withhold storm and flood waters; 2) a fence 6 feet or less in height; 3) an accessory structure 120
square feet or less in size; 4) interior or exterior modification within the existing footprint; or
5) landscaping on existing single-family lots.
Chapter 14.15, Landscape Ordinance, implements the California Water Conservation in Landscaping
Act of 2006 by establishing new water-efficient landscaping and irrigation requirements. In general, any
building or landscape projects that involve more than 2,500 square feet of landscape area are required to
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
HYDROLOGY & WATER QUALITY
4.8-12 JUNE 18, 2014
submit a Landscape Project Submittal to the Director of Community Development for approval.
Existing and established landscapes over 1 acre, including cemeteries, are required to submit water
budget calculations and audits of established landscapes.
Chapter 16.18, Interim Erosion and Sediment Control Plan, requires preparation of an Interim Erosion
and Sediment Control Plan. Specifically, Section 16.18.110 states that the Plan shall be either integrated
with the site map/grading plan or submitted separately, to the Director of Public Works that calculates
the maximum runoff from the site for the 10-year storm event and describes measures to be undertaken
to retain sediment on the site, a brief description of the surface runoff and erosion control measures to
be implemented, and vegetative measures to be undertaken.
Chapter 16.52, Prevention of Flood Damage, applies to all areas of special flood hazard (i.e. 100-year
floodplain) within the City. A development permit must be obtained and reviewed by the Director of
Public Works before new construction, substantial improvements or development (including the
placement of prefabricated buildings and manufactured homes) begins within any area of special flood
hazard. The chapter also contains construction standards that must be implemented within the 100-year
floodplain to protect buildings and improvements from flood damage.
Capital Improvement Program (2013-2014)
The City of Cupertino Capital Improvements Five Year Capital Improvements Program (CIP) is a
comprehensive document that includes descriptions and the status of City project scopes, budgets, and
schedules or all incomplete but previously budgeted projects, as well as for projects proposed for inclusion
in the 2014-2015 CIP (the current fiscal year’s Capital Improvement Budget) and other future CIPs. The
CIP ranks projects in order of priority from 1 to 4, with Priority 1 given the highest importance for
implementation.
City of Cupertino Storm Drain Master Plan
The capacity of the storm drain facilities within the City of Cupertino was evaluated and documented in the
1993 Storm Drain Master Plan. The City collects Storm Drain Fees for new construction projects to fund
improvements to the storm drain system. The next storm drain improvements that are scheduled to be
implemented, as described in the Capital Improvement Program (2013-2014), include installing a new
storm drain system in the Monta Vista Village Neighborhood area (scheduled to begin in the fall of 2014)
Changes in State laws governing storm water and land use changes have made it necessary to update the
Storm Drain Master Plan to determine system deficiencies and remedy the system deficiencies by
implementing improvements to the storm drain system. According to the Capital Improvement Program
(2013-2014), the City is planning to update the Storm Drain Master Plan for the City’s storm drainage
system, which will identify areas for improvement to bring the current system into compliance with current
laws and regulations, and current land use and proposed future land use.10 Although no date has been set for
10 City of Cupertino, Department of Public Works, 2014. Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) 2013-2014, April.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
HYDROLOGY & WATER QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 4.8-13
preparing the Storm Drain Master Plan Update, it is listed as a Priority 3 Public Safety project under the
current 2013-2014 CIP.
Joint Stevens Creek Dam Failure Plan
The Joint Stevens Creek Dam Failure Plan was prepared by the Santa Clara County Fire Department for the
City of Cupertino and passed and adopted by the City of Cupertino under Resolution Number 12-124 on
October 16, 2012.11 The Joint Stevens Creek Dam Failure Plan was created pursuant to the Emergency
Services Act. In accordance with the intent of the Emergency Services Act, future reviews and/or updates of
this plan are to be undertaken every two years or as needed. The Santa Clara County Sheriff's Office, Santa
Clara County Fire Department, as well as the Cupertino Disaster Council will review and update the Joint
Stevens Creek Dam Failure Plan.
The Stevens Creek Dam and Reservoir is owned by the SCVWD, which is regulated by the DSOD. The
SCVWD is required by the Emergency Services Act, Section 8589.5(b) and California Water Code, Division
3, Part 1, Chapter 2, Section 6002 to take all necessary actions to protect life and property in inundation
areas and to provide inundation maps to OES.
The Joint Stevens Creek Dam Failure Plan addresses the potential failures (full or partial) of the Stevens
Creek Dam and Reservoir that could impact the cities of Cupertino, Sunnyvale, Mountain View and Los
Altos. The plan is designed to:
Provide guidelines to the cities of Cupertino, Sunnyvale, Los Altos and Mountain View, affected public
and private agencies, special districts, non-governmental organizations, and mutual aid emergency
organizations in the event of a potential or imminent/actual failure of the dam.
Assign planning and functional responsibilities.
Outline public notification and information strategies.
Identify resources to ensure a swift, coordinated response.
Outline recovery strategies for psychological and physical health effects, repairing infrastructure, debris
removal, and rebuilding.
4.8.1.2 EXISTING CONDITIONS
Climate
Cupertino is located within a Mediterranean-type climate zone, with almost all precipitation falling between
the months of October and May. Due to the Santa Cruz Mountains to the west, there is a "rain shadow" in
Cupertino, resulting in an average annual rainfall of 15.93 inches.12 Temperatures in Cupertino tend to be
11 Santa Clara Fire Department, 2012. Joint Stevens Creek Dam Failure Plan. Adopted by City of Cupertino Resolution No. 12-124.
12 Monthly Climate Summary, Cupertino, California, 2014. http://www.weather.com/weather/wxclimatology/monthly/
USCA0273 accessed May 2, 2014.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
HYDROLOGY & WATER QUALITY
4.8-14 JUNE 18, 2014
fairly mild, with an average annual high of 71 degrees Fahrenheit and an average annual low of 50 degrees
Fahrenheit. The hottest temperatures occur in July and August, with average maximum temperatures of 82
degrees Fahrenheit and the coldest temperatures occur in December and January with average minimum
temperatures of 42 degrees Fahrenheit.
Hydrology and Surface Drainage
Watersheds
Cupertino lies within the Lower Peninsula and West Valley watersheds.13 These two watersheds are further
divided into six smaller watersheds that are within the city boundaries: 1) Permanente Creek watershed; 2)
Stevens Creek watershed; 3) Calabazas Creek watershed; 4) Saratoga Creek watershed; 5) Junipero Serra
Channel watershed; and 6) Sunnyvale East Channel watershed; as shown on Figure 4.8-1. Some of the
creeks within the city boundary have been channelized along parts of their reaches as protection against
flooding.
Waterways
The following creeks run through Cupertino on their way to the South San Francisco Bay, Permanente
Creek, Heney Creek, Stevens Creek, Regnart Creek, Prospect Creek, Calabazas Creek, and Saratoga Creek.
These creeks are also shown on Figure 4.8-1. Permanente Creek flows through the northwest corner of
Cupertino in a relatively unmodified natural channel. Downstream of Cupertino, the creek enters a
concrete trapezoidal channel (Permanente Creek Diversion Channel) constructed by SCVWD that diverts
virtually all winter flows east to Stevens Creek, preventing floodwaters from flowing north in the original
creek channel through dense residential areas.
Stevens Creek bisects the western portion of Cupertino. Stevens Creek originates in the Santa Cruz
Mountains and flows into Stevens Creek Reservoir. From this point, the creek flows north for 12.5 miles
through Cupertino, Los Altos, Sunnyvale and Mountain View before emptying into the San Francisco Bay.
Heney Creek is a tributary of Stevens Creek that joins this creek 3.7 miles below the reservoir. In response
to of catastrophic flooding in the early 1980s, Stevens Creek was modified so that over 75 percent of the
creek now has the capacity to convey water from a 100-year flood. At highway interchanges and crossings,
creek reaches have been modified mainly for slope protection.14 The Stevens Creek Restoration Project is
being implemented by the City of Cupertino, which has acquired 60 acres of land adjacent to Stevens Creek
with plans to restore its natural alignment and enhance with trails, community parks, and educational
exhibits.
13 Santa Clara Valley Water District, 2014. Watershed Information. http://www.valleywater.org/Services/
WatershedInformation.aspx accessed May 2, 2014.
14 Santa Clara Valley Water District, 2014. Stevens Creek. http://www.valleywatercompplan.org/watersheds/view/112 accessed May
2, 2014.
City of Sunnyvale
%&'(280
|ÿ85
City of San Jose
City of
Santa Clara
Santa Clara
County
City of
Los Altos
City of Saratoga
SAN TOMAS AQUINO CREEKSTEVENS CREEK
HENEYCREE
K
P ERMANENTE
C
REEK
R E G N ART C R E E K
STEVENS
CREEK
PROS P E CTC REEK
S A R ATOGACREE K
CALABAZASC R EE K
S
B
L
A
N
E
Y
A
V
E
N
B
L
A
N
E
Y
A
V
E
B O L LI N G E R RD
N
S
T
E
L
L
I
N
G
R
D
B
U
B
B
R
D
N
TANTAU
AVE
S
D
E
A
N
Z
A
B
L
V
D
BL
A
N
E
Y
A
V
E
FO
O
T
H
I
L
L
B
L
V
D
N
FOOTHILL
BLVD
RAINBOW DR
S
S
T
E
L
L
I
N
G
R
D
HOMESTEAD R D
PR U N ERIDGE AVE
M
I
L
L
ER
AVE
STEVENS CREEK BLVD
S
TANTAU
AVE
G
R
A
N
T
R
D
N
D
E
A
N
Z
A
B
L
V
D
P RO SP E C T RD
MCCLELLAN RD
N
W
O
L
F
E
R
D
S
W
O
L
F
E
R
D
Project ComponentsWatershedsCalabazas Creek WatershedJunipero Serra Channel WatershedPermanente Creek WatershedSaratoga Creek WatershedStevens Creek WatershedSunnyvale East Channel WatershedCreeksCity Boundary
Figure 4.8-1Watersheds
Source: City of Cupertino, 2013; MIG, Inc, 2014; Santa Clara Valley Water District, 2012; PlaceWorks, 2014.
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITYCITY OF CUPERTINOGENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING PROJECT
0 0.5 10.25
Miles
StevensCreekReservoir
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
HYDROLOGY & WATER QUALITY
4.8-16 JUNE 18, 2014
Calabazas Creek and its tributaries, Regnart Creek and Prospect Creek, run through the eastern portion of
Cupertino. Because approximately 80 percent of the Calabazas Creek watershed is urbanized, this has
resulted in a highly modified stream channel, with almost one-third of the stream being classified as hard
bottom.15 In addition, Regnart Creek is mostly channelized along its reaches within Cupertino. Calabazas
Creek has been historically prone to flooding. As a result, the Calabazas Creek Capacity Improvement
Project was implemented and completed in 2007. Channel improvements and erosion control measures
along a 4.5-mile stretch of the creek now provide protection for 2,250 parcels in the cities of Santa Clara,
San Jose, and Cupertino from the 100-year flood.
Saratoga Creek flows north along the eastern boundary of the City of Cupertino. When compared to the
other creeks in the watershed, Saratoga Creek has the lowest percent of impervious surface adjoining the
stream. This creek has never flooded and there is little historical evidence for the need for flood protection
improvements.16 This creek is also maintained in its natural state for most of its reaches.
The Sunnyvale East Channel and Junipero Serra Channel watersheds are located in the northern portion of
Cupertino. The Junipero Serra Channel parallels an approximate one-mile stretch along I-280 in central
Cupertino. The Sunnyvale East Channel extends from I-280 in the south to the Bayfront Levee in the north.
These channels were constructed in 1967 to protect the area from flooding due to land subsidence. The
channels are the only drainage for these watersheds and about one-quarter of the channels are underground.
Construction of the Sunnyvale East Channel has eliminated almost all of the flooding in this watershed.
Since its construction, the channel has been modified to improve flood protection.17
The Stevens Creek Reservoir is located in the foothills of the Santa Cruz Mountains and is approximately
850 feet south of the City of Cupertino’s southern boundary. The reservoir is impounded by the Stevens
Creek Dam, which was built in 1935. The reservoir is an earth-fill dam with a maximum capacity of 3,800
acre-feet of water over a surface area of 95 acres, and a drainage area of 17.5 square miles. The Santa Clara
Valley Water District owns and operates the dam.18 The Stevens Creek Dam is discussed more below under
the sub-heading “Dams.”
Storm Drain Facilities
In addition to the natural drainage system, a network of storm drains collects runoff from city streets and
carries it to the creeks and San Francisco Bay. The City of Cupertino Department of Public Works is
responsible for the design, construction, and maintenance of City owned facilities including public streets,
sidewalks, curb, gutter, storm drains. Figure 4.8-2 shows the storm drain system and channels within the
City of Cupertino.
15 Santa Clara Valley Water District, 2014. Calabazas Creek. http://www.valleywatercompplan.org/watersheds/view/265 accessed
May 2, 2014.
16 Santa Clara Valley Water District, 2014. Saratoga Creek. http://www.valleywatercompplan.org/watersheds/view/262 accessed
May 2, 2014.
17 Santa Clara Valley Water District, 2014. Sunnyvale East Channel. http://www.valleywatercompplan.org/watersheds/
view/266 accessed May 2, 2014
18 Department of Water Resources, Listing of Dams.http://www.water.ca.gov/damsafety/damlisting/index.cfm accessed April 25,
2014.
City of Sunnyvale
%&'(280
|ÿ85
City of San Jose
City of
Santa Clara
Santa Clara
County
City of
Los Altos
City of Saratoga
11 2
4260 17
57
19
27
50
12
21
1
77
S
B
L
A
N
E
Y
A
V
E
N
B
L
A
N
E
Y
A
V
E
B O L LI N G E R RD
N
S
T
E
L
L
I
N
G
R
D
B
U
B
B
R
D
NTANTAU
AVE
S
D
E
A
N
Z
A
B
L
V
D
BLANEYAVE
FO
O
T
H
I
L
L
B
L
V
D
N
FOOTHILLBLVD
RAINBOW DR
S
S
T
E
L
L
I
N
G
R
D
HOMESTEAD RD
PR U N ERIDGE AVE
M
I
L
L
ER
AVE
STEVENS CREEK BLVD
S
TANTAU
AVE
G
R
A
N
T
R
D
N
D
E
A
N
Z
A
B
L
V
D
P R OS PE C T RD
MCCLELLAN RD
N
W
O
L
F
E
R
D
S
W
O
L
F
E
R
D
Stormwater ChannelStormwater Pipes
City Boundary
Figure 4.8-2Storm Water Drainage System
Source: City of Cupertino, 2013; MIG, Inc, 2014; PlaceWorks, 2014.
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITYCITY OF CUPERTINOGENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING PROJECT
0 0.5 10.25
Miles
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
HYDROLOGY & WATER QUALITY
4.8-18 JUNE 18, 2014
As previously stated, the capacity of the storm drain facilities within the City of Cupertino were evaluated
and documented in the 1993 Storm Drain Master Plan, which identifies the areas within the system that do
not have the capacity to handle runoff during the 10-year storm event, which is the City’s design standard.
Storm drains that are potentially deficient in conveying the 10-year storm within the Project Study Area are
listed in Table 4.8-3.
Groundwater
Cupertino lies within the Santa Clara Subbasin of the Santa Clara Valley Groundwater Basin, as shown on
Figure 4.8-3.19 The Santa Clara Subbasin extends from the southern edge of San Francisco Bay through the
Coyote Valley, with the boundary located at approximately Cochrane Road in Morgan Hill. The thickness of
the aquifer materials ranges from about 150 feet near the Coyote Narrows to more than 1,500 feet in the
interior of the subbasin. Groundwater movement generally follows surface water patterns flowing from the
interior of the subbasin northerly toward San Francisco Bay.20
The water-bearing formations of the Santa Clara subbasin include non-marine deposits of unconsolidated to
semi-consolidated gravel, sand, silt, and clay. The Santa Clara Subbasin is divided into confined and recharge
areas. Within confined areas, laterally extensive low permeability clays and silts (confining units or
aquitards) divide upper and lower aquifers. The SCVWD refers to these as the shallow and principal
aquifers, with the latter defined as aquifer materials greater than 150 feet below ground surface (bgs).
Groundwater levels within Cupertino generally are 50 feet or more bgs.21
Recharge areas are primarily comprised of high permeability aquifer materials like sands and gravels that
allow surface water to infiltrate into the aquifers. Most groundwater recharge occurs in these areas through
the infiltration of precipitation and the SCVWD’s managed recharge to augment groundwater supplies.22 In
the Santa Clara Valley, the areas with the highest recharge are along the creeks and on the western edge of
the valley floor, just below the toe of the foothills. Almost all of the City of Cupertino is within the Santa
Clara Subbasin recharge area. The McClellan Ponds recharge facility is located in Cupertino and the creeks
that flow through the city provide seepage and natural groundwater recharge.
In 2012, approximately 40 percent of the water used in Santa Clara County was pumped from
groundwater.23 The rest of the water used in the County is purchased from the SCVWD, which receives
surface water from the State Water Project (SWP) and the Central Valley Project (CVP). Additional details
on water usage and local water purveyors are provided in Chapter 4.14, Utilities and Service Systems, of
this Draft EIR. Groundwater pumping for the Santa Clara Plain has decreased over the past five years as the
use of treated water has increased.24
19 Santa Clara Valley Water District, 2012. 2012 Groundwater Management Plan.
20 Santa Clara Valley Water District, 2012. 2012 Groundwater Management Plan.
21 State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), 2014. Geotracker, http://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/ accessed May 2, 2014.
22 Santa Clara Valley Water District, 2012. 2012 Groundwater Management Plan.
23 Santa Clara Valley Water District, 2012. Annual Groundwater Report for Calendar Year 2012.
24 Santa Clara Valley Water District, 2012. Annual Groundwater Report for Calendar Year 2012.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
HYDROLOGY & WATER QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 4.8-19
TABLE 4.8‐3 UNDER CAPACITY STORM DRAINAGE INFRASTRUCTURE
PROJECT COMPONENT LOCATION
INFRASTRUCTURE
NUMBERA INFRASTRUCTURE LOCATION
Study Area 1 (Cupertino Inn and Goodyear
Tire) 12 Lines from I‐280 to last manhole prior to connection
in Homestead Rd.
Study Area 2 (City Center) 42
See Housing Element Sites 1 (Shan Restaurant), 2
(Arya/Scandinavian Design), 3 (United
Furniture/East of East Estates Drive)
Study Area 3 (PG&E) 11
Lines from northwest manhole of Study Area 3
(PG&E) to northeast manhole of Study Area 4
(Mirapath) along Homestead Rd.
Housing Site 1 (Shan Restaurant)
Housing Site 2 (Arya/Scandinavian Design)
Housing Site 3 (United Furniture/East of East
Estates Drive)
42
Lines from Wheaton Dr. south to Stevens Creek
Blvd. along N. Blaney Ave. and along Stevens Creek
Blvd from De Anza Blvd. to Wolfe Rd.
Housing Site 5 (Glenbrook Apartments)
Housing Site 18 (The Oaks Shopping Center) 27 Line from Cupertino Memorial Park parking lot near
Mary Ave. to Lauretta Dr. along Ann Arbor Ct.
Housing Site 6 (The Villages Apartments) 21 Line from Valley Green Dr. to outfall in drainage
channel south of I‐280 along N. Stelling Rd.
Housing Site 6 (The Villages Apartments)
Housing Site 7 (Carl Berg Property) 19
Line from Acadia Ct. to last manhole prior to outfall
at drainage channel south of I‐280 along Beardon
Dr.
Housing Site 12 (Homestead Lanes and
Adjacency)
Housing Site 17 (Homestead Road –
IntraHealth/Office/Tennis Courts)
12
Lines from manhole at southwest corner of Housing
Site 12 to Homestead Rd. along N. Stelling Rd. and
from N. Stelling Rd. to the Sunnyvale connection in
Blaney Ave. along Homestead Rd.
Study Area 7 (Stevens Creek Office Center)
Housing Site 15 (Stevens Creek Office
Center)
17
Lines from manhole in western parking lot of
Housing Site 15 north to Alves Dr. and along Alves
Dr. to Bandley Ave.
Housing Site 16 (Summerwinds & Granite
Rock) 77 Lines along S. De Anza Blvd from Wildflower Way to
Duckett Way.
Bubb Road Special Area 60
The system adjacent to the railroad tracks from the
north end of the Results Way Campus, parallel to
Bubb Rd, to southwest of the Ewing Foley building
that is on Bubb Rd.
Monta Vista Village Neighborhood 60 Along both Imperial Avenue and Pasadena Avenue
from Lomita Avenue to Stevens Creek Boulevard
Other Commercial Centers 4 50
Along La Roda Dr. north to John Dr. and along John
Dr. from La Roda Dr. to S. Blaney Ave. and along S.
Blaney Ave. from the northeast corner of Site 4 to
its outfall in Regnart Creek to the north.
Other Commercial Centers 5 57 McClellan Rd. from State Route 85 to its outfall in
Regnart Creek just past Whitney Way.
a. Indicates the number in the 1993 Storm Drain Master Plan.
b. These lines are being upgraded with the Apple 2 project.
c. System 2 along Homestead Rd. from Peacock Ave. to the outfall in Calabazas Creek is inadequate; however, no new development potential would
occur in this area as result of the proposed Project
Source: City of Cupertino, 1993 Storm Drain Master Plan and BKF, 2014.
CUPERTINO %&'(280
%&'(880
%&'(680
£¤101
£¤101
£¤101
|ÿ85
|ÿ237
|ÿ130
|ÿ35
|ÿ35
|ÿ17
|ÿ9
Menlo Park East Palo Alto
MilpitasStanford
Mountain ViewPalo Alto
Sunnyvale East FoothillsLos Altos Santa Clara
San Jose
Campbell
Saratoga
Los Gatos
Morgan Hill
Atherton
Los Altos Hills
Monte Sereno
Llagas SubbasinSanta Clara Subbasin
City Boundary
Figure 4.8-3Groundwater Subbasins
Source: City of Cupertino, 2013; MIG, Inc, 2014; Santa Clara Valley Water District, 2012; PlaceWorks, 2014.
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITYCITY OF CUPERTINOGENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING PROJECT
0 2.5 51.25
Miles
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
HYDROLOGY & WATER QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 4.8-21
To augment groundwater supplies, the SCVWD replenished the groundwater basin with nearly 97,000 acre
feet of local and imported water. Groundwater recharge occurs with SCVWD’s management of over 390
acres of recharge ponds, as well as the percolation of rainfall, natural seepage from creeks, and subsurface
inflow from surrounding hills. Just as important as direct recharge are SCVWD’s "in-lieu" recharge
programs, including treated water deliveries, water conservation, and water recycling, which reduced
demands on groundwater by over 209,000 acre feet.
Water Quality
Surface water quality is affected by point source and non-point source (NPS) pollutants. Point source
pollutants are those emitted at a specific point, such as a pipe, while NPS pollutants are typically generated
by surface runoff from diffuse sources, such as streets, paved areas, and landscaped areas. Point source
pollutants are mainly controlled with pollutant discharge regulations; the San Francisco Bay RWQCB issues
NPDES permits and WDRs to industrial sources as discussed previously under Section 4.8.1.1, Regulatory
Framework. NPS pollutants are more difficult to monitor and control although they are important
contributors to surface water quality in urban areas.
Storm Water runoff pollutants vary based on land use, topography, the amount of impervious surface, and
the amount and frequency of rainfall and irrigation practices. Runoff in developed areas typically contains
oil, grease, and metals accumulated in streets, driveways, parking lots, and rooftops, as well as pesticides,
herbicides, particulate matter, nutrients, animal waste, and other oxygen-demanding substances from
landscaped areas. The highest pollutant concentrations usually occur at the beginning of the wet season
during the “first flush.”
Santa Clara Valley streams do not receive discharges from industrial or municipal wastewater.25 Industrial
discharges are routed to municipal sanitary sewers and then to regional municipal wastewater treatment
plants that discharge treated effluent to the tidal sloughs of San Francisco Bay. In general, pollutant
concentrations in storm water runoff do not vary significantly within an urbanized watershed. However,
pollutant concentrations do increase when impervious cover is more than 40 to 50 percent of the drainage
area.26 Runoff volume is the most important variable in predicting pollutant loads.
The San Francisco Bay RWQCB monitors surface water quality through implementation of the Basin Plan
and designates beneficial uses for surface water bodies and groundwater within the Santa Clara Valley. These
designated and beneficial uses for water bodies and groundwater within the city boundaries are listed in
Table 4.8-4.
25 Santa Clara Basin Watershed Initiative, 2003. Volume 1, Watershed Characteristics Report, http://www.scbwmi.org/ accessed May 2,
2014.
26 Santa Clara Basin Watershed Initiative, 2003. Volume 1, Watershed Characteristics Report, http://www.scbwmi.org/ accessed May 2,
2014.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
HYDROLOGY & WATER QUALITY
4.8-22 JUNE 18, 2014
TABLE 4.8‐4 DESIGNATED BENEFICIAL USES OF WATER BODIES IN CUPERTINO
WATER BODY DESIGNATED BENEFICIAL USE
Surface Water
Permanente Creek GWR, COLD, RARE, SPWN, WARM,WILD, REC‐1, REC‐2
Stevens Creek FRSH, GWR, COLD, MIGR, RARE, SPWN, WARM,WILD, REC‐1, REC‐2
Calabazas Creek AGR, GWR, COLD, WARM,WILD, REC‐1, REC‐2
Saratoga Creek AGR, FRSH, GWR, COLD, WARM,WILD, REC‐1, REC‐2
Groundwater
Santa Clara Valley (Santa Clara Subbasin) MUN, PROC, IND, AGR
Notes: Municipal and Domestic Water Supply (MUN), Industrial Process Water Supply (PROC), Industrial Service Water Supply (IND), Agricultural Supply
(AGR), Freshwater Replenishment (FRSH), Groundwater Recharge (GWR), Cold Freshwater Habitat (COLD), Fish Migration (MIGR), Preservation of Rare and
Endangered Species (RARE), Fish Spawning (SPWN), Warm Freshwater Habitat (WARM), Wildlife Habitat (WILD), Water Contact Recreation (REC‐1),
Noncontact Water Recreation (REC‐2).
Source: San Francisco Bay RWQCB, 2013. Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan).
In addition to the establishment of beneficial uses and water quality objectives, another approach to
improving water quality is a watershed-based methodology that focuses on all potential pollution sources
and not just those associated with point sources. If a body of water does not meet established water quality
standards under traditional point source controls, then it is listed as an impaired water body under Section
303(d) of the CWA. For 303(d) listed water bodies, a limit is established, which defines the maximum
amount of pollutants (or TMDL) that can be received by that water body. Impaired water bodies in
Cupertino and the status of TMDL implementation are listed in Table 4.8-5.
TABLE 4.8‐5 303(D) LIST OF IMPAIRED WATER BODIES IN CUPERTINO
WATER BODY POLLUTANT
Surface Water
Permanente Creek Diazinon, Selenium, Toxicity, Trash
Stevens Creek Diazinon, Water Temperature, Toxicity, Trash
Calabazas Creek Diazinon
Saratoga Creek Diazinon, Trash
Source: San Francisco Bay RWQCB, 2013. Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan).
The Basin Plan also contains water quality criteria for groundwater. Groundwater quality in the Santa Clara
subbasin is generally considered to be good and water quality objectives are met in at least 95 percent of the
County water supply wells without the use of treatment methods.27 The groundwater in the major aquifers
within the subbasin is generally characterized as of a bicarbonate type with sodium and calcium being the
primary cations.28 Although the wells are in compliance with USEPA and California maximum contaminant
27 Santa Clara Valley Water District, 2012. Santa Clara Valley Water District, 2012. 2012 Groundwater Management Plan.
28 California Department of Water Resources (DWR). California’s Groundwater Bulletin 118, Basins and Subbasins of the North Coast
Hydrologic Region. http://www.water.ca.gov/groundwater/bulletin118/north_coast.cfm accessed August 20, 2013.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
HYDROLOGY & WATER QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 4.8-23
levels (MCLs) for drinking water, the water is characterized as being hard to very hard, with calcium
carbonate concentrations averaging 280 milligram per liter (mg/l), which results in scaly residues on
fixtures and difficulty in soap lathering.29
Groundwater contamination can result from releases of hazardous materials from leaking underground
storage tanks (LUST) or historical industrial activities. There are numerous RWQCB or Department of
Toxic Substance Control (DTSC) hazardous waste cleanup sites within Cupertino.30 However, as discussed
in Chapter 4.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of this Draft EIR, future development within the Project
Component locations would not be adversely impacted by contaminated groundwater.
Flooding
FEMA prepares maps of the 100-year flood hazard area of US communities. For areas within the 100-year
flood hazard zone, the risk of flooding in the designated area is 1 percent for any given year. Maps are also
available for 500-year floods, which mean that in any given year, the risk of flooding in the designated area is
0.2 percent.
In some locations, FEMA also provides a measurement of base flood elevation for the 100-year flood, which
is the minimum height of the floodwaters during a 100-year event; base flood elevation is reported in feet
above sea level. Depth of flooding is determined by subtracting the land’s elevation above mean sea level
(msl) from the base flood elevation. Areas within the 100-year flood hazard area that are financed by
federally backed mortgages are subject to mandatory federal insurance requirements and building standards
to reduce flood damage.
According to FEMA FIRM maps, shown on Figure 4.8-4, a small portion of Cupertino is within the 100-
year floodplain (designated as Zone A and AE). The 100-year flood zone is also known as a Special Flood
Hazard Area (SFHA); homeowners with mortgages within the SFHA are required to be protected by flood
insurance. Zone A is characterized as areas subject to inundation by the 100-year flood event, but detailed
hydraulic analyses have not been performed and no Base Flood Elevations (BFEs) or flood depths are shown.
Zone AE is defined as areas subject to inundation by the 100-year flood event where BFEs have been
calculated. Most of the western and central areas of Cupertino are within the 500-year floodplain, which is
considered to be a moderate to low risk area, where flood insurance is not required. All of the 100-year
floodplain areas within Cupertino are immediately adjacent to creeks and streams that travel through the
city.
29 Santa Clara Valley Water District, 2014. http://www.valleywater.org/Services/HardWater.aspx accessed May 28, 2014.
30 State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). Geotracker Database. http://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/ accessed April 23,
2014.
City of Sunnyvale
%&'(280
|ÿ85
City of San Jose
City of
Santa Clara
Santa Clara
County
City of
Los Altos
City of Saratoga
S
B
L
A
N
E
Y
A
V
E
N
B
L
A
N
E
Y
A
V
E
B O L LI N G E R RD
N
S
T
E
L
L
I
N
G
R
D
B
U
B
B
R
D
NTANTAU
AVE
S
D
E
A
N
Z
A
B
L
V
D
BL
A
N
E
Y
A
V
E
FO
O
T
H
I
L
L
B
L
V
D
N
FOOTHILLBLVD
RAINBOW DR
S
S
T
E
L
L
I
N
G
R
D
HOMESTEAD RD
PR U N ERIDGE AVE
M
I
L
L
ER
AVE
STEVENS CREEK BLVD
S
TANTAU
AVE
G
R
A
N
T
R
D
N
D
E
A
N
Z
A
B
L
V
D
P R OS PE C T RD
MCCLELLAN RD
N
W
O
L
F
E
R
D
S
W
O
L
F
E
R
D
FEMA Flood ZonesZone A - 1% Annual Chance Flood EventZone AE - 1% Annual Chance Flood Event with Base Flood ElevationsWaterbodiesProject ComponentsCity Boundary
Figure 4.8-4FEMA Floodplains
Source: City of Cupertino, 2013; MIG, Inc, 2014; Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 2014; PlaceWorks, 2014.
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITYCITY OF CUPERTINOGENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING PROJECT
0 0.5 10.25
Miles
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
HYDROLOGY & WATER QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 4.8-25
Dam Failure Inundation
Dam failure is the uncontrolled release of impounded water behind a dam. Flooding, earthquakes,
blockages, landslides, lack of maintenance, improper operation, poor construction, vandalism, and
terrorism can all cause a dam to fail.31 Dam failure can occur with little warning. Intense storms may
produce floods in a few hours or even minutes for upstream locations. Flash floods occur within 6 hours of
the beginning of heavy rainfall, and dam failure may occur within hours of the first signs of breaching. Other
failures and breaches can take much longer to occur, from days to weeks. However, dam failure is a very rare
occurrence. There is no historic record of dam failure in Santa Clara County or Cupertino.32
The OES is required by State law to work with State and federal agencies, dam owners and operators,
municipalities, floodplain managers, planners, and the public to make available dam inundation maps.33 Dam
inundation maps are used in the preparation of Local Hazard Mitigation Plans (LHMPs) and General Plan
Safety Element updates. In addition, OES requires all dam owners to develop Emergency Action Plans
(EAPs) for warning, evacuation, and post-flood actions in the event of a dam failure.
As previously stated, the Stevens Creek Reservoir is impounded by the Stevens Creek Dam. This is the only
reservoir in the area that presents a risk to Cupertino of downstream inundation in the event of a dam
failure as the result of an earthquake or other catastrophic event. The DSOD has designated the dam as a
“High Hazard” dam due to its location in a highly seismic environment. Major modifications were made to
the dam and appurtenant structures in 1985 and 1986 to address seismic stability and spillway capacity
issues. The dam inundation zone for Stevens Creek Reservoir is shown in Figure 4.8-5.
In January of 2013, a seismic evaluation of the Stevens Creek Dam was performed by Terra/GeoPentech
(TGP) for SCVWD as a requirement of the DSOD’s 2008 Phase III screening process of State dams located
in highly seismic environments. The 2013 seismic evaluation indicated that the dam is seismically sound.
However, the SCVWD has decided to evaluate and implement remedial measures that may include
treatment at the toe of the dam to mitigate the potential for piping and/or uplift due to cracking and/or
replacement or treatment of the alluvium in the area near the toe of the dam to reduce seismic deformations
and eliminate the cracking concern.34
31 California Emergency Management Agency (CalEMA), 2010. State of California Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan.
32 Santa Clara County, 2011. Santa Clara County Hazard Mitigation Plan.
33 CalEMA, 2010. State of California Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan.
34 TERRA/GeoPentech, 2013. Seismic Stability Evaluations of Chesbro, Lenihan, Stevens Creek, and Uvas Dams (SSE2). Stevens Creek Dam.
Compilation Report. Prepared for Santa Clara Valley Water District. January 2013.
City of Sunnyvale
%&'(280
|ÿ85
City of San Jose
City of
Santa Clara
Santa Clara
County
City of
Los Altos
City of Saratoga
S
B
L
A
N
E
Y
A
V
E
N
B
L
A
N
E
Y
A
V
E
B O L LI N G E R RD
N
S
T
E
L
L
I
N
G
R
D
B
U
B
B
R
D
N
TANTAU
AVE
S
D
E
A
N
Z
A
B
L
V
D
BL
A
N
E
Y
A
V
E
FO
O
T
H
I
L
L
B
L
V
D
N
FOOTHILL
BLVD
RAINBOW DR
S
STE
L
LI
N
G
R
D
HOMESTEAD RD
PR U N ERIDGE AVE
MI
L
L
E
R
A
V
E
STEVENS CREEK BLVD
S
TANTAU
AVE
G
R
A
N
T
R
D
N
D
E
A
N
Z
A
B
L
V
D
P RO SP E C T RD
MCCLELLAN RD
N
W
O
L
F
E
R
D
S
W
O
L
F
E
R
D
HE NEYC R EEK
PERMANENTEC
R
EE
K
REGNARTCREEK
STEVENSCREEK
PROSP E C T CRE EK
SA R ATOGACREEK
CALABAZASCREEK
STE
V
E
N
S
C
R
E
E
K
SAN TOMAS AQUINO CREEK
Dam Inundation ZoneCreeksProject ComponentsCity Boundary
Figure 4.8-5Dam Inundation
Source: City of Cupertino, 2013; MIG, Inc, 2014; Office of Emergency Services, 2000; PlaceWorks, 2014.
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITYCITY OF CUPERTINOGENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING PROJECT
0 0.5 10.25
Miles
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
HYDROLOGY & WATER QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 4.8-27
Seiche, Tsunami, and Mudflows
Tsunami
A tsunami is a series of traveling ocean waves generated by a rare, catastrophic event, including earthquakes,
submarine landslides, and volcanic eruptions. Tsunamis can travel over the ocean surface at speeds of 400 to
500 miles per hour (mph) or more, and wave heights at the shore can range from inches to an excess of 50
feet. Factors influencing the size and speed of a tsunami include the source and magnitude of the triggering
event, as well as offshore and onshore topography. The City of Cupertino is more than eight miles south of
San Francisco Bay and is more than 100 feet above msl, which places the city at a distance that is considered
too far to be affected by a tsunami.35
Seiche
A seiche is an oscillation wave generated in a closed or partially closed body of water, which can be
compared to the back-and-forth sloshing in a bathtub. Seiches can be caused by winds, changes in
atmospheric pressure, underwater earthquakes, tsunamis, or landslides into the water body. Bodies of water
such as bays, harbors, reservoirs, ponds, and swimming ponds can experience seiche waves up to several
feet in height during a strong earthquake. There are no large bodies of water within the City of Cupertino.
The city is located just north of Stevens Creek Reservoir. A seiche could theoretically occur in this reservoir
as the result of an earthquake or other disturbance, but the flooding impact would less than that of the dam
inundation zone.
Mudflow
Mud and debris flows are mass movements of dirt and debris that occur after intense rainfall, earthquakes,
and severe wildfires. The speed of a slide depends on the amount of precipitation, steepness of the slope, and
alternate freezing and thawing of the ground. According to the Association of Bay Area Governments
(ABAG) map of rainfall-induced landslides, there are areas in the southern tip of Cupertino and
mountainous southwest portion of Cupertino that are likely to produce debris flows.36 Most of these areas
are either open space or have very few houses.
4.8.2 THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
According to Appendix G, Environmental Checklist, of the CEQA Guidelines, the proposed Project would
result in a significant hydrology and water quality impact if it would:
1. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements.
35 Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), 2014. Interactive Tsunami Inundation Map. http://gis.abag.ca.gov/website/
Tsunami/index.html accessed April 5, 2014.
36 Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), 2014. Interactive Rainfall-Induced Landslides Map. http://gis.abag.ca.gov/website/
LandslideDistribution/index.html accessed April 5, 2014.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
HYDROLOGY & WATER QUALITY
4.8-28 JUNE 18, 2014
2. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such
that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level
(the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level that would not support existing
land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted).
3. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of
the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion, siltation, or
flooding on- or off-site.
4. Create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water
drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff.
5. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality.
6. Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or
Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map or place structures that would impede
or redirect flood flows within a 100-year flood hazard area.
7. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including
flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam.
8. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow.
4.8.3 IMPACT DISCUSSION
This section analyzes potential Project and cumulative impacts to hydrology and water quality. If a Project
component or site is not mentioned in the impact discussions provided below, that means there would no
impact related to that component or site.
HYDRO-1 Implementation of the proposed Project would not violate any water
quality standards or waste discharge requirements.
Development or redevelopment that could occur under the proposed Project could affect drainage patterns
and increase the overall amount of impervious surfaces, thus creating changes to storm water flows and
water quality. Increasing the total area of impervious surfaces can result in a greater potential to introduce
pollutants to receiving waters. Urban runoff can carry a variety of pollutants such as oil and grease, metals,
sediments and pesticide residues from roadways, parking lots, rooftops, and landscaped areas and deposit
them into an adjacent waterway via the storm drain system. New construction could also result in the
degradation of water quality with the clearing and grading of sites, releasing sediment, oil and greases, and
other chemicals to nearby water bodies. However, future development permitted by the proposed Project
would be located on underutilized, infill sites, all of which have already been developed and currently have a
high percentage of impervious surfaces.
As discussed in Section 4.8.1.1, Regulatory Framework, water quality in storm water runoff is regulated
locally by the SCVURPPP, which includes provision C.3 of the MRP adopted by the San Francisco Bay
RWQCB.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
HYDROLOGY & WATER QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 4.8-29
Adherence to these permit conditions requires new development or redevelopment projects to incorporate
treatment measures, an agreement to maintain them, and other appropriate source control and site design
features that reduce pollutants in runoff to the maximum extent practicable. Many of the requirements
involve low impact development (LID) practices such as the use of onsite infiltration that reduce pollutant
loading. Incorporation of these measures can even improve on existing conditions.
In addition, future development would be required to comply with the NPDES Permit (Municipal Code
Chapter 9.18, Stormwater Pollution Prevention and Watershed Protection) and implement a construction
SWPPP that require the incorporation of BMPs to control sedimentation, erosion, and hazardous materials
contamination of runoff during construction.
The General Plan includes policies and strategies that, once adopted, would protect water quality and
reduce potential impacts to water quality as a result of implementation of potential future development in
the city. Policy 5-18, Natural Water Bodies and Drainage Systems, would direct the City to require that site
design respect the natural topography and drainages to the extent practicable to reduce the amount of
grading necessary and limit disturbance to natural water bodies and natural drainage systems caused by
development including roads, highways and bridges. The supporting Strategy would require the City to
encourage volunteer organizations to help restore and clean creek beds in Cupertino to reduce pollution
and help return waterways to their natural state. Policy 5-19, Reduction of Impervious Surfaces, would
require the City to minimize storm water flow and erosion impacts resulting from development. Strategy 1
would require the City to change its codes to include a formula regulating how much paved surface is
allowable on each lot. This would include driveways and patios installed at the time of building or
remodeling. Strategy 2 would require the City to encourage the use of non-impervious materials for
walkways and driveways. If used in a City or quasi-public area, mobility and access for the disabled should
always take precedent. Strategy 3 would require the City to minimize impervious surface areas, minimizing
directly connected impervious surfaces, maximizing onsite infiltration and using on-site retaining facilities.
Policy 5-20, Pollution and Flow Impacts, states that the City must, prior to making land use decisions,
estimate increases in pollutant loads and flows resulting from projected future development to avoid surface
and groundwater quality impacts. Strategy 1, Best Management Practices, would require incorporation of
structural and non-structural Best Management Practices (BMPs) to mitigate the projected increases in
pollutant loads and flows. Policy 5-21, Compact Development Away from Sensitive Areas, would direct the
City that where such measures do not conflict with other municipal purposes or goals, to encourage, via
zoning ordinances, compact development located away from creeks, wetlands, and other sensitive areas.
Policy 5-22, Storm Drainage Management and Conformance with Watershed-Based Planning, would require
the City to encourage development projects to follow watershed-based planning and zoning by examining
the project in the context of the entire watershed area. Strategy 1, Storm Drainage Master Plan, would
require the City to develop and maintain a Storm Drainage Master Plan and work with other agencies to
develop broader Watershed Management Plans to model the City’s hydrology. The Storm Drainage Master
Plan should identify facilities needed to prevent “10-year” event street flooding and “100-year” event
structure flooding. Also identify opportunities to meet water quality protection needs in a cost-effective
manner.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
HYDROLOGY & WATER QUALITY
4.8-30 JUNE 18, 2014
Policy 5-32, Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program, would require the City to support and participate
in the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program (SCVURPPP) in order to work
cooperatively with other cities to improve the quality of storm water runoff discharge into San Francisco
Bay. Strategy 1, Post-Construction Urban Runoff Management, would require the City to implement the
Post-Construction Urban Runoff Management requirements of the City’s Municipal NPDES Permit to
reduce urban runoff from project sites. Strategy 2, Hydromodification Management, would require the City
to implement the Hydromodification Management requirements of the City’s Municipal NPDES Permit to
manage runoff flow and volume from project sites. Policy 5-33, Illicit Discharge into Storm Drains and
Waterways, would require the City to prohibit the discharge of pollutants and the illicit dumping of wastes
into the storm drains, creeks and waterways. The supporting Strategy would require the City to partner
with public, private, and non-profit agencies on public outreach and education on the importance of
responsible storm water management.
Policy 5-34, Storm Water Runoff, would require the City to investigate opportunities to retain or detain
storm runoff on new development. Strategy 1, Treatment of Stormwater Runoff, would require the City to
ensure that private development includes adequate measures to treat stormwaterstorm water runoff and
maximize opportunities to filter, infiltrate, store and reuse or evaporate stormwaterstorm water runoff
onsite. Policy 5-36, Mitigation for Potential Storm Water Impacts, would direct the City to require
mitigation measures for potential storm water pollutant impacts for projects subject to environmental
review. Policy 5-37, Pest-Resistant Landscaping and Design Features, would require the City to encourage
the consideration of pest-resistant landscaping and design features, including the landscaping and design of
storm water detention and retention facilities proposed in development projects. Other design features that
are encouraged include green roofs and onsite treatment of grey water for irrigation.
While implementation of the proposed Project would permit new office, commercial and hotel
development, and new housing units to meet projected housing demands, as described above, and the
current and proposed General Plan policies would prevent violation of water quality standards. Therefore,
implementation of this alternative would have a less-than-significant impact on water quality.
Significance Without Mitigation: Less than significant.
HYDRO-2 Implementation of the proposed Project would not substantially deplete
groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge
such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of
the local groundwater table level (e.g. the production rate of pre-existing
nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land
uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted).
Planned future development for the proposed Project could result in an increase in impervious surfaces,
which would reduce infiltration and could lead to reduced groundwater recharge. However, as previously
described, future development permitted by the proposed Project would be located on underutilized, infill
sites, most of which have already been developed and currently have a high percentage of impervious
surfaces. The Applicants for new development and redevelopment would be encouraged to implement site
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
HYDROLOGY & WATER QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 4.8-31
design measures, LID, and BMPs, including infiltration features that will contribute to groundwater
recharge and minimize storm water runoff. As discussed in Impact HYDRO-1, General Plan Policy 5-19,
Reduction of Impervious Surfaces, would require the City to minimize impervious surface areas, minimize
directly connected impervious surfaces, maximize onsite infiltration and using on-site retaining facilities
amongst other strategies. In addition, given the Project Component locations, future development would
not interfere with groundwater recharge that takes place in the McClellan Ponds recharge facility located
within the City of Cupertino or the creeks and streams that run through the city.
While buildout of the proposed Project could lead to an increased demand for water, which could lead to an
increase in groundwater pumping, water supply impacts are discussed in Chapter 4.14, Utilities and Service
Systems, of this Draft EIR. As discussed in Chapter 4.14, water retailers for the City of Cupertino obtain
their water from groundwater wells and purchases from SCVWD. The SCVWD’s 2010 UWMP indicates
that there is a sufficient supply of water through 2035 even for multiple dry years.37 In addition, the
SCVWD operates and maintains an active groundwater recharge program with 18 major recharge systems,
over 70 off-stream ponds with a combined surface area of more than 320 acres, and over 30 local creeks.
Runoff is captured in the SCVWD’s reservoirs and released into both in-stream and off-stream recharge
ponds for percolation into the groundwater basin. In addition, imported water is delivered by the raw water
conveyance system to streams and ponds.38
The use of site design features required by provision C.3 of the MRP and compliance with the City of
Cupertino General Plan policies listed in Impact HYDRO-1 would reduce the impact of increased
impervious surfaces on groundwater recharge. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would
have a less-than-significant impact with respect to groundwater supplies or groundwater recharge.
Significance Without Mitigation: Less than significant.
HYDRO-3 Implementation of the proposed Project would not substantially alter the
existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner that would result
in substantial erosion, siltation, or flooding on- or off-site.
Development within the proposed Project and the change in land uses will result in an increase in
impervious surfaces. This could result in an increase in stormwater runoff, higher peak discharges to
drainage channels, and the potential to cause erosion or sedimentation in drainage swales and streams.
Increased runoff volumes and velocities could create nuisance flooding in areas without adequate drainage
facilities. However, none of the future development would require alteration of the course of an existing
stream. Most of the future development sites are in infill areas that are already developed or paved and new
development on these sites should not create a substantial increase in the amount of impervious surfaces.
37 Santa Clara Valley Water District, 2010. Urban Water Management Plan.
38 Santa Clara Valley Water District, 2010. Urban Water Management Plan.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
HYDROLOGY & WATER QUALITY
4.8-32 JUNE 18, 2014
All new development and redevelopment projects will be required, pursuant to the SCVURPPP and MRP,
to implement construction phase BMPs, post-construction design measures that encourage maximize
infiltration in pervious areas, and post-construction source control measures to help keep pollutants out of
storm water. In addition, post-construction storm water treatment measures are required for most projects
with 10,000 square feet or more of impervious surface and post-construction storm water quantity (flow
peak, volume, and duration) controls are required for projects in certain locations with one acre or more of
impervious surface, in accordance with Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program’s
HMP. This would minimize the amount of storm water runoff from new development and redevelopment
sites within the city.
During construction, project applicants are subject to the NPDES construction permit requirements,
including preparation of a SWPPP. In addition, the City’s Municipal Code (Section 16.08.110, Interim
Erosion and Sediment Control Plan) requires preparation of an Interim Erosion and Sediment Control Plan,
either integrated with the site map/grading plan or submitted separately, that calculates the maximum
runoff from the site for the 10-year storm event and describes measures to be undertaken to retain
sediment on the site, a brief description of the surface runoff and erosion control measures to be
implemented, and vegetative measures to be undertaken. These control measures would further reduce the
potential for substantial erosion or siltation and would ensure that runoff from the site is protective of the
beneficial uses of receiving waters. Once constructed, the requirements for new development or
redevelopment would include source control measures and site design measures that address storm water
runoff and would reduce the potential for erosion or siltation.
In addition, Provisions C.3 of the MRP require new development and redevelopment projects, meeting
certain criteria, to implement storm water treatment measures to contain site runoff, using specific
numeric sizing criteria based on volume and flow rate. For hydromodification projects, post-project runoff
shall not exceed estimated pre-project rates and durations where the increased storm water discharge rates
and durations would result in increased potential for erosion.39
The General Plan includes policies and strategies that would further prevent soil erosion and reduce impacts
to water quality. Within the Environmental Resources Element, Policy 5-10, Landscaping Near Natural
Vegetation, per the City’s Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinance, Environmentally Preferable Procurement
Policy, and the Parks & Recreation Green Policies, would require the City to continue to emphasize drought
tolerant and pest-resistant native and non-invasive, non-native, drought tolerant plants and ground covers
when landscaping public and private properties near natural vegetation, particularly for control of erosion
from disturbance to the natural terrain. Policy 5-19, Reduction of Impervious Surfaces, discussed above,
would require the City to minimize storm water flow and erosion impacts resulting from development.
Policy 5-20, Pollution and Flow Impacts, states that the City, prior to making land use decisions, estimate
increases in pollutant loads and flows resulting from projected future development to avoid surface and
groundwater quality impacts. Strategy 1, Best Management Practices, would require incorporation of
structural and non-structural Best Management Practices (BMPs) to mitigate the projected increases in
39 Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program, 2014. http://www.scvurppp-w2k.com/nd_wp.shtml#
other accessed on May 3, 2014.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
HYDROLOGY & WATER QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 4.8-33
pollutant loads and flows. Policy 5-32, Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program, would require the City
to support and participate in the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program
(SCVURPPP) in order to work cooperatively with other cities to improve the quality of storm water runoff
discharge into San Francisco Bay. Strategy 1, Post-Construction Urban Runoff Management, would require
the City to implement the Post-Construction Urban Runoff Management requirements of the City’s
Municipal NPDES Permit to reduce urban runoff from project sites. Strategy 2, Hydromodification
Management, would require the City to implement the Hydromodification Management requirements of
the City’s Municipal NPDES Permit to manage runoff flow and volume from project sites.
In addition, within the Health and Safety Element, Policy 6-47, Hillside Grading, would require the City to
restrict the extent and timing of hillside grading operation to April through October. Require performance
bonds during the remaining time to guarantee the repair of any erosion damage. All graded slopes must be
planted as soon as practical after grading is complete. Within the Environmental Resources Element, Policy
5-22, Storm Drainage Management and Conformance with Watershed-Based Planning, would require the
City to encourage development projects to follow watershed-based planning and zoning by examining the
project in the context of the entire watershed area. Policy 5-23, Ground Water Recharge Sites, would
incorporate proposed Strategy 1, which would direct the City to implement the Post-Construction Urban
Runoff Management requirements of the City’s Municipal NPDES Permit to reduce urban runoff from
project sites, and Strategy 2, which would direct the City to implement the Hydromodification
Management requirements of the City’s Municipal NPDES Permit to manage runoff flow and volume from
project sites. Policy 5-34, Storm Water Runoff, would include a new strategy that would direct the City to
“ensure that private development includes adequate measures to treat stormwater runoff,” and to “maximize
opportunities to filter, infiltrate, store and reuse or evaporate stormwater runoff onsite.” Proposed Policy 5-
49 would direct the City to maintain storm drainage infrastructure to reduce flood hazards and meet the
needs of 10-year storm events, with developers contributing as necessary to the creation of those systems.
This policy would serve to prevent flooding both in general and a result of development on individual sites.
As individual flood control or stormwater system projects are proposed, such projects would undergo
project-level environmental review that would evaluate and address potential adverse physical effects. By
encouraging improved stormwater drainage, management, and retention, these policies would serve to
prevent or reduce unmanaged runoff that could result in erosion, siltation, or flooding.
With implementation of the erosion and sediment control measures and regulatory provisions to limit
runoff for new development and redevelopment sites, and implementation of the General Plan policies and
strategies, the proposed Project would not result in significant increases in erosion and sedimentation or
contribute to on-site or off-site flooding. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would have a
less-than-significant impact with respect to drainage patterns.
Significance Without Mitigation: Less than significant.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
HYDROLOGY & WATER QUALITY
4.8-34 JUNE 18, 2014
HYDRO-4 Implementation of the proposed Project would not create or contribute
runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm
water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff.
As discussed previously, an increase in impervious surfaces with implementation of the proposed Project
could result in an increase in storm water runoff that could exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm
water drainage systems. Under existing conditions, portions of the City’s storm drainage systems are not
capable of containing the runoff from 10-year storm events.40 As shown in Table 4.8-3 there are existing
deficiencies in the Project Component locations that could be exacerbated by potential future development
under the proposed Project.
In accordance with established City and County requirements, new development and redevelopment
projects must be designed such that the storm water runoff generated from the 10-year storm is conveyed in
the storm drainage system (underground pipes or open channels) and the storm water runoff generated
from the 100-year design storm must be safely conveyed away from the site without creating and/or
contributing to downstream or upstream flooding conditions.41 In addition, the City of Cupertino requires
that post-project storm water runoff rates be less than or equal to pre-project values for projects subject to
hydromodification requirements and where storm drain facilities are at or have exceeded system
capacities.42 Therefore, future development associated with the proposed Project would not be expected to
result in downstream flooding but could exacerbate existing conditions of the storm drain system, which is
undersized to convey the 10-year storm event at some locations.
New development and redevelopment within the city would not create substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff. During the construction phase, projects would be required to prepare SWPPPs and erosion
and sediment control plans, thus limiting the discharge of pollutants from the site. During operation,
projects must implement BMPs and LID measures that minimize the amount of storm water runoff and
associated pollutants. Additionally, new development or redevelopment projects would be required to pay
storm drainage fees pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 12-033to support expansion and
improvements to the existing storm drain system. Also, as discussed in Impact HYDRO-1 and HYDRO-3,
the General Plan includes polices and strategies that require the City to minimize storm water flow and
erosion impacts resulting from development, Support and participate in the SCVURPPP, implement the
Post-Construction Urban Runoff Management requirement of the City’s Municipal NPDES Permit to
reduce urban runoff from project sites, require mitigation measures for potential storm water pollutant
impacts for projects subject to environmental review, and encourage the consideration of design features,
including the landscaping and design of storm water detention and retention facilities proposed in
development projects. Specifically, Policy 5-22, Storm Drainage Management and Conformance with
Watershed-Based Planning, would encourage development projects to follow watershed-based planning and
zoning by examining the project in the context of the entire watershed area. By encouraging improved
40 City of Cupertino, 1993. Storm Drain Master Plan.
41 Santa Clara County, 2007. Drainage Manual. Adopted August 14, 2007.
42 Verbal communication with Fletcher Parsons, BKF and Chad Mosley, City of Cupertino, March 19, 2014.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
HYDROLOGY & WATER QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 4.8-35
stormwater drainage, including project-practices to prevent runoff, this policy would serve to deploy
strategies to decrease runoff and prevent increases to stormwater entering the drainage system.
Within the Environmental Resources Element, Policy 5-22, Storm Drainage Management and Conformance
with Watershed-Based Planning, would encourage development projects to follow watershed-based planning
and zoning by examining the project in the context of the entire watershed area. Policy 5-32, Urban Runoff
Pollution Prevention Program, would require the City to support and participate in the Santa Clara Valley
Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program (SCVURPPP) in order to work cooperatively with other cities
to improve the quality of storm water runoff discharge into San Francisco Bay. Strategy 1, Post-
Construction Urban Runoff Management, would require the City to implement the Post-Construction
Urban Runoff Management requirements of the City’s Municipal NPDES Permit to reduce urban runoff
from project sites. Strategy 2, Hydromodification Management, would require the City to implement the
Hydromodification Management requirements of the City’s Municipal NPDES Permit to manage runoff
flow and volume from project sites. Policy 5-34, Storm Water Runoff, includes a new strategy that would
direct the City to “ensure that private development includes adequate measures to treat stormwater runoff,”
and to “maximize opportunities to filter, infiltrate, store and reuse or evaporate stormwater runoff onsite.”
By encouraging improved stormwater drainage, management, and retention, these policies would serve to
prevent or reduce unmanaged runoff that could exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water
drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff.
Implementation of General Plan policies and strategies aimed at reducing storm water and compliance with
the mandatory regulation outlined in this discussion, once adopted, would ensure development consistent
with this Alternative would not require significant expansions of the existing storm water drainage
infrastructure Therefore, impacts associated with future development runoff would be less than
significant.
Significance Without Mitigation: Less than significant.
HYDRO-5 Implementation of the proposed Project would not otherwise substantially
degrade water quality.
Increased runoff from the construction of impermeable surfaces as the Project Component locations are
developed could worsen water quality in the storm water runoff. Pollutants commonly associated with
construction sites that can impact storm water are sediments, nutrients, trace metals, pesticides, oil, grease,
fuels, and miscellaneous construction wastes. Pollutants generated from the proposed land uses of the
Project Study Area may include sediment, nutrients, bacteria and viruses, oil and grease, metals, organics,
pesticides/herbicides, and trash/debris.
As required by City and County storm water management guidelines, BMPs would be implemented during
both construction and operation of the proposed project. These BMPs would control and prevent the release
of sediment, debris, and other pollutants into receiving water bodies. Implementation of BMPs during
construction would be in accordance with the provisions of the SWPPP, which would minimize the release
of sediment, soil, and other pollutants. Operational BMPs would be required to meet MRP requirements,
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
HYDROLOGY & WATER QUALITY
4.8-36 JUNE 18, 2014
which include site design, source control, and treatment control measures to treat and control runoff before
it enters the storm drain system or receiving water bodies.
Additionally, implementation of Policy 5-22 Storm Drainage Management and Conformance with
Watershed-Based Planning would direct the City to “identify opportunities to meet water quality protection
needs in a cost-effective manner,” which would also serve to prevent degradation of water quality. Policy 5-
22, Storm Drainage Management and Conformance with Watershed-Based Planning, would encourage
development projects to follow watershed-based planning and zoning by examining the project in the
context of the entire watershed area. Policy 5-32, Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program, would
require the City to support and participate in the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention
Program (SCVURPPP) in order to work cooperatively with other cities to improve the quality of storm
water runoff discharge into San Francisco Bay. Strategy 1, Post-Construction Urban Runoff Management,
would require the City to implement the Post-Construction Urban Runoff Management requirements of the
City’s Municipal NPDES Permit to reduce urban runoff from project sites. Strategy 2, Hydromodification
Management, would require the City to implement the Hydromodification Management requirements of
the City’s Municipal NPDES Permit to manage runoff flow and volume from project sites. Policy 5-34,
Storm Water Runoff, would include a new strategy that would direct the City to “ensure that private
development includes adequate measures to treat stormwater runoff,” and to “maximize opportunities to
filter, infiltrate, store and reuse or evaporate stormwater runoff onsite.” By encouraging improved
stormwater drainage, management, and retention, these policies would serve to prevent or reduce
unmanaged runoff that could substantially degrade water quality.
With implementation of these BMPs in accordance with City and County requirements, and
implementation of General Plan policies the potential impact on water quality would be less than
significant.
Significance Without Mitigation: Less than significant.
HYDRO-6 Implementation of the proposed Project would not place housing within a
100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary
or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map or
place structures that would impede or redirect flood flows within a 100-
year flood hazard area.
Implementation of the proposed Project would not result in the development of residential structures in
existing FEMA-designated 100-year floodplains or Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs). As shown on Figure
4.8-4, the areas within Cupertino and the SOI that are within the 100-year floodplain are limited and are
areas located immediately adjacent to creeks and drainage channels that travel through the city. The Project
Components locations relative to the 100-year floodplains are shown on Figure 4.8-4.
Regnart Creek and Calabasas Creek and their associated 100-year floodplains pass through portions of the
South De Anza and the Heart of the City Special Areas, which are proposed to include new housing and/or
new development. However, the FEMA floodplain maps state that the 100-year flood would be contained
within the channels of these creeks Calabasas Creek and its associated 100-year floodplain also passes
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
HYDROLOGY & WATER QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 4.8-37
through the North Vallco Park Special Area. However, no new housing is proposed in the portion of the
North Vallco Park Special Area where the 100-year floodplain is located. General Plan and Zoning
Ordinance Conformance Sites 39, 44, and 45 are also in areas mapped as including the 100-foot-wide 100-
year floodplain. However, these sites are proposed to be rezoned as PR (park and recreation) so no new
housing or structures would be located in these areas.
As described in Section 4.8.1.2, Existing Conditions, under the subheading “Waterways,” the creeks that run
through Cupertino pose little threat of flooding as a result of effort by the City and SCVWD to modify,
restore and improve the flow channels and implement erosion control measures to reduce impacts from
flooding.
The General Plan includes policies and strategies that, once adopted, would ensure potential impacts from
flooding would not occur with the implementation of potential future development. In addition, the City of
Cupertino has adopted local standards for construction in floodplain areas,43 and together with Santa Clara
County, there are restrictions on construction within 50 feet of a stream, which includes most of the
designated 100-year floodplains within the city.44 If future development were to be constructed within the
100-year flood zone, it would require the placement of fill to elevate structures above the 100-year
floodplain elevation. In order for the development to be considered outside of the floodplain and no longer
subject to special flood hazard requirements, the applicant would have to submit an application to FEMA for
a Letter of Map Revision – Fill (LOMR-F) after the fill has been placed. After FEMA has revised the FIRM
to show that the future development is now outside of the SFHA, the City would no longer be required to
apply the minimum NFIP floodplain management standards to structures built on the land and the
mandatory flood insurance requirements would no longer apply. However, as part of its floodplain
management strategy, to reduce possible loss of life and property in the event of a flood, the City would
encourage compliance with as many of the standards as financially feasible.
Construction within SFHAs is governed by the City’s Municipal Code Chapter 16.52 (Prevention of Flood
Damage), Section 16.52.040 (General Standards), which sets forth construction requirements for
development that would minimize flood hazard risks, including anchoring and flood-proofing; limitations on
use for structures below the base flood elevation; use of materials and utility equipment resistant to flood
damage; the requirement that electrical, heating, ventilation, plumbing, and air conditioning equipment and
other service facilities be designed and/or located to prevent water from entering or accumulating within
the components during flood conditions; and the requirement that all new and replacement water supply
and sanitary sewage systems be designed to minimize or eliminate infiltration of floodwaters into the system
and discharge from systems into floodwaters.
The General Plan includes policies and strategies that, once adopted, would minimize impacts from
flooding. Within the Land Use/Community Design Element, Policy 5-49 would require the City to maintain
storm drainage infrastructure to reduce flood hazards and meet the needs of 10-year storm events, with
developers contributing as necessary to the creation of those systems. This policy would serve to prevent
43 City of Cupertino, Municipal Code Chapter 16.52, Prevention of Flood Damage.
44 City of Cupertino, Municipal Code, Chapter 9.19, Water Resource Protection.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
HYDROLOGY & WATER QUALITY
4.8-38 JUNE 18, 2014
flooding both in general as a result of development on individual sites. Under this policy, the City would
plan for potential infrastructure specifically designed to mitigate flood flows, including within the 100-year
floodplain. As individual flood control or stormwater system projects are proposed, such projects would
undergo project-level environmental review that would evaluate and address potential adverse physical
effects. Additionally, within the Health and Safety Element, Policy 6-35 would require the City to protect
itself from sea level rise. Strategy 1 under this policy would direct the City to coordinate with other
agencies to evaluate the potential effects of ongoing sea level rise in order to determine appropriate actions,
and Strategy 2 would require the City to maintain up-to-date flood insurance maps to identify the effects of
rising sea levels. This strategy would serve to prevent impacts of increased future flooding due to rising sea
levels.
Because the proposed Project would not include the placement of housing within the 100-year floodplain,
would include planning for management of flood flows, and would require any new construction to comply
with General Plan policies, the City Municipal Code, and Santa Clara County water course protection
requirements, which limit construction within 50 feet of a stream, the potential for flood hazards would be
reduced to less-than-significant levels.
Significance Without Mitigation: Less than significant.
HYDRO-7 Implementation of the proposed Project would not expose people or
structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding,
including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam.
According to mapping compiled by ABAG and OES,45 as shown on Figure 4.8-5, portions of Cupertino are
within the Stevens Creek Reservoir inundation zone. Specific areas of planned development within the city
that could be impacted with flooding in the unlikely event that the dam failed include the Homestead Special
Area, North Vallco Park Special Area, Study Areas 1 (Cupertino Inn and Goodyear Tire), 3 (PG&E), 4
(Mirapath), and 5 (Cupertino Village), Housing Element Sites 10 (The Hamptons), 12 (Homestead Lanes
and Adjacency), and 17 (Homestead Road – IntraHealth/Office/Tennis Courts), portions of Monta Vista
Village Neighborhood and Vallco Park North Special Center; and Other Commercial Center Sites 3, 6, and
7. Dam inundation zones are based on the highly unlikely scenario of a total catastrophic dam failure
occurring in a very short period of time. Existing state and local regulations address the potential for flood
hazards as a result of dam failure. The Stevens Creek Reservoir is under the jurisdiction of the California
Department of Water Resources DSOD, which conducts annual inspections and reviews all aspects of dam
safety. The dam has been assessed for seismic stability and will withstand the maximum credible earthquake.
The SCVWD is also planning to implement additional remedial measures to assure the continued safe
operation of the dam. Dam owners are also required to maintain EAPs that include procedures for damage
assessment and emergency warnings. In addition, the City of Cupertino in conjunction with Santa Clara
45 Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), 2003. Dam Inundation Hazard Map for Cupertino. www.abag.ca.gov/cgi-
bin/pickdamx.pl accessed April 9, 2014.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
HYDROLOGY & WATER QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 4.8-39
County addresses the possibility of dam failure in the LHMP, which also provides emergency response
actions.
The probability of dam failure is extremely low and the City of Cupertino and Santa Clara County have
never been impacted by a major dam failure. Furthermore, the General Plan includes policies and strategies,
aimed at reducing impacts from dam failure. Within the Health and Safety Element, Policy 6-43, Emergency
Response to Dam Failure, would require the City to ensure that Cupertino is prepared to respond to a
potential dam failure. Strategy 1, Emergency and Evacuation Plan, would require the City to maintain a dam
emergency and evacuation plan. Strategy 2, Emergency Response to Dam Failure, would require the City to
continue to coordinate dam-related evacuation plans with the City of Sunnyvale to ensure that traffic
management between the two cities facilitates life safety.
Proposed Policy 5-49 would require the City to maintain storm drainage infrastructure to reduce flood
hazards and meet the needs of 10-year storm events, with developers contributing as necessary to the
creation of those systems. This policy serves to prevent flooding both in general and a result of development
on individual sites. Under this policy, the City would plan for potential infrastructure specifically designed
to mitigate flood flows, including those that could threaten life or property. As individual flood control or
stormwater system projects are proposed, such projects would undergo project-level environmental review
that would evaluate and address potential adverse physical effects.
Proposed Policy 6-1 would require the City to coordinate with Santa Clara County and local agencies to
implement the Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP). Strategies under this policy
would require the City to monitor the program and evaluate its success, to ensure that mitigations from the
LHMP are integrated into individual projects, and to support Santa Clara County in its efforts as lead
agency for the LHMP. This policy would serve to ensure that the City acts to reduce risks from flooding that
could threaten lives or property. Additionally, proposed Policy 6-35 would direct the City to protect itself
from sea level rise. Strategy 1 under this policy would require the City to coordinate with other agencies to
evaluate the potential effects of ongoing sea level rise in order to determine appropriate actions, and
Strategy 2 would direct the City to maintain up-to-date flood insurance maps to identify the effects of rising
sea levels. This strategy serves to prevent impacts of increased future flooding due to rising sea levels.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
HYDROLOGY & WATER QUALITY
4.8-40 JUNE 18, 2014
Therefore, implementation of these policies and strategies, adherence to the Joint Stevens Creek Dam
Failure Plan together with the very low probability of dam failure and that the dam has been assessed for
seismic stability and will withstand the maximum credible earthquake, implementation of the proposed
Project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death in the case of dam
failure and impacts are considered to be less than significant.
Significance Without Mitigation: Less than significant.
HYDRO-8 Implementation of the proposed Project would not be impacted by
inundation as a result of a seiche, tsunami, or mudflow.
Because the City of Cupertino is more than 8 miles south of San Francisco Bay and is more than 100 feet
above msl, there is no potential for a tsunami to impact the Project Study Area.46 There are no large bodies
of water within the City of Cupertino that could generate seiches, but the City is located just north of
Stevens Creek Reservoir. A seiche could theoretically occur in this reservoir as the result of an earthquake
or other disturbance, but the flooding impact would less than that of the dam inundation zone. Although
limited portions of the southern tip of Cupertino are within areas that could result in landslides and debris
flows, these areas are primarily open space or very low-density hillside homes. None of the Project
Component locations are within ABAG mapped rainfall-induced landslide or earthquake-induced landslide
zones. Therefore, impacts due to seiches, tsunamis, or mudflows would be less than significant.
Significance Without Mitigation: Less than significant.
HYDRO-9 Implementation of the proposed Project, in combination with past, present,
and reasonably foreseeable projects, would result in less than significant
cumulative impacts with respect to water quality.
As discussed in Chapter 4, Environmental Evaluation, of this Draft EIR, this EIR takes into account growth
projected by the proposed Project within the Cupertino city boundary and SOI, in combination with
impacts from projected growth in the rest of Santa Clara County and the surrounding region, as forecast by
the ABAG. The geographic context used for the cumulative assessment of water quality and hydrology
impacts encompasses the six watersheds, which encompass the City of Cupertino. Cumulative impacts can
occur when impacts that are significant or less than significant from a proposed project combine with similar
impacts from other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable projects in a similar geographic area.
As discussed previously, development of the proposed Project would require conformance with State and
local policies that would reduce hydrology and water quality impacts to less-than-significant levels. When
applicable, any additional new development within the city would be subject, on a project-by-project basis,
to independent CEQA review as well as policies in the Cupertino General Plan, design guidelines, zoning
46 Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), 2014. Interactive Tsunami Inundation Map. http://gis.abag.ca.gov/
website/Tsunami/index.html accessed April 5, 2014.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
HYDROLOGY & WATER QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 4.8-41
codes, and other applicable City requirements that reduce impacts related to hydrology and water quality.
More specifically, potential changes related to storm water quality, storm water flows, drainage, impervious
surfaces, and flooding would be minimized by the implementation of storm water control measures,
retention, infiltration, and LID measures, and review by the City’s Public Works Department to integrate
measures to reduce potential flooding impacts.
All cumulative projects would be subject to similar permit requirements and would be required to comply
with City ordinances and General Plan policies, as well as numerous water quality regulations that control
construction related and operational discharge of pollutants in storm water. The water quality regulations
implemented by the San Francisco Bay RWQCB take a basin-wide approach and consider water quality
impairment in a regional context. For example, the NPDES Construction Permit ties receiving water
limitations and basin plan objectives to terms and conditions of the permit, and the MS4 Permit works with
all municipalities to manage storm water systems to be collectively protective of water quality. For these
reasons, impacts of the proposed Project on hydrology and water quality are not cumulatively considerable
and the cumulative impact would be less than significant.
Significance Without Mitigation: Less than significant.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
HYDROLOGY & WATER QUALITY
4.8-42 JUNE 18, 2014
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
LAND USE & PLANNING
PLACEWORKS 4.9-1
4.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING
This chapter describes the existing land use character of the Project Study Area and evaluates the potential
land use and policy consistency impacts of future development that could occur by adopting and
implementing the proposed Project. A summary of the relevant regulatory setting and existing conditions is
followed by a discussion of proposed Project impacts and cumulative impacts.
4.9.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
4.9.1.1 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
This section summarizes existing State, regional and local agencies, regulations, and plans that pertain to
land use. There are no federal regulations applicable to the proposed Project in this chapter.
State Regulations
California Housing Element Law
California Housing Element Law1 includes provisions related to the requirements for housing elements of
local government General Plans. Among these requirements, some of the necessary parts include an
assessment of housing needs and an inventory of resources and constraints relevant to the meeting of these
needs. Additionally, in order to assure that counties and cities recognize their responsibilities in contributing
to the attainment of the State housing goals, this section of the Government Code calls for local jurisdictions
to plan for, and allow the construction of, a share of the region’s projected housing needs.
Sphere of Influence
The Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 20002 establishes a Local Agency
Formation Commission (LAFCo) in each county in California, and author izes these commissions to review,
approve, or deny proposals for boundary changes and incorporations for cities, counties, and special
districts. The LAFCo establishes a “sphere of influence” (SOI) for cities within their jurisdiction that
describes the city's probable future physical boundaries and service area. The Cupertino SOI is regulated by
the Santa Clara County LAFCo.
Regional Regulations
Association of Bay Area Governments Projections 2013
The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) is the official comprehensive planning agency for the San
Francisco Bay region, which is composed of the nine counties of Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San
Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, and Sonoma, and contains 101 jurisdictions. The ABAG is
1 Government Code Section 65580-65589.8.
2 California Government Code, Section 56000-56001.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
LAND USE & PLANNING
4.9-2 JUNE 18, 2014
responsible for taking the overall regional housing needs allocation provided by the State and preparing a
formula for allocating that housing need by income level across its jurisdiction.3 The ABAG produces growth
forecasts on four-year cycles so that other regional agencies, including the Metropolitan Transportation
Commission (MTC) and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), can use the forecast to
make project funding and regulatory decisions.
The ABAG projections are the basis for the regional Ozone Attainment Plan and Regional Transportation
Plan (RTP), each of which are discussed in Chapters 4.2, Air Quality and 4.13, Transportation and Traffic, of
this Draft EIR. In this way, ABAG projections have practical consequences that shape growth and
environmental quality. The General Plans, zoning regulations and growth management programs of local
jurisdictions inform the ABAG projections. The ABAG projections are also developed to reflect the impact of
“smart growth” policies and incentives that could be used to shift development patterns from historical
trends toward a better jobs-housing balance, increased preservation of open space, and greater development
and redevelopment in urban core and transit-accessible areas throughout the ABAG region.
Regional Housing Needs Allocation
Housing Element law requires local jurisdictions to plan for and allow for the construction of a share of the
region’s projected housing needs. This share is called the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). State
law mandates that each jurisdiction provide sufficient land to accommodate a variety of housing
opportunities for all economic segments of the community to meet or exceed the RHNA. As the regional
planning agency for the Bay Area, ABAG calculates the RHNA for individual jurisdictions within San Clara
County, including Cupertino.
Plan Bay Area, Strategy for a Sustainable Region
The MTC and ABAG’s Plan Bay Area is the Bay Area’s RTP/ Sustainable Community Strategy (SCS). The
Final Plan Bay Area was adopted on July 18, 2013.4 The SCS sets a development pattern for the region,
which, when integrated with the transportation network and other transportation measures and policies,
would reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from transportation (excluding goods movement) beyond
the per capita reduction targets identified by California Air Resources Board (CARB). Implementation of
Plan Bay Area would achieve a 16 percent per capita reduction of GHG emissions by 2035 and a 10 percent
per capita reduction by 2020 from 2005 conditions.5
In 2008, the MTC and ABAG initiated a regional effort (FOCUS) to link local planned development with
regional land use and transportation planning objectives. Through this initiative, local governments
identified Priority Development Areas (PDAs). The PDAs form the implementing framework for Plan Bay
Area. The PDAs are areas along transportation corridors which are served by public transit that allow
opportunities for development of transit-oriented, infill development within existing communities that are
3 ABAG Finance Authority, Affordable Housing Financing. http://www.abag.ca.gov/services/finance/fan/housing.htm, accessed on May
19, 2014.
4 It should be noted that the Bay Area Citizens filed a lawsuit on MTC’s and ABAG’s adoption of Plan Bay Area.
5 Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), 2013, Final Plan Bay Area,
Strategy for a Sustainable Region, page 96.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
LAND USE & PLANNING
PLACEWORKS 4.9-3
expected to host the majority of future development. Overall, well over two-thirds of all regional growth by
2040 is allocated within PDAs. The PDAs throughout the Bay area are expected to accommodate 80 percent
(or over 525,570 units) of new housing and 66 percent (or 744,230) of new jobs.6 The PDAs in Cupertino
are located along Stevens Creek Boulevard between State Route 85 (SR 85) and the City of Sunnyvale and
along De Anza Boulevard between Stevens Creek Boulevard and Interstate 280 (I-280). Figure 4.11-1, in
Chapter 4.11, Population and Housing, of this Draft EIR, illustrates the locations of the PDAs. To read more
about Plan Bay Area: Jobs-Housing Connection Scenario, go to www.OneBayArea.Org.
Habitat Conservation Plan
No adopted plans encompass the proposed Project Component locations. The Santa Clara Valley Habitat
Plan (SCVHP) was prepared by Santa Clara County and a number of participating local agencies (Local
Partners) with the intent of providing a framework to protect, enhance, and restore natural resources in
specific areas of the County, while improving and streamlining the environmental permitting process for
impacts on threatened and endangered species. Participating entities include: the County of Santa Clara,
City of San Jose, City of Morgan Hill, City of Gilroy, Santa Clara Valley Water District, and Santa Clara
Valley Transportation Authority. The City of Cupertino was not a participating Local Partner and the Study
Area and permit area for the SCVHP does not include any of the Project Component locations within the
city boundary, and therefore the properties within the Cupertino city boundary are not covered by the
SCVHP. 7
Airport Land Use Comprehensive Plans
There are no heliports located within the city of Cupertino listed by the Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA).8 The nearest heliport is located approximately 3.4 miles to the east of Cupertino at the County
Medical Center in San Jose. Another nearby heliport is located at McCandless Towers in Sunnyvale, 3.6
miles to the northeast of Cupertino. There are no additional heliports within five miles of Cupertino.9
The City of Cupertino does not host any public or private airports or airstrips. At the nearest points within
city boundaries, Cupertino is located approximately 4.0 miles to the southwest of the San Jose International
Airport. The Santa Clara County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) has adopted a Comprehensive
Land Use Plan (CLUP) for areas surrounding San Jose International Airport. The city is not located within
any protected airspace zones defined by the ALUC.10 Other large airports near Cupertino are located
approximately 4.4 miles to the south of Moffett Federal Airfield, 8.4 miles to the southeast of the Palo Alto
Airport, 24 miles to the southeast of San Francisco International Airport, and 27 miles to the southeast of
Oakland International Airport.11Additional small airports in the vicinity include the San Carlos Airport, at
6 Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), 2013, Final Plan Bay Area,
Strategy for a Sustainable Region.
7 Santa Clara Valley Habitat Conservation Plan, Chapter 1, Introduction, Figure 1-1, Regional Location of the Habitat Plan Study Area.
8 Federal Aviation Administration, 2011, Airport Facilities Data, www.faa.gov/airports/airport_safety/airportdata_5010/, accessed
August 13, 2013.
9 AirNav, http://www.airnav.com/airports/us/CA, accessed on April 12, 2014.
10 Santa Clara County Airport Land-Use Commission, 2011, Comprehensive Land Use Plan, Santa Clara County, Norman Y. Mineta, San Jose
International Airport.
11 AirNav.com, http://www.airnav.com/airports/us/CA, accessed on April 12, 2014.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
LAND USE & PLANNING
4.9-4 JUNE 18, 2014
17 miles away, Hayward Executive Airport, at 23 miles away, and the Half Moon Bay airport, at 26 miles
away.
Local Regulations
City of Cupertino General Plan 2000-2020
The City of Cupertino’s General Plan, adopted by the City Council on November 15, 2005, outlines a
vision of long-range physical and economic development, and resource conservation that reflects the
aspiration of the community. The General Plan establishes specific land uses in order to express the desired
development pattern in the city. Under State law, the City’s General Plan is the primary planning document
and all other City plans and policies must be consistent with the adopted General Plan. The General Plan is a
dynamic document consisting of five elements that establish long-term goals and policies to guide daily
decision-making for the development and conservation in Cupertino through 2020. The elements of the
General Plan include the following:
Section 2 Land Use/Community Design
Section 3 Housing
Section 4 Circulation
Section 5 Environmental Resources/Sustainability
Section 6 Health and Safety
The General Plan was amended in 2009 to allow 483,053 square feet of additional office allocation and to
add the new office allocation to the category of “Major Companies.” The General Plan was amended twice;
first, in April 2010 to incorporate the 2007-2014 Housing Element and the Heart of the City Specific Plan
Policy, and second, in June 2010 to include Historic Preservation Policies and add new properties and
reclassify Historic Properties.
All development in the city must conform to the land use designations outlined in the General Plan. Goals,
policies and strategies contained in the Land Use/Community Design Element of the General Plan provide
guidance on how land use designations should be developed to contribute to the overall character of
Cupertino.
The General Plan provides maximum allowance for commercial, office, hotel rooms, and residential
dwelling units for expected growth at buildout. The maximum square footage allowance at buildout is
approximately 4.4 million square feet; approximately 9.4 million square feet for office, 1,429 hotel rooms,
and 23,294 residential dwelling units.12 The proposed Project would replenish, re-allocate, and increase
citywide office, commercial, hotel, and residential development allocations in order to plan for anticipated
future growth.. While many of the goals and policies in the City’s current General Plan are germane to
current conditions, some do not comply with current State law requirements; therefore, updates to these
policies are required in order to be consistent with the Housing Element and current State law. Accordingly,
under the proposed Project, some General Plan goals, policies and strategies, including those of the Housing
Element, would be amended.
12 City of Cupertino General Plan 2000-2020, Land Use/Community Design Element, 2005, page 2-17.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
LAND USE & PLANNING
PLACEWORKS 4.9-5
As part of the proposed Project, some General Plan policies would be amended. Substantive policy changes
under the proposed Project include the addition, removal, or functional revision (e.g. not purely semantic)
of policies in ways that have the potential to result in a physical impact on the environment. Policies of the
2000-2020 General Plan that are relevant to land use planning and were not substantially changed (e.g.
renumbered or minor text change) are listed below in Table 4.9-1. A comprehensive list of policy changes is
provided in Appendix I, Proposed General Plan Policy Amendments, of this Draft EIR. Discussions of how
substantive policy changes may result in adverse physical changes are included in the analyses under each
impact criterion in Section 4.9.3, Impact Discussion, below. The General Plan is implemented in part by the
City’s Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map. Land use planning is also guided by The Heart of the City Specific
Plan, which provides specific development direction and guides the future development and redevelopment
for the Stevens Creek Boulevard Special Area, which is the main commercial Special Area in the city. The
Heart of the City Specific Plan and Zoning Ordinance are discussed below.
TABLE 4.9‐1 POLICIES AND STRATEGIES OF THE CUPERTINO 2000‐2020 GENERAL PLAN
New Policy
Number
Original Policy
Number Policies and Strategies
Section 2, Land Use/Community Design
Policy 2‐5 Policy 2‐5 Distinct Neighborhoods. Plan for neighborhoods that have distinctive edges, an identifiable
center and safe pedestrian and bicycle access to surrounding uses.
Policy 2‐19 Policy 2‐23 Compatibility of Lot Sizes. Ensure that zoning, subdivision and lot line adjustment requests
related to lot size or lot design consider the need to preserve neighborhood lot patterns.
Strategy 1. Minimum Lot Size. Increase the minimum lot size if the proposed new lot size is
smaller than and not compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.
Strategy 2. Flag Lots. Create flag lots in proposed subdivisions when they are the only
reasonable alternative that integrates with the lot pattern in the neighborhood.
Policy 2‐47 Policy 2‐48 Hillside Development Standards. Establish building and development standards that ensure
hillside protection.
Strategy 1. Ordinance Regulations and Development Approvals. Apply ordinance regulations
and development approvals that limit development on ridgelines, hazardous geological
areas and steep slopes. Control colors and materials, and minimize the illumination of
outdoor lighting. Reduce visible building mass through such means as stepping structures
down the hillside, following the natural contours, and limiting the height and mass of the
wall plane facing the valley floor.
Strategy 2. Slope‐Density Formula. Apply a slope‐density formula to very low intensity
residential development in the hillsides. Density shall be calculated based on the foothill
modified, foothill modified 1/2 acre and the 5‐20 acre slope density formulae. Actual lot
sizes and development areas will be determined through zoning ordinances, clustering and
identification of significant natural features and geological constraints.
Policy 2‐52 Policy 2‐53 Views for Public Facilities. Design and lay out public facilities, particularly public open
spaces, so they include views of the foothills or other nearby natural features, and plan
hillside developments to minimize visual and other impacts on adjacent public open space.
Strategy. Development Near Public Open Space. Remove private driveways and building
sites as far as possible from property boundaries located next to public open space
preserves and parks to enhance the natural open space character and protect plants and
animals.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
LAND USE & PLANNING
4.9-6 JUNE 18, 2014
TABLE 4.9‐1 POLICIES AND STRATEGIES OF THE CUPERTINO 2000‐2020 GENERAL PLAN
New Policy
Number
Original Policy
Number Policies and Strategies
Policy 2‐84 Policy 2‐75 Park Walking Distance. Ensure that each household is within a half‐mile walk of a
neighborhood park, or community park with neighborhood facilities, and that the route is
reasonably free of physical barriers, including streets with heavy traffic. Wherever possible,
provide pedestrian links between parks.
Policy 2‐63 Policy 2‐89 Public and Quasi‐Public Activities. Allow public and quasi‐public activities in commercial or
office land use categories with zoning and use permit review based on the following criteria:
1. The proposed project must have similar building forms, population, traffic, noise and
infrastructure impacts as the existing land use categories.
2. The proposed project must maintain a commercial interface in commercial
designations by offering retail activities, creating a storefront appearance or other
design or use options that are similar to commercial activities.
Strategy. Commercial Ordinance. Amend the commercial zoning ordinance to allow public
and quasi‐public activities as conditional uses.
Section 4, Circulation
Policy 4‐14 Policy 4‐14 Limited Street Closures. Do not close streets unless there is a demonstrated safety or over‐
whelming through traffic problem and there are no acceptable alternatives. Closures may
shift traffic to other local streets, thus moving the problem from one neighborhood to
another.
Source: City of Cupertino and Cupertino 2000‐2020 General Plan.
Specific Plans
Specific plans are adopted for the systematic implementation of the general plan for a defined smaller
portion of a community’s planning area. A specific plan must specify in detail the development standards and
requirements relating to density, lot size and shape, siting of buildings, setbacks, circulation, drainage,
landscaping, architecture, water, sewer, public facilities, grading, open space, financing and any other
element needed for proper development of the property. Specific plans in the city include the Heart of the
City Specific Plan. Other plans within the city include the South De Anza Boulevard Conceptual Plan and
the South Sunnyvale-Saratoga Conceptual Zoning Plan. However, none of the Project Component locations
are situated within either these two Plans.
The Heart of the City Specific Plan provides specific development direction and guides the future
development and redevelopment for the Stevens Creek Boulevard Special Area. The overall goal is to
develop a “Heart of the City,” comprising a collection of pedestrian-inclusive gathering places that will
create a positive and memorable experience for residents and visitors in Cupertino. Currently, the
boundaries of the Heart of the City area encompass approximately 635 acres. The Heart of the City Specific
Plan is divided into five smaller Gateways/Nodes: City Center, Crossroads, South Vallco, and Stevens Creek
Boulevard.
City of Cupertino Municipal Code
Besides the General Plan, the City of Cupertino Municipal Code is the primary tool that regulates physical
development in Cupertino. The Municipal Code contains all ordinances for the city, and identifies land use
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
LAND USE & PLANNING
PLACEWORKS 4.9-7
categories, site development regulations, and other general provisions that ensure consistency between the
General Plan and proposed development projects. The City of Cupertino Municipal Code contains all
ordinances for the city. The Municipal Code is organized by Title, Chapter, and Section. The current
Municipal Code is up to date through Ordinance 14-2117, passed March 18, 2014. The following provisions
of the Municipal Code implement the goals and policies of the General Plan:
Title 19 of the Municipal Code sets forth the City’s Zoning Ordinance, the primary purpose of which is
“to promote and protect the public health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, convenience, and general
welfare.” The City of Cupertino Zoning Ordinance is the mechanism used to implement the land use
goals, objectives, and policies of the General Plan and to regulate all land use within the City. The
Zoning Ordinance describes Zoning designations and contains the Zoning Map and development
standards for the Zoning designations.
Section 19.168, Architectural and Site Review, the Approval Body, defined either as the Director of
Community Development and his/her designee, the Planning Commission or City Council depending
upon context, is responsible for the review of architectural and site designs of buildings within the city
to promote and ensure the goals and objectives identified in the General Plan.
Monta Vista Design Guidelines
The Monta Vista Design Guidelines (Guidelines) refine and implement the policies of the Cupertino
General Plan by outlining building design details, landscaping treatment, signage and public improvement
details for the Monta Vista Commercial Area. The guidelines describe the responsibility of property owners
and applicants presenting new development proposals, redevelopment proposals and public improvement
activity. Future development in this area would be required to comply with the applicable design standards
outlined in the Guidelines. The Guidelines outline the activities that trigger improvement requirements, or
conformance with the design standards. In some cases, changes in land use activity may trigger one or more
of the other improvements, including, but not limited to, landscaping, public and signage improvements.
North Vallco Master Plan
The North Vallco Master Plan has not been formally adopted by the City Council and thus the proposed
project is not bound by its objectives and policies. The North Vallco Master Plan is discussed here for
informational purposes only. One of the key objectives of the North Vallco Master Plan is to enhance the
urban design of the North Vallco area such that it is more cohesive and recognizable. Similar to the General
Plan, the Master Plan seeks to develop distinctive gateways around the edges of the Master Plan area while
preserving the mature trees that are located along the major roads in the area. Sustainable landscaping and
public art are also promoted as means to enhance the aesthetic character of the area.
South Vallco Master Plan
The South Vallco Master Plan is largely an effort to provide a coordinated framework for properties located
in the South Vallco area, or as described in the proposed Project, the South Vallco Gateway East and South
Vallco Gateway West. As development under the South Vallco Master Plan occurs, the city envisions
achievement of the following benefits:
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
LAND USE & PLANNING
4.9-8 JUNE 18, 2014
Area revitalization;
Aesthetic coordination;
Property connectivity;
Roadway infrastructure optimization; and
Identity recognition.
Conceptual Plans
The South De Anza and South De Anza Boulevard, and South Sunnyvale-Saratoga Conceptual Plans delineate
the guidelines for development, redevelopment, and change of use for properties and businesses located in
these areas of Cupertino. These Conceptual Plans set forth conditions implementing all of the relevant
policies of the Cupertino General Plan relating to development and establishes limits to ensure future
development blends with and enhances the existing development pattern within these areas.
Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan
Cupertino’s 2011 Bicycle Transportation Plan is a citywide plan to encourage bicycling as a safe, practical
and healthy alternative to the use of the family car. The 2011 Bicycle Transportation Plan includes standards
for engineering, encouragement, education, and enforcement intended to improve the bicycle infrastructure
in the City to enable and encourage people to bike to work and school, to utilize a bicycle to run errands,
and to enjoy the health and environmental benefits that bicycling provides cyclists of every age.
Cupertino Pedestrian Transportation Plan
The 2002 Cupertino Pedestrian Transportation Plan presents goals, policies and specific recommendations
to increase the walkability of Cupertino. The Pedestrian Transportation Plan is a companion document to
the City of Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan. It includes three types of specific recommendations to
improve pedestrian conditions: policies and programs, citywide capital projects, and site-specific
recommendations at three study locations.
4.9.1.2 EXISTING CONDITIONS
Cupertino is 10.9 square miles located on the southern portion of the San Francisco peninsula, in Santa
Clara County. The cities of Los Altos and Sunnyvale border Cupertino on the north, Santa Clara and San
Jose borders Cupertino on the east, and Saratoga lies on its southern border. Unincorporated areas of Santa
Clara County form the southern and western boundaries of the city. The Project Component locations are
within the city boundary and would not extend into the Cupertino SOI. See Figure 3-41 in Chapter 3,
Project Description, of this Draft EIR for a map of the Project Component locations.
Cupertino is a suburban community characterized by predominantly single-family residential subdivisions
with distinct commercial and employment centers. The land use patterns within the city are influenced by
the area’s agricultural origins (orchards were widespread in Cupertino through World War II and up through
the 1960s), the hilly terrain on the city’s western margins, and the major roadways that extend through and
around the city. In general, land use patterns are more urban in character as one travels northeast through
the city, with predominantly larger-lot residential uses in the city’s western foothills transitioning to
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
LAND USE & PLANNING
PLACEWORKS 4.9-9
smaller-lot residential uses interspersed with small commercial and industrial centers, schools, and other
non-residential uses. East of SR 85, the land use pattern is even more urbanized, with hotels and major
commercial uses along major highways, and large corporate campus facilities.
A detailed description, including tables and maps, of current General Plan land use designations and
respective Zoning designations of five key Project Components locations are provided in Chapter 3, Project
Description, of this Draft EIR. This chapter cross-references several figures in Chapter 3. These figures are
denoted with the first number “3,” which represents Chapter 3 and the second number represents the
sequencing of the figure in the chapter (e.g. Figure 3-1 is the first figure in Chapter 3). A summary of the
existing conditions for each of the five Project Components is provided below.
Special Areas along Major Transportation Corridors Including Gateways
and Nodes
As described in Chapter 3, Project Description, Cupertino has five distinct Special Areas, with eight specific
Gateways/Nodes. Each of the five Special Areas consists of a mix of office space, commercial, residential and
hotel rooms. The five Special Areas comprise of the following Special Areas: Homestead Special Area, North
Vallco Park Special Area, Heart of the City Special Area, North De Anza Special Area, and South De Anza
Special Area.
Homestead Special Area
The Homestead Special Area, which would be located within Cupertino’s northern city boundary, is a
mixed-use Special Area which consists of commercial uses and several low, medium, and high-density
residential neighborhoods. This Special Area is bounded by the shared city boundary with the City of
Sunnyvale to the west, north and east, which has single-family homes, a commercial center, several four-
plexes and apartment complexes, and I-280 to the south.
The Stelling Gateway and the North De Anza Gateway would be situated within this Special Area. The
Stelling Gateway would be coterminous with Housing Element Sites 12 (Homestead Lanes and Adjacency)
and 17 (Homestead Road – IntraHealth/Office/Tennis Courts).
The Homestead Special Area encompasses the Homestead Square Shopping Center, and identified Special
Center in the current General Plan. The current General Plan describes commercial centers as areas in the
city that offer a variety of goods and services directly to residents in the neighborhoods or the larger region.
Under General Plan Policy 2-31 (Homestead Road; proposed to be renumbered Policy 2-24), the City
would be required to create an integrated, mixed-use commercial and housing village along Homestead
Road, consisting of three integrated areas. Each area will be master planned, with special attention to the
interconnectivity of these areas.
North Vallco Park Special Area
The North Vallco Park Special Area is a major north/south connector, adjacent to the Apple Campus 2
project, which includes office, commercial and hotel uses. The Vallco Park North Employment Center, an
identified Special Center in the current General Plan, encompasses this Special Area. This Special Area
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
LAND USE & PLANNING
4.9-10 JUNE 18, 2014
would include the North Vallco Gateway, Study Area 5 (Cupertino Village) and Housing Element Site 10
(The Hamptons). Under General Plan Policy 2-35 (Vallco Park North; proposed to be renumbered Policy
2-25), the City would be required to retain Vallco Park North as an employment area of predominately
office and light industrial activities, with neighborhood commercial uses.
Heart of the City Special Area
The Heart of the City Special Area includes many of the city’s largest commercial, office, mixed-use, and
residential uses along Stevens Creek Boulevard. It also encompasses the Vallco Shopping District. As shown
on Figure 3-7, this Special Area would be coterminous with the boundaries of the current Heart of the City
Specific Plan Special Center. This Special Area would include properties along Stevens Creek Boulevard
between SR 85 on the west and the city’s eastern boundary near the Lawrence Expressway, and properties
along portions of Stelling Road and De Anza Boulevard (from Alves Drive on the north to Scofield Drive on
the south). Under General Plan Policy 2-27 (Heart of the City; proposed to be renumbered Policy 2-26),
the City would be required to create a positive and memorable image along Stevens Creek Boulevard of
mixed use development, enhanced activity nodes, and safe and efficient circulation and access for all modes
of transportation.
This Special Area would include four of the eight identified key Gateways and Nodes.
The Oaks Gateway, which consists of the current Oaks Shopping Center on the north side of Stevens
Creek Boulevard between SR 85 and Mary Avenue. This Gateway is also potential Housing Element Site
18 (The Oaks Shopping Center).
The North Crossroads Node consists of the north side of Stevens Creek Boulevard between North De
Anza Boulevard and North Stelling Road. The North Crossroads Node includes Study Area 7 (Stevens
Creek Office Center), which includes two potential Housing Element Sites, Site 14 (Marina Plaza) and
Site 15 (Stevens Creek Office Center).
The City Center Node also encompasses Study Area 2 (City Center) and the Civic Center Node. Under
General Plan Policy 2-34 (City Center; proposed to be renumbered Policy 2-26.E), the City would be
required to maintain and enhance City Center as a moderate-scale, medium density, mixed-use district
that will provide community identity and activity and will support retail uses in the Crossroads Area.
The South Vallco Gateway is coterminous with the boundaries of the current South Vallco Park Special
Center. This Gateway which consists of South Vallco Gateway East and West. South Vallco Gateway West
consists of the current South Vallco Park Special Center west side of North Wolfe Road while South
Vallco Gateway East includes the portion of the current South Vallco Park Special Center located on the
east side of North Wolfe Road. The South Vallco Gateway includes Study Area 6 (Vallco Shopping
District),which is also Housing Element Site 11. Under current General Plan Policy 2-30 (Vallco Park
South; proposed to be renumbered Policy 2-26.G), the City would be required to retain and enhance
Vallco Park South as a large-scale commercial area that is a regional center for commercial (including
hotel), office and entertainment with supporting residential development.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
LAND USE & PLANNING
PLACEWORKS 4.9-11
In addition to the Gateways and Nodes identified through the public input process, the following former
Special Centers are being restructured within the Heart of the City Special Area. No changes are proposed
to the allowed uses or development intensity in these areas:
De Anza College Node: This Node includes the De Anza College, which is local community college. This
Node is in the southwest corner of the Special Area south of Stevens Creek Boulevard. It is bounded by
SR 85 to the west and Stevens Creek Boulevard to the north. De Anza College also provides a venue for
bringing the community together for meetings and citywide celebrations. Community Recreation
Node: This Node includes the Memorial Park, the Senior Center, the Sports Center, and the Quinlan
Community Center.
Civic Center Node: This Node would be maintained and enhanced as a vibrant, community gathering
place. It would be comprised of public facilities, office, commercial and some residential uses.
North De Anza Special Area
The North De Anza Special Area would encompass the North De Anza Boulevard Employment Center, an
identified Special Center in the current General Plan which is a major north/south Special Area that
includes many office and commercial uses. Under General Plan Policy 2-33 (North De Anza Boulevard;
proposed to be renumbered Policy 2-27), the City would be required to maintain and enhance North De
Anza Boulevard as a regional employment center with supporting commercial and residential land uses.
South De Anza Special Area
The South De Anza Special Area would encompass the South De Anza Commercial Area, an identified
Special Center in the current General Plan which is also a north/south Special Area that includes smaller-
scale commercial, office and residential uses. This Special Area is split into two nodes:
South De Anza North would be bounded by the Hear t of the City Special Area to the north and the
shared city boundaries of City of San Jose to the south. This is located south and west of the Civic
Center Node, and
South De Anza South would be bounded by the shared city boundaries of San Jose to the south and east.
This node includes the Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Office and Housing Element Site 16 (Summerwinds
Nursery) within its boundary.
The current General Plan does not include a specific guiding policy for this Special Center; however, Policy
2-32 (Remainder of Neighborhood Commercial Areas; proposed to be renumbered and renamed Policy 2-
31: Other Non-Residential/Mixed-Use Special Area) would require the City to retain and enhance
neighborhood commercial areas that provide goods and services to neighborhood residents and visitors.
These areas include South De Anza Boulevard, among others.
Additionally, the Heart of the City Specific Plan requires that the Design standards and guidelines developed
for the Heart of the City applies to the South De Anza North node, except the frontage improvement
requirements, which need to be consistent with the South De Anza Conceptual Plan Area. This requirement
is not applicable to the South De Anza South node. This node is governed by the South Sunnyvale-Saratoga
Conceptual Plan.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
LAND USE & PLANNING
4.9-12 JUNE 18, 2014
Study Areas
Seven key Study Areas are located within the Special Areas and represent approximately 121 acres of land
within Cupertino with the potential for new or repurposed uses. The seven Study Areas are dispersed
throughout the city in locations currently developed with commercial, office, parking, mixed-use, quasi-
public and light industrial land uses. A summary of each Study Area is provided below.
Study Area 1 (Cupertino Inn and Goodyear Tire)
Study Area 1 (Cupertino Inn and Goodyear Tire) is located within the Homestead Special Area. This Study
Area includes: the Cupertino Inn, a full service boutique business hotel with event facilities and 125 rooms;
and the Goodyear Tire store, an auto service center offering tire, oil change, and other automotive care
services. This Study Area is near large residential developments to the east and west and abuts the City of
Sunnyvale in some areas. The northwest portion of the Study Area, near the Goodyear property, shares a
property line with the Homestead Square Shopping Center, where a new Safeway, Ross, Stein Mart, Ulta
Beauty, and other commercial businesses are located.
Both the Cupertino Inn and Goodyear Tire businesses are currently within the General Plan
Commercial/Residential (C/R) land use designation; the Cupertino Inn is zoned as Planned Development
General Commercial (P(CG)), while Goodyear Tire is zoned General Commercial with special
development conditions (CG-rg).
Study Area 2 (City Center)
Study Area 2 (City Center) is located within the existing Heart of the City Special Center and the proposed
City Center Node with the Heart of the City Special Area. This Study Area is composed of the City Center
Towers, Cali Mill Plaza (a privately owned and maintained, but publicly accessible park), City Center
Apartments, Park Center Apartments, a surface parking lot, a private open space with amphitheater, and
structured parking. It includes a variety of mixed-use development offering residential, office, and
commercial space. Study Area 2 (City Center) is surrounded by various existing uses: hotel, high-technology
offices, general retail, restaurants, multi-family condominium residences, and the Civic Center Node, which
would include the Cupertino City Hall, Santa Clara County Library, Cupertino branch, and a variety of
existing uses: multi-family condominiums, townhomes, and low-rise offices.
This Study Area is currently within the Commercial/Office/Residential (C/O/R) General Plan land use
designations, and zoned for Planned Development, General Commercial, Professional Office, and
Residential (P(CG, OP, Res)) uses.
Study Area 3 (PG&E)
Study Area 3 (PG&E) is within the Homestead Special Area. Currently, this Study Area is maintained and
owned by Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E), and includes a regional customer service center, training facilities,
storage areas, and extensive equipment staging areas and a small sub-station. This Study Area includes
extensive surface parking lots and vacant area. The current PG&E property is surrounded by a single-family
residential cluster development to the west, a commercial strip mall within city boundaries, and a day care
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
LAND USE & PLANNING
PLACEWORKS 4.9-13
facility located in the City of Sunnyvale to the north. Across Homestead Road to the north and directly east
of this Study Area, there are existing single-family homes located in the City of Sunnyvale.
Study Area 3 (PG&E) is designated as Quasi-Public/Institutional (QP/IN) General Plan Land Use and zoned
as Quasi-Public Building (BQ). It is anticipated that when Study Area 3 (PG&E) develops, Study Area 4
(Mirapath) would also develop.
Study Area 4 (Mirapath)
Study Area 4 (Mirapath) is within the Homestead Special Area. As shown on Figure 3-14, this Study Area is
on one small parcel comprising the Mirapath office building and surface parking fronting North Blaney
Avenue. Immediately surrounding this Study Area are low- to medium-density residential uses and some
other commercial and industrial land uses, including architects’ and chiropractors’ offices, as well as a
karaoke bar and a restaurant. Study Area 4 (Mirapath) is immediately north of the Study Area 3 (PG&E).
Study Area 4 (Mirapath) is within the Industrial/Residential (I/R) General Plan land use designation and
zoned as Light Industrial with special development conditions (ML-fa).13 It is anticipated that when Study
Area 3 (PG&E) develops, this Site would also develop.
Study Area 5 (Cupertino Village)
Study Area 5 (Cupertino Village) is located west of North Wolfe Road between Pruneridge Avenue and
Homestead Road, across from the Apple Campus 2 site, and is within the North Vallco Special Area. This
Study Area includes the whole block north of Pruneridge Avenue except the northwest corner, where the
Good Samaritan United Methodist Church is located, and southwest corner, where the Arioso Apartment
Complex is located. Study Area 5 (Cupertino Village) includes a large surface parking lot, which serves 40
different commercial businesses within the block, including specialty retail stores, restaurants, professional
offices, and financial services. Immediately south of the Study Area is a bulk of the Arioso Apartment
Complex, as well as Hilton Garden Inn Cupertino and Courtyard Marriott. The Study Area has single-family
development located immediately to the west, and single-family development with some commercial
development immediately to the north located in the City of Sunnyvale. The Site has ongoing construction
to accommodate a previously entitled project with approximately 25,000 square feet of commercial
development with associated parking in a parking structure. Other than the Apple Campus 2 site, which is
currently under construction, this Study Area is largely surrounded by residential development, including
both multi-family residential development and single-family houses.
This Study Area is located within the Commercial/Office/Residential (C/O/R) General Plan land use
designation and zoned as Planned Development with General Commercial and Residential uses (P(CG,
Res)).
13 fa is an old sub-zoning designation from the 1960s that refers to special development conditions that apply to future buildings to be
developed at that location, which are now built. The sub-zoning designation addressed lot coverage and driveway width.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
LAND USE & PLANNING
4.9-14 JUNE 18, 2014
Study Area 6 (Vallco Shopping District)
Study Area 6 (Vallco Shopping District) would be located in the South Vallco Gateway within the Heart of
the City Special Area, and is part of the Heart of the City Specific Plan area. The Study Area is considered
the city’s regional shopping district and consists of many retail stores, including major national retailers such
as Macy’s, Sears, and JC Penney. The Vallco Shopping District also houses one of two movie theatres in the
city, AMC Cupertino. Along with major retailers, there are numerous restaurants, including national chain
restaurants and high-end restaurants. The Vallco Shopping District is surrounded with commercial uses to
the south-east and south-west of the Site, and office/industrial uses to the east. Single-family residential
development is located to the west of the Study Area, while there is a mixed-use multi-family development
with 107 residential units (Metropolitan), and a mixed-use office, commercial, and residential (120 units)
development (Main Street) planned to the south-east of the Study Area.
This Study Area is within the Commercial/Residential (C/R) General Plan land use designation and zoned
as Planned Development Regional Shopping (P(Regional Shopping)).
Study Area 7 (Stevens Creek Office Center)
Study Area 7 (Stevens Creek Office Center) is located within the Heart of the City Special Area (see Figure
3-7). It is bounded by Alves Drive to the north, Stevens Creek Boulevard to the south, Whole Foods Market
and Abundant Life Church to the west, and single-family residences to the northwest; Saich Way is located
approximately 115 feet to the east of the Study Area’s eastern boundary. This Study Area would be located in
the North Crossroads Node within the Heart of the City Special Area, one of the major commercial areas in
the city, with major retailers like Target, Whole Food Market, and Staples, among others, located nearby.
Within the Study Area, most of the building area is occupied with medical, research, and development
offices, and a few commercial uses, including Peet’s Coffee and Tea, and Panera Bread.
This Study Area is within the Commercial/Office/Residential (C/O/R) General Plan land use designation
and zoned as Planned Development with General Commercial and Residential uses (P(CG, Res)) with a
residential density allowed of 25 dwelling units per acre.
Other Special Areas including Neighborhoods and Non-
Residential/Mixed-Use Special Areas
The General Plan includes residential and non-residential Special Centers (see Figure 3-18). These Special
Centers include Neighborhood Centers, Commercial Centers, Employment Centers and
Education/Cultural Centers in defined geographical locations. The Planning Areas would be re-categorized
within Residential and Non-Residential/Mixed-use Special Areas. Special Centers would be relabeled
Special Areas. The current General Plan also includes a development allocation category referred to as Major
Employers, which is geographically non-specific and reserved for companies with sales offices and corporate
headquarters in Cupertino.
The Neighborhood Centers identified in the General Plan are the Monta Vista, Oak Valley, and Fairgrove
neighborhoods. These Neighborhood Centers would be relabeled Neighborhoods. Under the proposed
Project, changes are only proposed in the Monta Vista Village Neighborhood. The proposed changes to the
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
LAND USE & PLANNING
PLACEWORKS 4.9-15
non-residential Special Areas would occur in the Special Areas along major transportation corridors, with
the exception of the Bubb Road Special Area.
The proposed Project also includes changes to areas referred to as Other Neighborhoods and Other
Commercial Centers that include residential and commercial areas that are not included in the Major
Mixed-Use Special Areas or Special Areas (see Figure 3-19).
Monta Vista Village Neighborhood
The Monta Vista Village Neighborhood is centrally located in Cupertino. This Neighborhood, currently
known as the Monta Vista Neighborhood Center, will be re-categorized as the Monta Vista Village
Neighborhood under Residential Special Areas. The Monta Vista Village Neighborhood has been serving
since the late 1800s as an attractive farming and second home community, and has become Cupertino’s
primary neighborhood of historical interest. It consists of both commercial and residential uses. Monta
Vista’s commercial area, which is considered “downtown Monta Vista,” is governed by the Monta Vista
Design Guidelines (Guidelines). This area is located north and south of Stevens Creek Boulevard between
SR 85 to the east, and Byrne Avenue to the west. The Guidelines provide a cohesive approach to
architecture, landscaping and public improvements for that portion of the Monta Vista area. Under General
Plan Policy 2-24: (Monta Vista; proposed to be renumbered Policy 2-30), the City would be required to
retain and enhance Monta Vista as a residential, commercial and industrial node, with adequate pedestrian
and bicycle access. The commercial district should serve as a neighborhood commercial center for Monta
Vista and its adjoining neighborhoods. Mixed-use with residential is encouraged. The industrial area should
be retained to provide small-scale light industrial and service industrial opportunities, while remaining
compatible with the surrounding residential and commercial uses.
Other Neighborhoods
These Other Neighborhoods are composed of the following Zoning designations: Single Family Residential,
Residential Duplex, Multiple Family Residential, Residential Hillside, Agricultural Residential, Agricultural,
Planned Development, and Residential Single-Family Cluster Zone. The projects propose to identify
neighborhoods in the City to allow for future cohesive development. A complete list of neighborhood names
is provided in Section 3.6.3.3 in Chapter 3, Project Description, as well a map with the proposed new
boundaries on Figure 3-19.
Bubb Road Special Area
The Bubb Road Special Area is located along SR 85 between De Anza College to the east and the Monte
Vista neighborhood to the west. This will be re-categorized as the Bubb Road Special Area in the Non-
residential/Mixed-Use Special Areas. It consists primarily of light industrial and residential mixed uses.
Under General Plan Policy 2-36 (Bubb Road; proposed to be renumbered Policy 2-29), would require the
City to retain the Bubb Road area primarily as a low-rise industrial and research and development area. The
policy allows limited residential uses at 20 dwelling units per acre.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
LAND USE & PLANNING
4.9-16 JUNE 18, 2014
Other Non-Residential Mixed-Use Special Areas
The Other Commercial Centers identified on Figure 3-19 are composed of the following existing mixed-use
office and commercial properties distributed throughout the city as follows:
West side of Stevens Canyon Road across from McClellan Road (Housing Element Site 9)
Intersection of Foothill Boulevard and Stevens Creek Boulevard (Housing Element Site 8)
Homestead Road near Foothill Boulevard (Homestead Crossings Shopping Center).
Northwest corner of Bollinger Road and Blaney Avenue (Pacific Rim Shopping Center).
Southeast corner of McClellan and Bubb (7-11 convenience store location).
Homestead Road between Homestead High and west of Norada (7-11 convenience store location).
Northeast corner of Homestead and State Route 85 (Gas Station)
Southeast corner of Blaney Avenue and Homestead Road
All other non-residential properties not referenced in an identified commercial area.
The existing General Plan includes the South De Anza area as an Other Commercial Center; however,
would be identified as South De Anza South described above.
Major Employers
“Major Employers” is a Development Allocation category which is reserved for allocation for companies
with sales offices and corporate headquarters in Cupertino and is not allocated to any geographically specific
areas.
Housing Element Sites
The proposed Project includes a comprehensive update to the City’s Housing Element in compliance with
State law.14 There are 19 potential Housing Element Sites in the Project Study Area. All of the potential
housing sites are located within the city boundaries and would not be located outside the city boundaries in
the Cupertino SOI. The locations of the potential housing sites are listed in Table 3-21 and shown on Figure
3-20. Existing uses for these 19 Housing Element Sites range from Residential, Commercial, Office Light
Industrial to Commercial Office. Zoning for the 19 sites include Planned Development with General
Commercial and Residential uses, and Regional Shopping. A detailed description of each Housing Element
Site is provided in Chapter 3, Project Description, of this Draft EIR, and a summary is provided below.
Housing Element Site 1 (Shan Restaurant)
Housing Element Site 1 (Shan Restaurant) is located in the Heart of the City Special Area. The Site
comprises three parcels totaling approximately 1.7 acres, is designated under the current General Plan as
Commercial/Office/Retail (C/O/R), and is zoned Planned Development with General Commercial, and
Residential (P(CG, Res)). The maximum density currently permitted at this Site is 25 dwelling units per
acre, with a maximum height of 45 feet (see Figure 3-21).
14 California Government Code Section 65580 through 65589.8.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
LAND USE & PLANNING
PLACEWORKS 4.9-17
The Site is located in Cupertino’s PDA, along one of the major corridors in Cupertino, in close proximity to
services and public transportation. The large parcel in this Site was included in the 2007 Housing Element.
This Housing Element Site is generally surrounded by commercial, office, and residential uses. L.P. Collins
Elementary School and Portal Park are located two blocks north of this Site. Lawson Middle School is
located one-half mile north of the Site, while Cupertino High School and Bethel Lutheran School are
located approximately one mile to the east.
Housing Element Site 2 (Arya/Scandinavian Design)
Housing Element Site 2 (Arya/Scandinavian Design) is located in the Heart of the City Special Area (see
Figure 3-7). This Site comprises three parcels totaling approximately 2.83 acres. This Site comprises three
parcels totaling approximately 2.83 acres, are designated as Commercial/Office/Retail (C/O/R) under the
current General Plan, and are zoned as Planned Development with General Commercial and Residential
(P(CG, Res)). The maximum density currently permitted at this Site is 25 dwelling units per acre, with a
maximum height of 45 feet (see Figure 3-22).
Surrounding land uses include commercial, office, and residential. This Housing Element Site was included
in the 2007 Housing Element. This Housing Element Site is located in Cupertino’s PDA, along one of the
major Special Areas in Cupertino, in close proximity to services and public transportation. Wilson Park is
located approximately two blocks south of the Site and Portal Park is located approximately one-quarter of a
mile to the north of the Site. L.P. Collins School is located approximately one-quarter mile north of the Site,
while Cupertino High School and Bethel Lutheran School are located approximately three-quarters mile
from the Site to the east. There is one bus stop on Stevens Creek Boulevard near this Site.
Housing Element Site 3 (United Furniture/East of East Estates Drive)
Housing Element Site 3 (United Furniture/East of East Estates Drive) is located in the Heart of the City
Special Area (see Figure 3-7). This Site comprises six parcels totaling approximately 4.86 acres, is designated
as Commercial/Office/Retail (C/O/R) under the current General Plan, and is zoned as Planned
Development with General Commercial and Residential (P(CG, Res)). The maximum density currently
permitted at this Site is 25 dwelling units per acre, with a maximum height of 45 feet. The Site is currently
occupied with commercial uses, including a medical and dental building located on the south-east corner of
the building, and is generally surrounded by commercial, office, and multi-family residential uses (see Figure
3-23).
This Housing Element Site is one of the top redevelopment opportunities in the city due to its prime
location on Stevens Creek Boulevard. Future development on this large Site could contain a portion of East
Estates Drive should the City choose to vacate it between Stevens Creek Boulevard and Richwood Drive for
a cohesive development and benefit from its prime location at the city’s core. This Site is located across the
street from the city’s largest shopping center, enjoys easy freeway access, and is located in an area that is best
served by public transportation in the city. This Housing Element Site is also located next to existing
residential neighborhoods. The Vallco Shopping Mall is located directly across Stevens Creek Boulevard to
the north, which is also Study Area 6 (Vallco Shopping District). Cupertino High School and Bethel
Lutheran School are located approximately one and one half blocks east of this Site.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
LAND USE & PLANNING
4.9-18 JUNE 18, 2014
Housing Element Site 4 (Barry Swenson)
Housing Element Site 4 (Barry Swenson) is located in the Heart of the City Special Area (see Figure 3-7).
This Housing Element Site has one parcel totaling approximately 0.55 acres, is designated as
Commercial/Office/Retail (C/O/R) under the current General Plan, and is zoned as Planned
Development with General Commercial and Residential (P(CG, Res)). The maximum density currently
permitted at this Site is 25 dwelling units per acre, with a maximum height of 45 feet (see Figure 3-24).
Housing Element Site 4 (Barry Swenson) is currently vacant and is located adjacent to Housing Element Site
19 (Cypress Building Association/Hall property). This Housing Element Site is located along one of the
major Special Areas in Cupertino, in close proximity to services and public transportation. The Site is
located across the street from the approximately 17.4-acre Main Street mixed-use project that is currently
under development. Main Street is a high intensity development expected to be major community focal
point. Generally, this Housing Element Site is surrounded by commercial, office, and residential uses.
Additionally, the Vallco Shopping Mall is located approximately one-half mile to the north-west, which is
also Study Area 6 (Vallco Shopping District). Cupertino High School and Bethel Lutheran Church school are
located less than one-quarter mile to the south. Sedgwick Elementary School and Hyde Middle School are
located approximately one-half mile to the south.
Housing Element Site 5 (Glenbrook Apartments)
Housing Element Site 5 (Glenbrook Apartments) is located in the Heart of the City Special Area (see Figure
3-7). This Housing Element Site comprises two parcels totaling approximately 31.34 acres, is designated as
Medium to High Density (10 to 20 dwelling units per acre) under the current General Plan, and is zoned as
Multi-Family Residential (R3). The maximum density currently permitted at this Site is 20 dwelling units
per acre, with a maximum height of 45 feet (see Figure 3-25).
This Housing Element Site an existing 517-unit multi-family development. This Housing Element Site is
surrounded by single- and multi-family residential uses to the north, a public Dog Park to the west,
Memorial Park to the east, the City’s Senior Center and the Oaks Shopping Center (Housing Element Site
18) to the south. It is located in close proximity to the SR 85/I-280 off-ramp at Stevens Creek Boulevard.
Glenbrook Apartments have large green spaces that exceed the City’s open space requirements that can be
developed with new units.
Housing Element Site 6 (The Villages)
Housing Element Site 6 (The Villages) is not located within a Special Area. This Site has five parcels totaling
approximately 27.1 acres, is designated as Medium to High Density (10 to 20 dwelling units per acre) under
the current General Plan, and is zoned Multi-Family Residential (R3). The maximum density currently
permitted at this Site is 20 dwelling units per acre, with a maximum height of 30 feet (see Figure 3-26).
This Housing Element Site is currently occupied with high-density residential uses totaling 468 units and is
generally surrounded by single- and multi-family housing, I-280 to the north, along with some office uses to
the east of the Site, including the Housing Element Site 7 (Carl Berg Property). The Villages of Cupertino
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
LAND USE & PLANNING
PLACEWORKS 4.9-19
have large green spaces that exceed the City’s open space requirements that can be developed with new
units.
Housing Element Site 7 (Carl Berg Property)
Housing Element Site 7 (Carl Berg Property) is located in the North De Anza Special Area. This Site has one
parcel totaling approximately 7.98 acres, has a General Plan land use designation of
Office/Industrial/Commercial/Residential (O/I/C/R), and is zoned as Planned Development with
General Commercial, Light Industrial and Residential (P(CG, ML, Res)). The maximum density currently
permitted at this Housing Element Site is 25 dwelling units per acre, with a maximum height of 30 feet. (see
Figure 3-27).
This Site is generally surrounded by residential, office, and commercial uses. This Housing Element Site,
which was built on in 1975, currently has light industrial (research and office) uses with a large amount of
surface parking. This Housing Element Site is suitable for housing development because it is adjacent to an
existing rental residential development, including newer owner-occupied multi-family residential
development to the northeast of the Site. Additionally, the Site is accessible to neighborhood amenities,
including an elementary school and restaurant and retail uses. This Site was included in the 2007 Housing
Element.
Housing Element Site 8 (Bateh Bros.)
Housing Element Site 8 (Bateh Bros.) is identified as an Other Commercial Center in the existing General
Plan Special Area. The Site has three parcels totaling approximately 0.67 acre, is designated as
Commercial/Residential (C/R) under the current General Plan, and is zoned as Planned Development with
General Commercial (P(CG)). The maximum density currently permitted on the Site is 15 dwelling units
per acre, with a maximum height of 30 feet (see Figure 3-28).
This Housing Element Site is partially developed with a convenience store. The majority of the Site is
unimproved and only partially unpaved. The nearest schools to this Housing Element Site include the Monta
Vista High School, Stevens Creek Elementary School and Lincoln Elementary School. The Santa Clara
County Fire Department’s Monta Vista Fire Station is less than 1 block away from the Site on Stevens Creek
Boulevard. It is surrounded by single-family development to the west and south and has existing commercial
developments to the east. There is an existing residential cluster development and commercial development
to the north of the Site.
Housing Element Site 9 (Foothill @ McClellan Center – Foothill Market)
Housing Element Site 9 (Foothill @ McClellan Center – Foothill Market) is identified as an Other
Commercial Center in the current General Plan. This Housing Element Site has one parcel totaling
approximately 1.3 acres and is designated as Commercial/Residential (C/R) under the current General
Plan and is zoned Planned Development with General Commercial (P(CG)). The maximum density
currently permitted on the Site is 15 dwelling units per acre, with a maximum height of 30 feet (see Figure
3-29).
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
LAND USE & PLANNING
4.9-20 JUNE 18, 2014
This Housing Element Site is developed with a single story small commercial strip shopping center and large
surface parking lot and is surrounded by single-family residential uses. The McClellan Ranch Park is located
approximately one-quarter mile to the east and the Monta Vista Park is located approximately one-quarter
mile to the north of the Site. The nearest schools to this housing site include the Monta Vista High School
and the Lincoln Elementary School approximately one-half mile to the east.
Housing Element Site 10 (The Hamptons)
Housing Element Site 10 (The Hamptons) is located in the North Vallco Gateway, which is within the North
Vallco Park Special Area (see Figure 3-6). The Site has two parcels totaling approximately 12.44 acres, is
designated as High Density with up to 20 to 35 dwelling unit per gross acre (High Density (20-35 DU/Gr.
Ac.)) under the current General Plan, and is zoned Planned Development with Residential (P(Res)-70). The
maximum density currently permitted on the Site 10 is 35 dwelling units per acre, with a maximum height
of 60 feet (see Figure 3-30).
This Housing Element Site is currently occupied with a 342-unit multi-family housing development and
surface parking lots. Portal Park is located approximately a one mile to the southwest, Jenny Strand Park is
located approximately three-quarters of a mile to the southeast, and Westwood Oaks Park is located
approximately a one-half mile to the east of the Site. Cupertino High School and Sedgwick Elementary
School in the Cupertino Union School District are approximately 1.5 miles to the south, while Laurelwood
Elementary School in the Santa Clara Unified School District is located approximately 1.5 miles to the
north east in the City of Santa Clara.
Housing Element Site 11(Vallco Shopping District except Rosebowl)
Housing Element Site 11 (Vallco Shopping District except Rosebowl) encompasses most of Study Area 6
(Vallco Shopping District), with the exception of the RoseBowl site located south of Vallco Parkway. This
Site is located in the Heart of the City Special Area. The Site has three parcels totaling approximately 47.83
acres, is designated as Commercial/Office/Retail (C/O/R) under the current General Plan, and is zoned
Planned Development with Regional Shopping (P(Regional Shopping))Zoning designation. The maximum
density currently permitted on the Site is 35 dwelling units per acre, with a maximum height of 60 feet with
retail uses on the ground level (see Figure 3-31).
This Site is currently occupied by commercial buildings and parking that make up the Vallco Shopping Mall.
Uses on both sides of Wolfe Road are included in this Site. The Site is surrounded by commercial and single-
family residential uses to the west, commercial and owner-occupied residential uses to the south, and
mixed-use commercial uses, including a planned 120-rental multi-family development to the east.
Portal Park is located approximately a one-quarter mile to the west, Wilson Park is located less than one-half
mile to the southwest, and Creekside Park is located approximately a one-half mile to the south of the Site.
In addition, a half-acre park is under construction to the south-east of the Site as a part of the Main Street
development. Cupertino High School and Sedgwick Elementary Schools are approximately three-quarters
of a mile to the south, while Collins Elementary is located approximately one-half mile to the west and
Lawson Middle is located approximately three-quarters of a mile to the west. Hyde Middle School is located
approximately one mile to the south.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
LAND USE & PLANNING
PLACEWORKS 4.9-21
Housing Element Site 12 (Homestead Lanes and Adjacency)
Housing Element Site 12 (Homestead Lanes and Adjacency) is located in the Stelling Gateway, which is
within the Homestead Special Area (see Figure 3-5). The Site comprises of four parcels totaling
approximately 5.1 acres, is designated as Commercial/Retail (C/R) under the current General Plan, and is
zoned Planned Development with General Commercial, Recreation (Rec) and Entertainment (Ent). The
maximum density currently permitted on the Site is 35 dwelling units per acre, with a maximum height of
45 feet. (see Figure 3-32).
This Housing Element Site is currently occupied by a strip mall commercial center (including an aging
bowling alley) and surface parking. Franco Park is located one block to the east and Serra Park in Sunnyvale
is located less than one-half mile to the northwest. Nimitz Elementary School in Sunnyvale is located less
than one mile to the north, Garden Gate Elementary School is located approximately one-half mile to the
southwest, Cupertino Middle School is located approximately 1 mile to the west, and Homestead High
School is located approximately one-quarter mile to the west.
Housing Element Site 13 (Loree Shopping Center)
Housing Element Site 13 (Loree Shopping Center) is located in the Heart of the City Special Area (see
Figure 3-7). The Site has two parcels totaling approximately 1.29 acres, is designated as
Commercial/Office/Retail (C/O/R) under the current General Plan, and is zoned as Planned
Development with General Commercial and Residential (P(CG, Res)). The maximum density currently
permitted at this Site is 25 dwelling units per acre, with a maximum height of 45 feet (see Figure 3-33).
This Housing Element Site is occupied by strip mall commercial center built in 1952. It has a mix of
occupied and vacant retail spaces. This Housing Element Site is located within a PDA, along one of the major
Special Areas in Cupertino, in close proximity to services and public transportation. Additionally, the Vallco
Shopping Mall is located one-half mile west of this Site, which is also Study Area 6 (Vallco Shopping
District.).Jenny Strand Park is located approximately one-half mile to the northeast, Creekside Park is
located approximately three-quarters of a mile to the southwest, and Sterling Barnhart Park is located
approximately one mile to the southeast. Cupertino High School and Bethel Lutheran School are located
approximately one-half mile to the southwest, and Hyde Middle School is located one mile to the
southwest.
Housing Element Site 14 (Marina Plaza)
Housing Element Site 14 (Marina Plaza) is located in the North Crossroads Node, which is within the Heart
of the City Special Area (see Figure 3-7). The Site contains one parcel totaling approximately 6.86 acres, is
designated as Commercial/Office/Retail (C/O/R) under the current General Plan, and is zoned Planned
Development with General Commercial and Residential (P(CG, Res)). The maximum density currently
permitted on the Site is 25 dwelling units per acre, with a maximum height of 45 feet (see Figure 3-34).
This Site is currently occupied with a single-story commercial strip mall and surface parking lot. This
Housing Element Site is surrounded by commercial and office uses. Wilson and Portal Parks are located
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
LAND USE & PLANNING
4.9-22 JUNE 18, 2014
approximately three-quarters of a mile to the southeast and northeast of the Site, respectively. In addition,
Memorial Park is located approximately one mile to the northwest,
Cupertino High School and Sedgwick Elementary Schools are approximately 1.4 mile to the southeast and
Lawson Middle School and Collins Elementary School are approximately .5 mile to the north east. William
Faria Elementary School is located approximately 0.4-mile to the southwest, Eaton Elementary School is
located approximately three-quarters of a mile to the south, Saint Joseph of Cupertino School is located
approximately one-half mile to the northwest, and Garden Gate Elementary School is located approximately
0.7-mile to the northwest.
Housing Element Site 15 (Stevens Creek Office Center)
Housing Element Site 15 (Stevens Creek Office Center) is located in the North Crossroads Node, which is
in the Heart of the City Special Area. Housing Element Site 15 is coterminous with Study Area 7 (Stevens
Creek Office Center) and comprises one parcel totaling approximately 4.82 acres. This Site is within the
Commercial/Office/ Residential (C/O/R) General Plan land use designation and zoned as Planned
Development with General Commercial and Residential (P(CG, Res)) with a maximum residential density
of 25 dwelling units per acre and height limit of 1 story (see Figure 3-35).
This Housing Element Site is occupied by commercial and office buildings with two retail commercial
tenants and a few medical and professional office tenants. The Site is located along one of the major
corridors in Cupertino, in close proximity to services and public transportation, and is surrounded by big-
box development. Cupertino Memorial Park is located one-quarter mile to the northwest, Franco Park is
located approximately 1.5 miles to the north, Jollyman Park is located 1.2 miles to the south, and Portal
Park is located 1.3 miles to the northeast. Garden Gate Elementary School is located approximately one
mile to the northwest, Lawson Middle School is located 1.2 miles to the northeast, Collins Elementary
School is located 1.2 miles to the east, Eaton Elementary School is located 1.3 miles to the southeast, and
Saint Joseph of Cupertino School is located one-half mile to the east.
Housing Element Site 16 (Summerwinds and Granite Rock)
Housing Element Site 16 (Summerwinds and Granite Rock) is located in the South De Anza Special Area.
The Site has four parcels totaling approximately 4.57 acres and is designated as Commercial/Office/Retail
(C/O/R) under the current General Plan and zoned Planned Development with General Commercial and
Residential (P(CG, Res 5-15)). The maximum density currently permitted on the Site is 15 dwelling units
per acre, with a maximum height of 30 feet (see Figure 3-36).
This Housing Element Site is currently occupied by a retail sales nursery (Summerwinds Nursery), a retail
warehouse facility for an outdoor materials vendor (Granite Rock), a fast food restaurant, a cabinet store,
and surface parking. Hoover Park is located approximately one-quarter mile to the west, Three Oaks Park is
located less than one-half mile to the northwest, and Calabazas Park, in San Jose, is located approximately a
one-half mile to the northeast of the Site. Monta Vista High School and John F. Kennedy Middle School in
Cupertino are located approximately 1.3 miles to the northwest, and Regnart Elementary School in
Cupertino is located approximately less than 1 mile to the northwest. Blue Hills Elementary School and
Meyerholz Elementary Schools in San Jose are less than 1 mile to the southeast and northeast, respectively.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
LAND USE & PLANNING
PLACEWORKS 4.9-23
Housing Element Site 17 (Homestead Road – Intrahealth/Office/Tennis Courts)
Housing Element Site 17 (Homestead Road – Intrahealth/Office/Tennis Courts) is located in the Stelling
Gateway, which is part of the Homestead Special Area (see Figure 3-5). The Site has six parcels totaling
approximately 5.42 acres and is designated as Commercial/Retail (C/R) under the current General Plan
and is zoned Planned Development with General Commercial (P(CG)) . The maximum density currently
permitted on this Site is 15 dwelling units per acre. The maximum building height is 30 feet (see Figure 3-
37).
This Housing Element Site is currently occupied by various office and commercial buildings, tennis courts
and a church recreation center and parking lot. Portions of the north side of the Site are unimproved and
unpaved. Franco Park is located one-quarter mile to the east and Serra Park in Sunnyvale is located less than
a 0.5-mile to the northwest. Nimitz Elementary School in Sunnyvale is located less than one mile to the
north, Garden Elementary School located approximately one-half mile to the southwest, Cupertino Middle
School is located approximately 1 mile to the northwest, and Homestead High School is approximately ¼
mile to the west.
Housing Element Site 18 (The Oaks Shopping Center)
Housing Element Site 18 (The Oaks Shopping Center) is located in the Oaks Gateway, which is part of the
Heart of the City Special Area (see Figure 3-7). Site has four parcels totaling approximately 7.9 acres, is
designated as Commercial/Office/Retail (C/O/R) under the current General Plan, and is zoned Planned
Development with General Commercial and Professional Office (P(CG, OP)). The maximum density
currently permitted on this Site is 25 dwelling units per acre, with a maximum height of 45 feet (see Figure
3-38).
The Site is occupied by The Oaks Shopping Center. The center has various small scale commercial and
restaurant tenants, and one of the City’s two movie theaters, Blue Light Cinema. Cupertino Memorial Park
is located across the street on Mary Avenue to the east. The City Senior Center is located adjacent to
Memorial Park, 0.1 mile east of the Site. Garden Gate Elementary School and Homestead High School are
located approximately three-quarters of a mile to the northeast and north of the Site. Lawson Middle School
is located 1.8 miles to the southeast, Monta Vista High School is located 3.4 miles to the west, Lincoln
Elementary School is located 3.3 miles to the west, and John F. Kennedy Middle School is located 3.4 miles
to the southwest.
Housing Element Site 19 (Cypress Building Association/Hall Property)
Housing Element Site 19 (Cypress Building Association/Hall Property) is located in the East Stevens Creek
Boulevard Node within the Heart of the City Special Area (see Figure 3-7). Housing Element Site 19
comprises three parcels totaling approximately 4.98 acres, is designated as Commercial/Office/Retail
(C/O/R) under the current General Plan, and is zoned Planned Development with General Commercial
and Residential (P(CG,Res)). The maximum density currently permitted on the Site is 25 dwelling units per
acre, with a maximum height of 45 feet (see Figure 3-39).
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
LAND USE & PLANNING
4.9-24 JUNE 18, 2014
This Housing Element Site is currently occupied by one- and two-story commercial and office buildings and
surface parking. Creekside Park and Wilson Park are located approximately 1.5 miles to the south-southwest
of the Site. Cupertino High School is located directly adjacent to the Site while Sedgwick Elementary and
Hyde Middle Schools are located less than 1 mile south of the Site.
General Plan and Zoning Ordinance Conformance Sites
The City has identified sites that represent locations where there are inconsistencies between existing land
use and the General Plan land use designation and/or Zoning designation for the location. These locations
are shown on shown on Figure 3-40. As part of the proposed Project, the General Plan or the Zoning
Ordinance and/or Maps will be amended to bring consistency between the existing use and the General
Plan land use and/or Zoning for these sites. Table 3-22 lists the 45 parcels with known inconsistencies and
describes how the General Plan and Zoning amendments under the proposed Project will bring these
locations into consistency.
4.9.2 THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
According to Appendix G, Environmental Checklist, of the CEQA Guidelines, the proposed Project would
result in a significant land use impact if it would:
Physically divide an established community.
Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the
Project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning
ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.
Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan.
4.9.2.1 THRESHOLDS NOT DISCUSSED FURTHER
With regards to Threshold 3, as discussed in Section 4.9.1.1, Regulatory Framework, the City of Cupertino
is located outside the boundaries of the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan. The city is not located within any
other habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan and would not conflict with any
such plan. Therefore, no further discussion of this issue is warranted in this Draft EIR.
4.9.3 IMPACT DISCUSSION
This section provides an analysis of the potential Project and cumulative land use impacts that could occur as
a result of the implementation of the proposed Project. This discussion is organized by and responds to each
of the potential impacts identified in the Thresholds of Significance.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
LAND USE & PLANNING
PLACEWORKS 4.9-25
LU-1 Implementation of the proposed Project would not physically divide an
established community.
The proposed Project would result in a significant impact if it would lead to new development or physical
features that would divide existing communities. The physical division of an established community typically
refers to the construction of a physical feature (such as a wall, interstate highway, or railroad tracks) or the
removal of a means of access (such as a local road or bridge) that would impair mobility within an existing
community, or between a community and outlying areas. An example of a physical feature that would divide
an existing community is an airport, roadway, or railroad track through an existing community that could
constrain travel from one side of the community to another or impair travel to areas outside of the
community.
As described in Section 4.9.1.2, Existing Conditions, the development proposed as part of the Project
would be located on sites either developed and/or underutilized, and/or in close proximity to existing
residential and residential-serving development. Future development under the proposed Project would
retain the existing roadway patterns, and the proposed Project does not propose any new major roadways or
other physical features through existing residential neighborhoods or other communities that would create
new barriers in the Project Study Area. New development in currently developed areas would result in
increased office, commercial, hotel and residential allocations without dividing any existing communities.
The designation of sites for office, commercial, hotel and higher density residential development would not
physically divide any of the areas where the proposed Project is identified, because the vicinity of the Sites
would all retain their predominant existing uses for office, commercial, hotel and residential use, and would
not require any new roads or other features that would divide a community. Accordingly, impacts would be
less than significant.
Furthermore, future development under the proposed Project would be required to be consistent with the
General Plan polices that promote cohesive and compatible neighborhoods and prevent new development
from dividing existing uses where different land uses abut one another.
Within the Land Use and Community Design Element of the General Plan, there are several policies that
encourage cohesive development. Policy 2-2, Connections Between Special Areas, Employment Centers
and the Community, would require the City to provide strong connections between the mixed-use Special
Areas, employment centers and the surrounding community while Policy 2-5, Distinct Neighborhoods,
would require the City to plan for neighborhoods that have distinctive edges, an identifiable center and safe
pedestrian and bicycle access to surrounding uses. Policy 2-8, Neighborhood Compatibility, would require
the City to minimize potential conflicts between residential neighborhoods and more intense developments
with adequate buffering setbacks, landscaping, walls, limitations, site design and other appropriate
measures, and create zoning requirements or specific plans that reduce incompatibilities between new
development and existing residential neighborhoods through various measures..
Policy 2-15, Urban Building Forms, would require the City to concentrate urban building forms in the
mixed-use Special Areas which would focus development in the Special Areas and away from existing low
density residential neighborhoods, and Policy 2-18, Single-Family Residential Design, would require the
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
LAND USE & PLANNING
4.9-26 JUNE 18, 2014
City to preserve the character of residential neighborhoods by requiring new development to be compatible
with the existing neighborhood, which would allow the City to keep existing neighborhoods intact and not
divide them physically with incompatible development.. Policy 2-19, Compatibility of Lot Sizes, would
require the City to ensure that zoning, subdivision and lot line adjustment requests related to lot size or lot
design consider the need to preserve the existing pattern of lot development which would encourage the
development of similar development as opposed to development which would not be compatible with the
neighborhood.
Policy 2-30, Monta Vista Village Neighborhood, would require the City to retain and enhance Monta Vista
Village as a residential, commercial and industrial area, with adequate pedestrian and bicycle access. Under
this policy, the commercial district should serve as a neighborhood commercial center for Monta Vista
Village and its adjoining neighborhoods. Mixed-use with residential is encouraged. The industrial area
should be retained to provide small-scale light industrial and service industrial opportunities, while
remaining compatible with the surrounding residential and commercial uses. Policy 2-26 G, South Vallco
Park Gateway, would require the City to retain and enhance South Vallco Park Gateway as a large-scale
commercial area that is a regional commercial (including hotel), office and entertainment center with
supporting residential development which would also be compatible with Policy 2-1, which would
encourage the City to focus development in Special Areas. Policy 2-24, Homestead Special Area, would
require the City to create an integrated, mixed-use commercial and housing village along Homestead Road,
consisting of three integrated areas. Each area will be master planned, with special attention to the
interconnectivity of these areas. The General Plan also identifies a policy to address Big Box Development
(Policy 2-46). This policy would require the City to consider approving big box development if it is compatible
with the surrounding area in terms of building mass and traffic, and is consistent with the City’s economic
development goals.
In order to provide easy access to recreation services, thereby creating an integrated community, the
General Plan includes Policy 2-84, Park Walking Distance, which would require the City to ensure that each
household is within a half-mile walk of a neighborhood park, or community park with neighborhood
facilities, and that the route is reasonably free of physical barriers, including streets with heavy traffic. Under
this policy, wherever possible, the City shall also provide pedestrian links between parks. When considering
locating public and quasi-public activities in commercial or office land use designated areas, the General
Plan provides direction by establishing the following criteria in Policy 2-63, Public and Quasi-Public
Activities: The proposed project must have similar building forms, population, traffic, noise and
infrastructure impacts as the existing land use categories. Additionally, in order to retain continuity of
development, under this policy the proposed project must maintain a commercial interface in commercial
designations by offering retail activities, creating a storefront appearance or other design or use options that
are similar to commercial activities.
The General Plan includes policies regarding the location and operation of New Drive-up Services (Policy
2-35) and Late Evening Entertainment (Policy 2-36) in order to promote orderly development of such uses
such that they do not divide the community. Policy 2-35 would require the City to permit new drive-up
service facilities for commercial, industrial or institutional use only when adequate circulation, parking,
noise control, architecture features, and landscaping are compatible with the visual character of the
surrounding uses and residential areas are adequately buffered while Policy 2-36 would require the City to
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
LAND USE & PLANNING
PLACEWORKS 4.9-27
discourage late-evening entertainment activities such as cocktail lounges, recreational facilities and theaters
in the major mixed use corridors where they abut low-density residential properties. Under this policy such
uses may be considered with conditional use permit review when the entrances and uses are located away
from sensitive receptors/uses and appropriate mitigation measures such as adequate planting, policing,
parking designated away from sensitive receptors are incorporated.
Additionally, policies within the Circulation Element also support the cohesive development of the City.
Policy 4-10, Roadway Plans that Complement the Needs of Adjacent Land Use, would require the City to
design roadways based on efficient alignments, appropriate number and widths of traffic lanes, inclusion of
medians, parking and bicycle lanes and the suitable width and location of sidewalks as needed to support the
adjacent properties. Policy 4-2, Defined and Balanced Circulation System, would require the city to balance
the roadway system between automobile and pedestrian/bicycle needs. The General Plan encourages
designing local streets to satisfy the aesthetic requirements of the area served. In general, the aesthetics of a
street will be improved if it can be narrower rather than wider, include significant landscaping with shade
trees, and provide safe and convenient places for people to bicycle and walk. Policy 4-14, Limited Street
Closures, would require the City to not close streets unless there is a demonstrated safety or over-whelming
through traffic problem and there are no acceptable alternatives. The policy recognizes that closures might
shift traffic to other local streets, which would move the problem from one neighborhood to another.
Finally, Policy 4-16, Transportation Noise, Fumes and Hazards, would require the City to, in addition to
limiting through traffic volume on local streets, protect the community from noise, fumes and hazards
caused by the City’s transportation system. The quarries on Stevens Canyon Road, Stevens Creek
Boulevard and Foothill Boulevard are major sources of transportation noise.
In addition, future development would also would be required to comply with Design Standards in the
Heart of the City Specific Plan, the Vallco Master Plan, and the Monta Vista Design Guidelines as described
in Section 4.9.1.1 ,Regulatory Framework, and the General Plan policies set forth above, all of which would
promote cohesive and compatible neighborhoods and prevent new development from dividing existing uses
where different land uses abut one another. Therefore, the impacts from implementation of the proposed
Project would be less than significant.
Significance Without Mitigation: Less than significant.
LU-2 Implementation of the proposed Project would not conflict with an
applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of
avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.
The City of Cupertino General Plan is the primary planning document for the City of Cupertino. The
proposed amendments are intended to ensure consistency between the General Plan, Housing Element and
Zoning Ordinance, and State law. Because the General Plan is the overriding planning document for the
City, and because the proposed Project involves amending the General Plan or Zoning to increase
consistency, the impact would be less than significant.
For a discussion of the proposed Project’s consistency with regional housing projections and Plan Bay Area,
see Chapter 4.11, Population and Housing, of this Draft EIR.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
LAND USE & PLANNING
4.9-28 JUNE 18, 2014
For a discussion of the proposed Project’s consistency with Plan Bay Area as it relates to greenhouse gas
emissions, see Chapter 4.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of this Draft EIR.
For a discussion of the proposed Project’s consistency with the 2002 Cupertino Pedestrian Transportation
Plan, see Chapter 4.13, Transportation and Traffic, of this Draft EIR.
As discussed above in Section 4.9.1.1, Regulatory Framework, no airports or private airstrips within or in
the immediate proximity to the city,15 and the city is not located within any protected airspace zones defined
by the ALUC16 and has no heliports listed by the FAA;17 thus, no conflicts with a CLUP for an airport would
occur.
The General Plan has several policies in order to ensure that the proposed Project would not conflict with
any adopted land use, policy or regulation for the purposes of mitigating an environmental effect. Policy 2-
22 would encourage the City to work toward achieving a jobs-housing balance consistent with the Housing
Element. Additionally, proposed Policy 5-2, Regional Growth and Transportation Coordination, would
direct the City to coordinate with local and regional agencies regarding regional growth and transportation
plans and would require the City to ensure that its local plans are consistent with the Regional
Transportation Plan (RTPs) and Sustainable Communities Strategy. In addition, Policy 6-1, Regional Hazard
Risk Reduction Planning, would require the City to coordinate with Santa Clara County and local agencies
to implement the Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP). Strategies under this policy
would require the City to monitor the program and evaluate its success, to ensure that mitigations from the
LHMP are integrated into individual projects, and to support Santa Clara County in its efforts as lead
agency for the LHMP. Together, these policies would serve to ensure that implementation of the proposed
Project is consistent with regional land use, transportation, and hazards mitigation plans.
Significance Without Mitigation: Less than significant.
LU-3 Implementation of the proposed Project, in combination with past, present,
and reasonably foreseeable projects, would not result in significant
cumulative impacts with respect to land use and planning.
As discussed in Chapter 4, Environmental Evaluation, of this Draft EIR, this EIR takes into account growth
projected by the proposed Project within the Cupertino city boundary and SOI, in combination with
impacts from projected growth in the rest of Santa Clara County and the surrounding region, as forecast by
the ABAG. The geographic context for the cumulative land use and planning effects, which occur from
potential future development under the General Plan combined with effects of development on lands
adjacent to the city within Los Altos and Sunnyvale to the north, Santa Clara and San Jose to the east, and
15 AirNav, http://www.airnav.com/airports/us/CA, accessed on August 27, 2013.
16 Santa Clara County Airport Land-Use Commission, 2011. Comprehensive Land Use Plan, Santa Clara County, Norman Y. Mineta, San
Jose International Airport.
17 Federal Aviation Administration, 2011. Airport Facilities Data. www.faa.gov/airports/airport_safety/airportdata_5010/, accessed
August 13, 2013.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
LAND USE & PLANNING
PLACEWORKS 4.9-29
Saratoga to the south, and the unincorporated areas of Santa Clara County to the west and south, and within
the region.
The land use analyses find that the proposed Project would not divide an established community or conflict
with established plans, policies and regulations. The proposed Project also would not conflict with any land
use plan, policies, or regulations, in or outside the City of Cupertino, adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect. Future development that would be allowed under the proposed Project
would not create substantial land use impacts. Development is likely to continue to occur in surrounding
cities and in the Santa Clara region as well. However, such development is taking place in already urbanized
areas as in-fill development and would not require significant land use changes that would create land use
conflicts, nor would they divide communities. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in a
cumulatively considerable contribution to cumulative impacts related to land use changes and impacts would
be less than significant.
Significance Without Mitigation: Less than significant.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
LAND USE & PLANNING
4.9-30 JUNE 18, 2014
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
NOISE
PLACEWORKS 4.10-1
4.10 NOISE
This chapter describes the regulatory framework and existing conditions related to noise sources and the
overall noise environment in Cupertino, and evaluates the potential impacts that could occur by adopting
and implementing the proposed Project on the noise environment, as well as the potential impacts of the
noise environment on development under the proposed Project. The technical data and modeling used to
for the analysis in this chapter are located in Appendix E, Technical Noise Data and Modeling.
4.10.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
4.10.1.1 OVERVIEW OF NOISE FUNDAMENTALS
Noise Descriptors
Noise is most often defined as unwanted sound. Although sound can be easily measured, the perception of
noise and the physical response to sound complicate the analysis of its impact on people. People judge the
relative magnitude of sound sensation in subjective terms such as “noisiness” or “loudness.”
The following are brief definitions of terminology used in this section:
Sound. A disturbance created by a vibrating object, which when transmitted by pressure waves through
a medium such as air, is capable of being detected by a receiving mechanism, such as the human ear or a
microphone.
Noise. Sound that is loud, unpleasant, unexpected, or otherwise undesirable.
Decibel (dB). A unit-less measure of sound on a logarithmic scale.
A-Weighted Decibel (dBA). An overall frequency-weighted sound level in decibels that
approximates the frequency response of the human ear.
Equivalent Continuous Noise Level (Leq). The mean of the noise level, energy averaged over the
measurement period.
Statistical Sound Level (Ln). The sound level that is exceeded “n” percent of time during a given
sample period. For example, the L50 level is the statistical indicator of the time-varying noise signal that
is exceeded 50 percent of the time (during each sampling period), which is half of the sampling time,
the changing noise levels are above this value and half of the time they are below it. This is called the
“median sound level.” The L10 level, likewise, is the value that is exceeded 10 percent of the time (i.e.
near the maximum) and this is often known as the “intrusive sound level.” The L90 is the sound level
exceeded 90 percent of the time and is often considered the “effective background level” or “residual
noise level.”
Day-Night Sound Level (Ldn or DNL). The energy-average of the A-weighted sound levels
occurring during a 24-hour period, with 10 dB added to the sound levels occurring during the period
from 10:00 PM to 7:00 AM.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
NOISE
4.10-2 JUNE 18, 2014
Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). The energy-average of the A-weighted sound levels
occurring during a 24-hour period, with 5 dB added to the levels occurring during the period from
7:00 PM to 10:00 PM and 10 dB added to the sound levels occurring during the period from 10:00 PM
to 7:00 AM.
Note: For general community/environmental noise, CNEL and Ldn values rarely differ by more than
1 dB. As a matter of practice, Ldn and CNEL values are considered to be equivalent/interchangeable and
are treated therefore in this assessment.
Characteristics of Sound
Sound is a pressure wave transmitted through the air. It is described in terms of loudness or amplitude
(measured in decibels), frequency or pitch (measured in Hertz [Hz] or cycles per second), and duration
(measured in seconds or minutes). The standard unit of measurement of the loudness of sound is the decibel
(dB). Changes of 1 to 3 dB are detectable under quiet, controlled conditions and changes of less than 1 dBA
are usually indiscernible. A 3 dB change in noise levels is considered the minimum change that is detectable
with human hearing in outside environments. A change of 5 dB is readily discernable to most people in an
exterior environment whereas a 10 dBA change is perceived as a doubling (or halving) of the sound.
The human ear is not equally sensitive to all frequencies. Sound waves below 16 Hz are not heard at all and
are “felt” more as a vibration. Similarly, while people with extremely sensitive hearing can hear sounds as
high as 20,000 Hz, most people cannot hear above 15,000 Hz. In all cases, hearing acuity falls off rapidly
above about 10,000 Hz and below about 200 Hz. Since the human ear is not equally sensitive to sound at all
frequencies, a special frequency dependent rating scale is usually used to relate noise to human sensitivity.
The A-weighted decibel scale (dBA) performs this compensation by discriminating against frequencies in a
manner approximating the sensitivity of the human ear.
Measurement of Sound
Sound intensity is measured through the A-weighted measure to correct for the relative frequency response
of the human ear. That is, an A-weighted noise level deemphasizes low and very high frequencies of sound
similar to the human ear’s de-emphasis of these frequencies.
Unlike linear units such as inches or pounds, decibels are measured on a logarithmic scale, representing
points on a sharply rising curve. This logarithmic scale is used to better account for the large variations in
pressure amplitude (the above range of human hearing, 0 to 140 dBA, represents a ratio in pressures of 100
trillion to one). All noise levels in this study are relative to the industry-standard pressure reference value of
20 micropascals. Because of the physical characteristics of noise transmission and perception, the relative
loudness of sound does not closely match the actual amounts of sound energy. Table 4.10-1 presents the
subjective effect of changes in sound pressure levels.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
NOISE
PLACEWORKS 4.10-3
TABLE 4.10‐1 CHANGE IN APPARENT LOUDNESS
± 3 dB Threshold of human perceptibility
± 5 dB Clearly noticeable change in noise level
± 10 dB Half or twice as loud
± 20 dB Much quieter or louder
Source: Bies and Hansen, 2009.
In practical application, an increase of 10 dB is 10 times more intense than 1 dB, while 20 dB is 100 times
more intense, and 30 dB is 1,000 times more intense. A sound as soft as human breathing is about 10 times
greater than 0 dB. The decibel system of measuring sound gives a rough connection between the physical
intensity of sound and its perceived loudness to the human ear. Ambient sounds generally range from
30 dBA (very quiet) to 100 dBA (very loud). To help relate noise level values to common experience,
Table 4.10-2 shows typical noise levels from noise sources. Sound levels are generated from a source and
their decibel level decreases as the distance from that source increases. Sound dissipates exponentially with
distance from the noise source. This phenomenon is known as “spreading loss.” For a single point source,
sound levels decrease by approximately 6 dB for each doubling of distance from the source. This drop-off
rate is appropriate for noise generated by onsite operations from stationary equipment or activity at a
project site. If noise is produced by a line source, such as highway traffic, the sound decreases by 3 dB for
each doubling of distance in a hard site environment. Line source noise in a relatively flat environment with
absorptive vegetation decreases by 4.5 dB for each doubling of distance.
Time variation in noise exposure is typically expressed in terms of a steady-state energy level equal to the
energy content of the time varying period (called Leq), or alternately, as a statistical description of the sound
level that is exceeded over some fraction of a given observation period. For example, the L50 noise level
represents the noise level that is exceeded 50 percent of the time. Half the time the noise level exceeds this
level and half the time the noise level is less than this level. This level is also representative of the level that is
exceeded 30 minutes in an hour. Similarly, the L2, L 8, and L25 values represent the noise levels that are
exceeded 2, 8, and 25 percent of the time or 1, 5, and 15 minutes per hour. These “L” values are typically
used to demonstrate compliance for stationary noise sources with a city’s noise ordinance, as discussed
below. Other values typically noted during a noise survey are the Lmin and Lmax. These values represent the
minimum and maximum root-mean-square noise levels obtained over the measurement period.
Because community receptors are more sensitive to unwanted noise intrusion during the evening and at
night, state law and the City of Cupertino require that, for planning purposes, an artificial dB increment be
added to quiet time noise levels in a 24-hour noise descriptor called the Community Noise Equivalent Level
(CNEL) or Day-Night Noise Level (Ldn). The CNEL descriptor requires that an artificial increment of 5 dBA
be added to the actual noise level for the hours from 7:00 PM to 10:00 PM and 10 dBA for the hours from
10:00 PM to 7:00 AM. The Ldn descriptor uses the same methodology except that there is no artificial
increment added to the hours between 7:00 PM and 10:00 PM. Both descriptors give roughly the same
24-hour level with the CNEL being only slightly more restrictive (i.e. higher).
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
NOISE
4.10-4 JUNE 18, 2014
TABLE 4.10‐2 TYPICAL NOISE LEVELS
Common Outdoor Activities
Noise Level
(dBA) Common Indoor Activities
110 Rock Band
Jet Flyover at 1,000 feet
100
Gas Lawn Mower at three feet
90
Diesel Truck at 50 feet, at 50 mph Food Blender at 3 feet
80 Garbage Disposal at 3 feet
Noisy Urban Area, Daytime
70 Vacuum Cleaner at 10 feet
Commercial Area Normal speech at 3 feet
Heavy Traffic at 300 feet 60
Large Business Office
Quiet Urban Daytime 50 Dishwasher Next Room
Quiet Urban Nighttime 40 Theater, Large Conference Room (background)
Quiet Suburban Nighttime
30 Library
Quiet Rural Nighttime Bedroom at Night, Concert Hall (background)
20
Broadcast/Recording Studio
10
Lowest Threshold of Human Hearing 0 Lowest Threshold of Human Hearing
Source: Caltrans 2009.
Psychological and Physiological Effects of Noise
Noise is defined as unwanted sound, and is known to have several adverse effects on people, including
hearing loss, speech and sleep interference, physiological responses, and annoyance. Physical damage to
human hearing begins at prolonged exposure to noise levels higher than 85 dBA. Exposure to high noise
levels affects our entire system, with prolonged noise exposure in excess of 75 dBA increasing body
tensions, and thereby affecting blood pressure, functions of the heart and the nervous system. In
comparison, extended periods of noise exposure above 90 dBA could result in permanent hearing damage.
Based on these known adverse effects of noise, the federal government, the State of California, and many
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
NOISE
PLACEWORKS 4.10-5
local governments have established criteria to protect public health and safety and to prevent disruption of
certain human activities.
Vibration Fundamentals
Vibration is a trembling, quivering, or oscillating motion of the earth. Like noise, vibration is transmitted in
waves, but in this case through the earth or solid objects. Unlike noise, vibration is typically of a frequency
that is felt rather than heard.
Vibration can be either natural as in the form of earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, sea waves, or landslides, or
manmade as from explosions, the action of heavy machinery or heavy vehicles such as trains. Both natural
and manmade vibration may be continuous such as from operating machinery, or transient, such as from an
explosion. The way in which vibration is transmitted through the earth is called propagation. Propagation of
earthborn vibrations is complicated and difficult to predict because of the endless variations in the soil
through which waves travel. There are three main types of vibration propagation: surface, compression and
shear waves. Surface waves, or Raleigh waves, travel along the ground’s surface. These waves carry most of
their energy along an expanding circular wave front, similar to ripples produced by throwing a rock into a
pool of water. P waves, or compression waves, are body waves that carry their energy along an expanding
spherical wave front. The particle motion in these waves is longitudinal (i.e. in a “push-pull” fashion). P
waves are analogous to airborne sound waves. S waves, or shear waves, are also body waves that carry energy
along an expanding spherical wave front. However, unlike P waves, the particle motion is transverse or
“side-to-side and perpendicular to the direction of propagation”.
As vibration waves propagate from a source, the energy is spread over an ever-increasing area such that the
energy level striking a given point is reduced with the distance from the energy source. This geometric
spreading loss is inversely proportional to the square of the distance. Wave energy is also reduced with
distance as a result of material damping in the form of internal friction, soil layering, and void spaces. The
amount of attenuation provided by material damping varies with soil type and condition as well as the
frequency of the wave.
As with noise, vibration can be described by both its amplitude and frequency. Amplitude may be
characterized in three ways: displacement, velocity, and acceleration. Particle displacement is a measure of
the distance that a vibrated particle travels from its original position and for the purposes of soil
displacement is typically measured in inches or millimeters. Particle velocity is the rate of speed at which
soil particles move in inches per second or millimeters per second. Particle acceleration is the rate of change
in velocity with respect to time and is measured in inches per second or millimeters per second. Typically,
particle velocity (measured in inches or millimeters per second) and/or acceleration (measured in gravities)
are used to describe vibration. Table 4.10-3 presents the human reaction to various levels of peak particle
velocity.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
NOISE
4.10-6 JUNE 18, 2014
TABLE 4.10‐3 HUMAN REACTION TO TYPICAL VIBRATION LEVELS
Vibration Level Peak
Particle Velocity
(in/sec) Human Reaction Effect on Buildings
0.006–0.019 Threshold of perception, possibility of intrusion Vibrations unlikely to cause damage of any type
0.08 Vibrations readily perceptible Recommended upper level of vibration to which
ruins and ancient monuments should be subjected
0.10 Level at which continuous vibration begins to
annoy people
Virtually no risk of “architectural” (i.e. not structural)
damage to normal buildings
0.20 Vibrations annoying to people in buildings
Threshold at which there is a risk to “architectural”
damage to normal dwelling–houses with plastered
walls and ceilings
0.4–0.6
Vibrations considered unpleasant by people
subjected to continuous vibrations and
unacceptable to some people walking on
bridges
Vibrations at a greater level than normally expected
from traffic, but would cause “architectural”
damage and possibly minor structural damage
Sources: California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2004, June. Transportation‐and Construction‐Induced Vibration Guidance Manual.
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Division of Environmental Analysis. 2002, February. Transportation Related Earthborne Vibration
(Caltrans Experiences). Technical Advisory, Vibration. TAV‐02‐01‐R9601.
Vibrations also vary in frequency and this affects perception. Typical construction vibrations fall in the 10 to
30 Hz range and usually occur around 15 Hz. Traffic vibrations exhibit a similar range of frequencies;
however, due to their suspension systems, buses often generate frequencies around 3 Hz at high vehicle
speeds. It is less common, but possible, to measure traffic frequencies above 30 Hz.
Noise- and Vibration-Sensitive Receptors
Certain land uses are particularly sensitive to noise and vibration. These uses include residences, schools,
libraries, churches, nursing homes, hospitals, and open space/recreation areas where quiet environments
are necessary for enjoyment, public health, and safety. Commercial and industrial uses are generally not
considered noise- and vibration-sensitive uses, unless noise and vibration would interfere with their normal
operations and business activities.
4.10.1.2 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
To limit population exposure to physically and/or psyc hologically damaging as well as intrusive noise levels,
the federal government, the State of California, various county governments, and most municipalities in the
state have established standards and ordinances to control noise. There are no federal noise or vibration
standards applicable to activities or uses under the jurisdiction of the Cupertino General Plan; therefore,
this analysis only addresses State and local standards.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
NOISE
PLACEWORKS 4.10-7
State Regulations
State of California Code of Regulations
The State of California’s noise insulation standards are codified in the California Code of Regulations
(CCR), Title 24, Building Standards Administrative Code, Part 2, California Building Code (CBC). These
noise standards are applied to new construction in California for the purpose of interior noise compatibility
from exterior noise sources. The regulations specify that acoustical studies must be prepared when noise-
sensitive structures, such as residential buildings, schools, or hospitals, are located near major transportation
noise sources, and where such noise sources create an exterior noise level of 65 dBA CNEL or higher.
Acoustical studies that accompany building plans must demonstrate that the structure has been designed to
limit interior noise in habitable rooms to acceptable noise levels. For new residential buildings, schools, and
hospitals, the acceptable interior noise limit for new construction is 45 dBA CNEL.
California Code of Regulations Title 21, Subchapter 6, (Airport Noise Standards) establishes 65 dBA CNEL
as the acceptable level of aircraft noise for persons living in the vicinity of airports. Title 21 applies to
airports that have been designated “noise problem airports,” which includes the San Jose and San Francisco
International Airports. Noise-sensitive land uses in locations where the aircraft exterior noise level exceeds
65 dBA CNEL are generally incompatible, unless (1) an aviation easement for aircraft noise has been
acquired by the airport proprietor, or (2) the residence is a high-rise apartment or condominium that has an
interior CNEL of 45 dBA or less in all habitable rooms despite aircraft noise and an air circulation or air
conditioning system, as appropriate. Assembly Bill (AB) 2776 requires any person who intends to sell or
lease residential properties within an airport influence area to disclose that fact to the person buying the
property.
California Noise/Land Use Compatibility Matrix
The California Office of Noise Control has prepared a land use compatibility chart for community noise to
provide urban planners with a tool to gauge the compatibility of land uses relative to existing and future
ambient noise levels. This land use compatibility char t, reproduced below as Table 4.10-5, identifies
‘normally acceptable’, ‘conditionally acceptable’, and ‘clearly unacceptable’ noise levels for various land
uses. A conditionally acceptable designation implies new construction or development should be undertaken
only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements for each land use is made and needed noise
insulation features are incorporated in the design. By comparison, a normally acceptable designation
indicates that standard construction can occur with no special noise reduction requirements.
Local Regulations
City of Cupertino General Plan 2000-2020
The City of Cupertino does not have a standalone Noise Element, but instead incorporates this material into
Section 6, Health and Safety of the General Plan. As part of the proposed Project, some General Plan
policies would be amended. Substantive policy changes under the proposed Project include the addition,
removal, or functional revision (e.g. not purely semantic) of policies in ways that have the potential to result
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
NOISE
4.10-8 JUNE 18, 2014
in a physical impact on the environment. Policies of the 2000-2020 General Plan that are relevant to noise
and not substantially modified (e.g. renumbered or minor text change) are listed below in Table 4.10-4. A
comprehensive list of policy changes is provided in Appendix I, Proposed General Plan Policy Amendments,
of this Draft EIR. Discussions of how substantive policy changes may result in adverse physical changes are
included in the analyses under each impact criterion in Section 4.10.3, Impact Discussion, below.
TABLE 4.10‐4 GOALS, POLICIES, AND PROGRAMS OF THE CUPERTINO GENERAL PLAN
New Policy
Number
Original Policy
Number Policies and Strategies
Section 2, Land Use/Community Design
Policy 2‐63 Policy 2‐89 Public and Quasi‐Public Activities. Allow public and quasi‐public activities in commercial or
office land use categories with zoning and use permit review based on the following criteria:
1. The proposed project must have similar building forms, population, traffic, noise and
infrastructure impacts as the existing land use categories.
2. The proposed project must maintain a commercial interface in commercial designations
by offering retail activities, creating a storefront appearance or other design or use
options that are similar to commercial activities.
Strategy. Commercial Ordinance. Amend the commercial zoning ordinance to allow public
and quasi‐public activities as conditional uses.
Section 5, Environmental Resources/Sustainability
Policy 5‐16 Policy 5‐16 Mineral Extraction Controls. Control scenic restoration and noise pollution as well as air and
water pollution in mineral extraction quarrying, processing and transportation.
Section 6, Health and Safety
Policy 6‐49 Policy 6‐50 Land Use Decision Evaluation. Use the Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise
Environments chart and the City Municipal Code to evaluate land use decisions.
Policy 6‐51 Policy 6‐52 Stricter State Noise Laws. Support enactment of stricter State laws on noise emissions from
new motor vehicles and enforce existing street laws on noise emissions.
Policy 6‐52 Policy 6‐53 Neighborhood Need Priority. Review the needs of residents for convenience and safety and
make them a priority over the convenient movement of commute or through traffic where
practical.
Policy 6‐54 Policy 6‐55 Noise Improvement by Restricting Trucks. Work toward improving the noise environment
along Foothill Boulevard and Stevens Creek Boulevard by restricting quarry truck traffic
especially during late evening and early morning hours. It is preferable that the restrictions
be voluntary. Encourage alternative to truck transport, specifically rail, when feasible.
Policy 6‐59 Policy 6‐60 Noise Control Techniques. Require analysis and implementation of techniques to control the
effects of noise from industrial equipment and processes for projects near homes.
Policy 6‐61 Policy 6‐62 Construction and Maintenance Activities. Regulate construction and maintenance activities.
Establish and enforce reasonable allowable periods of the day, for weekdays, weekends and
holidays for construction activities. Require construction contractors to use the best
available technology to minimize excessive noise and vibration from construction
equipment such as pile drivers, jack hammers, and vibratory rollers.
Policy 6‐62 Policy 6‐63 Sound Wall Requirements. Exercise discretion in requiring sound walls to be sure that all
other measures of noise control have been explored and that the sound wall blends with
the neighborhood. Sound walls should be landscaped.
Source: City of Cupertino and Cupertino 2000‐2020 General Plan.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
NOISE
PLACEWORKS 4.10-9
Additionally, the City of Cupertino has adopted the State of California Guidelines for Land Use
Compatibility for Community Noise Environments. Cupertino’s noise compatibility guidelines are shown in
Table 4.10-5, which identifies normally acceptable, conditionally acceptable, normally unacceptable, and
clearly unacceptable noise levels for various land uses. A normally acceptable designation implies that the
specified land use is compatible with the ambient noise level and normal construction without any special
insulation requirements would be permissible for the proposed land use.
A conditionally acceptable designation implies new construction or development should be undertaken only
after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements for each land use is made and needed noise
insulation features are incorporated in the design; for this designation, conventional construction with
ventilation systems other than open windows should suffice to offset the high noise environment. A
normally unacceptable designation requires a detailed analysis of noise reduction requirements prior to
construction, and also requires incorporation of noise insulation features—with conventional construction
not usually sufficient. An unacceptable designation indicates that development of the particular land use
should generally not be undertaken.
For the development of single-family residential uses in Cupertino, ambient noise levels of up to 60 dBA Ldn
or CNEL are normally acceptable, noise levels between 55 and 70 dBA Ldn or CNEL are conditionally
acceptable, ambient noise levels between 70 and 75 dBA Ldn or CNEL are normally unacceptable, and
ambient noise levels above 75 dBA Ldn or CNEL are clearly unacceptable. For the development of multi-
family residential uses in Cupertino, ambient noise levels of up to 65 dBA Ldn or CNEL are normally
acceptable, noise levels between 60 and 70 dBA CNEL are conditionally acceptable, ambient noise levels
between 70 and 75 dBA Ldn or CNEL are normally unacceptable, and noise levels above 75 dBA Ldn or
CNEL are clearly unacceptable.
City of Cupertino Municipal Code
The Cupertino Municipal Code regulates noise primarily through the Noise Ordinance, which comprises
Chapter 10.48 of the Code, under Title 10, Public Peace, Safety and Morals. The Municipal Code contains
additional specific and general provisions relating to noise. Most notably, the Municipal Code contains
performance standards for Multiple Family, Commercial, Manufacturing and Planned Community Districts.
Beyond the noise ordinance and performance standards, the municipal code contains additional
miscellaneous references to noise. Where these references constitute specific regulations, they are
reproduced in full below. Municipal Code provisions that do not address a specific regulation or standard,
but which prohibit excessive noise or seek to limit noise impacts in general, are listed at the end of the
Municipal Code section.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
NOISE
4.10-10 JUNE 18, 2014
TABLE 4.10‐5 LAND USE COMPATIBILITY FOR COMMUNITY NOISE ENVIRONMENTS
Land Uses
CNEL (dBA)
55 60 65 70 75 80
Residential – Low Density
Single‐Family, Duplex, Mobile Homes
Residential – Multiple‐Family
Transient Lodging, Motels, Hotels
Schools, Libraries, Churches, Hospitals, Nursing Homes
Auditoriums, Concert Halls, Amphitheaters
Sports Arena, Outdoor Spectator Sports
Playgrounds, Neighborhood Parks
Golf Courses, Riding Stables, Water Recreation, Cemeteries
Office Buildings, Businesses, Commercial and Professional
Industrial, Manufacturing, Utilities, Agricultural
Normally Acceptable:
Specified land use is satisfactory based upon the assumption
that any buildings involved are of normal conventional
construction, without any special noise insulation
requirements.
Normally Unacceptable:
New construction or development should generally be
discouraged. If new construction does proceed, a
detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements
must be made and needed noise insulation features
included in the design.
Conditionally Acceptable:
New construction or development should be undertaken only
after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements
is made and the needed noise insulation features included in
the design. Conventional construction, but with closed
windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning will
normally suffice.
Clearly Unacceptable:
New construction or development generally should
not be undertaken.
Source: Office of Noise Control, Guidelines for the Preparation and Content of Noise Elements of the General Plan, February 1976. Included in the
Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, California, General Plan Guidelines, Appendix C, October 2003.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
NOISE
PLACEWORKS 4.10-11
Noise Ordinance
Municipal Code Chapter 10.48, Community Noise Control, of Title 10, Public Peace, Safety and Morals,
includes the following provisions of that are most applicable to implementation of the proposed Project:
10.48.020 Lead Agency/Official. The noise control program established by this chapter shall be
administered by and is the responsibility of, the Noise Control Officer (NCO).
10.48.021 Powers of the Noise Control Officer. In order to implement and enforce this chapter
and for the general purpose of noise abatement and control, the NCO shall have, in addition to any
other vested authority, the power to:
A. Review of Public and Private Projects. Review of public and private projects, subject to
mandatory review or approval by other departments, for compliance with this ordinance, if such
projects are likely to cause noise in violation of this chapter;
B. Inspections. Upon presentation of proper credentials and with permission of the property owner
or occupant, enter and investigate a potential ordinance violation on any property or place, and
inspect any report or records at any reasonable time. If permission is refused or cannot be obtained,
a search warrant may be obtained from a court of competent jurisdiction upon showing of probable
cause to believe that a violation of this chapter may exist. Such inspection may include
administration of any necessary tests.
10.48.022 Duties of the Noise Control Officer. In order to implement and enforce this chapter
effectively, the NCO shall within a reasonable time after the effective date of the ordinance codified in
this chapter:
A. Guidelines, Testing Methods and Procedures. Develop and promulgate guidelines, testing
methods and procedures as required. Any noise measurement procedure used in enforcement of
this chapter which tends to underestimate the actual noise level of the source being measured shall
not invalidate the enforcement action;
B. Investigate and Pursue Violations. In consonance with provisions of this chapter, investigate
and pursue possible violations;
C. Delegation of Authority. Delegate functions, where appropriate under this chapter, to other
personnel and to other departments, subject to approval of the City Manager.
10.48.023 Duties and Responsibilities of Other Departments.
A. Departmental Actions. All City departments shall, to the fullest extent consistent with other
law, carry out their programs in such a manner as to further the policy and intent of this chapter.
B. Project Approval. All departments whose duty it is to review and approve new projects, or
changes to existing projects, that may result in the production of disturbing noise, shall consult with
the NCO prior to any such approval.
C. Contracts. Any written contract, agreement, purchase order, or other instrument whereby the
City is committed to the expenditure of $5,000 dollars or more in return for goods or services, and
which involves noise-producing activities, shall contain provisions requiring compliance with this
chapter.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
NOISE
4.10-12 JUNE 18, 2014
10.48.029 Homeowner or Resident-Conducted Construction Work Exception.
Construction conducted by the homeowner or resident of a single dwelling, using domestic
construction tools is allowed on holidays between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m.
10.48.030 Emergency Exception. The provisions of this chapter shall not apply to the emission of
sound for the purpose of alerting persons to the existence of an emergency, or the emission of sound in
the performance of emergency work.
10.48.031 Special Exceptions.
A. The NCO shall have the authority, consistent with this section, to grant special exceptions which
may be requested.
B. Any person seeking a special exception pursuant to this section shall file an application with the
NCO. The application shall contain information which demonstrates that bringing the source of
sound, or activity for which the special exception is sought, into compliance with this chapter
would constitute an unreasonable hardship on the applicant, on the community, or on other
persons. Prior to issuance of an exception, the NCO shall notify owners and/or occupants of
nearby properties which may be affected by such exceptions. Any individual who claims to be
adversely affected by allowance of the special exceptions may file a statement with the NCO
containing any information to support his claim. If the NCO finds that a sufficient controversy
exists regarding an application, a public hearing may be held.
C. In determining whether to grant or deny the application, the NCO shall balance the hardship to the
applicant, the community, and other persons of not granting the special exception against the
adverse impact on the health, safety, and welfare of persons affected, the adverse impact on
property affected, and any other adverse impacts of granting the special exception. Applicants for
special exceptions and persons contesting special exceptions may be required to submit any
information the NCO may reasonably require. In granting or denying an application, the NCO shall
place on public file a copy of the decision and the reasons for denying or granting the special
exception.
D. Special exceptions shall be granted by notice to the applicant containing all necessary conditions,
including a time limit on the permitted activity. The special exception shall not become effective
until all conditions are agreed to by the applicant. Noncompliance with any condition of the special
exception shall terminate it and subject the person holding it to those provisions of this chapter
regulating the source of sound or activity for which the special exception was granted.
E. Application for extension of time limits specified in special exceptions or for modification of other
substantial conditions shall be treated like applications for initial special exceptions under subsection
B of this section.
10.48.032 Appeals. Appeals of any decision of the NCO shall be made to the City Council.
10.48.040 Daytime and Nighttime Maximum Noise Levels. Individual noise sources, or the
combination of a group of noise sources located on the same property, shall not produce a noise level
exceeding those specified on property zoned as follows (see Table 4.10-6), unless specifically provided
in another section of this chapter:
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
NOISE
PLACEWORKS 4.10-13
TABLE 4.10‐6 DAYTIME AND NIGHTTIME MAXIMUM NOISE LEVELS
Land Use at Point of Origin
Maximum Noise Level at Complaint Site of Receiving Property
Nighttime Daytime
Residential 50 dBA 60 dBA
Non‐residential 55 dBA 65 dBA
Note: ‘Nighttime’ is defined as periods of weekdays from 8:00 PM to 12:00 midnight, and from midnight to 7:00 AM, and periods on
weekends from 6:00 PM to midnight and from midnight to 9:00 AM. ‘Daytime’ is defined as the period from 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM on
weekdays, and the period from 9:00 AM to 6:00 PM on weekends.
Source: City of Cupertino Municipal Code, Section 10.48.040
10.48.050 Brief Daytime Incidents. During the daytime period only, brief noise incidents exceeding
limits in other sections of this chapter are allowed; providing, that the sum of the noise duration in
minutes plus the excess noise level does not exceed twenty in a two-hour period. For example, the
following combinations (see Table 4.10-7) would be allowable:
TABLE 4.10‐7 DAYTIME AND NIGHTTIME MAXIMUM NOISE LEVELS
Noise Increment Above Normal Standard Noise Duration in 2‐Hour Period
5 dBA 15 minutes
10 dBA 10 minutes
15 dBA 5 minutes
19 dBA 1 minute
Source: City of Cupertino Municipal Code, Section 10.48.050.
For multi-family dwelling interior noise, Section 10.48.054, the sum of excess noise level and duration
in minutes of a brief daytime incident shall not exceed ten in any two-hour period, measured at the
receiving location.
Section 10.48.050A does not apply to Section 10.48.055 (Motor Vehicle Idling).
10.48.051 Landscape Maintenance Activities. The use of motorized equipment for landscape
maintenance activities shall be limited to the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on weekdays, and 9:00
a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on weekends and holidays, with the exception of landscape maintenance activities for
public schools, public and private golf courses, and public facilities, which are allowed to begin at 7:00
a.m. The use of motorized equipment for landscape maintenance activities during these hours is
exempted from the limits of Section 10.48.040; provided, that reasonable efforts are made by the user
to minimize the disturbances to nearby residents by, for example, installation of appropriate mufflers or
noise baffles, running equipment only the minimal period necessary, and locating equipment so as to
generate minimum noise levels on adjoining properties.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
NOISE
4.10-14 JUNE 18, 2014
10.48.052 Outdoor Public Events. Outdoor events open to the general public on nonresidential
property, such as parades, rallies, fairs, concerts and special sales and promotional events, involving
generation of noise levels higher than would normally occur, by use of the human voice, public address
systems, musical instruments, electronic amplification systems, and similar sound-producing activities,
are allowed upon obtaining an appropriate permit from the city, and subject to the following general
limitations:
The event shall not produce noise levels above 70 dBA on any residential property for a period
longer than three hours during daytime.
The event shall not produce noise levels above 60 dBA on any residential property during the
period from eight p.m. to eleven p.m., and above 55 dBA for any other nighttime period.
Continuous or repeated peak noise levels above 95 dBA shall not be produced at any location where
persons may be continuously exposed.
The conditions imposed upon the event or activity in the permit issued by the City, regarding maximum
noise level, location of noise sources, or duration of activity, for example, may be more limiting than
this section, to protect certain individuals, areas or nearby activities which would otherwise be
disturbed, and these permit conditions, when in conflict with this section, are overriding.
10.48.053 Grading, Construction and Demolition. Grading, construction and demolition
activities shall be allowed to exceed the noise limits of Section 10.48.040 during daytime hours [7:00
a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on weekdays, and the period from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on weekends, per Section
10.48.010 Definitions]; provided, that the equipment utilized has high-quality noise muffler and
abatement devices installed and in good condition, and the activity meets one of the following two
criteria:
1. No individual device produces a noise level more than 87 dBA at a distance of 25 feet (7.5 meters);
or
2. The noise level on any nearby property does not exceed 80 dBA.
Notwithstanding Section 10.48.053A, it is a violation of this chapter to engage in any grading, street
construction, demolition or underground utility work within 750 feet of a residential area on Saturdays,
Sundays and holidays, and during the nighttime period [8:00 p.m. to midnight, and from midnight to
7:00 a.m., and periods on weekends from 6:00 p.m. to midnight and from midnight to 9:00 a.m., per
Section 10.48.010 Definitions], except as provided in Section 10.48.030.
Construction, other than street construction, is prohibited on holidays, except as provided in Sections
10.48.029 and 10.48.030.
Construction, other than street construction, is prohibited during nighttime periods unless it meets the
nighttime standards of Section 10.48.040.
The use of helicopters as a part of a construction and/or demolition activity shall be restricted to
between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. Monday through Friday only, and prohibited on the
weekends and holidays. The notice shall be given at least 24 hours in advance of said usage. In cases of
emergency, the 24 hour period may be waived.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
NOISE
PLACEWORKS 4.10-15
10.48.054 Interior Noise in Multiple-Family Dwellings. Noise produced in any multiple-family
dwelling unit shall not produce a noise level exceeding 45 dBA five feet from any wall in any adjoining
unit during the period between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m., or exceeding 40 dBA during hours from
10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. the following day.
10.48.055 Motor Vehicle Idling. Motor vehicles, including automobiles, trucks, motorcycles, motor
scooters and trailers or other equipment towed by a motor vehicle, shall not be allowed to remain in
one location with the engine or auxiliary motors running for more than three minutes in any hour, in an
area other than on a public right-of-way, unless:
The regular noise limits of Section 10.48.040 are met while the engine and/or auxiliary motors are
running; or
The vehicle is in use for provision of police, fire, medical, or other emergency services.
10.48.056 Noise from Registered Motor Vehicles. It is a violation of this chapter to own or
operate a motor vehicle, including automobiles, trucks, motorcycles and other similar devices of a type
subject to registration, as defined in California Vehicle Code, which has a faulty, defective, deteriorated,
modified, replaced, or no exhaust and/or muffler system, and which produces an excessive and
disturbing noise level, as defined in California Vehicle Code Sections 27150 and 27151.
The Stationary Vehicle Test Procedure, as adopted by the California Highway Patrol, may be utilized as
prima facie evidence of violation of this section.
10.48.057 Noise from Off-Road Recreational Vehicles. It is a violation of this chapter to own or
operate:
Any off-road recreational vehicle, including all-terrain vehicles, dirt bikes, dune buggies and other
similar devices, as defined in Division 16.5 of the California Vehicle Code, which has a faulty,
defective, deteriorated, modified, replaced, or no exhaust and/or muffler system, and which
produces an excessive and disturbing noise level, as specified in California Vehicle Code Section
38365;
Any off-road recreational vehicle producing a noise level:
1. Exceeding 98 dBA within twenty inches of any component at an intermediate engine speed of
2,000 to 4,000 revolutions per minute in a stationary position; or
2. Exceeding 80 dBA under any condition of acceleration, speed, grade, and load at a distance of
50 feet. At greater or lesser measurement distances, the maximum noise level changes by 4 dB
for each doubling or halving of distance. The sound level meter shall be set for FAST response
for this measurement.
10.48.060 Noise Disturbances. No person shall unreasonably make, continue, or cause to be made or
continued, any noise disturbance as defined in Section 10.48.010.
10.48.061 Animals and Birds. It is unlawful and a nuisance for any person to keep, maintain or
permit upon any lot or parcel of land within the City under his control any animal, including any fowl,
which by any sound or cry shall habitually disturb the peace and comfort of any person in the reasonable
and comfortable enjoyment of life or property.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
NOISE
4.10-16 JUNE 18, 2014
10.48.062 Nighttime Deliveries and Pickups. It is unlawful and a nuisance for any person to make
or allow vehicular deliveries or pickups to or from commercial establishments (defined as any store,
factory, manufacturing, or industrial plant used for the sale, manufacturing, fabrication, assembly or
storage of goods, wares and merchandise) by the use of private roads, alleys or other ways located on
either side or the back of any building housing the commercial establishment where such private road,
alley or other way lies between the building and any adjacent parcel of land zoned for residential
purposes, between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. weekdays (Monday through Friday) and 6:00
p.m. and 9:00 a.m. on weekends (Saturday and Sunday) and holidays except as may be permitted under
Section 10.48.029.
10.48.070 Violation–Penalty. Any person who violates the provisions of this chapter shall be guilty of
a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be punished as provided in Chapter 1.12
Zoning Ordinance
Title 19, Zoning, of the Municipal Code sets forth the City’s Zoning Ordinance, which, among other
purposes, is intended to assure the orderly and beneficial development of the city, attain a desirable balance
of residential and employment opportunities, and promote efficient urban design and arrangement. Whereas
the Noise Ordinance serves to limit the generation and reception of noise in Cupertino in general, the
Zoning Ordinance serves to address noise as it relates to the permitting and development of different land
uses. The Zoning Ordinance contains a variety of provisions related to noise; the most pertinent of these are
reproduced in full, below. Other miscellaneous provisions, which present general requirements for avoiding
or minimizing excessive noise, or for conforming to other portions of the Municipal Code, are listed at the
end of this section.
Chapter 19.44: Residential Single-Family Cluster (R1C) Zones
19.44.050 Site Development Regulations.
G. Noise Impacts
a. If the Director of Community Development determines that an excessive external noise source
shall exist in the project area, the developer shall retain an acoustical engineer to evaluate the
noise impact on the proposed residential development and develop mitigation measures.
b. The construction system shall comply with applicable City ordinances relative to sound-
transmission control to ensure acoustical privacy between adjoining dwelling units.
Chapter 19.48: Fences
19.48.020 Fence Location and Height for Zones Requiring Design Review.
H. The basic design review guidelines for the review of fences and walls are as follows:
Fences and walls separating commercial, industrial, offices, and institutional zones from
residential zones shall be constructed at a height and with materials designed to:
Acoustically isolate part of or all noise emitted by future uses within the commercial, industrial,
offices, or institutional zones. The degree of acoustical isolation shall be determined during the
design review process.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
NOISE
PLACEWORKS 4.10-17
19.60.050 Land Use Activity.
B. Land Use Criteria. Unless otherwise provided by a conditional use permit, the following regulations
shall apply to all users governed by this chapter.
The activity must be conducted entirely within a building or enclosed patio or atrium except
for:
Vehicular parking including the parking of business related vehicles that comply with the sign,
off-street parking and noise regulations;
e. Incidental activities directly related to the permitted business. The incidental activity must
comply with noise standards, all other applicable health and safety regulations and must use
equipment which, when not in use, is stored in an approved enclosed space.1
The activity must comply with the City noise standards, including pick-up and delivery times.
Some activities are permitted when located in a sound-proof space. A sound-proof space is an
enclosed area which is designed to prevent internally generated noise from being audible from a
receptor located outside of the structure. An acoustical engineer shall certify the design and
operating conditions of a sound-proof space.
Chapter 19.72 Light Industrial (ML) And Industrial Park (MP) Zones
19.72.050 Restrictions Related to Emissions. No use shall be allowed which is or will be offensive
by reason of the emission of dust, gas, smoke, noise, fumes, odors, bright lights, vibrations, nuclear
radiation, radio frequency interference, or otherwise. Every use shall be operated in such manner that
the volume of sound inherently and recurrently generated shall not exceed 65 decibels during the day
and 55 decibels at night, at any point on the property line on which the use is located, or 60 decibels
during the day and 55 decibels at night, at any point on the property line on which the use is located
where such property line abuts property that is zoned for residential purposes. Noise and sounds shall
be appropriately muffled in such manner so as not to be objectionable as to intermittent beat,
frequency, or shrillness.
Provided further that prior to issuance of a building permit the Building Inspector may require evidence
that adequate controls, measures, or devices have been provided to insure and protect the public
interest, health, comfort, convenience, safety and general welfare from such nuisances.
Emissions of noise, vibrations, radiation, light, smoke, fumes or gas, odor, dust and toxic waste shall be
limited to quantities indicated in this section. The limitations shall apply at any point outside the
boundary of each lot in an ML zone, the boundary assumed, for the purpose of this title, to extend in a
vertical plane and below ground. In case of further subdivision or lot split, the limitations shall not
apply outside any resulting lot.
Vibration. Vibrations in the non-audible range shall not be of such intensity that they can be
perceived without instruments.
1 Note only subsections a and e apply to noise.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
NOISE
4.10-18 JUNE 18, 2014
Chapter 19.96: Private Recreation (FP) Zone
19.96.080 Performance Standards – Noise:
1. General Standards. Adjoining properties shall be protected from noise levels exceeding noise
ordinance standards.
2. Potential Mitigation Strategies
– Provide physical barrier between noise source and sensitive receptor
– Limit hours of operation
– Prepare noise report describing detailed mitigation solutions
Chapter 19.116: Conversions of Apartment Projects to Common Interest Developments
19.116.010 Purpose.
C. To provide tenant and buyer protection relating to displacement and relocation of renters, ensuring
that purchasers are informed regarding the structural integrity of buildings and the on-site utility
system, and ensuring that such buildings and utility systems reasonably comply with all current
codes which may directly impact the health and safety of future residences, including codes related
to noise and insulation standards.
19.116.030 General Regulations.
D. Building and Site Improvements.
6. Shock Mounting of Mechanical Equipment. All permanent mechanical equipment,
including domestic appliances, which is determined by the building official to be a source or a
potential source of vibration or noise, shall be shock-mounted, isolated from the floor and
ceiling, or otherwise installed in a manner approved by the Building Official to lessen the
transmission of vibration and noise .
11. Noise Mitigation. Appropriate site design and construction techniques shall be utilized to
ensure isolation from excessive noise sources outside of the project boundary and to ensure
acoustical privacy between adjoining units. If the Director of Community Development
determines that an excessive external noise source exists, the developer shall retain an
acoustical engineer to evaluate the noise impact on the proposed residential development and
develop mitigation measures. The construction shall comply with the applicable City ordinances
and State codes relating to sound transmission control to ensure acoustical privacy between
adjoining dwelling units.
Miscellaneous provisions containing passing references to noise or vibration, such as requirements for
compliance with other noise-related portions of the municipal code, and/or prohibitions on the generation
of excessive noise or perceptible vibration:
Title 2 Administration and Personnel, Chapter 2.90: Design Review Committee, Section 2.90.020
Purpose.
Title 5 Business Licenses and Regulations, Chapter 5.48: Mobile Vendor Permits, Section 5.48.080
Mobile Vendors–General Regulations.
Title 8 Animals, Chapter 8.01: General Provisions, Section 8.01.130 Public Nuisance.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
NOISE
PLACEWORKS 4.10-19
Title 8 Animals, Chapter 8.05: Animal Establishments, Section 8.05.030 Conditions Relating to Animal
Facilities.
Title 10: Public Peace, Safety and Morals, Chapter 10.44: Parades and Athletic Events, Section
10.44.090 Permit–Grounds for Denial.
Title 10: Public Peace, Safety and Morals, Chapter 10.56: Trespassing Upon Parking Lots, Shopping
Center Property and Other Property Open to the Public, Section 10.56.020 Unlawful.
Title 11 Vehicles and Traffic, Chapter 11.10: Off-Street Vehicles, Section 11.10.010 Purpose.
Title 14: Streets, Sidewalks and Landscaping, Chapter 14.04: Street Improvements, Section 14.04.125
Rules and Regulations for Installation, Modification or Removal of Traffic Diverters.
Title 14: Streets, Sidewalks and Landscaping, Chapter 14.08: Encroachments and Use of City Rights-
Of-Way, Section 14.08.160 Ongoing Use of Right-of-Way.
Title 19: Zoning, Chapter 19.20: Permitted, Conditional and Excluded Uses in Agricultural and
Residential Zones.
Title 19: Zoning, Chapter 19.60: General Commercial (CG) Zones, Section 19.60.060 Development
Standards.
Title 19: Zoning, Chapter 19.64: Permitted, Conditional and Excluded Uses In Office And Industrial
Zoning designations.
Title 19: Zoning, Chapter 19.72: Light Industrial (Ml) and Industrial Park (MP) Zones, Section
19.72.050 Restrictions Related to Emissions.
Title 19: Zoning, Chapter 19.76: Public Building (Ba), Quasi-Public Building (BQ) and Transportation
(T) Zones, Section 19.76.060 Site Development Regulations.
Title 19: Zoning, Chapter 19.108: Beverage Container Redemption And Recycling Centers, Section
19.108.050 Criteria and Standards.
Title 19: Zoning, Chapter 19.120: Home Occupations, Section 19.120.030 Standards.
Title 19: Zoning, Chapter 19.136: Wireless Communications Facilities, Section 19.136.050 Specific Site
Development Regulations.
Title 19: Zoning, Chapter 19.140: Nonconforming Uses and Nonconforming Facilities, Section
19.140.030 Nonconforming Uses–Change.
Title 19: Zoning, Chapter 19.168: Architectural and Site Review, Section 19.168.030 Findings.
4.10.1.3 EXISTING CONDITIONS
Like many urban areas, Cupertino’s noise environment is dominated by transportation-related noise,
primarily car/truck traffic. Noise from train movements and aircraft contributes only minimally to the noise
environment in Cupertino. Interstate 280 (I-280) and State Route 85 (SR 85) are the largest contributors to
noise in Cupertino, with other major roadways contributing as well. These include Homestead Road,
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
NOISE
4.10-20 JUNE 18, 2014
Stevens Creek Boulevard, McClellan Road, Bollinger Road, Rainbow Drive, Prospect Road, Foothill
Boulevard, Bubb Road, Stelling Road, De Anza Boulevard, Blaney Avenue, and Wolfe Road. Noise along all
of these roadways is generated by private cars, trucks, buses, and other types of vehicles. Activities
associated with industrial, commercial, and residential uses also contribute substantially to the noise
environment of Cupertino. For all of these uses, stationary equipment, such as HVAC systems, represents a
significant source of noise. Activities such as deliveries and refuse collection also contribute to the noise
generated by land uses in Cupertino.
Noise Measurements
Existing ambient noise levels were measured at 15 sites around Cupertino to document representative noise
levels at a variety of locations. These locations are shown on Figure 4.10-1.
Short-term noise level measurements were taken at 13 locations for a minimum period of 15 minutes
during the daytime on Tuesday, April 22 and Wednesday, April 23, 2014, between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and
7:00 p.m. Short-term noise measurements serve as a snapshot of noise levels at a particular time and
location, offering a sense of how other, similar locations might experience noise during comparable times of
day. Long-term noise level measurements were taken at two locations for a period of 24 hours between
April 22 and 23, 2014.
Long-term noise level measurements serve to provide a broader picture of how noise levels vary over the
course of a full day, helping to put the short-term measurements in a broader temporal context. Both long-
and short-term measurements serve to indicate where excessive noise may be an existing or future issue for
existing or new land uses.
As shown in Table 4.10-8, noise levels at the short-term measurement locations ranged from a minimum of
58.4 dBA Leq at Location 4 to a maximum of 71.4 dBA Leq at Location 3, with an average Leq of 66.2 dBA,
and the majority locations falling between 65 and 70 dBA Leq. Noise levels tended to be higher adjacent to
major roadways and freeway, where high volumes of traffic were the dominant source of noise. Detailed
descriptions and quantitative data for all short-term monitoring locations are provided in Appendix E, Noise
Data, of this Draft EIR.
Noise levels were measured using a Larson-Davis Model 820 sound level meter, which satisfies the American
National Standards Institute for Type 1 general environmental noise measurement instrumentation. The
sound level meter and microphone were mounted on a tr ipod 5 feet above the ground and equipped with a
windscreen during all short-term measurements. For long-term measurements, the microphone and
windscreen were attached to available objects, at a height between four and six feet, as dictated by
conditions in the field.
GF GFGF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GFGF
GF
GFGF
GF
GF
City of Sunnyvale
%&'(280
|ÿ85
City of San Jose
City of
Santa Clara
Santa Clara
County
City of
Los Altos
Santa
Clara
County
Monta VistaRecreationCenter/Park
LindaVista Park
Deep CliffGolf Course
McClellanRanchPreserve
BlackberryFarm Park
SomersetSquarePark
VarianPark MemorialPark
ThreeOaksPark
HooverPark
JollymanPark
CaliMillPlaza
LibraryField
WilsonPark
CreeksidePark
PortalPark
SterlingBarnhartPark
FrancoPark
S
B
L
A
N
E
Y
A
V
E
N
B
L
A
N
E
Y
A
V
E
R AINBOW DR
B O L L I N G ER RD
N
S
T
E
L
L
I
N
G
R
D
B
U
B
B
R
D
NTANTAU
AVE
S
D
E
A
N
Z
A
B
L
V
D
BL
A
N
E
Y
A
V
E
N
FOOTHILL
BLVD
S
S
T
E
L
L
I
N
G
R
D
HOMESTEAD RD
PR U N E RIDGE AVE
MI
L
L
E
R
A
V
E
STEVENS CREEK BLVD
S
TANTAU
AVE
G
R
A
N
T
R
D
N
D
E
A
N
Z
A
B
L
V
D
P RO S P E CT RD
MCCLELLAN RD
N
W
O
L
F
E
R
D
S
W
O
L
F
E
R
D
LT-2 LT-1ST-1
ST-2
ST-3
ST-4
ST-5
ST-6
ST-7ST-8
ST-9
ST-10ST-11
ST-12
ST-13
GF Long-term Noise Monitoring Location
GF Short-term Noise Monitoring LocationParksCity Boundary
NOISECITY OF CUPERTINOGENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING PROJECT
Figure 4.10-1Noise Monitoring Locations
Source: City of Cupertino, 2013; MIG, Inc, 2014; PlaceWorks, 2014; ESRI, 2010.
0 0.5 10.25
Miles
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
NOISE
4.10-22 JUNE 18, 2014
TABLE 4.10‐8 NOISE MONITORING SUMMARY
Monitoring Location Duration Noise Level
ST‐1 15 minutes 68.9 dBA Leq
ST‐2 15 minutes 68.8 dBA Leq
ST‐3 15 minutes 71.4 dBA Leq
ST‐4 15 minutes 58.4 dBA Leq
ST‐5 15 minutes 67.4 dBA Leq
ST‐6 15 minutes 61.6 dBA Leq
ST‐7 15 minutes 67.9 dBA Leq
ST‐8 15 minutes 68.0 dBA Leq
ST‐9 15 minutes 67.6 dBA Leq
ST‐10 15 minutes 58.5 dBA Leq
ST‐11 15 minutes 70.9 dBA Leq
ST‐12 15 minutes 64.2 dBA Leq
ST‐13 15 minutes 67.3 dBA Leq
LT‐1 24 hours 69.1 dBA Ldn
LT‐2 24 hours 72.3 dBA Ldn
Notes: Noise measurement results printouts included in Appendix E, Noise Data, of this Draft EIR Noise Measurements taken by
PlaceWorks on April 22 and 23, 2014.
The sound level meters were programmed to record noise levels with the “slow” time constant and using the
“A” weighting filter network. Meteorological conditions during the measurement periods were favorable
and were noted to be representative of typical conditions for the season. Generally, conditions included
clear to partly cloudy skies, daytime temperatures of approximately 57 to 78 degrees Fahrenheit, and less
than 5 to 10 mile-per-hour winds, with occasional higher gusts noted at certain sites. The short- and long-
term noise measurement locations are described below. Table 4.10-8 summarizes the results of both the
short- and long-term noise monitoring.
Principal Noise Sources in Cupertino
On-Road Vehicles
Freeways that traverse Cupertino include I-280, which runs along and near the City’s northern boundary,
and SR 85, which roughly bisects the geographic area of Cupertino, running from northwest to southeast. In
addition to these highways, major roadways running north to south through or adjacent to Cupertino
include Foothill Boulevard, Bubb Road, Stelling Road, De Anza Boulevard, Blaney Avenue, Wolfe
Road/Miller Avenue, and the Lawrence Expressway, just beyond the eastern edge of the City. Major east-
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
NOISE
PLACEWORKS 4.10-23
west roadways include Stevens Creek Boulevard, McClellan Road, Bollinger Road, Rainbow Drive, and
lastly, Homestead Road and Prospect Road, which run along the northern and southern boundaries of the
city, respectively. Together, these highways and streets comprise the major roads in the City of Cupertino.
Figure 4.10-2 shows existing noise contours for Cupertino, including the roadways referenced above.
Train Noise
Cupertino does not host any passenger rail lines and has only one, seldom-used freight railway. This freight
right-of-way is a Union Pacific rail line, which now exclusively serves the Hanson Permanente quarry and
cement plant. As described in the General Plan for the City of Cupertino, this railway presently operates at
very low frequencies, with approximately three train trips in each direction per week, usually during the
daytime or early evening. Therefore, this railway contributes only very minimally to the noise environment
of Cupertino.
Heliports
There are no heliports located within the City of Cupertino listed by the Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA).2 The nearest heliport is located approximately 3.4 miles to the east of Cupertino at the County
Medical Center in San Jose. Another nearby heliport is located at McCandless Towers in Sunnyvale,
3.6 miles to the northeast of Cupertino. There are no additional heliports within five miles of Cupertino.3
Aircraft Noise
There are no public or private airports or airstrips in Cupertino. At the nearest points within city
boundaries, Cupertino is located approximately 4.0 miles to the southwest of the San Jose International
Airport. The Santa Clara County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) has adopted a Comprehensive
Land Use Plan (CLUP) for areas surrounding San Jose International Airport.
The city is not located within any protected airspace zones defined by the ALUC.4 Cupertino is located
approximately 4.4 miles to the south of Moffett Federal Airfield, 8.4 miles to the southeast of the Palo Alto
Airport, 24 miles to the southeast of San Francisco International Airport, and 27 miles to the southeast of
Oakland International Airport.5Additional small airports in the vicinity include the San Carlos Airport, 17
miles to the northwest, Hayward Executive Airport, 23 miles to the north-northwest, and the Half Moon
Bay airport, 26 miles to the northwest.
2 Federal Aviation Administration, 2011, Airport Facilities Data, www.faa.gov/airports/airport_safety/airportdata_5010/, accessed
August 13, 2013.
3 AirNav, http://www.airnav.com/airports/us/CA, accessed on accessed on April 12, 2014.
4 Santa Clara County Airport Land-Use Commission, 2011, Comprehensive Land Use Plan, Santa Clara County, Norman Y. Mineta, San Jose
International Airport.
5 AirNav, http://www.airnav.com/airports/us/CA, accessed on accessed on April 12, 2014.
City of Sunnyvale
%&'(280
|ÿ85
City of San Jose
City of
Santa Clara
Santa Clara
County
City of
Los Altos
Santa
Clara
County
S
B
L
A
N
E
Y
A
V
E
N
B
L
A
N
E
Y
A
V
E
B O L L I N G ER RD
N
S
T
E
L
L
I
N
G
R
D
B
U
B
B
R
D
NTANTAU
AVE
S
D
E
A
N
Z
A
B
L
V
D
BL
A
N
E
Y
A
V
E
FO
O
T
H
I
L
L
B
L
V
D
N
FOOTHILL
BLVD
RAINBO W DR
S
STE
L
L
I
N
G
R
D
HO MESTEAD R D
PR U N E RIDGE AVE
M
I
L
L
ER
AVE
STEVENS CREEK BLVD
S
TANTAU
AVE
G
R
A
N
T
R
D
N
D
E
A
N
Z
A
B
L
V
D
P R O S P ECT RD
MCCLELLAN RD
N
W
O
L
F
E
R
D
S
W
O
L
F
E
R
D
NOISECITY OF CUPERTINOGENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING PROJECT
Figure 4.10-2Existing Noise Contours
Source: City of Cupertino, 2013; MIG, Inc, 2014; PlaceWorks, 2014; ESRI, 2010.
0 0.5 10.25
Miles
60 dBA CNEL contour65 dBA CNEL contour70 dBA CNEL contour
City Boundary
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
NOISE
PLACEWORKS 4.10-25
Although Cupertino does receive some noise from aircraft using these facilities, the Cupertino City
Boundary does not fall within the airport land use planning areas/airport influence areas, runway protection
zones, or the identified noise contours of any airport.6,7
Stationary Source Noise
Stationary sources of noise may occur from all types of land uses. Cupertino is mostly developed with
residential, commercial, mixed-use, institutional, and some light industrial/research and development uses.
Commercial uses can generate noise from HVAC systems, loading docks, trash compactors, and other
sources. Industrial uses may generate noise from HVAC systems, loading docks, and machinery required for
manufacturing or other industrial processes. Noise generated by commercial uses is generally short and
intermittent. Industrial uses may generate noise on a more continual basis, or intermittently, depending on
the processes and types of machinery involved. In addition to on-site mechanical equipment, which
generates stationary noise, warehousing and industrial land uses generate substantial truck traffic that results
in additional sources of noise on local roadways in the vicinity of industrial operations.
For Cupertino, the city’s limited industrial areas are primarily located in four areas of the city, the Monta
Vista Special Center, the Bubb Road Special Center, the North De Anza Special Center, and the North Vallco
Park Special Center (as referenced in the existing General Plan). These industrial areas are characterized by
a mix of light industrial, office, and research and development uses; with the exception of the Monta Vista
Special Center and the North De Anza Special Center, these areas are usually separated from sensitive uses,
such as residences, by either major roads or some degree of buffering. These uses have the potential to
generate noise impacts upon nearby sensitive receptors located at the edges of these areas. Such impacts
would vary depending on the specific uses, with truck deliveries, HVAC, and other mechanical equipment
being the primary sources of noise. The separation of residences by streets or other buffering serves to
decrease the noise perceived by these receptors and, in the case of major roads, the noise from the roads was
generally observed to exceed that from the industrial uses. Residential neighborhoods in Cupertino with a
notable potential to receive substantial industrial noise include portions of the Monta Vista Village
Neighborhood (primarily in the vicinity of the area surrounding Bubb Road between Stevens Creek
Boulevard and McClellan Road), as well as residential areas bordering the North De Anza Special Center. It
should be noted, however, that although these areas allow for light industrial uses, offices and research and
development comprise the majority of existing land uses in these areas.
6 Santa Clara County Airport Land Use Commission, 2012. Moffett Federal Airfield Comprehensive Land Use Plan, Figures 5
and 8, http://www.sccgov.org/sites/planning/PlansPrograms/ALUC/Documents/ALUC_20121128_NUQ_CLUP_adopted.pdf, accessed
on May 7, 2014.
7 Santa Clara County Airport Land Use Commission, 2011. Norman Y. Mineta San Jose International Airport Comprehensive Land Use
Plan, Figures 6 and 8 http://www.sccgov.org/sites/planning/PlansPrograms/ALUC/Documents/ALUC_SJC_CLUP_maps_082010.pdf.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
NOISE
4.10-26 JUNE 18, 2014
Hanson Permanente Quarry
The Hanson Permanente Quarry and cement plant are located to the west of Cupertino, outside of the city
boundary. The quarry and cement plant are owned and operated by Lehigh Hanson and are under the
jurisdiction of the County of Santa Clara. The nearest sensitive receptors to the quarry and cement plant
(within the city boundary) are residences located one-third mile to the east of the closest portion of quarry
and plant operations; however, the bulk of quarry/plant equipment and structures are located
approximately two-thirds mile from the nearest residence. Given this distance and the presence of
intervening hills that rise 100–200 feet above the elevation of the nearest residences, even the nearest
residences would not be anticipated to experience excessive noise from quarry and plant operations. The
current City of Cupertino General Plan does not specifically discuss quarry or plant noise impacts alongside
other noise sources; however, as shown in Table 4.10-4 above, two policies in the Environmental
Resources/Sustainability chapter mention the need to avoid or mitigate noise from the quarry and cement
plant.
Construction Noise
Construction activity also contributes to the noise environment of Cupertino; however such activities are
typically temporary, occurring in any one location for only a limited period of time. Larger or multi-phase
construction projects may contribute to the noise environment of a particular location for a more extended
period of time. Public infrastructure that requires ongoing maintenance may also result in ongoing noise
impacts, though usually not at a constant location. For example, different sections of road may be repaved at
different times, meaning that noise impacts from associated construction activities would, at any given time,
only occur along and near the section of roadway undergoing such maintenance.
Public Facility Noise
Outdoor activities that occur on school campuses and in parks throughout the city generate noticeable levels
of noise. Noise generated on both the weekdays (from physical education classes and sports programs) and
weekends (from use of the fields and stadiums) can elevate community noise levels.
4.10.2 THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
According to Appendix G, Environmental Checklist, of the CEQA Guidelines, the proposed Project would
result in a significant noise impact if it would:
1. Expose persons to or generate noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or
noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies.
2. Expose persons to or generate excessive ground-borne vibration or ground-borne noise levels.
3. Result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels
existing without the project.
4. Result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing without the project.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
NOISE
PLACEWORKS 4.10-27
For projects within an area covered by an airport land use plan or within 2 miles of a public airport or
public use airport when such an airport land use plan has not been adopted, or within the vicinity of a
private airstrip, expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive aircraft noise levels.
For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, expose people residing or working in the project area
to excessive noise levels.
4.10.2.1 THRESHOLDS NOT DISCUSSED FURTHER
With regard to CEQA Guidelines Thresholds 5 and 6, as discussed in Section 4.10.1.3, Existing Conditions,
above, no portion of Cupertino is within an airport land use plan for any of the airports located near the city
boundary. No portion of Cupertino is within 2 miles of public or public use airport, nor is any portion of
the city within an airport’s influence area or 55 dBA CNEL noise contour. All nearby airports are located 4
or more miles away from the city boundary.8 There are no private airstrips located within Cupertino. The
nearest heliport is located over three miles from the Cupertino city boundary, at the County Medical Center
in San Jose.9 Due to limited and sporadic heliport use for medical emergencies, and the significant distance
to the nearest portions of Cupertino, there would be no impact related to excessive noise levels from
private airstrips or heliports. Therefore, no further discussion of noise-related impacts from aviation
facilities is warranted in this Draft EIR.
4.10.3 IMPACT DISCUSSION
This section analyzes the proposed Project’s potential impacts and cumulative impacts to noise.
NOISE-1 Implementation of the proposed Project would not result in the exposure
of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established
in the local General Plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of
other agencies.
Citywide Discussion
Standards for noise generation and exposure in the City of Cupertino are determined primarily through: the
Land Use Noise Compatibility Guidelines (which would be continued under the noise portion of the
existing Health and Safety Section, maintained as part of the proposed Project); Chapter 10.48, Community
Noise Control, of the Cupertino Municipal Code; as well as by the interior noise standards set by the Title
24 of the State Building Code. In addition to the guidelines for land use noise compatibility, the City of
Cupertino has adopted noise reception limits for particular uses and times of day, and this regulatory
approach would continue under the proposed Project. Therefore, there are three subsequent criteria, based
8 AirNav.com, 2014
9 AirNav.com, 2014
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
NOISE
4.10-28 JUNE 18, 2014
on applicable standards and regulations, which may be applied to determine impacts under this significance
threshold. Each of these is analyzed in greater detail below.
Development of new residential or other noise-sensitive land uses such that those new uses would
experience an indoor Ldn exceeding 45 dBA.
Multiple components of the proposed Project would serve to prevent new residential dwellings, hotels,
motels, dormitories, and school classrooms from experiencing interior noise levels in excess of 45 dBA
Ldn. Prevention of excessive interior noise levels would be achieved both through adherence to the Land
Use Noise Compatibility Standards included in the noise portion of Health and Safety Section of the
current General Plan, as well as through the performance of acoustical analysis in noisy areas, which
would help determine what, if any, noise attenuating features are necessary to achieve the 45 dBA Ldn
interior noise standard. As individual projects are proposed under the proposed Project, project
applicants would be required, as necessary, to perform site-level acoustic analysis to demonstrate
compliance.
Existing Policy 2-6 (Neighborhood Protection; proposed to be renumbered and renamed Policy 2-8:
Neighborhood Compatibility) directs the City to “Protect residential neighborhoods from noise, traffic,
light and visually intrusive effects from more intense developments with adequate buffering setbacks,
landscaping, walls, activity limitations, site design and other appropriate measures.” Previous policies 6-
64, 6-65, and 6-66 contain provisions that require or encourage construction and other techniques to
reduce sound transmission to interior living spaces, consistent with the California Building Code. These
policies have been consolidated into proposed Policy 6-63, Exterior Sound Transmission Control for
New Single-family Homes, which directs the City to incorporate State building code controls on
interior sound transmission in the Municipal Code. Additionally Chapter 10.48, Noise Ordinance, and
Title 19, Zoning Ordinance, of the Cupertino Municipal Code contain multiple provisions to limit the
generation and reception of excessive noise. Such provisions include, but are not limited to restrictions
on construction activity, strict limitations on noise generation at property lines, and performance
standards for the permitting of commercial and industrial uses.
Under the proposed Project, in areas where noise levels exceed those that are normally acceptable for a
particular land use, development projects would continue to be required to demonstrate—through
acoustical studies, as necessary, —that interior noise environments would comply with the 45 dBA Ldn
State standard.
Together, these policies and regulations would serve to ensure that land use and development decisions
consider and seek to prevent potential noise impacts. Through implementation of these existing or new
policies and requirements as part of the proposed Project, the City would ensure compliance with local
and State standards for interior noise, and the impact would be less than significant.
Development of any land use in an area that is characterized by an exterior Ldn which indicates that the
establishment of that land use in the area would be “clearly unacceptable,” pursuant to the Land Use
Noise Compatibility Guidelines continued under the proposed Project.
Through adherence to the Land Use Noise Compatibility Guidelines, the City would prohibit the
development of particular land uses in areas where the ambient noise level would indicate those land
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
NOISE
PLACEWORKS 4.10-29
uses would be clearly unacceptable. General Plan Policy 6-49, Land Use Decision Evaluation, would
ensure that City land use decisions adhere to the established compatibility guidelines. Through
continued implementation of these requirements as part of the proposed Project, the City would ensure
compliance with local and State standards for land use compatibility, and the impact would be less than
significant.
Development of a new land use that would result in adjacent properties experiencing short- or long-
term ambient noise levels that exceed those regarded as compatible, or which exceed levels permitted
under the Chapter 10.48, Noise Ordinance, of the Cupertino Municipal Code.
Under the proposed Project, the policies of the General Plan and provisions of the Cupertino Municipal
Code would ensure that new land uses do not contribute to excessive noise at existing sensitive
receptors. Under the proposed Project, the following policies would be applicable to future
development: Policies 6-57 and 6-58 would ensure that commercial deliveries and delivery areas are
regulated to prevent noise impacts to adjacent sensitive land uses. Policy 6-59, Noise Control
Techniques, would similarly serve to prevent noise impacts from industrial processes and equipment
near homes. Additionally, Policy 2-36, Late-Evening Entertainment Activities, would discourage late
night entertainment uses in areas where these uses would abut low-density residential areas, and would
only allow the permitting of such uses near low-density residential when it could be demonstrated that
adequate mitigations had been undertaken. These policies would be implemented and enforced during
the development review process.
Additionally, the maintenance and continued enforcement of the Cupertino Municipal Code, including
the Noise Ordinance and Zoning Code, would work in tandem with and reinforce the current or
amended policies within the General Plan, and any impact arising from violation of applicable local
standards would therefore be less than significant.
Site-Specific Discussion
Project Components (Special Areas, Nodes/Gateways, Study Areas, and Housing Element Sites) are
geographically large and include a diversity of noise environments. The variation in noise levels (from both
land uses and roadways) within each of these areas would be greater than the variation among these areas
(e.g. the range between highest and lowest ambient noise levels in different portions of the Bubb Road
Special Area would be greater than the difference between the “average” noise levels in the Bubb Road
Special Area and any other special center). For this reason, it is not feasible to discuss site-level noise impacts
at the Special Area or Node/Gateway level in the absence of information about specific proposed
development projects. Nevertheless, because many of the Study Areas and Housing Sites are located in areas
with similar noise environments, it is possible to make generalized conclusions about potential noise impacts
in these areas.
Study Areas
Study Areas may be loosely grouped into two non-exclusive categories: Study Areas along or near major
arterials and study areas along or near major freeways. As shown in Figure 3-2, Study Areas 7 (Stevens Creek
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
NOISE
4.10-30 JUNE 18, 2014
Office Center) and 2 (City Center) fall into the first category, and would experience noise environments
dominated by noise along major arterials. Study Areas 1 (Cupertino Inn and Goodyear Tire), 3 (PG&E), 4
(Mirapath) and 5 (Cupertino Village) are in the second category where noise from nearby freeways is likely
to dominate the noise environment. Study Area 6 (Vallco Shopping District) would fall into both of these
categories, as there are portions of the Study Area that may be more dominated by freeway noise and
portions that may be more dominated by noise from major arterials. All Study Areas have the potential to
receive some amount of noise from both highways and major arterials. Because all of the Study Areas are at
least partly located in close proximity to a major arterial or highway, it is likely that there are portions of all
Study Area where development would require special noise-insulating features or construction techniques.
Therefore, for individual sites located within all Study Areas, additional project-level acoustical analysis
would be necessary to demonstrate consistency with applicable land use compatibility requirements and
interior noise standards, per Zoning Ordinance Sections 19.44.050 (Site Development Regulations) and
19.116.030 (General Regulations), as well as General Plan Policies 6-64, 6-65, and 6-66.
Housing Element Sites
Similar to the Study Areas, the potential Housing Element Sites may be loosely grouped into two non-
exclusive categories: sites along or near major arterials and sites along or near major freeways. As shown in
Figure 3-20, the following Housing Element Sites fall into the former category, with major arterials being
the likely predominant source of noise:
Housing Element Site 1 (Shan Restaurant),
Housing Element Site 2 (Arya/Scandinavian Design)
Housing Element Site 3 (United Furniture/East of E. Estates Drive)
Housing Element Site 8 (Bateh Bros.)
Housing Element Site 9 (Foothill at McClellan Center – Foothill)
Housing Element Site 14 (Marina Plaza)
Housing Element Site 15 (Stevens Creek Office Center)
Housing sites 5 (Glenbrook Apartments), 6 (The Villages Apartments), and 7 (Carl Berg Property), fall into
the latter category with freeways being the likely predominant source of noise.
Finally, the following Housing Element Sites are within both categories with portions of the Sites potentially
dominated by noise from either freeways or major arterials:
Housing Element Site 4 (Barry Swenson)
Housing Element Site 10 (The Hamptons)
Housing Element Site 11 (Vallco Shopping District except Rosebowl)
Housing Element Site 12 (Homestead Lanes and Adjacency)
Housing Element Site 16 (Summerwinds & Granite Rock)
Housing Element Site 17 (Homestead Road – IntraHealth/Office/Tennis Courts)
Housing Element Site 18 (The Oaks Shopping Center)
Housing Element Site 19 (Cypress Building Association & Hall Property)
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
NOISE
PLACEWORKS 4.10-31
Although the various Housing Element Sites may be affected in different ways or to different degrees by
noise from major arterials and/or freeways, all Housing Element Sites overlap at least partially with the 70
dBA noise contour, even under existing conditions. Roadway noise models generally represent a
conservative estimate of ambient noise levels; nevertheless, there is no housing site that could avoid the need
for additional site-level measurements and analysis. At a minimum, project-level analysis would need to
examine portions of housing sites nearest to major roadways to measure current, 24-hour ambient noise
levels and determine appropriate site design and/or construction techniques for noise attenuation.
Despite this need for additional site-level analysis, development on the Housing Element Sites may avoid
significant impacts by conforming with requirements for acoustic analysis under the General Plan, including
the Land Use Compatibility Guidelines for Community Noise Environments, as well as by achieving
subsequent compliance with interior and exterior noise standards through application of any necessary
special construction or noise insulation techniques. Impacts would be less than significant.
General Plan and Zoning Ordinance Conformance Sites
As described in Chapter 3, Project Description, of this Draft EIR, the proposed land use designation changes
within the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance Conformance Sites are intended to ensure consistency
between existing land uses and the General Plan land use designations and/or the Zoning Ordinance. The
proposed Amendments do not result in increased development potential in these areas. As is currently the
case, future developments would be required to undergo CEQA review in these areas. The General Plan and
Zoning Ordinance Conformance Sites would not be subject to new development potential and would
therefore neither create new sources of excessive noise, nor result in the development of sensitive land uses
that could be exposed to excessive noise. Thus, there would be no impact with regards to noise at these
locations.
Through adherence to the requirements, policies, and strategies adopted or continued under the current or
amended General Plan and Cupertino Municipal Code, the City of Cupertino would prevent the
development of land uses in areas with inappropriately high ambient noise levels; would ensure that any
development of noise-sensitive land uses include the study and adequate mitigation of noise impacts; and
would prevent activities or new uses that generate excessive levels of noise at sensitive receptors. The City
would ensure such compliance through the development review process, whereby individual developments
would be required to demonstrate that they would neither develop an incompatible land use in an area of
excessive noise (without adequate mitigation), nor develop a land use that would cause sensitive receptors
to experience excessive noise. Altogether, this would ensure adherence to relevant noise exposure and
generation standards, and would prevent noise-sensitive land uses from being exposed to noise exceeding
the prescribed standards. Therefore the impact under this criterion would be less than significant.
Applicable Regulations
California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Building Standards
Title 21, Subchapter 6, of the California Code of Regulations
2000-2020 General Plan: Health and Safety Section, Land Use Section, Circulation Section, and
Environmental Resources/Sustainability Section
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
NOISE
4.10-32 JUNE 18, 2014
Cupertino Municipal Code:
Title 2: Administration and Personnel, Chapter 2.90: Design Review Committee
Title 5: Business Licenses and Regulations
Title 10: Public Peace, Safety and Morals, Chapter 10.48: Community Noise Control
Title 11: Vehicles and Traffic
Title 14: Streets, Sidewalks and Landscaping
Title 19: Zoning Ordinance
Significance Without Mitigation: Less than significant.
NOISE-2 Implementation of the proposed Project would not expose persons to or
generate excessive ground-borne vibration or ground-borne noise levels.
CEQA does not specify quantitative thresholds for what is considered “excessive” vibration or groundborne
noise, nor does the City of Cupertino establish such thresholds. For Light Industrial and Industrial Park
zones, the City of Cupertino Municipal Code does specify that “non-audible” vibrations must not be
perceptible without instrumentation, but the Code does not set a specific numeric threshold. Since
perception of vibrations varies between individuals, it is necessary to establish a quantitative threshold that
reflects levels of vibration typically capable of causing perception, annoyance, or damage. Therefore, based
on criteria from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), which are regarded as standard practice, a
significant impact would occur if:
Implementation of the Project would result in ongoing exceedance of the criteria for annoyance
presented in Table 4.10-9.
Implementation of the Plan would result in vibration exceeding the criteria presented in Table 4.10-9
that could cause buildings architectural damage.
The following discusses potential vibration impacts generated by short-term construction and long-term
operations that may occur under implementation of the proposed Project.
Short-Term Construction-Related Vibration Impacts
The effect on buildings in the vicinity of a construction site varies depending on soil type, ground strata, and
receptor-building construction. The results from vibration can range from no perceptible effects at the
lowest vibration levels, to low rumbling sounds and perceptible vibrations at moderate levels, to slight
structural damage at the highest levels. Vibration from construction activities rarely reaches the levels that
can damage structures, but groundborne vibration and groundborne noise can reach perceptible and audible
levels in buildings that are close to the construction site. Table 4.10-9 lists vibration levels for construction
equipment.
As shown in Table 4.10-9, vibration generated by construction equipment has the potential to be substantial.
Significant vibration impacts may occur from construction activities associated with new development under
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
NOISE
PLACEWORKS 4.10-33
the proposed Project. Implementation of the proposed Project anticipates an increase in development
intensity in certain areas, in the absence of information about specific development proposals.
TABLE 4.10‐9 GROUNDBORNE VIBRATION LEVELS FOR CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT
Equipment
Approximate Velocity
Level at 25 Feet
(VdB)
Approximate RMSa
Velocity at 25 Feet
(inch/sec)
Pile Driver (Impact) Upper Range 112 1.518
Pile Driver (Impact) Lower Range 104 0.644
Pile Driver (Sonic) Upper Range 105 0.734
Pile Driver (Sonic) Lower Range 93 0.170
Large Bulldozer 87 0.089
Caisson Drilling 87 0.089
Jackhammer 79 0.035
Small Bulldozer 58 0.003
Loaded Trucks 86 0.076
FTA Criteria – Human Annoyance (Daytime) 78 to 90b —
FTA Criteria – Structural Damage — 0.2 to 0.5c
a. RMS velocity calculated from vibration level (VdB) using the reference of 1 micro‐inch/second.
b. Depending on affected land use. For residential 78 VdB, for offices 84 VdB, workshops 90 VdB.
c. Depending on affected building structure, for timber and masonry buildings 0.2 in/sec, for reinforced‐concrete, steel, or timber 0.5 in/sec.
Source: Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise, and Vibration Impact Assessment, 2006.
Construction would be localized and would occur intermittently for varying periods of time. Without
specific development details, it is not possible to quantify potential construction vibration impacts. Grading
and demolition activity typically generate the highest vibration levels during construction. Except for pile
driving, maximum vibration levels measured at a distance of 25 feet from an individual piece of typical
construction equipment do not exceed the thresholds for human annoyance for industrial uses, nor the
thresholds for architectural damage, as defined in Table 4.10-3.
Methods to reduce vibration during construction would include the use of smaller equipment, use of well-
maintained equipment, use of static rollers instead of vibratory rollers, and drilling of piles as opposed to
pile driving. Methods to reduce human impacts of vibration from construction include limitations on
construction hours and/or guidelines for the positioning of vibration-generating construction equipment.
Overall, vibration impacts related to construction would be short-term, temporary, and generally restricted
to the areas in the immediate vicinity of active construction equipment. Construction would be localized
and would occur intermittently for varying periods of time. Because specific, project-level information is
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
NOISE
4.10-34 JUNE 18, 2014
not available at this time, it is not possible to quantify the construction vibration impacts at specific sensitive
receptors.
Individual project review would further serve to reduce vibration impacts arising from construction.
Specifically, Policy 6-61, Construction and Maintenance Activities, of the General Plan would require
construction contractors to use the best available technology to minimize excessive vibration from
construction equipment such as pile drivers, jack hammers, and vibratory rollers.
These policies would thereby serve to ensure that construction activities do not result in sustained levels of
vibration that could result in architectural damage or ongoing annoyance. Therefore, implementation of the
proposed Project would not result in levels of construction-related groundborne noise or vibration that
would exceed the thresholds for annoyance or architectural damage, and the impact would therefore be less
than significant.
Long-Term Vibration Impacts
Development under the proposed Project could result in long-term, operations-related vibration impacts to
sensitive receptors if sensitive land uses such as residential, educational facilities, hospitals, or places of
worship were to be located in close proximity to industrial land uses that could have equipment with the
potential to generate significant vibration levels. There are limited areas of Cupertino where residential or
other sensitive land uses would interface to a certain degree with light industrial operations under the land
use designations implemented as part of the proposed Project. Some prominent examples of such areas
include the Monta Vista Village Neighborhood, and the Bubb Road and North De Anza Special Areas.
Despite the potential for vibration impacts from the juxtaposition of sensitive land uses and land uses with
the potential to generate vibration, appropriate setbacks, buffers, use restrictions, and/or other measures
can largely eliminate these impacts. As discussed above, vibration impacts are highly dependent on a variety
of localized factors, including geology, soil conditions, and building construction techniques; however, in
most cases vibration attenuates relatively rapidly with distance, making setbacks and buffering particularly
effective approaches to avoid vibration impacts. Moreover, high levels of vibration are usually associated with
heavy industrial uses. The light industrial uses of the sort that would continue to be permitted in Cupertino
under the proposed Project are very rarely associated with vibration that is sufficiently intense or sustained
so as to cause human discomfort or architectural/structural damage.
Although there are no State or federal regulations to limit perception of vibration by sensitive receptors, the
proposed Project would continue policies and Municipal Code provisions that would employ the previously
mentioned strategies to prevent vibration impacts. The current or amended noise portion of the Health and
Safety section of the General Plan offers general direction for the City to consider noise and vibration
impacts during development decisions, and provides specific policies in respect to these considerations.
Existing Policy 2-6 (Neighborhood Protection; proposed to be renumbered and renamed Policy 2-8:
Neighborhood Compatibility) directs the City to “Minimize potential conflicts with residential
neighborhoods from noise, traffic, light and visually intrusive effects from more intense developments with
adequate buffering setbacks, landscaping, walls, limitations, site design and other appropriate measures.”
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
NOISE
PLACEWORKS 4.10-35
Policy 6-49, Land Use Decision Evaluation, would require the City to “use the Land Use Compatibility for
Community Noise Environments chart and the City Municipal Code to evaluate land use decisions.” Section
10.48.062 of the Municipal code, Nighttime Deliveries and Pickups, regulates acceptable freight pickup and
delivery times for commercial and industrial land uses. Although aimed at noise compatibility, these
restrictions would also serve to reduce the intensity, frequency, and duration of potential vibration from
such activities, thereby reducing or preventing perception of vibration at nearby receptors. Additionally,
Chapter 19 of the Municipal Code, which is the Zoning Code, contains general restrictions on commercial
and industrial uses. In the case of industrial uses, it is prohibited to generate vibration that is perceptible
without instruments beyond the boundary of the industrial zone. In the case of commercial uses, permitting
of the use is contingent upon that use not emitting excessive vibration. By ensuring general land use
compatibility and by requiring, where necessary, approaches to reduce the generation or transmission of
vibration, these policies and ordinances would serve to ensure sufficient attenuation of vibration to preclude
impacts at sensitive receptors.
Together, these policies and actions would ensure that buildout of land uses under the proposed Project
would not result in perception of excessive noise and vibration by sensitive receptors in new developments.
These policies and actions would also serve to ensure that new uses developed under the proposed Project
would not result in the perception of excessive vibration by individuals living or working in areas of existing
sensitive land uses. Through consideration of land use compatibility, project-level review, and requirements
for mitigation of noise and vibration, the current or amended policies of the General Plan would prevent or
reduce exposure to long-term, operations-related vibration. Therefore implementation of the Proposed
Project would not result in levels of long-term operation-related groundborne noise or vibration that would
exceed the thresholds for annoyance or architectural damage, and the impact would therefore be less than
significant.
Applicable Regulations
California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Building Standards
2000-2020 General Plan: Health and Safety Section, Land Use Section, Circulation Section, and
Environmental Resources/Sustainability Section
Cupertino Municipal Code:
Title 10: Public Peace, Safety and Morals, Chapter 10.48: Community Noise Control
Title 19:Zoning Ordinance
Significance Without Mitigation: Less than significant.
NOISE-3 Implementation of the proposed Project would result in a substantial
permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above
levels existing without the Project.
Implementation of the proposed 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 Municipal Code identifies volume levels and durations that constitute unacceptable noise increases
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
NOISE
4.10-36 JUNE 18, 2014
during 2-hour periods; however, the City of Cupertino has not adopted a specific, quantitative threshold for
what constitutes a significant permanent increase in ambient noise levels. The smallest increase in loudness
perceptible by the human ear is 3 dBA and increases of 5 dBA or greater are easily noticed.10 However, the
implementation of the proposed Project and changes in the ambient noise environment will occur over a
period of more than 20 years. Therefore, in the absence of quantitative ambient noise level increase
thresholds adopted by the City, a substantial increase in ambient noise levels would be defined as either: a 5
dBA increase, if after the increase the ambient noise level remains in the range of what would be “normally
acceptable” at the land use where the noise is being received; or a 3 dBA increase, if after the increase the
ambient noise level exceeds the range of what would be “normally acceptable” at the land use where the
noise is being received.
Long-Term Operational Noise
A portion of the substantial permanent increases to ambient noise levels that could result from
implementation of the proposed Project would be attributable to ongoing operations on land uses developed
under the plan. Residential, open space, and most passive recreational land uses (i.e. trails, rests areas, picnic
areas) are generally not associated with substantial permanent increases in ambient noise. In the case of these
land uses, very specific sources of noise, such as lawn equipment or social gatherings, would be the most
likely source of excessive noise; addressing impacts from these noise sources would be handled on a
complaint basis by Cupertino’s noise ordinance. Noise sources associated with residential, open space, and
passive recreational land uses are generally not sufficiently frequent or sustained so as to result in permanent
substantial increases to ambient noise levels. Instead, substantial permanent increases in ambient noise levels
would be most likely to result from development of commercial, industrial, mixed-use, and certain
institutional or active recreational land uses (i.e. ball fields, skate-parks, dog parks).
The noise portion of the Health and Safety Section of the General Plan contains multiple policies that would
serve to prevent or mitigate substantial permanent increase to ambient noise levels from long-term
operations. All of the current or amended General Plan policies discussed under Impact Noise-1 and Impact
Noise-2 would likewise serve to prevent substantial permanent increases to ambient noise levels. Key
provisions of these previously discussed policies include, among others: limits on hours of operation,
transitional land uses and/or open space buffers, soundwalls, berms, and project level review to ensure
compliance with indoor/outdoor noise standards for sensitive uses. Together, these policies would serve to
ensure that the development of new land uses under the proposed Project would not result in substantial
permanent increases in the ambient noise level in the project vicinity, and the impact in this regard would be
less than significant.
10 Bies, David and Hansen, Colin, 2009, Engineering Noise Control: Theory and Practice, Fourth Edition, New York: Spon Press.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
NOISE
PLACEWORKS 4.10-37
Transportation-Related Noise
As a result of implementation of the proposed Project and ongoing regional growth, it is anticipated that
there would be substantial permanent increases to the ambient noise levels throughout Cupertino, and that
these increases would primarily result from increases to transportation-related noise, especially that of
automobile traffic. Because Cupertino has only one railway with very limited freight service, does not host
any airports or heliports, and is not located within two miles of any airports or heliports, increases in
ambient noise levels from rail and air traffic are not anticipated. Nevertheless, increases to ambient noise
from car traffic would result in substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels.
Development of land uses under implementation of the proposed Project, as well as development in
adjacent communities, would result in increases in traffic that would cause substantial permanent increases
in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity. Table 4.10-10 shows major roadway segments in Cupertino
with estimated increases in the ambient noise level at a distance of 100 feet from the roadway centerline.
TABLE 4.10‐10 INCREASES TO AMBIENT NOISE LEVELS ALONG MAJOR ROADWAY SEGMENTS – PROPOSED PROJECT
Roadway Segment
Ambient Noise Level at 100 feet from
Roadway Centerline CNEL dBA
Existing
Conditions
2040
Conditions
Increase
(dBA)
Homestead Rd
From City Boundary to SR 85 65.0 66.2 1.2
From SR 85 to N Stelling Rd 67.8 69.6 1.8
From N Stelling Rd to N De Anza Blvd 69.6 70.8 1.2
From N De Anza Blvd to N Blaney Ave 68.7 70.9 2.2
From N Blaney Ave to N Wolfe Rd 68.9 70.9 2.0
From N Wolfe Rd to N Tantau Ave 69.1 71.2 2.1
From N Tantau Ave to City Boundary 68.9 71.1 2.2
Pruneridge Ave
From N Wolfe Rd to N Tantau Ave 63.1 65.4 2.3
From N Tantau Ave to Lawrence Expwy 63.6 69.9 6.3
I‐280
From City Boundary to Foothill Blvd 81.2 81.9 0.7
From Foothill Blvd to SR 85 82.2 82.9 0.7
From SR 85 to N Stelling Rd 81.8 82.1 0.3
From N Stelling Rd to N De Anza Blvd 81.8 82.1 0.3
From N De Anza Blvd to N Blaney Ave 81.8 82 0.2
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
NOISE
4.10-38 JUNE 18, 2014
TABLE 4.10‐10 INCREASES TO AMBIENT NOISE LEVELS ALONG MAJOR ROADWAY SEGMENTS – PROPOSED PROJECT
Roadway Segment
Ambient Noise Level at 100 feet from
Roadway Centerline CNEL dBA
Existing
Conditions
2040
Conditions
Increase
(dBA)
From N Blaney Ave to N Wolfe Rd 81.8 82 0.2
From N Wolfe Rd to N Tantau Ave 81.9 82.3 0.4
From N Tantau Ave to I‐280 81.9 82.3 0.4
From I‐280 to Lawrence Expwy 80.2 82.3 2.1
Stevens Creek Blvd
From City Boundary to Foothill Blvd 60.0 61.7 1.7
From Foothill Blvd to Bubb Rd 67.3 68.6 1.3
From Bubb Rd to SR 85 70.1 71.4 1.3
From SR 85 N Stelling Rd 70.4 71.2 0.8
From N Stelling Rd to N De Anza Blvd 69.2 71.3 2.1
Stevens Creek Blvd (cont’d)
From N De Anza Blvd to N Blaney Ave 68.9 72.4 3.5
From N Blaney Ave to N Wolfe Rd 68.8 71.8 3.0
From N Wolfe Rd to N Tantau Ave 70.6 71.9 1.3
From S Tantau Ave to I‐280 70.9 72 1.1
From I‐280 to Lawrence Expwy 70.6 72.8 2.2
McClellan Rd
From Foothill Blvd/Stevens Canyon Rd to Bubb Rd 60.8 63 2.2
From Bubb Rd to SR 85 63.3 64.4 1.1
From SR 85 to S Stelling Rd 64.0 65 1.0
From S Stelling Rd to S De Anza Blvd 64.6 65 0.4
Bollinger Rd
From S De Anza Blvd to S Blaney Ave 67.6 69.9 2.3
From S Blaney Ave to Miller Ave 65.1 67.6 2.5
From Miller Ave to S Tantau Ave 64.4 68.3 3.9
From S Tantau Ave to Lawrence Expwy 68.9 71.1 2.2
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
NOISE
PLACEWORKS 4.10-39
TABLE 4.10‐10 INCREASES TO AMBIENT NOISE LEVELS ALONG MAJOR ROADWAY SEGMENTS – PROPOSED PROJECT
Roadway Segment
Ambient Noise Level at 100 feet from
Roadway Centerline CNEL dBA
Existing
Conditions
2040
Conditions
Increase
(dBA)
Rainbow Dr
From Bubb Rd to S Stelling Rd 58.9 61.9 3.0
From S Stelling Rd to S De Anza Blvd 65.5 66 0.5
Prospect Rd From S Stelling Rd to S De Anza Blvd 65.1 66 0.9
Foothill Blvd
From City Boundary to I‐280 71.7 73.8 2.1
From I‐280 to Stevens Creek Blvd 70.6 71.2 0.6
From McClellan Rd to Stevens Creek Blvd 65.2 66 0.8
Stevens Canyon Rd From City Boundary to McClellan Rd 61.8 63.5 1.7
Bubb Rd
From Stevens Creek Blvd to McClellan Rd 67.6 68.9 1.3
From Rainbow Dr to McClellan Rd 62.5 63.6 1.1
SR 85
From City Boundary to Homestead Rd 80.8 80.9 0.1
From Homestead Rd to I‐280 80.8 80.7 ‐0.1
From I‐280 to Stevens Creek Blvd 81.4 81.9 0.5
From Stevens Creek Blvd to McClellan Rd 80.7 80.6 ‐0.1
From McClellan Rd to S Stelling Rd 80.7 80.6 ‐0.1
From S Stelling Rd to S De Anza Blvd 80.7 80.6 ‐0.1
From S De Anza Blvd to Prospect Rd 80.5 80.5 0.0
Hollenbeck Ave
(N. Stelling Rd) From City Boundary to Homestead Rd 60.0 61.5 1.5
N Stelling Rd
From Homestead Rd to I‐280 63.2 66.3 3.1
From I‐280 to Stevens Creek Blvd 63.1 66.3 3.2
S Stelling Rd
From Stevens Creek Blvd to McClellan Rd 61.7 69 7.3
From McClellan Rd to SR 85 59.0 63.7 4.7
From SR 85 to Rainbow Dr 58.8 63.2 4.4
From Rainbow Dr to Prospect Rd 59.7 61.8 2.1
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
NOISE
4.10-40 JUNE 18, 2014
TABLE 4.10‐10 INCREASES TO AMBIENT NOISE LEVELS ALONG MAJOR ROADWAY SEGMENTS – PROPOSED PROJECT
Roadway Segment
Ambient Noise Level at 100 feet from
Roadway Centerline CNEL dBA
Existing
Conditions
2040
Conditions
Increase
(dBA)
N De Anza Blvd
From City Boundary to Homestead Rd 73.1 73.6 0.5
From Homestead Rd to I‐280 74.5 74.5 0.0
From I‐280 to Stevens Creek Blvd 72.9 73.9 1.0
S De Anza Blvd
From Stevens Creek Blvd to McClellan Rd 71.9 73.3 1.4
From McClellan Rd to Bollinger Rd 72.0 73.6 1.6
From Bollinger Rd to SR 85 71.7 72.7 1.0
From SR 85 to Rainbow Dr 72.2 73.7 1.5
From Rainbow Dr to Prospect Rd 72.5 72.8 0.3
N Blaney Ave
From Homestead Rd to I‐280 60.8 64 3.2
From I‐280 to Stevens Creek Blvd 61.0 63.4 2.4
S Blaney Ave
From Stevens Creek Blvd to Bollinger Rd 55.7 57.6 1.9
From Bollinger Rd to Prospect Rd 59.1 60.7 1.6
N Wolfe Rd
From City Boundary to Homestead Rd 67.6 70.7 3.1
From Homestead Rd to Pruneridge Ave 69.7 71.4 1.7
From Pruneridge Ave to I‐280 70.2 72 1.8
From I‐280 to Stevens Creek Blvd 68.3 71.7 3.4
Miller Ave
From Stevens Creek Blvd to Bollinger Rd 65.5 69.4 3.9
From Bollinger Rd to City Boundary 65.4 67.2 1.8
N Tantau Ave
From Homestead Rd to Pruneridge Ave 47.4 64.5 17.1
From Pruneridge Ave to I‐280 50.3 63 12.7
From I‐280 to Stevens Creek Blvd 61.2 64.7 3.5
S Tantau Ave From Stevens Creek Blvd to Bollinger Rd 58.7 58.7 0.0
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
NOISE
PLACEWORKS 4.10-41
TABLE 4.10‐10 INCREASES TO AMBIENT NOISE LEVELS ALONG MAJOR ROADWAY SEGMENTS – PROPOSED PROJECT
Roadway Segment
Ambient Noise Level at 100 feet from
Roadway Centerline CNEL dBA
Existing
Conditions
2040
Conditions
Increase
(dBA)
Lawrence Expwy
From Pruneridge Ave to Stevens Creek Blvd 75.4 77.1 1.7
From Stevens Creek Blvd to I‐280 74.9 77 2.1
From I‐280 to Bollinger Rd 75.5 77.3 1.8
Bold numbers indicate increases in CNEL which would constitute substantial permanent increase in ambient noise level.
Source: Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc., 2014; PlaceWorks, 2014.
As discussed above, increases greater than 5.0 dBA would automatically constitute a substantial permanent
increase to the ambient noise level, therefore an increase would be readily noticeable. Increases greater than
3.0 dBA would be considered substantial and permanent if the resulting CNEL would exceed that which is
considered normally acceptable for the receiving land use. The ambient noise level increases shown in Table
4.10-10 and the future 2040 Noise Contours in Figure 4.10-3 demonstrate that there would be multiple
major road segments that would experience substantial permanent increases in ambient noise levels,
including at sensitive land uses.
The General Plan contains numerous policies to address excessive roadway noise at existing sensitive land
uses, which would be continued under the proposed Project. For instance, Policy 6-51, Stricter State Noise
Laws, would direct the City to continue enforcement of existing street laws regarding vehicle noise, and to
support enactment of stricter State standards. Policy 6-53, Traffic Calming Solutions to Street Noise, directs
the City to explore traffic calming approaches for residential streets. Policies 6-54 through 6-56 direct the
City to use a combination of restrictions and street improvements to reduce noise from trucks. Policy 2-8,
Neighborhood Compatibility, would direct the City to “Minimize potential conflicts with residential
neighborhoods from noise, traffic.” Altogether, these policies would serve to reduce noise from vehicles at
the source and to otherwise shield sensitive uses from excessive noise.
Although these policies could in certain cases reduce or prevent significant increases in ambient noise at
sensitive land uses under implementation of the proposed Project, 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. Factors which would render these mitigations infeasible include but are not limited to
cost, aesthetic considerations, and negative impacts to pedestrian and bicycle connectivity. Therefore, even
after the application of relevant, feasible regulations and General Plan policies, the impact to ambient noise
levels would remain significant.
City of Sunnyvale
%&'(280
|ÿ85
City of San Jose
City of
Santa Clara
Santa Clara
County
City of
Los Altos
Santa
Clara
County
S
B
L
A
N
E
Y
A
V
E
N
B
L
A
N
E
Y
A
V
E
B O L L I N G ER RD
N
S
T
E
L
L
I
N
G
R
D
B
U
B
B
R
D
NTANTAU
AVE
S
D
E
A
N
Z
A
B
L
V
D
BL
A
N
E
Y
A
V
E
FO
O
T
H
I
L
L
B
L
V
D
N
FOOTHILL
BLVD
RAINBO W DR
S
STE
L
L
I
N
G
R
D
HO MESTEAD R D
PR U N E RIDGE AVE
M
I
L
L
ER
AVE
STEVENS CREEK BLVD
S
TANTAU
AVE
G
R
A
N
T
R
D
N
D
E
A
N
Z
A
B
L
V
D
P R O S P ECT RD
MCCLELLAN RD
N
W
O
L
F
E
R
D
S
W
O
L
F
E
R
D
NOISECITY OF CUPERTINOGENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING PROJECT
Figure 4.10-32040 Noise Contours – Proposed Project
Source: City of Cupertino, 2013; MIG, Inc, 2014; PlaceWorks, 2014; ESRI, 2010.
0 0.5 10.25
Miles
60 dBA CNEL contour65 dBA CNEL contour70 dBA CNEL contour
City Boundary
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
NOISE
PLACEWORKS 4.10-43
Applicable Regulations
California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Building Standards
General Plan: Health and Safety Section, Land Use Section, Circulation Section, and Environmental
Resources/Sustainability Section
Cupertino Municipal Code:
Chapter 10.48: Community Noise Control
Title 19:Zoning Ordinance
Chapter 2.90: Design Review Committee
Title 5 Business Licenses and Regulations
Title 10: Public Peace, Safety and Morals
Title 11 Vehicles and Traffic
Title 14: Streets, Sidewalks and Landscaping
Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measures were considered, but as described below, were found to be infeasible.
Technological Advances for Noise-Generating Vehicles and Machinery
Most urban noise results from the use of machinery or vehicles, including manufacturing equipment, HVAC
units, automobiles, motorcycles, trains, and aircraft, among others. The implementation of improved
technologies for the prevention or muffling of noise from these sources could theoretically prevent
substantial increases to ambient noise levels; however, this approach would be infeasible as much of this
implementation is beyond the jurisdiction of the City.
Beyond currently-accepted State and industry standards and best practices, developing and/or requiring
novel technological improvements for noise-generating vehicles and machinery would not be affordable,
scientifically plausible, or within the City’s jurisdiction. Therefore, this potential mitigation measure is
regarded as infeasible.
Universal Use of Noise-Attenuating Features
The universal use of noise attenuating features, such as rubberized asphalt, soundwalls, berms, and
improved building sound-insulation, could prevent transmission of excessive noise to the outdoor and
indoor areas of sensitive land uses and/or could prevent projected increases in ambient noise levels;
however, this approach would be infeasible.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
NOISE
4.10-44 JUNE 18, 2014
Rubberized asphalt reduces tire-pavement noise and, when new, achieves a reduction of approximately 4
dBA when compared to normal pavement surfaces.11 However, the noise reduction properties degrade over
time, and the noise reduction would not be sufficient to reduce noise impacts in many areas of Cupertino. In
many cases, aesthetic concerns, costs, physical constraints, or other issues would prevent the universal
implementation of adequate noise-attenuating features. In addition to their expense, soundwalls often block
views and are regarded as unsightly. Moreover, the construction of soundwalls can result in reduced
pedestrian and vehicle connectivity, which would contravene other goals of the General Plan and have
negative social, economic, and even environmental consequences. Although improved building construction
and insulation beyond that which is required by California Title 24 and the current General Plan could
further reduce indoor exposure to excessive noise, substantial outdoor increases to ambient noise levels
would remain. Therefore, this potential mitigation measure is regarded as infeasible.
For this noise impact, there is no feasible mitigation for preventing substantial increases in ambient noise
levels, since all conceivable mitigations would be economically impractical, scientifically unachievable,
outside the City’s jurisdiction, and/or inconsistent with City planning goals and objectives. Impacts would
remain significant and unavoidable because no feasible mitigation measures are available to mitigate noise
impacts to a less than significant level, resulting in a significant and unavoidable impact.
Significance With Mitigation: Significant and Unavoidable.
NOISE-4 Implementation of the proposed Project would result in a substantial
temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the Project
vicinity above levels existing without the Project.
Implementation of the proposed Project would have a significant impact if it results in a substantial
temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without
the Project.
Noise from construction equipment and various construction-related activities is frequently a cause of
temporary or periodic increases in ambient noise levels. Table 4.10-11, below, shows typical noise levels
generated by commonly used construction equipment. Although the current or amended policies of the
General Plan and the provisions of the noise ordinance would serve to prevent or reduce noise generation
from construction equipment, it is likely that in certain cases these and other available methods to reduce
noise would be inadequate to prevent a significant impact.
11 Sacramento County, Department of Environmental Review and Assessment, 1999, Report of the Status of Rubberized Asphalt Traffic Noise
Reduction in Sacramento County.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
NOISE
PLACEWORKS 4.10-45
TABLE 4.10‐11 CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT NOISE EMISSION LEVELS
Construction
Equipment
Typical Noise Level (dBA)
at 50 Feet
Construction
Equipment
Typical Noise Level (dBA)
at 50 Feet
Air Compressor 81 Pile‐Driver (Impact) 101
Backhoe 80 Pile‐Driver (Sonic) 96
Ballast Equalizer 82 Pneumatic Tool 85
Ballast Tamper 83 Pump 76
Compactor 82 Rail Saw 90
Concrete Mixer 85 Rock Drill 98
Concrete Pump 71 Roller 74
Concrete Vibrator 76 Saw 76
Crane, Derrick 88 Scarifier 83
Crane, Mobile 83 Scraper 89
Dozer 85 Shovel 82
Generator 81 Spike Driver 77
Grader 85 Tie Cutter 84
Impact Wrench 85 Tie Handler 80
Jack Hammer 88 Tie Inserter 85
Loader 85 Truck 88
Paver 89
Source: Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise, and Vibration Impact Assessment, 2006.
By restricting hours of construction and directing the City to review project noise impacts as part of the
planning and permitting processes, the current or amended policies of the General Plan would serve to
reduce temporary or periodic increases to ambient noise. The Noise Portion of the Health and Safety
Element of the General Plan directs the City to consider project-level noise impacts as part of the
environmental evaluation and approval process for individual development proposals. Specifically, Policies
6-61 and 6-62 of the General Plan, respectively, direct the City to limit the hours for construction activities
(with limited exceptions for urgent or emergency maintenance work) and to regulate construction and
maintenance activities, such as through requirements for up-to-date construction equipment. Through
continued implementation of these current or new policies, the proposed Project would serve to minimize
temporary or periodic impacts to ambient noise levels from construction activities. Cupertino Municipal
Code Section 10.48.053, Grading, Construction and Demolition, also serves to regulate noise from
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
NOISE
4.10-46 JUNE 18, 2014
construction and related activities in Cupertino. Subsection A places an 87 dBA limit on noise levels from
construction equipment at a distance of 25 feet, as well as an 80 dBA limit on noise levels at nearby
properties. Additionally, Subsections C and D limit construction activities to weekdays, non-holidays, and
daytime hours, with limited exceptions. The noise chapter thus limits construction activities to 7:00 AM to
8:00 PM on weekdays, and 9:00 AM to 6:00 PM on weekends. The ordinance allows exceptions to the
ordinance under Sections 10.48.030 and 10.48.031, which allow construction outside of these hours, under
certain conditions. However, these are used in very special circumstances such as emergencies or when are
unavoidable as a result of necessary construction techniques. Subsection E places additional restrictions on
the use of helicopters for construction purposes, including noticing requirements
Although it is possible that certain construction activities may in some cases, lead to substantial temporary
or periodic increases to ambient noise levels, the current and proposed policies and regulations included
under the proposed Project and the Municipal Code would serve to reduce these impacts. With appropriate
noise reduction and shielding measures, t temporary or periodic increases to the ambient noise level that
could be substantially reduced. The policies of the General Plan and regulations of the Municipal Code,
would thereby reduce the impacts from temporary or periodic increases to ambient noise levels, and the
impact would be less than significant.
Applicable Regulations
California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Building Standards
General Plan: Health and Safety Section, Land Use Section, Circulation Section, and Environmental
Resources/Sustainability Section
Cupertino Municipal Code:
Chapter 10.48: Community Noise Control
Title 19:Zoning Ordinance
Significance Without Mitigation: Less than Significant.
NOISE-5 Implementation of the proposed Project, in combination with past, present,
and reasonably foreseeable projects, would result in significant cumulative
impacts with respect to noise.
The analysis of the proposed Project, discussed above, addresses cumulative impacts with regard to noise, as
well as groundborne noise and vibration. Although multiple simultaneous nearby noise sources may, in
combination, result in higher overall noise levels, this effect is captured and accounted for by the ambient
noise level metrics which form the basis of the Thresholds of Significance for noise analysis. Any
measurement of sound or ambient noise, whether for the purpose of evaluating land use compatibility,
establishing compliance with exterior and interior noise standards, or determining point-source violations
of a noise ordinance, necessarily will incorporate noise from all other nearby perceptible sources.
Additionally, although noise attenuation is influenced by a variety of topographical, meteorological, and
other factors, noise levels decrease relatively rapidly with distance, and vibration impacts decrease even
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
NOISE
PLACEWORKS 4.10-47
more rapidly. Therefore, site-level cumulative noise or vibration impacts across city boundaries occur only
infrequently. The City of Cupertino shares borders with other incorporated communities and similarly
urbanized areas, which makes cross-border cumulative noise and vibration impacts possible. Nevertheless,
given the General Plan policies and Municipal Code requirements discussed above, it is unlikely that
operations-related noise would, in combination with noise sources from adjacent cities, result in cumulative
noise impacts. Additionally, because any noise measurements taken in conjunction with General Plan
policies or Municipal Code requirements would necessarily account for noises received from outside the
boundaries of the City of Cupertino, the ongoing implementation of these policies and regulations under the
proposed project would serve to prevent site-based cumulative noise impacts.
Similarly, the noise contours and traffic-related noise levels developed for the proposed Project include and
account for regional travel patterns as they affect traffic levels in Cupertino. Noise contours were based
upon both existing and projected future traffic volumes that incorporate cumulative regional effects and
trends. Existing noise contours were derived from traffic volumes based on counts of current traffic, and
these traffic counts inherently include cumulative traffic, as generated by regional trips. With regard to
future noise, projected noise contours were determined using projected 2040 traffic volumes; these data
account for growth both within Cupertino under the Proposed Project, as well as anticipated regional
growth. The future noise modeling which served as the foundation for the overall Project analysis was
therefore based on future, cumulative conditions.
Impacts NOISE-3 and NOISE-4 therefore encompass and address cumulative noise impacts from
implementation of the proposed Project. As discussed further under Impact NOISE-3, even after the
application of pertinent policies and strategies of the General Plan Amendments, as well as all mitigation
measures considered but determined to be infeasible, these impacts would remain significant and
unavoidable.
Significance With Mitigation: Significant and Unavoidable.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
NOISE
4.10-48 JUNE 18, 2014
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
POPULATION & HOUSING
PLACEWORKS 4.11-1
4.11 POPULATION AND HOUSING
This chapter describes the existing population and housing characteristics in the City of Cupertino and
evaluates the potential environmental consequences from future development that could occur by adopting
and implementing the proposed Project. A summary of the relevant regulatory setting and existing
conditions is followed by a discussion of specific and cumulative impacts from future development
permitted under the proposed Project.
4.11.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
4.11.1.1 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
This section summarizes existing State, regional, and local laws and policies pertaining to population and
housing in Cupertino. There are no federal regulations applicable to the proposed Project.
State Regulations
California Housing Element Law
California Housing Element Law1 includes provisions related to the requirements for housing elements of
local government General Plans. Among these requirements, some of the necessary parts include an
assessment of housing needs and an inventory of resources and constraints relevant to the meeting of these
needs. Additionally, in order to assure that counties and cities recognize their responsibilities in contributing
to the attainment of the State housing goals, this section of the Government Code calls for local jurisdictions
to plan for, and allow the construction of, a share of the region’s projected housing needs.
Regional Regulations
Association of Bay Area Governments Projections 2013
The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) is the official comprehensive planning agency for the San
Francisco Bay region, which is composed of the nine counties of Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San
Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, and Sonoma, and contains 101 jurisdictions. ABAG is responsible
for taking the overall regional housing needs allocation provided by the State and preparing a formula for
allocating that housing need by income level across its jurisdiction.2 ABAG produces growth forecasts on
four-year cycles so that other regional agencies, including the Metropolitan Transportation Commission
(MTC) and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), can use the forecast to make project
funding and regulatory decisions.
1 Government Code Section 65580-65589.8.
2 ABAG Finance Authority, Affordable Housing Financing. http://www.abag.ca.gov/services/finance/fan/housing.htm, accessed on May
19, 2014.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
POPULATION & HOUSING
4.11-2 JUNE 18, 2014
The ABAG projections are the basis for the regional Ozone Attainment Plan and Regional Transportation
Plan (RTP), each of which are discussed in Chapters 4.2, Air Quality and 4.13, Transportation and Traffic, of
this Draft EIR. The General Plans, zoning regulations and growth management programs of local
jurisdictions inform ABAG’s projections. The projections are also developed to reflect the impact of “smart
growth” policies and incentives that could be used to shift development patterns from historical trends
toward a better jobs-housing balance, increased preservation of open space, and greater development and
redevelopment in urban core and transit-accessible areas throughout their region.
Regional Housing Needs Allocation
Housing Element law requires local jurisdictions to plan for, and allow the construction of, a share of the
region’s projected housing needs. This share is called the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). State
law mandates that each jurisdiction provide sufficient land to accommodate a variety of housing
opportunities for all economic segments of the community to meet or exceed the RHNA. As the regional
planning agency, ABAG calculates the RHNA for individual jurisdictions within San Clara County, including
Cupertino.
Plan Bay Area, Strategy for a Sustainable Region
MTC and ABAG’s Plan Bay Area is the Bay Area’s Regional Transportation Plan (RTP)/ Sustainable
Community Strategy (SCS). The Final Plan Bay Area was adopted on July 18, 2013.3 The SCS sets a
development pattern for the region, which, when integrated with the transportation network and other
transportation measures and policies, would reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from transportation
(excluding goods movement) beyond the per capita reduction targets identified by California Air Resources
Board (CARB). Implementation of the Plan Bay Area would achieve a 16 percent per capita reduction of
GHG emissions by 2035 and a 10 percent per capita reduction by 2020 from 2005 conditions.4
In 2008, MTC and ABAG initiated a regional effort (FOCUS) to link local planned development with
regional land use and transportation planning objectives. Through this initiative, local governments
identified Priority Development Areas (PDAs). The PDAs form the implementing framework for Plan Bay
Area. The PDAs are areas along transportation corridors which are served by public transit that allow
opportunities for development of transit-oriented, infill development within existing communities that are
expected to host the majority of future development. Overall, well over two-thirds of all regional growth by
2040 is allocated within PDAs. The PDAs throughout the San Francisco Bay Area are expected to
accommodate 80 percent (or over 525,570 units) of new housing and 66 percent (or 744,230) of new jobs.5
As shown on Figure 4.11-1, PDAs in Cupertino are located along Stevens Creek Boulevard between State
Route 85 (SR 85) and the City of Santa Clara and along De Anza Boulevard between Stevens Creek
Boulevard and the City of Sunnyvale. To read more about Plan Bay Area: Jobs-Housing Connection Scenario,
go to www.OneBayArea.Org.
3 It should be noted that the Bay Area Citizens filed a lawsuit on MTC’s and ABAG’s adoption of Plan Bay Area.
4 Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), 2013, Final Plan Bay Area,
Strategy for a Sustainable Region, page 96.
5 Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), 2013, Final Plan Bay Area,
Strategy for a Sustainable Region.
City of Sunnyvale
%&'(280
|ÿ85
City of San Jose
City of
Santa Clara
S
B
L
A
N
E
Y
A
V
E
N
B
L
A
N
E
Y
A
V
E
B O L LI N G E R RD
N
S
T
E
L
L
I
N
G
R
D
B
U
B
B
R
D
NTANTAU
AVE
S
D
E
A
N
Z
A
B
L
V
D
BLANEYAVE
FO
O
T
H
I
L
L
B
L
V
D
N
FOOTHILL
BLVD
RAINBOW DR
S
S
T
E
L
L
I
N
G
R
D
HOMESTEAD RD
P RUNERIDGE AVE
M
I
L
L
E
R
AVE
STEVENS CREEK BLVD
S
TANTAU
AVE
G
R
A
N
T
R
D
N
D
E
A
N
Z
A
B
L
V
D
MCCLELLAN RD
HO
L
L
E
N
B
E
C
K
A
V
E
N
W
O
L
F
E
R
D
S
W
O
L
F
E
R
D
PDA Mixed-Use CorridorProject ComponentsCity Boundary
Figure 4.11-1Cupertino Priority Development Areas
Source: City of Cupertino, 2013; MIG, Inc, 2014; Association of Bay Area Governments, 2012; PlaceWorks, 2014.
POPULATION AND HOUSINGCITY OF CUPERTINOGENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING PROJECT
01,0002,000500
Feet
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
POPULATION & HOUSING
4.11-4 JUNE 18, 2014
Local Regulations
City of Cupertino General Plan 2000-2020
The City of Cupertino’s 2000-2020 General Plan, adopted on November 15, 2005, outlines a vision for
long-range physical and economic development and resource conservation that reflects the aspirations of the
community. The City’s 2007–2014 Housing Element, Section 3, of the General Plan, was adopted in April
2010 and the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) certified that it
meets State requirements.
The current Housing Element includes a housing needs assessment that identifies current and projected
housing needs for 1,170 units,6 as well as policies to accommodate housing development that will be
affordable to a range of household types and income levels. As shown in Table 3-1, in Chapter 3, Project
Description, of this Draft EIR, the remaining housing development allocation is for 1,895 residential units.
The Housing Element contains goals, policies, and strategies to guide future residential development, as
well as to preserve and enhance existing residential areas in Cupertino. In addition, the Land
Use/Community Design Element, Section 2, of the General Plan, includes policies to ensure a jobs-housing
balance is maintained in the city.
As part of the proposed Project, some General Plan policies would be amended. Substantive policy changes
under the proposed Project include the addition, removal, or functional revision (e.g. not purely semantic)
of policies in ways that have the potential to result in a physical impact on the environment. Discussions of
how substantive policy changes may result in adverse physical changes are included in the analyses under
each impact criterion in Section 4.11.3, Impact Discussion, below. A comprehensive list of policy changes is
provided in Appendix I, Proposed General Plan Policy Amendments, of this Draft EIR.
City of Cupertino Municipal Code
Besides the General Plan, the City of Cupertino Municipal Code7 is the primary tool that shapes
development in the city. The City’s Municipal Code identifies land use categories, site development
regulations, and other general provisions that ensure consistency between the General Plan and proposed
development projects. The City of Cupertino Municipal Code contains all ordinances for the city. The
Municipal Code is organized by Title, Chapter, and Section. The current Municipal Code is up to date
through Ordinance 14-2117, passed March 18, 2014. The following chapters of the Municipal Code include
provisions for ensuring appropriate housing is provided in Cupertino:
Chapter 19.116, Conversions of Apartment Projects to Common Interest Developments, addresses
residential displacement from the conversion of apartments to condominiums. Section 19.116.010
states that Chapter 19.116 was established to: 1) regulate conversion of apartments and other forms of
rental housing units to condominiums and other common interest developments in order to provide for
the housing needs of all economic segments of the community; 2) ensure that such conversions do not
6 City of Cupertino, 2000-2020 General Plan, Section 3, Housing, page 3-8.
7 City of Cupertino, Municipal Code, Title 19: Zoning, passed November 19, 2013, http://www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/
California/cupertino/, accessed April 17, 2014.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
POPULATION & HOUSING
PLACEWORKS 4.11-5
conflict with the goals or policies of the General Plan of the City of Cupertino; and 3) provide tenant
and buyer protection relating to displacement and relocation of renters, ensuring that purchasers are
informed regarding the structural integrity of buildings and the on-site utility system, and ensuring that
such buildings and utility systems reasonably comply with all current codes which may directly impact
the health and safety of future residences, including codes related to noise and insulation standards. No
apartment project may be converted to a common interest development unless it is in conformance
with the provisions of Chapter 19.116. Under Section 19.116.030 (Conformity with the General Plan)
no conversion of apartment houses to community houses to common interest developments shall be
permitted unless and until the City Council of the City of Cupertino finds that the proposed conversion
will not conflict with the housing goals and policies of the General Plan and will not adversely impact
the local school system.
4.11.1.2 EXISTING CONDITIONS
This section describes the existing population and housing conditions in the City of Cupertino, as well as the
county as a whole, to provide context for the analysis of the proposed Project in this EIR.
Population
The population of Cupertino grew from 52,970 in 2000 to 58,302 in 2010. 8, 9 This represents an
approximate 9 percent increase from 2000 to 2010. In contrast, the county grew from 1,682,585 in 2000
to 1,781,642 in 2010, which represents a slower rate of growth (5 percent compared to 9 percent) for the
county as a whole during the same period.10,11 In 2010, Cupertino had a much smaller population than the
neighboring cities of Sunnyvale (140,085), Santa Clara (116,468) and San Jose (985,691).
Housing
Cupertino has a strong housing market due largely to the high quality of local schools, as well as its
proximity to well-paying high-tech jobs. The median price for Cupertino homes changed very little between
2009 and 2011, but increased significantly in 2012 to $1,045,750; this was higher than pre-recession levels
and twice as high as the median for Santa Clara County with virtually no low- or moderately-priced options,
and a steady rental market.12
Cupertino contained 20,319 households in 2010 and 21,399 households in 2013.13,14 According to the
American Communities Survey, in a 5-year estimate from 2007-2011 of the occupied housing units,
approximately 64 percent were owner occupied and 36 percent were renter occupied, and the vacancy rate
was 4.2 percent.15 The vacancy rate and occupancy-by-tenure proportions were only slightly different at the
8 Association of Bay Area Governments, Projections 2009, Cupertino Subregional Study Area Table, Santa Clara County.
9 Association of Bay Area Governments, Plan Bay Area, Projections 2013, Subregional Study Area Table, Santa Clara County.
10 Association of Bay Area Governments, Projections 2009, Cupertino Subregional Study Area Table, Santa Clara County.
11 Association of Bay Area Governments, Plan Bay Area, Projections 2013, Subregional Study Area Table, Santa Clara County.
12 City of Cupertino, Retail Strategy Report, page 10, prepared by Greensfelder Commercial Real Estate, LLC, March 6, 2014.
13 Association of Bay Area Governments, Plan Bay Area, Projections 2013, Subregional Study Area Table, Santa Clara County.
14 City of Cupertino, 2014.
15 US Census Bureau, 2007-2011 American Community Survey.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
POPULATION & HOUSING
4.11-6 JUNE 18, 2014
County level, with the estimated 2010 county vacancy rate at approximately 4 percent, and occupied units
being approximately 58 percent owner occupied and 42 percent renter occupied.16
The City’s household composition is weighted towards family households with children, and has a
correspondingly larger household size (2.83) 17 than the overall trade area.18 In 2010, approximately 57
percent of Cupertino’s homes were detached single-family homes, 12 percent were attached single-family
homes, 30 percent were multi-family homes, and less than 1 percent were boats, recreational vehicles, vans,
etc.19 These housing characteristics are slightly different from the countywide proportion of 54 percent
detached single-family homes, 10 percent attached single-family homes, 33 percent multi-family homes, and
3 percent mobile homes, and less than one percent were boats, recreational vehicles, vans, etc.20
In 2010, the median initial construction year for Cupertino’s occupied housing units was between 1970 and
1979, making the average home 35 years old.21
Future Housing Needs
Table 4.11-1 includes the ABAG’s 2013 Projections for the City of Cupertino and Santa Clara County. The
projections estimate that by 2040 the population in Cupertino is expected to grow to 71,700 people and the
number of households would grow to 24,180, an increase of approximately 22 percent and 19 percent from
2010, respectively. These rates are lower than the ABAG’s projected population and household growth of
approximately 36 percent for Santa Clara County as a whole during the same period.22
Table 4.11-2 shows the RHNA for Cupertino for the current planning period (2014 to 2022). Under the
proposed Project, the Housing Element would be updated for the 2014–2022 planning period to show that
the City can meet its fair-share housing obligation of 1,064 units. The City proposes to demonstrate
compliance through implementation of Housing Element programs and rezoning of sites to higher density
residential uses.
16 US Census Bureau, 2010 Census, Table DP-1.
17 The population and average household size is from the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), Data for Bay Area Housing
Elements table, January 2014. The primary source for this data is the U.S. Census Bureau. ABAG utilized 2000 and 2010 Census files, 2007-
2011 American Community Survey 5-year data files, and to a limited extent, the 2009-2011 ACS 3-year files, 2005-2009 Comprehensive
Housing Affordability Strategy data based on the 2005-2009 ACS 5-year data product, and California Department of Finance, Demographic
Research Unit E-5 tables. The number of households is provided by the City of Cupertino.
18 City of Cupertino, Retail Strategy Report, page 10, prepared by Greensfelder Commercial Real Estate, LLC, March 6, 2014.
19 US Census, 2007 to 2011 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Table DP04.
20 US Census, 2007 to 2011 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Table DP04.
21 US Census, 2007 to 2011 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Table DP04.
22 Association of Bay Area Governments, Plan Bay Area, Projections 2013, Subregional Study Area Table, Santa Clara County.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
POPULATION & HOUSING
PLACEWORKS 4.11-7
TABLE 4.11-1 POPULATION, HOUSEHOLD, AND EMPLOYMENT PROJECTIONS
Cupertino 2010 2020 2030
Change from 2010‐2040
2040 Number
Growth Rate
Percenta
City Limit and Sphere of Influence
Population 58,739 62,500 66,800 71,700 12,961 22%
Households 20,319 21,600 22,890 24,180 3,861 19%
Jobs 26,220 30,110 31,370 33,260 7,040 27%
Employed Residents 24,290 27,920 28,730 30,260 5,970 25%
Jobs‐to‐Housing Ratiob 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.4 ‐‐ ‐‐
Jobs‐to‐Employed Residents Ratioc 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 ‐‐ ‐‐
Santa Clara County
Population 1,781,642 1,977,900 2,188,500 2,423,500 641,858 36%
Households 604,204 675,670 747,070 818,400 214,196 35%
Jobs 926,270 1,091,270 1,147,020 1,229,520 303,250 33%
Employed Residents 802,030 968,790 1,039,330 1,133,950 331,920 41%
Jobs‐to‐Housing Ratioa 1.5 1.6 1.5 1.5 ‐‐ ‐‐
Jobs‐to‐Employed Residents Ratiob 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.1 ‐‐ ‐‐
a. Percent are rounded to the nearest whole number.
b. An ideal ratio is 1.5 jobs per household.
c. An ideal ratio is 1 job per resident.
Source: Association of Bay Area Governments, Plan Bay Area, Projections 2013, Subregional Study Area Table, Santa Clara County.
TABLE 4.11‐2 CITY OF CUPERTINO REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ALLOCATION (RHNA)
Income Group RHNA
Very Low (Up to 50 Percent of Area Median Income) 356
Low (Between 51 and 80 Percent of Area Median Income) 207
Moderate (Between 81 and 120 Percent of Area Median Income) 231
Above Moderate (Above 120 Percent of Area Median Income) 270
Total 1,064
Note: The California Department of Housing and Community Development sets income limits for each of these income categories for every
county in California. More information is available at: http://www.hcd.ca.gov/hpd/hrc/rep/state/incNote.html.
Source: ABAG, Regional Housing Need Plan, San Francisco Bay Area: 2014‐2022.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
POPULATION & HOUSING
4.11-8 JUNE 18, 2014
Employment
Cupertino contains and is in close proximity to regional employment centers and major transportation
thoroughfares. Two types of employment data are described below: 1) total jobs within the community;
and 2) employed residents, including the number of residents of working age who actively participate in the
civilian labor force. A comparison of these data can provide an indication of commute patterns in a
community (i.e. whether significant out-commuting or in-commuting occurs).
The civilian labor force includes: 1) those who are employed (except in the armed forces); and 2) those
who are unemployed but actively seeking employment. Those who have never held a job, who have
stopped looking for work, or who have been unemployed for a long period of time are not considered to be
in the labor force.
Total Jobs
As shown in Table 4.11-2, there were roughly 26,220 jobs in Cupertino in 2010, comprising approximately
3 percent of all jobs in Santa Clara County. An interpolation of ABAG’s projections suggests that there were
27,987 jobs in Cupertino in 2013. According to ABAG, jobs in Cupertino’s subregional study area are
expected to increase by 27 percent between 2010 and 2040, from 26,220 to 33,260 jobs.
Total jobs in Santa Clara County are projected to increase by 33 percent between 2010 and 2040, from
926,270 jobs to 1,229,520 jobs. Jobs in Cupertino are expected to remain at approximately 3 percent of the
County total and the City is expected to contribute to 2 percent of the total increase in County jobs through
the year 2040.
Employed Residents
ABAG defines employed residents as employed people who “live in the identified community or county but
do not necessarily work there.” Unemployed residents are not counted as employed residents, even if they
are actively seeing employment. According to ABAG, the City’s subregional study area contained 24,290
employed residents in 2010. Employed residents in Cupertino’s subregional study area are expected to
increase by 25 percent between 2010 and 2040, from 24,290 to 30,260 employed residents, as shown in
Table 4.11-1.
According to ABAG, the county’s subregional study area contained 802,030 employed residents in 2010.
Residents employed in Cupertino represent approximately 3 percent of the county’s total. Employed
residents in Santa Clara County’s subregional study area are expected to increase by 41 percent between
2010 and 2040, from 802,030 employed residents to 1,133,950 employed residents. The City is projected
to contribute 2 percent of the total increase in County-employed residents through the year 2040 (see Table
4.11-1).
Jobs-to-Housing Balance
The jobs-to-housing units ratio is used to evaluate whether a community has an adequate number of jobs
available to provide employment for residents within the community seeking employment. The jobs-to-
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
POPULATION & HOUSING
PLACEWORKS 4.11-9
housing units ratio can be useful in understanding the interconnections among housing affordability, traffic
flows, congestion, and air quality within a city and a larger region. However, the jobs-to-housing units ratio
is best analyzed at the sub-regional or regional level due to the tendency of people to commute to jobs
outside of their community.
Methodology
Typically, the term “jobs-to-housing balance” is used to refer to a relationship between jobs and housing units
within a community. A jobs-to-housing units ratio of 1.5 takes into account residents who do not participate
in the labor force (e.g. those who are retired, disabled, or students). A 1.5 jobs-to-housing units ratio
indicates a community has an adequate number of jobs to meet its residents’ demand for employment and,
therefore, is in balance.
A more helpful indicator of balance, however, is the relationship between the number of jobs provided to
the number of employed residents. An ideal jobs-to-employed-residents ratio is 1.0, which indicates that
there is a job in the community for every employable resident.
A jobs-to-employed-residents ratio that is greater than 1.0 indicates that the community provides more jobs
than it has residents with jobs. In this situation the community is likely to experience traffic congestion
associated with people coming to jobs from outside the area, as well as intensified pressure for additional
residential development to house the labor force. Conversely, a jobs-to-employed-residents ratio of less than
1.0 indicates that a community has fewer jobs than employable residents, indicating many residents would
need to commute outside of the community (i.e. out-commute) for employment. The resulting commuting
patterns also can lead to traffic congestion and adverse effects on both local and regional air quality.
However, the jobs-to-housing units ratio does not account for regional in- or out-commuting due to
job/labor mismatches or housing affordability. Even if a community has a numerical balance between jobs
and housing/employed residents, sizeable levels of in- and out-commuting are possible and even likely,
especially where employment opportunities do not match local skills and/or the educational characteristics
of the local labor force. In such instances, regional commuting tends to occur. For example, a numerically
balanced community may have high housing costs and low-wage jobs, thus encouraging its residents to out-
commute to their high wage jobs elsewhere, and its workers to in-commute from outside the community
where housing costs are affordable in relation to their low wage incomes. This condition is often referred to
as a jobs-to-housing mismatch. A jobs-to-housing match occurs when the types of jobs provided in a
community “match” the income needs of the employed workers within the community.
Jobs-to-Employed Residents in Cupertino and Santa Clara County
In 2010 there were roughly 26,220 jobs and 24,290 employed residents in Cupertino, which is equivalent
to a ratio of 1.1 jobs per employed resident. ABAG projects that this ratio will essentially remain unchanged
through 2040. Total jobs are expected to increase to 33,260 and the number of employed residents to
30,260, keeping the ratio at 1.1 jobs per employed resident, as shown in Table 4.11-1.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
POPULATION & HOUSING
4.11-10 JUNE 18, 2014
4.11.2 THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
According to Appendix G, Environmental Checklist, of the CEQA Guidelines, the proposed Project would
have a significant impact regarding population and housing if it would:
1. Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes
and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure).
2. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere.
3. Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere.
4.11.3 IMPACT DISCUSSION
This section provides an analysis of the potential project and cumulative population and housing impacts that
could occur as a result of the implementation of the proposed Project. This discussion is organized by and
responds to each of the potential impacts identified in the Thresholds of Significance.
POP-1 Implementation of the proposed Project would not induce substantial
population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing
new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension
of roads or other infrastructure).
The proposed Project would result in a significant impact related to population growth if it would lead to
substantial unplanned growth either directly or indirectly. As described in Chapter 3, Project Description, of
the Draft EIR, the proposed Project is a broad, high-level plan and no specific projects are currently
proposed and therefore, the proposed Project would not result in direct growth; however, implementation
of the proposed Project would facilitate growth in the Project Study Area through 2040, and therefore
would have indirect effects related to growth. Potential impacts stemming from the indirect inducement of
unplanned population growth are discussed below in relation to both local and regional planning efforts.
Local Planning
The developable area of Cupertino is already largely built out and the Project Study Area is well served by
utility and transportation infrastructure. Future housing development and redevelopment under the
proposed Project would be infill development and would be concentrated on the sites identified in Section
3.7.4, Housing Element Sites, of Chapter 3, Project Description, of this Draft EIR. While the proposed
Project would require infrastructure improvements to correct existing deficiencies, these would be made to
accommodate the proposed new development and would not accommodate additional growth beyond that
need.
The General Plan includes policies and strategies that, once adopted, would serve to accommodate future
growth through 2040 Within the Land Use and Community Design Element, Policy 2-1, Focus
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
POPULATION & HOUSING
PLACEWORKS 4.11-11
Development in Mixed-Use Special Areas, would require the City to, in the mixed-use Special Areas where
office, commercial and residential uses are allowed, focus higher intensity development and increased
building heights where appropriate in designated corridors, gateways and nodes. Policy 2-17, Multi-Family
Residential Design, would require the City to maintain a superior living environment for multi-family
dwellings. Strategy 1, Relationship to Street, would direct the City to relate building entrances to the street,
utilizing porches or stoops. Strategy 2, Provision of Outdoor Areas, would require outdoor areas for multi-
family residential developments, both passive and active, and generous landscaping to enhance the
surroundings for multi-family residents. Allowing public access to the common outdoor areas whenever
possible is also included in Strategy 2. Policy 2-22, Jobs/Housing Balance, would require the City to strive
for a more balanced ratio of jobs and housing units. Strategy 1, Housing and Mixed-Use, would call for the
City to strive to achieve a balanced jobs/housing ratio based on the policies and strategies contained in the
Housing Element. Strategy 2, Housing Impact on Local Schools, would recognize that since the quality of
Cupertino schools (elementary and high school) is a primary asset of the City, care shall be taken to ensure
any new housing pays the statutorily mandated impact fees to mitigate any adverse impact to these systems.
Within the proposed Public Utilities, Infrastructure and Services Element, Policy 7-4, New Development
Public Infrastructure Requirements, would call for the City to require new development to provide
adequate public facilities or pay its fair share of the cost for public facilities needed to provide services to
accommodate growth without adversely impacting current service levels. Strategy 1, Design Capacity,
would require the City to ensure that public facilities and infrastructure are designed and constructed to
meet ultimate capacity needs to avoid the need for future upsizing. For facilities subject to incremental
upsizing, initial design shall include adequate land area and any other elements not easily expanded in the
future. Infrastructure and facility planning should discourage over-sizing of infrastructure which could
contribute to growth beyond what was anticipated in the General Plan. Strategy 2, Utility Undergrounding,
would call for the City to require undergrounding of all new publicly owned utility lines; encourage
undergrounding of all privately owned utility lines in new developments; and work with electricity and
telecommunications providers to underground existing overhead lines. Policy 5-2, Regional Growth and
Transportation Coordination, would require the City to “coordinate with regional and local agencies to
prepare updates to regional growth plans and strategies.” Strategy 1 under this policy would direct the City
to maintain local plans and strategies that are consistent with regional transportation and housing plans.
Policy 7-3, Sewer Tributary Lines, proposed in the Public Utilities, Infrastructure and Services Element of
the General Plan, would require the City to recognize that new high discharge users in the Vallco, Stevens
Creek Boulevard and Blaney Avenue areas will require private developers to pay for the upgrading of
tributary lines. Strategy 1, Cost Estimates, would call for the City to develop preliminary cost estimates for
the upgrading of the sewer tributary lines to discuss with prospective developers.
Within the Housing Element, Policy 1, Provision of Adequate Capacity for New Construction Need, would
require the City to designate sufficient land at appropriate densities to accommodate Cupertino’s Regional
Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) of 1,064 units for the 2014-2022 RHNA planning period. Policy 2,
Housing Densities, would require the City to provide a full range of densities for ownership and rental
housing. Policy 3, Mixed Use Development, would require the City to encourage mixed-use development
near transportation facilities and employment centers. Policy 4, Housing Mitigation, would require the City
to ensure that all new developments—including market-rate residential developments—help mitigate
project-related impact on affordable housing needs. Policy 5, Range of Housing Types, would require the
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
POPULATION & HOUSING
4.11-12 JUNE 18, 2014
City to encourage the development of diverse housing stock that provides a range of housing types
(including smaller, moderate cost housing) and affordability levels. Emphasize the provision of housing for
lower- and moderate-income households and also households with wage earners who provide essential
public services (e.g. school district employees, municipal and public safety employees, etc.). Policy 6,
Development of Affordable Housing and Housing for Persons with Special Needs, would require the City to
maintain and/or adopt appropriate land use regulations and other development tools to encourage the
development of affordable housing. Make every reasonable effort to disperse units throughout the
community but not at the expense of undermining the fundamental goal of providing affordable units. Policy
7, Housing Rehabilitation, would require the City to pursue and/or provide funding for the
acquisition/rehabilitation of housing that is affordable to very low-, low-, and moderate-income households.
Actively support and assist non-profit and for-profit developers in producing affordable units. Policy 8,
Maintenance and Repair, would require the City to assist lower-income homeowners and rental property
owners in maintaining and repairing their housing units. Policy 9, Conservation of Housing Stock, would
require the City to The City's existing multi-family units provide opportunities for households of varied
income levels. Preserve existing multi-family housing stock by preventing the net loss of multi-family
housing units in new development and the existing inventory of affordable housing units that are at risk of
converting to market-rate housing. Policy 10, Energy and Water Conservation, would require the City to
encourage energy and water conservation in all existing and new residential development. Policy 11, Lower
Income and Special Needs Households, would require the City to support organizations that provide
services to lower income households and special need households in the City, such as the homeless, elderly,
disabled and single parent households. Policy 12, Housing Discrimination, would require the City to work
to eliminate on a citywide basis all unlawful discrimination in housing with respect to age, race, sex, sexual
orientation, marital or familial status, ethnic background, medical condition, or other arbitrary factors, so
that all persons can obtain decent housing.
The City currently has the capacity to accommodate 1,895 housing units. Implementation of these General
Plan policies would ensure that local planning is adequate to accommodate future growth in Cupertino.
Regional Planning
As described above, ABAG and MTC have responsibility for regional planning in the nine county Bay Area
which includes Cupertino. ABAG and MTC have developed regional growth forecasts for the Bay Area as a
whole and for constituent jurisdictions. Table 4.11-2 above shows population, housing, and job growth
projections for Cupertino that are included in the regional forecasts. The proposed Project would be
considered to induce substantial growth if the estimated buildout resulting from future development that is
permitted under the proposed Project, would exceed these regional growth projections for Cupertino. The
proposed Project’s 2040 buildout estimates are shown in Table 4.11-3.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
POPULATION & HOUSING
PLACEWORKS 4.11-13
TABLE 4.11‐3 PROPOSED PROJECT ESTIMATED POPULATION, HOUSEHOLD, AND EMPLOYMENT
Proposed
Project 2013 2040
Growth Rate
Percent
Population 12,998b 58,302 71,300 22%
Households 4,421 21,399 25,820 21%
Jobs 16,855c 27,387 44,242 62%
a. Percent are rounded to the nearest whole number.
b. Population is calculated by 4,421 units times 2.94 persons per household.
c. Jobs are calculated applying the City’s generation rates as follows; 4,040,231 square feet of office allocation divided by 300
square feet equals 13,467 jobs; 1,343,679 square feet of commercial allocation divided by 450 square feet equals 2,986 jobs;
and 1,339 hotel rooms at .3 jobs per room equals 402 jobs for a total of 16,855 jobs.
Source: Association of Bay Area Governments, Plan Bay Area, Projections 2013, Subregional Study Area Table, Santa Clara
County and the City of Cupertino, 2014.
As shown in Table 4.11-3, implementation of the proposed Project would result in a total of 4,421 new
households in the city for a total of 25,820 households for the buildout horizon year 2040. Assuming the
new dwelling units permitted under the proposed Project would have the average 2.94 persons per
household size as applied in ABAG Projections 2013, population in the city could increase by 12,998
residents for a total of 71,300 residents by 2040. By comparison, as shown in Table 4.11-2, ABAG
anticipates 3,861 new households and 12,961 new residents in Cupertino, for a total of 24,180 households
and 71,700 residents by 2040.23 While the proposed Project would result in 400 fewer residents and 1, 640
more units, the rate of growth under the proposed Project and estimated by ABAG would be the same for
population growth (i.e. 22 percent) and increase by 2 percent (21 compared to 19 percent) for household
growth. Consequently, the additional housing units resulting from implementation of the proposed Project
would not substantially exceed regional projections.24
With respect to jobs, ABAG projects an increase of 7,040 jobs for a total of 33,360 jobs in 2040. As shown
in Table 4.11-4, when applying the City’s job generation rates for office, commercial and hotel
development,25 buildout of the proposed Project could result in as many as 16,855 additional jobs for a total
of 44,242 jobs in 2040, which would exceed the regional job projections by 10,982 jobs, which represents a
35 percent rate increase (62 compared to 27 percent).
The General Plan includes policies and strategies that, once adopted, would be consistent with goals and
objectives identified in the Plan Bay Area, would ensure potential development under the proposed Project,
would not induce substantial unexpected population growth, or growth for which inadequate planning has
occurred, either directly or indirectly. Within the Land Use/Community Design Element, Policy 2-2,
Connections Between Special Areas, Employment Centers and the Community, would require the City to
provide strong connections between the mixed-use Special Areas, employment centers and the surrounding
community. Policy 2-15, Urban Building Forms, would require the City to concentrate urban building
23 Association of Bay Area Governments, Plan Bay Area, Projections 2013, Subregional Study Area Table, Santa Clara County.
24 4,421 households minus 3,861 households equals 560 households. 12,998 residents minus 12,961 residents equals 37 residents.
25 Office (300 square feet per job); Commercial (450 square feet per job); Hotel (.3 jobs per room).
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
POPULATION & HOUSING
4.11-14 JUNE 18, 2014
forms in the mixed-use Special Areas. Policy 2-24, Homestead Special Area, would require the City to
create an integrated, mixed-use commercial and housing village within the Homestead Special Area,
consisting of three integrated areas. Each area will be master planned, with special attention to the
interconnectivity of these areas. Additionally, this corridor will continue to be a predominantly mixed-use
area with residential uses and a series of commercial centers. Homestead Road provides new pedestrian
crossings at the major intersections. Policy 2-24.B, Stelling Gateway, would require the City to maintain and
enhance the Stelling Gateway as a medium density, mixed-use commercial and housing district that will
provide community identity and activity along Homestead Road. Policy 2-25, North Vallco Park Special
Area, would require the City to retain the North Vallco Park Special Area as an employment area of
predominately office and light industrial activities, with neighborhood commercial uses and ancillary uses
including hotels and retail uses. Additionally, this policy calls for the City to maintain the existing residential
uses. Policy 2-25.A, North Vallco Gateway, would require the City to maintain and enhance the North Vallco
Gateway with uses that support major office developments within the City including hotels and commercial
uses. This policy also calls for the City to maintain the existing residential development. Policy 2-26, Heart
of the City Special Area, would require the City to create a positive and memorable image along Stevens
Creek Boulevard of mixed-use development; enhanced activity gateways and nodes; and safe and efficient
circulation and access for all modes of transportation. Policy 2-26.B, Oaks Gateway, would require the City
to create an active, mixed-use shopping and residential gateway at one of the primary entrances to
Cupertino. Policy 2-26.D, Crossroads Area, would require the City to create an active, pedestrian-oriented
shopping district along Stevens Creek Boulevard, between De Anza Boulevard and Stelling Road, where
commercial and roadway design encourage pedestrian activity. Policy 2-26.E, City Center Node, would
require the City to maintain and enhance City Center Node as a moderate-scale, medium density, mixed use
employment area that will provide community identity and activity and will support retail uses in the
Crossroads Area. Policy 2-26.G, South Vallco Park Gateway, would require the City to retain and enhance
South Vallco Park Gateway as a large-scale commercial area that is a regional commercial (including hotel),
office and entertainment center with supporting residential development. Policy 2-27, North De Anza
Special Area, would require the City to maintain and enhance the North De Anza Special Area as a regional
employment center with supporting commercial and residential land uses. Policy 2-28, South De Anza
Special Area, would require the City to maintain and enhance the South De Anza Special Area as a mixed-use
corridor.
Growth under the proposed Project would occur incrementally over a period of approximately 26 years and
would be guided by a policy framework in the proposed Project that is generally consistent with many of the
principal goals and objectives established in regional planning initiatives for the Bay Area. As discussed above,
one of the key concepts of the Plan Bay Area is the idea of focusing future growth into transit-oriented, infill
development opportunity areas within existing communities that are expected to host the majority of future
development. As previously discussed and shown on Figure 4.11-1, the PDAs in Cupertino are located along
Stevens Creek Boulevard between Highway 85 and the City of Santa Clara, and along De Anza Boulevard
between Stevens Creek Boulevard and the City of Sunnyvale. As shown in Figure 4.11-1, the PDAs coincide
with the Heart of the City and North De Anza Special Areas, portions of the Homestead and South De Anza
Special Areas, Study Area 1 (Cupertino Inn and Goodyear Tire), Study Area 2 (City Center), Study Area 6
(Vallco Shopping District), Study Area 7 (Stevens Creek Office Center), as well as potential Housing
Element Sites 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 11, 13, 14, 15, 18, and 19 described in Chapter 3, Project Description.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
POPULATION & HOUSING
PLACEWORKS 4.11-15
Accordingly, implementation of the proposed Project would facilitate infill growth and support regional
planning efforts.
Therefore, while growth anticipated under the proposed Project could exceed regional growth projections
for Cupertino by 37 residents, 560 dwelling units and 9,815 jobs, this additional growth would be
consistent with the regional planning objectives established for the Bay Area. Further, this additional growth
would come incrementally over a period of approximately 26 years and a policy framework is in place to
ensure adequate planning occurs to accommodate it. As a result, impacts to population growth associated
with potential future development under the proposed Project would be less than significant.
Significance Without Mitigation: Less than significant.
POP-2 Implementation of the proposed Project would not displace substantial
numbers of existing housing units, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere.
Implementation of the proposed Project would include General Plan land use designation, Zoning
designation and development standard amendments on 11 of the 19 Housing Element Sites as follows:
Housing Element Site 1 (Shan Restaurant). Future development under the proposed Project
could result in up to 36 net residential units. No changes are being made to the land use or zoning
designation of this site.
Housing Element Site 8 (Bateh Bros.). The Zoning designation would be amended to Planned
Development with General Commercial and Residential (P(CG, Res) to allow for residential uses, and
density would be increased to 35 dwelling units per acre. Future development under the proposed
Project could result in up to 19 net residential units in a mixed-use development.
Housing Element Site 9 (Foothill at McClellan Center – Foothill Market): The Zoning
designation would be amended to Planned Development with General Commercial and Residential
(P(CG, Res)) to allow for residential uses. The density would be increased to 25 dwelling units per acre.
Future development under the proposed Project could result in up to 27 net residential units in a
mixed-use development.
Housing Element Site 10 (The Hamptons).The General Plan land use designation would be
changed to High Density with greater than 35 dwelling unit per gross acre (High Density (Greater than
35 DU/Gr. Ac)) and the Zoning designation would be amended to Planned Development with
Residential (P(Res)). The permitted density would increase to 110 dwelling units per acre. Future
development under the proposed Project could result in up to 820 net residential units.
Housing Element Site 11 (Vallco Shopping District except Rosebowl). The Zoning
designation would be amended to Planned Development with Regional Shopping, Professional Office,
and Residential (P(Regional Shopping, OP, Res)) to allow for professional offices and residential uses.
The permitted density would remain 35 dwelling units per acre. Future development under the
proposed Project could result in up to 800 net residential units.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
POPULATION & HOUSING
4.11-16 JUNE 18, 2014
Housing Element Site 12 (Homestead Lanes and Adjacency). The Zoning designation would
be amended to Planned Development with General Commercial and Residential (P(CG, Res)) to allow
for residential uses in a mixed-use development. Future development under the proposed Project could
result in up to 151 net residential units.
Housing Element Site 14 (Marina Plaza). The permitted density would increase to 40 dwelling
units per acre. Future development under the proposed Project could result in up to 232 net residential
units. The zoning designation would change to Planned Development with General Commercial,
Professional Office and Residential uses (P(CG, OP, Res).
Housing Element Site 15 (Stevens Creek Office Center). The permitted density would increase
to 40 dwelling units per acre. Future development under the proposed Project could result in up to 214
net residential units. The zoning designation would change to Planned Development with General
Commercial, Professional Office and Residential uses (P(CG, OP, Res).
Housing Element Site 16 (Summerwinds and Granite Rock). The Zoning designation would be
amended to Planned Development with Residential (P(CG, Res)) to allow for residential uses in mixed-
use development. The permitted density would increase to 40 dwelling units per acre. Future
development under the proposed Project could result in up to 154 net residential units.
Housing Element Site 17 (Homestead Road – IntraHealth/Office/Tennis Courts). The
Zoning designation would be amended to Planned Development with General Commercial and
Residential (P(CG, Res)) to allow for future mixed-use development with residential uses. The
permitted density would increase to 35 dwelling units per acre. Future development under the
proposed Project could result in up to 161 net residential units.
Housing Element Site 18 (The Oaks Shopping Center). The Zoning designation would be
amended to Planned Development with General Commercial, Residential (P(CG, Res)) to allow for
future mixed-use development including residential uses. The General Commercial designation allows
for buildings that are entirely office with issuance of a conditional use permit. Under the proposed
Project, the permitted density would increase to 35 dwelling units per acre. Future development under
the proposed Project could result in up to 235 net residential units.
In addition to the 342 existing dwelling units on Housing Site 10 (The Hamptons), Housing Elements Site 5
(Glenbrook Apartments) and Site 6 (The Villages Apartments) have 517 and 468 existing dwelling units,
respectively. However, Sites 5 and 6 are anticipated to be infill sites, therefore, no demolition of existing
residential units would occur at these locations. However, potential future development under the proposed
Project at Housing Element Site 10 could result in the temporary loss of 342 residential units. If this Site
were to be redeveloped, the existing units may need to be demolished in order to redevelop the sites at their
proposed maximum capacity. Nevertheless, the resulting redevelopment at this site would provide a net
increase of 820 units. Furthermore, where applicable, Housing Element Program 17 addresses the potential
loss of rental housing and displacement of lower and moderate income households due to new development.
Under this Program, the City will grant approval only if: 1) The project will comply with the City’s BMR
Program; 2) The number of units provided on the site is at least equal to the number of existing units; and 3)
Adverse impacts on displaced tenants, in developments with more than four units, are mitigated. Mitigation
may include, but not be limited to, proper noticing to tenants, refund of security deposit, and cash
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
POPULATION & HOUSING
PLACEWORKS 4.11-17
equivalent of three month’s rent. Accordingly, the proposed General Plan land use designation, Zoning
designation and development standard amendments on the Housing Element Sites listed above would not
result in the displacement of housing necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere.
Implementation of the proposed Project would result in a net increase of housing units (4,421 units
compared to 1,895 units) under the proposed Project. Therefore, construction of replacement housing
elsewhere would not be necessary and the impact would be less than significant.
Significance Without Mitigation: Less than significant.
POP-3 Implementation of the proposed Project would not displace substantial
numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere.
As described under Impact POP-2 above, potential future development at potential Housing Elements Site 5
(Glenbrook Apartments) and Site 6 (The Villages Apartments) would be infill and no removal of existing
housing would occur; however, Housing Site 10 (The Hamptons) could involve the demolition and
replacement of existing housing units, which could result in the temporary displacement of some residents,
but this would not result in displacement of substantial numbers of people and housing necessitating more
replacement housing than is already planned. For the remainder of the Housing Element Sites 1-9 and 11-19
listed in Chapter 3, Project Description, of this Draft EIR, no displacement would occur because the
increase in housing would be accomplished by constr ucting infill units on portions of the Housing Element
Sites that are not currently developed with housing. For Housing Element Sites 10, redevelopment of the
site at its proposed maximum capacity would require demolishing existing units and would require the
occupants to move while the new residential project is under construction; however, there would be a net
increase in the number of housing units in Cupertino (4, 421 units compared to 1,895 units). Additionally,
based on an average household size of 2.94 persons per household, the proposed net increase of 820 housing
units from redevelopment on these Housing Element Site 10 would accommodate approximately 2,411 new
residents in the city.
Furthermore, where applicable, Housing Element Program 17 addresses the potential loss of rental housing
and displacement of lower and moderate income households due to new development. Under this Program,
the City will grant approval only if: 1) The project will comply with the City’s BMR Program; 2) The
number of units provided on the site is at least equal to the number of existing units; and 3) Adverse impacts
on displaced tenants, in developments with more than four units, are mitigated. Mitigation may include, but
not be limited to, proper noticing to tenants, refund of security deposit, and cash equivalent of three
month’s rent. Therefore, not only is the proposed Project anticipated to result in an increase in residential
units (4, 421 units compared to 1,895 units), but also, should some types of individual development
projects be permitted under the proposed Project that would potentially displace people, provisions of the
Housing Element Program 17 would serve to minimize impacts. Therefore, the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere would not be warranted and the impact would be less than significant.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
POPULATION & HOUSING
4.11-18 JUNE 18, 2014
POP-4 Implementation of the proposed Project, in combination with past, present,
and reasonably foreseeable projects, would result in less than significant
cumulative impacts with respect to population and housing.
As discussed in Chapter 4, Environmental Evaluation, of this Draft EIR, this EIR takes into account growth
projected by the proposed 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 ABAG. Impacts from cumulative growth are considered in the context of their
consistency with regional planning efforts. As described above, the proposed Project would not induce a
substantial amount of growth that has not been adequately planned for or require the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere. Cumulative growth would be consistent with regional planning efforts.
Thus, when considered along with the proposed Project, which, as described in the above sections, would
not exceed regional growth projections, cumulative growth would not displace substantial numbers of
people or housing or exceed planned levels of growth. Therefore, cumulative Impacts would be less than
significant.
Significance Without Mitigation: Less than significant.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PUBLIC SERVICES & RECREATION
PLACEWORKS 4.12-1
4.12 PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
This chapter describes existing public services and recreation in the City of Cupertino and evaluates the
potential environmental consequences on public services and recreation from future development that could
occur by adopting and implementing the proposed Project.
The public services and recreation analyzed in this section are fire and police protection services, schools,
parks, and libraries. A summary of the relevant regulatory setting and existing conditions is followed by a
discussion of specific and cumulative impacts from future development permitted under the proposed
Project. The schools analysis in this chapter is based in part on the school background study prepared for the
proposed Project dated June 14, 2014 prepared by Schoolhouse Services. Information used in the
preparation of this chapter, including the school background report, is included in this Draft EIR as
Appendix F, Public Services Data.
4.12.1 FIRE PROTECTION SERVICES
4.12.1.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
This section describes the current fire protection regulations, resources, and response times for fire
protection services in Cupertino.
Regulatory Framework
This section summarizes key State and local regulations related to fire protection services, concerning the
proposed Project. There are no federal regulations pertaining to fire protection that apply to the proposed
Project.
State Regulations
California Building Code
The California Building Code (CBC), which is located in Part 2 of Title 24 of the California Code of
Regulations, established the minimum State building standards. The California Building Code is based on the
1997 Uniform Building Code, but has been modified for California conditions. The CBC is generally
adopted on a jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction basis, subject to further modification based on local conditions.
Commercial and residential buildings are plan-checked by City building officials for compliance with the
CBC. Typical fire safety requirements of the CBC include installation of sprinklers in all high-rise buildings;
establishment of fire resistance standards for fire doors, building materials, and particular types of
construction; and clearance of debris and vegetation within a prescribed distance from occupied structures
in wildfire hazard areas.
California Fire Code
The California Fire Code (CFC) incorporates, by adoption, the International Fire Code of the International
Code Council, with California amendments. This is the official Fire Code for the State and all political
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PUBLIC SERVICES & RECREATION
4.12-2 JUNE 18, 2014
subdivisions. It is located in Part 9 of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR). The CFC is
revised and published every three years by the California Building Standards Commission.
Local Regulations
City of Cupertino General Plan 2000-2020
The City of Cupertino’s 2000-2020 General Plan, adopted on November 15, 2005, contains the Health and
Safety Element in Section 6. This section contains policies related to fire protection services. As part of the
proposed Project, some General Plan policies would be amended. Substantive policy changes under the
proposed Project include the addition, removal, or functional revision (e.g. not purely semantic) of policies
in ways that have the potential to result in a physical impact on the environment. Policies of the 2000-2020
General Plan that are relevant to fire protection services and were not substantially modified (e.g.
renumbered or minor text revision) are listed below in Table 4.12-1. A comprehensive list of policy changes
is provided in Appendix I, Proposed General Plan Policy Amendments, of this Draft EIR. Discussions of how
substantive policy changes may result in adverse physical changes are included in the analyses under each
impact criterion in Section 4.12.1.4, Impact Discussion, below.
TABLE 4.12‐1 POLICIES AND STRATEGIES OF THE CUPERTINO 2000‐2020 GENERAL PLAN
New Policy
Number
Original Policy
Number Policies and Strategies
Section 6, Health and Safety
Policy 6‐4 Policy 6‐3 Wild Fire Prevention Efforts. Coordinate wild fire prevention efforts with adjacent
jurisdictions.
Policy 6‐8 Policy 6‐7 Early Project Review. Involve the Fire Department in the early design stage of all projects
requiring public review to assure Fire Department input and modifications as needed.
Policy 6‐9 Policy 6‐8
Commercial and Industrial Fire Protection Guidelines. Coordinate with the Fire
Department to develop new guidelines for fire protection for commercial and industrial
land uses.
Policy 6‐11 Policy 6‐10
Multi‐Story Buildings Fire Risks. Recognize that multi‐story buildings of any land use type
increase risks of fire. Ensure that adequate fire protection is built into the design and
require on‐site fire suppression materials and equipment to ensure the safety of the
community.
Policy 6‐13 Policy 6‐14
Roadway Design. Involve the Fire Department in the design of public roadways for review
and comments. Attempt to ensure that roadways have frequent median breaks for timely
access to properties.
Policy 6‐15 Policy 6‐16 Hillside Access Routes. Require new hillside development to have frequent grade breaks
in access routes to ensure a timely response from fire personnel.
Policy 6‐16 Policy 6‐17 Hillside Road Upgrades. Require new hillside development to upgrade existing access
roads to meet Fire Code and City standards.
Policy 6‐20 Policy 6‐20
Growth Cooperation. Encourage cooperation between water utility companies and the
Fire Department in order to keep water systems in pace with growth and firefighting
service needs.
Source: City of Cupertino and Cupertino 2000‐2020 General Plan
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PUBLIC SERVICES & RECREATION
PLACEWORKS 4.12-3
City of Cupertino Municipal Code
The Cupertino Municipal Code, organized by Title, Chapter, and Section, contains all ordinances for the
city. The Municipal Code is up to date through Ordinance 14-2117, passed March 18, 2014.
The City’s Fire Code, which is in Title 16 (Buildings and Construction), Chapter 16.40 (Fire Code) of the
Municipal Code, regulate permit processes, emergency access, hazardous material handling, and fire
protection systems, including automatic sprinkler systems, fire extinguishers, and fire alarms. Under
Ordinance 13-2115, the City adopted the 2013 CFC. New construction or improvements are subject to the
Santa Clara County Fire Department’s (SCCFD) plan review and approval. Section 16.40.065,
Permits, includes Section [A]105.1.4 (16.40.065) and [A]105.1.5 (Operational permit fee), which outline
the construction permit fees and plan review fees for fire hydrant systems, fire extinguishing systems, and
fire alarm systems and operation permit fees that are required to be paid to the SCCFD, respectively.
4.12.1.2 EXISTING CONDITIONS
The City of Cupertino contracts with the Santa Clara County Fire District (SCCFD) for fire protection,
emergency, medical, and hazardous material services. The SCCFD also serves unincorporated county areas,
as well the cities of Campbell, Los Altos, Monte Sereno, Saratoga, and towns of Los Altos Hills and Los
Gatos. Additionally, the SCCFD has an agreement with the cities of San Jose, Santa Clara, and Sunnyvale for
mutual aid to the City of Cupertino in the event of a large emergency.1 The administrative headquarters of
the SCCFD is located at 14700 Winchester Boulevard, Los Gatos; and the SCCFD service area is divided
into four battalion districts with 17 fire stations. The SCCFD consists of the following four different
divisions:
Fire Prevention Division: The Fire Prevention Division provides fire, life, safety, and hazardous
material inspection services for building construction, annual building inspection, and hazardous
materials regulation.
Operations Division: The Operations Division provides services, including fire suppression, fire
investigation, emergency medical response, hazard material response and enforcement, and technical
rescues.
Training Division: The Training Division is responsible for providing training, including emergency
medical services.
Support Services Division: The Support Services Division is responsible for all vehicle, facilities,
and communication services.
The SCCFD is one of the participants in the California State Fire and Rescue Mutual Aid Plan, and has
response agreements with other fire agencies, including California Department of Forestry and Fire
Protection (CAL FIRE), Mountain View Fire Department, Palo Alto Fire Department, San Jose Fire
1 Personal communication between Ricky Caperton (PlaceWorks) and Cheryl Roth of the Santa Clara County Fire Department on April
24, 2014.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PUBLIC SERVICES & RECREATION
4.12-4 JUNE 18, 2014
Department, Scotts Valley Fire Protection District, South Santa Clara County Fire Protection District,
Sunnyvale Department of Public Safety, and Woodside Fire Protection District.2
Staffing and Facilities
There are 297 employees and daily staffing of 64 firefighters and officers operating out of the 15 fire stations
throughout the SCCFD, including 19 different types of firefighting equipment, such as fire trucks, and three
command vehicles. The fire suppression staff also includes 18 trained volunteer firefighters.3 The following
three fire stations are within the city boundary:
Cupertino Fire Station: The Cupertino Fire Station is located at 20215 Stevens Creek Boulevard and
has one fire engine staffed with one captain, one firefighter, and one firefighter trained as a paramedic.
Additionally, this station has one fire truck with one captain, two firefighters, and one firefighter trained
as a paramedic. This station also houses one unstaffed fire engine kept available for mutual aid
deployment throughout California, and one wildland engine that can be cross-staffed by one of the
crews. The Cupertino Fire Station houses a small historical fire museum, which is open to public, and
has seven on-duty staff, and houses three fire engines and four fire trucks, along with one reserve engine
and one California Office of Emergency Services (OES) engine.4
Seven Springs Fire Station: The Seven Springs Station is located at 2100 Seven Springs Parkway and
has one fire engine staffed with one captain, one firefighter, and one firefighter trained as a paramedic.
Additionally, this station has one hazardous materials unit staffed with one captain, and a firefighter
trained as a paramedic, along with one breathing support unit staffed with two firefighters. Also, there is
one command vehicle staffed with one Battalion Chief. The Seven Springs Fire Station is responsible for
the SCCFD’s hazardous material response and inspection program, and has a total of eight on-duty staff
and is equipped with three fire engines, four hazardous material vehicle, and one battalion vehicle.
Monte Vista Fire Station: The Monte Vista Fire Station, located at 22620 Stevens Creek Boulevard,
and has one fire engine staffed with one captain, one firefighter, and one firefighter trained as a
paramedic. Also, there is a wildland engine that can be cross-staffed by the crew for vegetation fires.
In addition to the three fire stations described above, the SCCFD also operates 12 additional stations that
provide service throughout the entire district, including Cupertino, which offers services during significant
emergency events.
Response Times and Performance5
In 2013, the SCCFD responded to 15,929 emergency calls6, down from 19,458 in 2012. Among all the
emergency calls, 72 percent of the calls requested emergency medical service, 12 percent responded to fire
2 Santa Clara County Fire Department, Business Plan, January 2011-December 2014, May 2010, page 54.
3 Personal communication between Ricky Caperton (PlaceWorks) and Cheryl Roth of the Santa Clara County Fire Department on April
24, 2014.
4 Santa Clara County Fire Department, Business Plan, January 2011-December 2014, May 2010, page 26.
5 Santa Clara County Fire Department, 2012 Annual Report, 2013.
6 Personal communication between Ricky Caperton (PlaceWorks) and Cheryl Roth of the Santa Clara County Fire Department on April
24, 2014.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PUBLIC SERVICES & RECREATION
PLACEWORKS 4.12-5
alarms, 8 percent to fires, 6 percent to service calls, 1 percent to hazardous materials, and another 1
percent for rescue-related calls. The SCCFD has department performance measures of having the first unit
arrive in less than seven minutes, 90 percent of the time for calls not requiring a paramedic, and for
emergency medical services (EMS) having a paramedic arrive in less than seven minutes at least 90 percent
of the time. In 2013, the response time for non-paramedic calls was seven minutes or less, 89.4 percent of
the time, which is slightly below the Department’s performance target. For EMS calls, the SCCFD
responded in less than seven minutes 90.4 percent of the time, exceeding the Department’s performance
target.7 Also, from dispatch of alarm, an effective firefighting force would arrive on scene in less than 15
minutes 97.7 percent of the time. The SCCFD provided “2-in/2-out” Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) firefighter safety standards for structural fires in less than nine minutes from
dispatch alarm for 90.2 percent of the time.
The Insurance Services Organization (ISO) is an advisory organization that, among other things, collects
information on municipal fire-protection efforts in communities throughout the United States. In each of
those communities, ISO analyzes the relevant data using ISO’s Fire Suppression Rating Schedule (FSRS). The
ISO then assigns a Public Protection Classification from 1 to 10. Class 1 generally represents superior
property fire protection, and Class 10 indicates that the area's fire-suppression program does not meet ISO’s
minimum criteria.8 The ISO rating is used by the SCCFD to evaluate their public fire-protection services.
Currently the SCCFD provides ISO Class 2/8 services for Santa Clara County.9
Budget
Because there are currently no development impact fees, the primary source of the SCCFD’s funding is
property taxes. The department receives 2 percent of all taxable property taxes annually.10 In addition to
property tax, the SCCFD receives revenues from licenses and permits fees, intergovernmental revenues, use
of money and property, charges for services, sale of capital assets and other revenues.11 The SCCFD fixed
fees for fire code permits, review, and inspection are current as of August 20, 2012.12 In Fiscal Year 2012,
the SCCFD had the total of $82 million, and spent $81 million,13 which gave it a surplus to start budget for
the following fiscal year.
Planning
The 2010-2014 SCCFD Business Plan addresses planning-related concerns such as fiscal year projections,
equipment and facilities overview and maintenance schedule, evaluation of the condition of facilities and
equipment, as well as identifying service demand growth patterns, in order to plan for and accommodate
future growth. Additionally, the 2010-2014 SCCFD Strategic Plan serves as a comprehensive vision that
7 Personal communication between Ricky Caperton (PlaceWorks) and Cheryl Roth of the Santa Clara County Fire Department on April
24, 2014.
8 ISO Mitigation Online website, About ISO and About PPC pages, http://www.isomitigation.com, accessed on July 9, 2013.
9 Santa Clara County Fire Department website, www.sccfd.com, About Us, accessed on July 9, 2013.
10 Santa Clara County Fire Department, Business Plan, January 2010-December 2014, May 2010, pages 7-8.
11 Santa Clara County Fire Department, 2012 Annual Report, 2013.
12 Santa Clara County Fire Marshal Office, Fixed Fees For Fire Code Permits, Review And Inspection, http://www.sccgov.org/sites/
fmo/Fees/permitfees/Pages/default.aspx, accessed on November 22, 2013.
13 Santa Clara County Fire Department, 2012 Annual Report, 2013.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PUBLIC SERVICES & RECREATION
4.12-6 JUNE 18, 2014
provides strategies for accommodating future growth through the identification of goals and objectives
aimed at improving existing fire protection and emergency medical services, as well as to ensure future fire
protection and emergency medical services are adequate to accommodate growth.
4.12.1.3 THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
According to Appendix G, Environmental Checklist, of the CEQA Guidelines, the proposed Project would
have a significant impact related to fire protection and emergency services if it would result in substantial
adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered fire protection facilities,
need for new or physically altered fire protection facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance
objectives for fire protection services.
4.12.1.4 IMPACT DISCUSSION
This section analyzes the proposed Project’s potential impacts and cumulative impacts to fire protection
services.
PS-1 Implementation of the proposed Project would not result in the provision
of or need for new or physically altered fire protection facilities, the
construction or operation of which could cause significant environmental
impacts.
A significant environmental impact could result if implementation of the proposed Project would result in a
need for the construction of new or physically altered fire protection facilities.
As described in Chapter 3, Project Description, of this Draft EIR, implementation of the proposed Project
would bring as many as 12,998 new residents to Cupertino by 2040. Additionally, it is anticipated that
implementation of the proposed Project could result in 4,421 households, 4,040,231 square feet of office
space, 1,343,679 square feet of commercial space, and up to 1,339 hotel rooms throughout the city. These
changes would likely result in an in increase in the number of calls for fire protection, and emergency
medical services, which could result in expansion or construction of new or physically altered fire
protection facilities resulting in significant environmental impacts. General Plan buildout would occur over
a 26-year horizon, which would result in a gradual increase in demand for fire protection services that
would be accommodated by the SCCFD. As described above, the 2010-2014 SCCFD Business Plan
addresses planning-for adequate equipment and facilities, evaluation of the condition of facilities and
equipment, as well as identifying service demand growth patterns, in order to plan for and accommodate
future growth. Additionally, the 2010-2014 SCCFD Strategic Plan serves as a comprehensive vision that
provides strategies for accommodating future growth through the identification of goals and objectives
aimed at improving existing fire protection and emergency medical services, as well as to ensure future fire
protection and emergency medical services are adequate to accommodate growth.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PUBLIC SERVICES & RECREATION
PLACEWORKS 4.12-7
The SCCFD confirmed that the existing facilities, equipment, and staffing levels would be adequate to
accommodate growth anticipated under the proposed Project.14 Furthermore, the increased property taxes
from redevelopment of infill sites would result in additional funding being available to the SCCFD to allow
for future growth as well.
In addition, compliance with Municipal Code Section 16.40.065 would require future development to
undergo plan review and approval by the SCCFD to ensure that future projects comply with State, and local
fire codes, as well as ensure adequate safety features are incorporated into building design to minimize risk
of fire. Additionally, the following current General Plan policies would further ensure that fire protection
services are adequate as buildout of the proposed Project occurs.
The General Plan includes policies and strategies that, once adopted, would ensure adequate fire protection
services are available for the residents of Cupertino. Within the Health and Safety Element, Policy 6-4, Wild
Fire Prevention Efforts, would require the City to coordinate wild fire prevention efforts with adjacent
jurisdictions. Policy 6-8, Early Project Review, would require the City to involve the Fire Department in the
early design stage of all projects requiring public review to assure Fire Department input and modifications
as needed. Policy 6-9, Commercial and Industrial Fire Protection Guidelines, would require the City to
coordinate with the Fire Department to develop new guidelines for fire protection for commercial and
industrial land uses. Policy 6-11, Multi-Story Buildings Fire Risks, would require the City to ensure that
adequate fire protection is built into the design of multi-story buildings of any land use type and require on-
site fire suppression materials and equipment. Policy 6-12, Smoke Detectors, calls for the City to require
smoke detectors in all new residential units and in all residential units at the time of sale or rental, in
conformance with State law. Additionally, under this policy the City is required to continue to use the
Cupertino Scene to publicize fire hazards correction methods. Strategy 1, Code Amendment, would require
the City to adopt an ordinance to incorporate the smoke detector requirement in Chapter 16.04 of the
Cupertino Municipal Code. Policy 6-13, Roadway Design, would require the City to involve the Fire
Department in the design of public roadways for review and comments and to try to ensure that roadways
have frequent median breaks for timely access to properties. Policy 6-15, Hillside Access Routes, would call
for the City to require new hillside development to have frequent grade breaks in access routes to ensure a
timely response from fire personnel. Policy 6-16, Hillside Road Upgrades, would require new hillside
development to upgrade existing access roads to meet Fire Code and City standards. Policy 6-20, Growth
Cooperation, would require the City to encourage cooperation between water utility companies and the
Fire Department in order to keep water systems in pace with growth and firefighting service needs. Finally,
Policy 6-21, Fire Fighting Upgrades Needs, would require the City to encourage water providers to
consider Fire Department firefighting needs when upgrading public water systems.
Future development would also be required to comply with the City’s Fire Code per Municipal Code
Chapter 16.40 (Fire Code), including compliance with the permit processes, emergency access, hazardous
material handling, and fire protection systems, including automatic sprinkler systems, fire extinguishers, and
fire alarms. Consequently, compliance with the State and local regulations, in conjunction with confirmation
by the SCCFD that facilities, staff, and equipment would be adequate to accommodate anticipated future
14 Personal communication between Ricky Caperton (PlaceWorks) and Cheryl Roth of the Santa Clara County Fire Department on April
24, 2014.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PUBLIC SERVICES & RECREATION
4.12-8 JUNE 18, 2014
growth, adoption and implementation of the proposed Project would therefore result in less-than-
significant impacts.
Significance Without Mitigation: Less than significant.
PS-2 Implementation of the proposed Project, in combination with past, present,
and reasonably foreseeable projects, would not result in significant
cumulative impacts with respect to fire protection service.
As discussed in Chapter 4, Environmental Evaluation, of this Draft EIR, this EIR takes into account growth
projected by the proposed 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). Cumulative impacts are
considered in the context of the growth from development under the proposed Project within the city
combined with the estimated growth in the service area of the SCCFD, which includes the cities of
Campbell, Los Altos, Monte Sereno, Saratoga, and towns of Los Altos Hills and Los Gatos. A significant
cumulative environmental impact would result if this cumulative growth would exceed the ability of SCCFD
to adequately serve their service area, thereby requiring construction of new facilities or modification of
existing facilities.
As described above, the proposed Project would not create a need for new or physically altered facilities in
order for the SCCFD to provide fire protection services to its service area. Compliance with State and local
laws, such as the General Plan policies listed above in Impact PS-1, would ensure that fire protection
services are adequate as future development is proposed as a result of implementation of the proposed
Project. As mentioned above in Section 4.12.1.2, Existing Conditions, the SCCFD provides services to
other neighboring cities, and they have confirmed that future growth under the proposed Project would be
adequately served by existing staff, equipment, and facilities as part of their 2010-2014 SCCFD Business
Plan and 2010-2014 SCCFD Strategic Plan, which address planning-for adequate equipment and facilities
and identifying service demand growth patterns, in order to plan for and accommodate future growth in the
SCCD service area. Therefore, the cumulative impact on the provision of fire services would likewise be less
than significant.
Significance Without Mitigation: Less than significant.
4.12.2 POLICE PROTECTION SERVICES
This section describes the current police protection regulations, resources and response times for police
protection services in Cupertino.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PUBLIC SERVICES & RECREATION
PLACEWORKS 4.12-9
4.12.2.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Regulatory Framework
This section summarizes key State and local regulations related to police protection services, concerning the
proposed Project. There are no federal or State regulations pertaining to police protection that apply to the
proposed Project.
Local Regulations
City of Cupertino General Plan 2000-2020
The City of Cupertino’s 2000-2020 General Plan, adopted on November 15, 2005, contains the Health and
Safety Element in Section 6 of the General Plan. This section contains policies to encourage public safety
when considering building design and fiscal impacts of future development on the Sheriff’s Department. As
part of the proposed Project, some General Plan policies would be amended. Substantive policy changes
under the proposed Project include the addition, removal, or functional revision (e.g. not purely semantic)
of policies in ways that have the potential to result in a physical impact on the environment. Policies of the
2000-2020 General Plan that are relevant to police protection services and were only renumbered are listed
below in Table 4.12-2. A comprehensive list of policy changes is provided in Appendix I, Proposed General
Plan Policy Amendments, of this Draft EIR. Discussions of how substantive policy changes may result in
adverse physical changes are included in the analyses under each impact criterion in Section 4.12.2.3,
Impact Discussion, below.
TABLE 4.12‐2 POLICIES AND STRATEGIES OF THE CUPERTINO 2000‐2020 GENERAL PLAN
New Policy
Number
Original Policy
Number Policies and Strategies
Section 6, Health and Safety
Policy 6‐24 Policy 6‐25 Crime Prevention in Building Design. Consider the relationship between building design and
crime prevention in reviewing all developments.
Policy 6‐25 Policy 6‐26 Fiscal Impacts. Recognize fiscal impacts to the County Sheriff and City of Cupertino when
approving various land use mixes.
Source: City of Cupertino and Cupertino 2000‐2020 General Plan.
Existing Conditions
The City of Cupertino contracts with the Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Office (Sheriff’s Office) and West
Valley Patrol Division for police protection services. The Sheriff’s Office also provides police protection
services to unincorporated areas of western Santa Clara County and other cities and towns, including
Saratoga, Los Altos Hills, and the community of Moffett Field. The West Valley Division provides 24-hour
uniformed law enforcement patrol services, as well as traffic functions, special enforcement details, and
investigative services.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PUBLIC SERVICES & RECREATION
4.12-10 JUNE 18, 2014
During fiscal year 2013/2014, Cupertino’s contract for law enforcement services by the Sheriff’s Office was
$9,574,819. The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Sheriff’s office and the City of
Cupertino which contains the City’s service agreement will expire on July 1, 2014; however, it is expected
that the agreement will be renewed until 2024.15
Staffing and Facilities
The West Valley Patrol Division headquarters is located at the Westside Sheriff’s Substation on 1601 South
De Anza Boulevard in Cupertino. Overall, the Sheriff’s Office has 1400 sworn personnel, including one
Sheriff, one Undersheriff, two Assistant Sheriffs, 14 Captains, 20 Lieutenants, and 75 Enforcement
Sergeants.16 At the West Valley Station, there are 84 Sworn Peace Officer Positions (from Deputy to Captain)
and 7 non-sworn positions (including a crime analyst, records clerks, technicians, and an executive assistant.
Sworn positions include one captain, one lieutenant, eight Sergeants, four Detectives, and 70 Deputies.
There are also three law enforcement clerks, one law enforcement records clerk, one crime analyst, and one
technician. Additionally, the City of Cupertino has two Code Enforcement Officers that handle parking
citations and are housed within the West Valley Station; however, they are City employees, and not part of
the Sheriff’s Department. The West Valley Station contracts dispatching services to County Communications.
Response Time
The target response times for the City of Cupertino, upon the agreement with the Sheriff’s Office, are 5
minutes for Priority 1 calls (requiring emergency dispatch), 9 minutes for Priority 2 calls (non-life
threatening) and 20 minutes for Priority 3 calls (non-emergency). In 2013, the Sheriff Office average
response times were 5 minutes and 54 seconds for Priority 1 calls, 6 minutes and 26 seconds for Priority 2
calls, and 10 minutes and 49 seconds for Priority 3 calls.17
4.12.2.2 THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
According to Appendix G, Environmental Checklist, of the CEQA Guidelines, the proposed Project would
have a significant impact related to police protection and emergency services if it would result in substantial
adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered police protection
facilities, need for new or physically altered police protection facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or
other performance objectives for police protection services.
15 Personal communications between Ricky Caperton (PlaceWorks) and Captain Ken Binder, Division Commander, West Valley Patrol,
April 11, 2014.
16 Personal communications between Ricky Caperton (PlaceWorks) and Captain Ken Binder, Division Commander, West Valley Patrol,
April 11, 2014.
17 Personal communications between Ricky Caperton (PlaceWorks) and Captain Ken Binder, Division Commander, West Valley Patrol,
April 11, 2014.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PUBLIC SERVICES & RECREATION
PLACEWORKS 4.12-11
4.12.2.3 IMPACT DISCUSSION
This section analyzes the proposed Project’s potential impacts and cumulative impacts to police protection
services.
PS-3 Implementation of the proposed Project would not result in the provision
of or need for new or physically altered police protection facilities, the
construction or operation of which could cause significant environmental
impacts.
A significant environmental impact could result if implementation of the proposed Project would result in a
need for the construction of new or physically altered police facilities.
As described in Chapter 3, Project Description, of this Draft EIR, implementation of the proposed Project
would bring as many as 12,998 new residents to Cupertino by 2040. Additionally, it is anticipated that
implementation of the proposed Project could result in 4,421 households, and 16,855 jobs. These changes
would likely result in the number of calls for police protection services, which could result in the expansion
or construction of new or physically altered police protection facilities, or which could result in significant
environmental impacts. However, the West Valley Patrol Division has confirmed that future development
under the General Plan would not result in the need for expansion or addition of facilities.18 Moreover,
growth proposed under the proposed Project would occur incrementally over the 26-year horizon of the
General Plan. Additionally, if future expansion of the police station were necessary, the project would be
subject to the provisions of CEQA, which would require that all potentially significant impacts be mitigated
to a less-than-significant level, when feasible.
Further, the Sheriff’s Office has confirmed that while the standard service contract is based upon a set
number of hours for deputies and reserve deputies, buildout under the General Plan throughout the 26-year
horizon would not substantially result in an increase in the number of contracted hours as a result of
potential increase in calls for police protection services.19 However, if it is determined that the number of
hours for deputies and reserve deputies need to be revised based upon trends in service calls, the contract
between the City of Cupertino and the Sheriff’s Department could be modified to allow for a revision.
Since most of the development is expected to occur on infill sites, it is expected that there will be increased
property tax revenue from these properties, which could offset the additional cost incurred by the City.
The General Plan includes policies and strategies that, once adopted, would ensure adequate police
protection services are available for the residents of Cupertino. Within the Health and Safety Element,
Policy 6-22, Neighborhood Awareness Programs, would require the City to continue to support the
Neighborhood Watch Program and others similar programs intended to help neighborhoods prevent crime
through social interaction. Policy 6-24, Crime Prevention in Building Design, would require the City to
18 Personal communications between Ricky Caperton (PlaceWorks) and Captain Ken Binder, Division Commander, West Valley Patrol,
April 11, 2014.
19 Personal communications between Ricky Caperton (PlaceWorks) and Captain Ken Binder, Division Commander, West Valley Patrol,
April 11, 2014.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PUBLIC SERVICES & RECREATION
4.12-12 JUNE 18, 2014
consider the relationship between building design and crime prevention in reviewing all developments.
Policy 6-25, Fiscal Impacts, would require the City to continue to recognize fiscal impacts to the County
Sheriff and City of Cupertino when approving various land use mixes. Policy 6-26, Pre-hearing Review,
would require the City to continue to request County Sheriff review and comment on development
applications for security and public safety measures.
Based on confirmation by the Sheriff’s Office, along with compliance with the General Plan policies listed
above, a less-than-significant impact would occur with respect to the need for new or physically altered
police protection facilities.
Significance Without Mitigation: Less than significant.
PS-4 Implementation of the proposed Project, in combination with past, present,
and reasonably foreseeable projects, would result in less than significant
cumulative impacts with respect to police protection service.
As discussed in Chapter 4, Environmental Evaluation, of this Draft EIR, this EIR takes into account growth
projected by the proposed 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). Cumulative impacts are
considered in the context of the growth from development under the proposed Project within the city,
combined with the estimated growth in the service areas of the Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Department,
including the cities of Los Altos Hills, Saratoga, and unincorporated areas of Santa Clara County. A
significant cumulative environmental impact would result if this cumulative growth would exceed the ability
of Sheriff’s Department to adequately serve the vicinity, thereby requiring construction of new facilities or
modification of existing facilities.
Since police protection services in Cupertino are provided through a MOU between the City of Cupertino
and the Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Office, changes and growth anticipated under the proposed Project
would not have any cumulative impact beyond Cupertino’s SOI. Moreover, the Sheriff’s Office has
confirmed that in conjunction with the growth anticipated under the proposed Project, new or physically
altered facilities would not be needed.20 Further, it is unlikely that implementation of the proposed Project
would significantly increase the degree or incidence of need for mutual aid from neighboring agencies
because anticipated growth under the General Plan would occur incrementally throughout the 26-year
buildout horizon. Additionally, compliance with the existing General Plan policies listed under Impact PS-3
would require the City to recognize fiscal impacts to the County Sheriff and City of Cupertino when
approving various land use mixes and to continue to request County Sheriff review and comment on
development applications for security and public safety measures. Additionally, many of the sites where
development is anticipated are infill sites. The resultant development of these infill sites will result in an
increase in property tax revenues, which could fund any anticipated changes to contracted hours and
20 Personal communications between Ricky Caperton (PlaceWorks) and Captain Ken Binder, Division Commander, West Valley Patrol,
April 11, 2014.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PUBLIC SERVICES & RECREATION
PLACEWORKS 4.12-13
personnel in the future for police protection services. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project
would have a less-than-significant cumulative effect with respect to police protection services.
Significance Without Mitigation: Less than significant.
4.12.3 SCHOOLS
This section describes the existing conditions regard to schools serving Cupertino.
4.12.3.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Regulatory Framework
This section summarizes key State and local regulations related to schools concerning the proposed Project.
There are no federal regulations pertaining to schools that apply to the proposed Project.
State Regulations
Senate Bill (SB) 50 (funded by Proposition 1A, approved in 1998) limits the power of cities and counties to
require mitigation of school facilities impacts as a condition of approving new development and provides
instead for a standardized developer fee. SB 50 generally provides for a 50/50 State and local school
facilities funding match. SB 50 also provides for three levels of statutory impact fees. The application level
depends on whether State funding is available, whether the school district is eligible for State funding and
whether the school district meets certain additional criteria involving bonding capacity, year round school
and the percentage of moveable classrooms in use.
California Government Code, Section 65995(b), and Education Code Section 17620
SB 50 amended California Government Code Section 65995, which contains limitations on Education Code
Section 17620, the statute that authorizes school districts to assess development fees within school district
boundaries. Government Code Section 65995(b)(3) requires the maximum square footage assessment for
development to be increased every two years, according to inflation adjustments. On January 25, 2012 the
State Allocation Board (SAB) approved increasing the allowable amount of statutory school facilities fees
(Level I School Fees) from $2.97 to $3.20 per square foot of assessable space for residential development of
500 square feet or more, and from $0.47 to $0.51 per square foot of chargeable covered and enclosed space
for commercial/industrial development.21 School districts may levy higher fees if they apply to the SAB and
meet certain conditions.22
Mitigation Fee Act (California Government Code 66000-66008)
21 State Allocation Board Meeting, January 25, 2012, http://www.documents.dgs.ca.gov/opsc/Resources/
Index_Adj_Dev.pdf, accessed on May 25, 2012.
22 http://www.edsource.org/iss_fin_sys_facilities.html, accessed January 25, 2013.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PUBLIC SERVICES & RECREATION
4.12-14 JUNE 18, 2014
Enacted as AB 1600, the Mitigation Fee Act requires a local agency establishing, increasing, or imposing an
impact fee as a condition of development to identify the purpose of the fee and the use to which the fee is to
be put.23 The agency must also demonstrate a reasonable relationship between the fee and the purpose for
which it is charged, and between the fee and the type of development plan on which it is to be levied. The
Act came into force on January 1, 1989.
Local Regulations
City of Cupertino General Plan 2000-2020
The City of Cupertino’s 2000-2020 General Plan, adopted on November 15, 2005, contains the Land
Use/Community Design Element in Section 2 of the General Plan. This section contains policies to
encourage public safety when considering building design and fiscal impacts of future development on the
Sheriff’s Department. As part of the proposed Project, some General Plan policies would be amended.
Substantive policy changes under the proposed Project include the addition, removal, or functional revision
(e.g. not purely semantic) of policies in ways that have the potential to result in a physical impact on the
environment. A comprehensive list of policy changes is provided in Appendix I, Proposed General Plan
Policy Amendments, of this Draft EIR. Discussions of how substantive policy changes may result in adverse
physical changes are included in the analyses under each impact criterion in Section 4.12.2.3, Impact
Discussion, below.
Existing Conditions
The City of Cupertino is served by three different school districts: Cupertino Union School District
(CUSD), Fremont Union High School District (FUHSD), and Santa Clara Unified School District (SCUSD).
The CUSD and FUHSD are two main school districts serving Cupertino, and SCUSD serves a small area in
the northeast corner of the City.
Cupertino Union School District
The CUSD serves the majority of Cupertino and some of neighboring cities, including Los Altos, San Jose,
Santa Clara, Saratoga, and some unincorporated Santa Clara County areas. The CUSD operates 25 schools,
including 20 elementary schools and five middle schools. Among 25 schools, eight elementary schools are
located within the Cupertino city boundary. Table 4.12-3 shows the current enrollment and capacity for the
CUSD schools.
23 California Government Code, Sections 66000-66008, http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=
56595118777+0+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve, accessed on November 17, 2011.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PUBLIC SERVICES & RECREATION
PLACEWORKS 4.12-15
TABLE 4.12‐3 CURRENT CAPACITY AND ENROLLMENT FOR THE CUSD
Schools Capacity
Current
Enrollment
Capacity
Deficit
Collins Elementary School 598 720 122
Eaton Elementary School 598 590 ‐8
Faria Elementary School 574 678 104
Garden Gate Elementary School 598 739 141
Lincoln Elementary School 455 705 250
Regnart Elementary School 407 510 103
Sedwick Elementary School 455 565 110
Stevens Creek Elementary School 574 599 25
Other Elementary Schools in CUSD 7,155 7,594 439
ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS TOTAL 11,414 12,700 1,286
Cupertino Middle School 1,235 1,352 117
Hyde Middle School 672 1,039 367
Kennedy Middle School 954 1,452 498
Lawson Middle School 1,105 1,130 25
Other Middle Schools in CUSD 932 1,385 453
MIDDLE SCHOOLS TOTAL 4,898 6,358 1,460
Source: Schoolhouse Services. June 2014.
As shown in Table 4.12-3, the CUSD schools are already well over their capacities, except for the Eaton
Elementary School, which is also near its capacity. With the proposed Project, the CUSD would experience
an additional increase in their attendance of 1,10524 students in elementary schools and 30925 students in
middle schools. The projection, as well as the current enrollment, indicates that the CUSD would not have
sufficient capacity to accommodate the expected increase in enrollment by 2040.
The CUSD’s operating budget includes personnel costs, including salaries and benefits for certified and
classified employees, which comprises of the majority of the CUSD’s operating budget. The 2013-2014
school year’s operating budget was $155.6 million. With the total of 19,053 enrolled students districtwide,
the operating cost per student for the school year was approximately $8,167.26
24 The increased in the CUSD elementary school is calculated with the student generation rate of 0.25 from the school report, and the
additional housing units expected at 2040 buildout, 4,421 units.
25 The increased in the CUSD elementary school is calculated with the student generation rate of 0.07 from the school report, and the
additional housing units expected at 2040 buildout, 4,421 units.
26 Schoolhouse Services, School Report, 2014.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PUBLIC SERVICES & RECREATION
4.12-16 JUNE 18, 2014
The development impact fee is the source of school capital improvements funding provided by new
development. The CUSD is eligible to levy Level 1 development impact fees on new residential
development, and, by agreement, CUSD is entitled for 60 percent of $3.36 per square foot of development,
which is $2.02 per square foot. The fee at $2.02 per square foot on an average of 1,100 square feet per unit
generates a gross fee of $2,222 per unit. After deducing 7.5% for the credit on demolished buildings, the
fee revenue is $2,055 per unit.27 At 2040 buildout for the proposed Project, additional 4,421 units are
expected; therefore, CUSD will receive a total of $9.1 million.
In addition to the development impact fee, the voters approved three bond measures for school facility
improvements. The three voter-approved measures with a total tax rate of $0.0004 per dollar of assessed
property value would generate approximately $12 million per year for CUSD. Additional housing units
expected from the proposed Project would pay about $240 per unit per year; however, the increased
number of units does not increase revenues for CUSD as the revenue from bond measures are fixed.
As a “revenue limit” district, which is a district where its property tax revenues are insufficient to reach the
per student amounts guaranteed under the State of California school funding program, the CUSD receives
additional funds necessary to fill the gap to the guaranteed entitlement level from the State. The CUSD is
entitled for $122 million, which is about $6,400 per student, for the 2014-2015 school year.28 Local
revenues other than property taxes are very minimal, and most of the revenues are from the parcel tax
revenues.
Fremont Unified High School District
The FUHSD operates five comprehensive high schools, including Cupertino High School, Fremont High
School, Homestead High School, Lynbrook High School, and Monta Vista High School. Among five schools,
three high schools are located within the Cupertino city boundary – Cupertino, Homestead, and Monta
Vista High Schools – and two are located in the city limits of San Jose – Fremont and Lynbrook High
Schools.
As shown in the Table 4.12-4, FUHSD schools are within 5 percent of the capacity established based on the
FUHSD’s standards. For the district as a whole, the current enrollment is almost exactly equal to capacity.
Almost all of the five high schools show a capacity deficit with Cupertino High School with the largest
deficit, and Monta Vista High School with a slight surplus in capacity. With the proposed Project, the
FUHSD would experience an additional increase in their attendance by 30929 students by 2040. The
increased student enrollment, and the capacity deficit for the FUHSD would increase and schools will be
overcrowded.
27 Schoolhouse Services, School Report, 2014.
28 Schoolhouse Services, School Report, 2014.
29 The increased in the CUSD elementary school is calculated with the student generation rate of 0.07 from the school report, and the
additional housing units expected at 2040 buildout, 4,421 units.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PUBLIC SERVICES & RECREATION
PLACEWORKS 4.12-17
The FUHSD’s operating budget for the school year 2013-2014 was $115 million. With the total of 10,657
students enrolled, operating cost per student was approximately $10,800.30 The FUHSD has been
modernizing its facilities and adding enrollment capacity. Most of the improvements were funded with bond
measures, though some development fee revenues have contributed. Bond Measure H in 1998, along with
State proposition 1A and 47 funds, provided $144 million for a districtwide renovation and modernization
program to address facilities deficiencies, as well as creating state-of-art modern schools. In 2008, Bond
Measure B was approved to authorize $198 million for school improvements, and has been adding capacity
to five schools in the FUHSD.
The FUHSD is also eligible to levy Level 1 development impact fees on new residential development. By
agreement with CUSD, FUHSD is entitled for 40 percent of the current maximum fee of $3.36 per square
foot of new development, which equates to $1.34 per square foot. Considering an average of 1,100 square
feet per unit and 7.5 percent for the credit on demolished buildings to be paid, the revenue for the FUHSD
from development impact fee at 2040 buildout is approximately $6 million. Although the share of the
property tax varies depending on the tax code area in which a project is located, the average is
approximately 17 percent throughout the City, and the average value of housing units is approximately
$600,000 and the base tax rate, excluding parcel taxes and bond payment taxes, is 1 percent of assessed
value, which equates to $6,000 per year. The FUHSD’s share at 17 percent is approximately $1,020 per
unit; therefore, property tax revenue at 2040 buildout would increase to $4.5 million for the FUHSD. For
the current fiscal year, the property tax revenue the FUHSD received was approximately $23 million, which
was approximately $2,160 per student.
The FUHSD receives other federal and State funding for a variety of programs, as well as some local
revenues; however, those revenues are very minimal compared to other sources of funding. Although the
funding from federal, State, and local revenues would increase as enrollment increase, it wouldn’t be
sufficient to catch up with the rate of enrollment increase.
30 Schoolhouse Services, School Report, 2014.
TABLE 4.12‐4 CURRENT CAPACITY AND ENROLLMENT FOR THE FUHSD
Schools Capacity
Current
Enrollment
Capacity
Deficit
Cupertino High School 2,168 2,057 ‐111
Fremont High School 2,142 1,996 38
Homestead High School 2,357 2,384 105
Lynbrook High School 1,819 1,846 27
Monta Vista High School 2,410 2,350 ‐60
Other N/A 24 N/A
DISTRICT TOTAL 10,634 10,657 23
Source: Schoolhouse Services. June 2014.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PUBLIC SERVICES & RECREATION
4.12-18 JUNE 18, 2014
In addition to development impact fees and property tax revenues, the FUHSD receives revenues from
several bond measures, but bond measure revenues are fixed and would not increase with increased student
enrollment.
Santa Clara Unified School District
The SCUSD serves the area on the southeast of the City generally from Cupertino and Sunnyvale to the
northern part of San Jose. For Cupertino, the SCUSD serves the small area in the northeast corner that
neither CUSD nor FUHSD serves.
The SCUSD has been growing past decade, with enrollment increasing from 13,976 in 2003 to 15,394 in
2013. For next decade, 10,500 new units are estimated to be added in the SCUSD, of which 90 percent of
them would be apartments. Since high density apar tments generate very few students, the student
generation rate averages only about 0.02 students per unit, 0.03 for elementary schools and 0.01 for middle
and high schools.
The SCUSD is also not a revenue limit district; therefore, property tax revenues are sufficient for it not to
receive any additional funding from the State. The annual property taxes received by SCUSD from the
redevelopment of the Hamptons would generate approximately $4 million.
4.12.3.2 THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the proposed Project would have a significant impact
related to schools if, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios or other performance objectives, the
proposed Project would result in the provision of or need for new or physically altered school facilities, the
construction or operation of which could cause significant environmental impacts.
4.12.3.3 IMPACT DISCUSSION
This section analyzes the proposed Project’s potential impacts and cumulative impacts to school services.
PS-5 Implementation of the proposed Project would not result in the provision
of or need for new or physically altered school facilities, the construction
or operation of which could cause significant environmental impacts.
This section reviews the need for existing school facilities to accommodate any increases in public school
enrollment due to the proposed Project. However, the California State Legislature, under Senate Bill 50 (SB
50), has determined that payment of school impact fees shall be deemed to provide full and complete school
facilities mitigation. All new developments proposed pursuant to the adoption of the proposed Project will
be required to pay the school impact fees adopted by each school district, and this requirement is considered
to fully mitigate the impacts of the proposed Project on school facilities.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PUBLIC SERVICES & RECREATION
PLACEWORKS 4.12-19
Cupertino Union School District
The proposed Project would generate approximately 4,421 housing units in Cupertino. As described above,
the CUSD would experience an additional 1,105 students in elementary schools and 309 students in middle
school. With student enrollment already exceeding CUSD’s capacity, the additional students would
exacerbate the CUSD’s capacity. In order to accommodate new students, the CUSD needs to either expand
existing facilities or construct new schools. However, Cupertino does not have sufficient locations for new
school facilities to accommodate the increased enrollment expected. Therefore, most of the improvements
are expected to occur on existing sites with two-story classroom buildings. Since these are established
school sites currently in operation, environmental impacts due to construction of the facilities are expected
to be minimal. The CUSD would receive approximately $9.1 million in development impact fees from the
proposed Project, which would mitigate the impacts from the proposed Project per SB 50. The impact to
the CUSD would be less than significant.
Fremont Unified High School District
With the estimated increase of 4,421 new housing units to Cupertino, the FUHSD would experience an
increase of 309 students by 2040. Although current student enrollment almost equals to its capacity, an
additional 309 students would increase the capacity deficit for the FUHSD. However, the FUHSD has been
modernizing its facilities with additional classroom and cafeterias to continuously address the capacity deficit
issue, and additional development impact fee of $6 million would ameliorate the capacity problem.
Therefore, most of the improvements are expected to occur on existing sites with two-story classroom
buildings. Since these are established school sites currently in operation, environmental impacts due to
construction of the facilities are expected to be minimal. The impact to the FUHSD would be less than
significant.
Santa Clara Unified School District
With 4,421 new housing units with the proposed Project, the expected growth in student enrollment for
the SCUSD would be approximately 220 students (132 elementary schools and 44 students for middle
schools and high schools). Although increased enrollment would add stress to the school in the SCUSD,
development impact fees for the proposed Project would mitigate the impact to the SCUSD facilities;
therefore, the impacts to the SCUSD would be less than significant.
Furthermore, the General Plan includes policies and strategies that, once adopted, would preserve and
support Cupertino’s excellent public education system by partnering with local school districts and De Anza
College to improve school facilities and infrastructure. Policy 2-7, Neighborhood Street Planning, would
require the City to develop pedestrian-friendly street environments in each neighborhood that help create
neighborhood identity, improve safety, increase opportunities for social interaction and connections to
shopping, schools, recreation and other destinations. Supporting Strategy 2, Public Facilities, would require
the City to evaluate existing and planned public facilities, such as schools and parks, to improve pedestrian
access. Policy 2-22, Jobs/Housing Balance, would require the City to strive for a more balanced ratio of jobs
and housing units. Supporting Strategy 1, Housing and Mixed-Use, would require the City to strive to
achieve a balanced jobs/housing ratio based on the policies and strategies contained in the Housing Element.
Strategy 2, Housing Impact on Local Schools, would recognize that the quality of Cupertino schools
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PUBLIC SERVICES & RECREATION
4.12-20 JUNE 18, 2014
(elementary and high school) is a primary asset of the City and directs the City to ensure that any new
housing pays the statutorily mandated impact fees to mitigate any adverse impact to these systems. Policy 2-
61, Planning for Schools, would require the City to work with the districts to assure the continued
excellence of school services for the community. Policy 2-93, School Playing Fields, would require the City
to preserve school playing fields for school and community recreational uses. Strategy 1, School Expansion,
would require the City to encourage schools to meet their expansion needs by building upward instead of
outward into recreation fields. Strategy 2, School Parking Lots, would require the City to encourage schools
to seek alternate parking or transportation solutions, rather than building new parking lots that infringe on
playing fields.
Therefore, with the mandatory payment of developer impact fees pursuant to SB 50 together with
implementation of the General Plan policies and strategies that support the schools within Cupertino,
impacts to the CUSD, FUHSD, and SCUSD would be less than significant.
Significance Without Mitigation: Less than significant.
PS-6 Implementation of the proposed Project, in combination with past, present,
and reasonably foreseeable projects, would result in less than significant
cumulative impacts with respect to school service.
Regional growth resulting from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects would result in increased
demand for additional school facilities within all three school districts serving the City of Cupertino. Almost
all of the schools in Cupertino experiences capacity deficits, and additional student enrollment would
exacerbate the current capacity issue. Similar to development in Cupertino, the schools are expected to
receive development impact fees from other development outside of Cupertino, which would mitigate the
current and future capacity issues, which would help expand their facilities to accommodate future students.
Therefore, the proposed Project would have a less-than-significant impact on school facilities.
Significance Without Mitigation: Less than significant.
4.12.4 LIBRARIES
This section describes the existing conditions regard to library services in Cupertino.
4.12.4.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Regulatory Framework
This section summarizes key State and local regulations related to libraries, concerning the proposed
Project. There are no federal regulations pertaining to libraries that apply to the proposed Project.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PUBLIC SERVICES & RECREATION
PLACEWORKS 4.12-21
State Regulation
The Mello-Roos Communities Facilities Act of 1982
The Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act, Government Code Section 53311 et seq., provides an
alternative method of financing certain public capital facilities and services through special taxes. This State
law empowers local agencies to establish Community Facilities Districts (CFDs) to levy special taxes for
facilities such as libraries. Such districts exist within the City of Cupertino.
Local Regulations
City of Cupertino General Plan 2000-2020
The City of Cupertino’s 2000-2020 General Plan, adopted on November 15, 2005, contains the Land
Use/Community Design Element in Section 2 of the General Plan. This section contains policies to
encourage adequate library facilities to serve the residents within the city. As part of the proposed Project,
some General Plan policies would be amended. Substantive policy changes under the proposed Project
include the addition, removal, or functional revision (e.g. not purely semantic) of policies in ways that have
the potential to result in a physical impact on the environment. Policies of the 2000-2020 General Plan that
are relevant to library services and were not substantially modified (e.g. renumbered or minor text change)
are listed below in Table 4.12-5. A comprehensive list of policy changes is provided in Appendix I, Proposed
General Plan Policy Amendments, of this Draft EIR. Discussions of how substantive policy changes may
result in adverse physical changes are included in the analyses under each impact criterion in Section
4.12.4.3, Impact Discussion, below.
TABLE 4.12‐5 POLICIES AND STRATEGIES OF THE CUPERTINO 2000‐2020 GENERAL PLAN
New Policy
Number
Original Policy
Number Policies and Strategies
Section 2, Land Use/Community Design
Policy 2‐58 Policy 2‐59
Library Service Level. Recognize that if the community desires a higher level of library
service, cooperation between the County of Santa Clara and City of Cupertino in expanding
library services and facilities is required.
Policy 2‐60 Policy 2‐61
Improving Library Service. Encourage the library to continue to incorporate new
technology to enhance service levels within the library system. Encourage the continued
evolution of library collections and services to meet the needs of Cupertino residents of all
ages, its richly diverse population and its local businesses.
Source: City of Cupertino and Cupertino 2000‐2020 General Plan.
Santa Clara County Library Strategic Plan, 2008
The Santa Clara County Library Strategic Plan seeks to create clarity and focus on how the Santa Clara
County Library should invest its resources on the wants, preferences, and needs of current users and also
expand the user base. Research studies by individual community libraries informed the wants, preferences,
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PUBLIC SERVICES & RECREATION
4.12-22 JUNE 18, 2014
and needs referenced above. In order to accomplish this, the Strategic Plan identifies a vision for the future
as well as goals and policies intended to achieve that desired outcome.
Existing Conditions
The Santa Clara County Library District (SCCLD) gover ns and administers seven community libraries, one
branch library, two bookmobiles, the Home Service Library, and the 24-7 online library for all library users.
The SCCLD serves all unincorporated communities of Santa Clara County, as well as nine Santa Clara
County cities, including Campbell, Cupertino, Gilroy, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Milpitas, Monte Sereno,
Morgan Hill, and Saratoga. As one of the SCCLD’s member cities, Cupertino has a community library
located on 10800 Torre Avenue, immediately adjacent to its City Hall.31
The SCCLD adopted the Santa Clara County Library Strategic Plan on October 28, 2008. As discussed
above the Strategic Plan sets forth goals and objectives over a 3- to 5-year horizon to achieve its vision to
serve the community of Cupertino. The Strategic Plan also establishes the SCCLD’s assumptions about the
future over a 5- to 10-year horizon. However, the goals and objectives are intended to improve the libraries
existing services and do not apply to future development in Cupertino.
Library Facility and Services
The Cupertino Library, completely redesigned and rebuilt in 2004, includes a 54,000 square-foot facility
that offers spaces on two floors for different user groups, including a children’s area, teen space, and group
study rooms. The library provides traditional book and media lending services with self-check stations for
users. As part of SCCLD, the library offers a virtual library with online eBooks and eContent for personal
readings and online research. The library also provides computers equipped with basic software and internet
access; free Wi-Fi connection is available for personal computers. The library is also equipped with
computers for children, age 14 and under, and ADA computers for the visually and hearing impaired to
accommodate all groups of users of the library. The library is equipped with multimedia scanning devices, as
well as a color printer and photocopiers for a minimal cost.32 Recently, the Cupertino Library launched the
Tech Toolbar where patrons can tryout the latest hand-held computer tablets and e-readers, as well as learn
to access the digital resources of the SCCLD.33
The Cupertino Library provides different programs and events for all users. The Cupertino Library is well
known for having story times for families, especially for families with babies, toddlers, and preschool
children. The Library offers more than 60 programs, including book clubs for different age groups – adults,
teens, and children – and in two different languages; English and Mandarin. The library also provides
different programs and events, which includes, but is not limited to, book sales, English as Second Language
31 Santa Clara County Library District website, “Fast Facts.” http://www.sccl.org/about/about-sccld/fast-facts, accessed on July 17,
2013.
32 Santa Clara County Library District website, “Cupertino Library Profile.” http://www.sccl.org/locations/hours-and-
locations/cupertino/about/library-profile, accessed on July 17, 2013.
33 Mark Fink, Community Library of the Cupertino Library. “Cupertino Library Report for April 2013,” page 3.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PUBLIC SERVICES & RECREATION
PLACEWORKS 4.12-23
(ESL) Conversation Club, Summer Reading Club, Cinema Club, Reading Buddies, and other community
and educational events.34
The Cupertino Library is unique among all other librar ies within the SCCLD because it has the PlaneTree
Health Information Center, which opened with the partnership of PlaneTree, an independent, nonprofit
community service that provides health information to the public. Along with librarians and volunteers,
PlaneTree assists the public to find information from trustworthy online sites, which includes both public
and subscription-access, and PlaneTree’s reference collection of lay and professional level books and texts.35
Library Service36
The Cupertino Library Foundation provides a Library Monthly Report for Cupertino Library to inform the
public of events and programs, as well as Library news and current business level. According to the
Cupertino Library Report for June 2013, the Cupertino Library recruited 48 new patrons, including 5 non-
residents in May 2013. Also, the library had 95 renewed patrons, including 14 non-resident renewals. These
new patrons and renewed patrons are partially due to the Cupertino Library’s outreach programs, which
reached 435 participants in the community with 15 programs in May 2013. The Cupertino Library
experienced 73,001 visitors in May 2013, and its total circulation reached 214,788 for the month of May,
which includes 88,002 adult and teen material and 126,786 children material circulation. Also, 3,951
patrons participated in 65 of the library programs provided.
Library Funding
Library services are primarily funded by County property taxes. This source is supplemented by a Mello-
Roos Community Facilities District parcel tax within the City of Cupertino. Lastly, some funding is derived
from the City of Cupertino General Fund in order to allow for expanded service hours. There are currently
no developer impact fees for development or improvement of library facilities.37
4.12.4.2 THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
According to Appendix G, Environmental Checklist, of the CEQA Guidelines, the proposed Project would
have a significant impact related to libraries if in order to maintain acceptable service ratios or other
performance objectives, the proposed Project would result in the provision of or need for new or physically
altered library facilities, the construction or operation of which could cause significant environmental
impacts.
34 Santa Clara County Library District website, “Cupertino Library Programs and Events.” http://events.sccl.org/evanced/lib/
eventcalendar.asp?ag=&et=&df=calendar&cn=0&private=0&ln=3, accessed on July 17, 2013.
35 Santa Clara County Library District website, “PlaneTree Health Information Center” http://www.sccl.org/services/planetree,
accessed on July 17, 2013.
36 Cupertino Library Report for June 2013, page 1.
37 Personal communications between Ricky Caperton (PlaceWorks) and Derek Wolfgram, Deputy County Librarian for Community
Libraries, April 4, 2014.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PUBLIC SERVICES & RECREATION
4.12-24 JUNE 18, 2014
4.12.4.3 IMPACT DISCUSSION
This section analyzes the proposed Project’s potential impacts and cumulative impacts to library services.
PS-7 Implementation of the proposed Project would not result in the provision
of or need for new or physically altered library facilities, the construction
or operation of which could cause significant environmental impacts.
Implementation of the proposed Project could potentially add approximately 12,998 new residents to
Cupertino by 2040, which would increase the demand for library services and facilities in Cupertino.
Although the proposed Project would result in an increase in employees throughout Cupertino as well, only
residents within Santa Clara County can apply for a library card; therefore, the following analysis considers
expected population increases, and not employment generation as a result of implementation of the
proposed Project.38 Therefore, expected increases in employees in the city need not be further considered.
While an overall increase in residents is expected, service growth under the proposed Project would occur
incrementally throughout the 26-year horizon; therefore, potential impacts resulting from increased
demand for library services would not occur in the immediate future. The Santa Clara County Library has
confirmed that the existing 75 employees, as well as existing library facilities, would be sufficient to
accommodate increased demand for library services, and no physical expansions would be required.39
Additionally, the General Plan policies listed below would ensure that the City maintains an adequate level
of library services to serve the residents of the city. Moreover, the Santa Clara County Library Strategic Plan
(2008) also aims to ensure adequate library facilities are provided to sufficiently meet the demands of the
City through the identification of goals and objectives, such as increasing the library’s technology and
increasing access to the library’s physical space.
The General Plan includes policies and strategies that, once adopted, would ensure adequate library services
are available for the residents of Cupertino. Within the Land Use/Community Design Element Policy 2-58,
Library Service Level, would require the City to recognize that if the community desires a higher level of
library service, cooperation between the County of Santa Clara and City of Cupertino in expanding library
services and facilities is required. Policy 2-59, Library Planning, would require the City to integrate and
coordinate any public library facility planning into all applicable General Plan policies, such as
transportation, pedestrian and bike trails. Policy 2-60, Improving Library Service, would require the City to
encourage the library to continue to incorporate new technology to enhance service levels within the library
system. Additionally, under this policy the City is required to encourage the continued evolution of library
collections and services to meet the needs of Cupertino residents of all ages, its richly diverse population,
and its local businesses.
38 Santa Clara County Library District, Santa Clara County Library District website, http://www.sccl.org/about/joining/eligibility,
accessed April 8, 2014.
39 Personal communications between Ricky Caperton (PlaceWorks) and Derek Wolfgram, Deputy County Librarian for Community
Libraries, April 4, 2014.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PUBLIC SERVICES & RECREATION
PLACEWORKS 4.12-25
The only facility deficiency identified by library staff is a lack of parking; however, communication with
library staff has indicated that there is the potential for an expansion of public meeting space and the parking
lot currently under consideration.40 However, since this development would be in an existing urbanized
area, the only environmental effects would be during the construction phase.
In summary, the library has adequate capacity to accommodate the growth over the 26-year horizon of the
proposed Project and the expansion of existing library facilities or the construction of new facilities would
not be required; therefore, impacts related to the provision of new or physically altered library facilities
would be less than significant.
Significance Without Mitigation: Less than significant.
PS-8 Implementation of the proposed Project, in combination with past, present,
and reasonably foreseeable projects, would result in less than significant
cumulative impacts with respect to libraries.
As discussed in Chapter 4, Environmental Evaluation, of this Draft EIR, this EIR takes into account growth
projected by the proposed 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). Cumulative impacts are
considered in the context of the growth from development under the proposed Project within the city
combined with the estimated growth in the service areas of the SCCLD, which includes all unincorporated
portions of Santa Clara County in addition to the incorporated portions of Campbell, Cupertino, Gilroy,
Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Milpitas, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill, and Saratoga.41 A significant cumulative
environmental impact would result if this cumulative growth would exceed the ability of SCCLD to
adequately serve the service area, thereby requiring construction of new facilities or modification of existing
facilities. Implementation of the proposed Project would result in a population of 71,700 by 2040, which
would increase the demand for library services and facilities; however, the increase in service population
would occur incrementally over a period of 26 years. The Santa Clara County Library Strategic Plan (2008),
mentioned above, accounts for the entire SCCLD service area and provides a basis for analyzing the most
efficient allocation of funds both for the district as a whole as well as among the different libraries in the
SCCLD service area. This would not only allow for adequate funding to satisfy demand at the Cupertino
library, but also, it would ensure that surrounding libraries are adequate to fulfill demand, which in turn
would reduce the demand at the Cupertino library by reducing deficiencies at surrounding facilities. As a
result, the proposed Project would result in a less-than-significant cumulative impact associated with
libraries.
Significance Without Mitigation: Less than significant.
40 Personal communications between Ricky Caperton (PlaceWorks) and Derek Wolfgram, Deputy County Librarian for Community
Libraries, April 4, 2014.
41 Santa Clara Library District, Santa Clara Library District website, http://www.sccl.org/about/joining/eligibility, accessed April 8,
2014.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PUBLIC SERVICES & RECREATION
4.12-26 JUNE 18, 2014
4.12.5 PARKS AND RECREATION
This section describes the regulatory framework and existing conditions related to parks and recreation in
Cupertino.
4.12.5.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Regulatory Framework
This section summarizes key State and local regulations related to park and recreation services, concerning
the proposed Project. There are no federal regulations pertaining to park and recreation services that apply
to the proposed Project.
State Regulation
The Quimby Act
The 1975 Quimby Act (California Government Code Section 66477), authorizes cities and counties to
adopt ordinances requiring that developers set aside land, donate conservation easements or pay fees for
park improvements. Revenues generated through the Quimby Act cannot be used for operation and
maintenance of park facilities.42 A 1982 amendment (AB 1600) requires agencies to clearly show a
reasonable relationship between the public need for the recreation facility or parkland and the type of
development project upon which the fee is imposed. Cities with a high ratio of park space to inhabitants can
set a standard of up to 5 acres per thousand persons for new development. Cities with a lower ratio can only
require the provision of up to 3 acres of park space per thousand people. The calculation of a city’s park
space to population ratio is based on a comparison of the population count of the last federal census to the
amount of city-owned parkland.
Local Regulations
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
The Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (MROSD) is a non-enterprise special district that serves
parts of Santa Clara, San Mateo, and Santa Cruz counties in order to form a continuous greenbelt of
permanently preserved open space by linking public parklands. As a member of Bay Area Open Space
Council, the MROSD participates in cooperative efforts, including Bay Trail, Ridge Trail, and Skyline-to-the-
Sea Trail, which are regional Bay Area trails running across the District’s jurisdiction. The MROSD’s basic
policy document includes goals and policies that relate to open space land preservation and management,
inter-agency relationships, and public involvement. Lands under MROSD’s jurisdiction in Cupertino are
designed for low-intensity use to give long-term protection from encroaching urbanization. These lands are
42 Westrup, Laura, 2002, Quimby Act 101: An Abbreviated Overview, Sacramento: California Department of Parks and Recreation,
http://www.parks.ca.gov/ pages/795/files/quimby101.pdf.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PUBLIC SERVICES & RECREATION
PLACEWORKS 4.12-27
acquired according to four principal criteria: scenic preservation, preservation of unique sites, the guidance
of urban form, and low intensity recreational opportunities. Most of the MROSD parks are located along
both sides of State Route 35, which is a north-south route spanning the counties of San Mateo, Santa Cruz,
and Santa Clara. The closest MROSD parks to Cupertino are the Fremont Older, Picchetti Ranch, and
Rancho San Antonia, which are located just southwest and west of the city boundaries, respectively.
Santa Clara County Parks and Recreation Department
The Santa Clara County Parks operates on a voter-approved measure in which a fixed portion of the
property taxes collected are set aside from the General Fund to acquire and develop a regional park system.
The program emphasizes completing Upper Stevens Creek Park, located in Stevens Creek County Park at
11401 Stevens Canyon Road, and its connection to Stevens Creek. Because the upper portions of Steven’s
Creek are environmentally sensitive, the Department has committed to purchasing land that would connect
these two parks. District facilities that serve Cupertino include Rancho San Antonio County Park, south of
I-280 and west of Foothill Boulevard, and the Stevens Creek County Park.
City of Cupertino General Plan 2000-2020
The City of Cupertino’s 2000-2020 General Plan, adopted on November 15, 2005, contains the Land
Use/Community Design Element in Section 2 of the General Plan. This section contains policies to
encourage a full range of park and recreational resources, for linking the community, outdoor recreation,
preservation of natural resources and public health and safety. As part of the proposed Project, some
General Plan policies would be amended. Substantive policy changes under the proposed Project include the
addition, removal, or functional revision (e.g. not purely semantic) of policies in ways that have the potential
to result in a physical impact on the environment. Policies of the 2000-2020 General Plan that are relevant
to parks and recreation and were not substantially modified (e.g. renumbered or minor text change) are
listed below in Table 4.12-6. A comprehensive list of policy changes is provided in Appendix I, Proposed
General Plan Policy Amendments, of this Draft EIR. Discussions of how substantive policy changes may
result in adverse physical changes are included in the analyses under each impact criterion in Section
4.12.5.3, Impact Discussion, below.
TABLE 4.12‐6 POLICIES AND STRATEGIES OF THE CUPERTINO 2000‐2020 GENERAL PLAN
New Policy
Number
Original Policy
Number Policies and Strategies
Section 2, Land Use/Community Design
Policy 2‐84 Policy 2‐75
Park Walking Distance. Ensure that each household is within a half‐mile walk of a
neighborhood park, or community park with neighborhood facilities, and that the route is
reasonably free of physical barriers, including streets with heavy traffic. Wherever possible,
provide pedestrian links between parks.
Source: City of Cupertino and Cupertino 2000‐2020 General Plan.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PUBLIC SERVICES & RECREATION
4.12-28 JUNE 18, 2014
City of Cupertino Municipal Code
The Cupertino Municipal Code, organized by Title, Chapter, and Section, contains all ordinances for the
city. The Municipal Code is up to date through Ordinance 14-2117, passed March 18, 2014. The following
provisions of the Municipal Code apply to parks and recreational services in Cupertino:
Title 13, Parks, sets regulations and standards for parks and recreation buildings in the city for all people
to enjoy and protects the rights to surrounding areas as well. Title 13 regulates any activities that may
occur at parks and recreation buildings at the time of events and/or use, which includes, but is not
limited to, sanitation requirements, vehicle requirements, picnic area requirements, advertising and sale
restrictions, administrative and enforcement authority, and violation penalties.
Chapter 14.05, Park Maintenance Fee, in Title 14, Streets, Sidewalks and Landscaping, requires
development impact fees to maintain parks and recreational facilities to mitigate impact from new
development. The collected fee is only used for acquisition, improvement, maintenance, rehabilitation,
expansion, or implementation of parks and recreational facilities. The fee is calculated by multiplying the
park acreage standard, average number of persons per residential dwelling unit, and value per acre.
Title 18, Subdivisions, sets regulations for subdivisions, including park dedication and/or in-lieu fees.
Chapter 18.24 (Dedications and Reservations) includes different dedication requirements for the city in
Article II (Park Land Dedication). The Park Land Dedication regulations are applied to all development
except commercial or industrial subdivisions, condominium conversion, convalescent hospitals, and
similar dependent care facilities. The amount of dedicated land is determined by multiplying the average
number of persons per unit and the park acreage standard of 3 acres of parkland for every 1,000
residents as allowed by the Quimby Act. The in-lieu fee would be determined based upon the fair
market value of the land which would otherwise be required to be dedicated.
Title 19, Zoning, sets regulations and standards for land uses within the city. Chapters 19.88 (Open
Space Zones), 19.92 (Park and Recreation Zones), and 19.96 (Private Recreation Zones) contain land
use and development standards for open space, parks, and recreation buildings and uses. Chapter 19.88
(Open Space Zones) applies to open space uses in private natural areas in order to avoid urban sprawl
and to preserve environmentally sensitive areas; Chapter 19.92 (Park and Recreation Zone) applies to
land uses and recreational activities in publicly owned parks and recreation areas. Chapter 19.96
(Private Recreation Zone) provides development standards for private recreational activities, including
indoor recreational facilities.
Existing Conditions
The City of Cupertino has 14 parks and seven community and recreational facilities within its city boundary.
Parks range from small tot lots to neighborhood and community parks. Also, based on a 1991 agreement,
the City of Cupertino and the Cupertino Union School District jointly use open space areas within certain
school sites and therefore some school sites are included in the recreation acreage.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PUBLIC SERVICES & RECREATION
PLACEWORKS 4.12-29
Parks
The City of Cupertino General Plan categorizes parks and open space into three different types: Residential
Parks and Open Space, Neighborhood Parks, and Community Parks. For park acreage calculation, the City
also considers some school sites with open space. Table 4.12-7 lists all parks and open space, including
school sites counted towards park acreage.
Neighborhood Parks are the City’s most significant open space and park resources.43 Currently, Memorial
Park is the only Community Park that can accommodate large events like festivals and cultural programs.
Memorial Park currently abuts the City’s largest community center, senior center – Quinlan Community
Center, Senior Center, and Sports Center. General Plan Policy 2-93, School Playing Fields, would also
require school playing fields to be preserved for community recreational uses in addition to school uses. This
presents opportunities for the City to allow the community use of these facilities.
Open space under the jurisdiction of Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, and other regional open
space and parks governed and owned by Santa Clara County are located within Cupertino. Other private
open space and parklands within the city include a golf course, riding stables and clubs offering tennis and
swimming.44
Recreational Facilities
Public recreational facilities within the city are the Sports Center, the Senior Center, the Teen Center,
Quinlan Community Center, City Hall Community Hall, and Blackberry Farm Golf Course. With the
exception of the Sports Center, which is run by a membership program, all public facilities are available for
event rental. The City Parks and Community Services Department sponsors seasonal recreational activities
and programs for all ages.
Trails
There are five major trail corridors identified within the city boundary: Stevens Creek Corridor, Calabazas
Creek Corridor, San Tomas-Aquino/Saratoga Creek Corridor, Union Pacific Railroad Corridor, and Mary
Avenue Bicycle Footbridge. Most of the trails are located in the west side of the city. Trails and paths help
connect people to open space and park resources within and surrounding the city. The General Plan
promotes connectivity along creeks, hillsides, and through neighborhoods.45
43 City of Cupertino General Plan 2000-2020, Land Use/Community Design Element, 2005, page 2-52.
44 City of Cupertino General Plan 2000-2020, Land Use/Community Design Element, 2005, page 2-48.
45 City of Cupertino General Plan 2000-2020, Land Use/Community Design Element, 2005, page 2-48.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PUBLIC SERVICES & RECREATION
4.12-30 JUNE 18, 2014
TABLE 4.12‐7 EXISTING PARKS AND RECREATIONAL ACREAGEa
Name Location Acreage
Neighborhood Parks
Creekside Park 10455 Miller Avenue 13.0
Hoover Park Leeds Avenue near Primrose Way 5.0
Jollyman Park 1000 South Stelling Road near McClellan Road 12.0
Library Field Near South De Anza Boulevard and Stevens Creek Boulevard 2.5
Linda Vista Park Linda Vista Drive near Columbus 11.0
Monta Vista Park Foothill Boulevard and Voss Avenue 6.2
Portal Park North Portal Avenue off Stevens Creek Boulevard 3.8
Pruneridge Park Off of Pruneridge Avenue 1.0
Somerset Square Park Stokes Avenue near Peninsula Drive 1.7
Sterling Barnhart Park 10486 Sterling Boulevard at Barnhart Avenue 0.5
Three Oaks Park Candlelight Way near Rainbow Drive 3.1
Varian Park Ainsworth Drive at Vista Knoll 6.3
Villa Serra Park Near Homestead Road and North Stelling Road 0.6
Wilson Park South Portal Avenue near Stevens Creek Boulevard 10.4
Community Parks
Cali Mill Plazab Corner of Stevens Creek Boulevard and South De Anza
Boulevard 1.0
Civic Parkb Off of Stevens Creek Boulevard and South De Anza Boulevard 0.5
Library Plaza Near South De Anza Boulevard and Pacifica Drive 1.0
McClellan Ranch Preserve Off of McClellan Road 18.7
Memorial Park Corner of Stevens Creek Boulevard and Stelling Road 27.8
Residential Park/Open Space
Oak Valley Off of Oak Valley Road 0.94
School Sites
Eaton Elementary School 20220 Suisun Drive 3.86
Faria Elementary School 10155 Barbara Lane 2.68
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PUBLIC SERVICES & RECREATION
PLACEWORKS 4.12-31
TABLE 4.12‐7 EXISTING PARKS AND RECREATIONAL ACREAGEa
Name Location Acreage
Garden Gate Elementary School 10500 Ann Arbor Avenue 2.25
Hyde Middle School 19325 Bollinger Road 4.85
Kennedy Middle School 821 Bubb Road 8.80
Lincoln Elementary School 21710 McClellan Road 3.02
Regnart Elementary School Off of Yorkshire Drive 2.37
Stevens Creek Elementary School 10300 Ainsworth Drive 2.05
Total 156.92
a. Parks and open space not included in park acreage calculation were removed.
b. Privately owned, public access.
Source: City of Cupertino General Plan 2000‐2020, Land Use/Community Design Element, 2005, page 2‐55.
4.12.5.2 THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
According to Appendix G, Environmental Checklist, of the CEQA Guidelines, the proposed Project would
have a significant impact with regard to parks and recreation if it would:
1. Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered
parks and recreational facilities, need for new or physically altered parks and recreation facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable
service ratios, or other performance objectives.
2. Includes or requires the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse
physical effect on the environment.
4.12.5.3 IMPACT DISCUSSION
PS-9 Implementation of the proposed Project would not increase the use of
existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities,
such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur, or
be accelerated.
The City of Cupertino has an adopted parkland dedication standard of three acres of parkland for every
1,000 residents. As shown in Table 4.12-7, there is a total of approximately 156 acres of parkland in
Cupertino, or approximately 2.7 acres per 1,000 residents, based on an existing population of 58,302.
Therefore, the City does not currently meet its adopted standard established under Policy 2-74 (Park
Acreage; proposed to be renumbered Policy 2-83) in the existing General Plan. Pursuant to the Quimby
Act, the City may not adopt the higher standard of five acres per 1,000 residents since the existing actual
parkland is below 3.0 acres per 1,000 residents.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PUBLIC SERVICES & RECREATION
4.12-32 JUNE 18, 2014
The adoption of the proposed Project could bring as many as 12,998 new residents to the city by 2040;
therefore, increasing use of existing parkland, which could accelerate the physical deterioration of existing
facilities. In order to comply with the proposed City standard of parkland, buildout of the proposed Project
would be required to provide 39 acres in order to meet the standard.46 Future development under the
proposed Project would comply with Municipal Code regulations. Chapter 14.05, Park Maintenance Fee,
requires developers to pay impact fees to maintain existing parks and recreation facilities and Chapter
18.24, Dedications and Reservations, requires residential developments to dedicate parklands or pay in-lieu
fees to accommodate and offset their fair share of impacts to parklands. Further, future development would
be required to comply with applicable General Plan policies that, once adopted, would ensure adequate
neighborhood, regional park, or other recreational facilities are available for the residents of Cupertino.
Within the Land Use/Community Design Element, Policy 2-83, Park Acreage, would require the City to
require the provision of parkland equal to a minimum of three acres for each 1,000 residents. Policy 2-84,
Park Walking Distance, would require the City to ensure that each household is within a half-mile walk of a
neighborhood park, or community park with neighborhood facilities, and that the route is reasonably free of
physical barriers, including streets with heavy traffic. Additionally, under this policy wherever possible, the
City must provide pedestrian links between parks.
Overall, the proposed Project would result in development allocation increases throughout the city that
would increase population, and subsequently the demand to parks and recreation facilities throughout the
city. However, because buildout would occur incrementally throughout the 26-year horizon, and future
development would be subject to comply with the Municipal Code Chapters 14.05 and 18.24, and the
General Plan policies listed above that would ensure that future development provide their fair-share of
parks to help meet the City’s target of three acres per 1,000 residents, impacts would be less than
significant.
Significance Without Mitigation: Less than significant.
PS-10 Implementation of the proposed Project would include or require the
construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an
adverse physical effect on the environment.
As discussed above in impact discussion PS-9, the City currently does not meet its adopted standard of
providing three acres of parkland per 1,000 residents, and because the proposed Project at buildout would
add 12,998 residents to the City of Cupertino over the next 26 years, an increase in demand for existing
parklands and recreation facilities would occur. Because future development would be required to comply
with General Plan Policies 2-74, Heritage Trees, and 2-75, Public Arts, as described in impact discussion PS-
9 above, as well as other regulations described in Section 4.12.5.1, Environmental Setting, future
development as a result of implementation of the proposed Project could require or result in the
construction or expansion of recreational facilities that could have an adverse physical effect on the
environment. Similarly, Policies 2-78, Future Use of Blackberry Farm, 2-78.A, Master Planning Efforts for
46 Acreage was calculated by multiplying the projected number of persons by the required acreage percentage. For example, 3 acres of
City park per 1,000 persons is equivalent to .003 and .003 x 12,998 = 38.9.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PUBLIC SERVICES & RECREATION
PLACEWORKS 4.12-33
Parks, and 2-79, Recreational Opportunities for All Users Including Special Needs, would direct the City to
conduct citywide planning for parks and to improve park access for underserved populations. Together these
policies would also contribute to the potential creation of new parks that could have adverse physical effects.
Additionally, Strategy 5, Flexibility in Standards, under Policy 2-82, Open Space and Trail Linkages, could
result in the creation of new trails or open space areas in new developments under the proposed Project,
and the creation of such facilities could likewise have adverse physical effects on the environment.
As indicated above, new residents from development allowed by the proposed General Plan would increase
the demand for recreational facilities, and recreational facility standards would require the construction of
new or expanded recreation facilities. It is not known at what time or location such facilities would be
required or what the exact nature of these facilities would be, so it cannot be determined what project-
specific environmental impacts would occur from their construction and operation. However, such impacts
would be project-specific, and would require permitting and review in accordance with CEQA, as
necessary, which would ensure that any environmental impacts are disclosed and mitigated to the extent
possible. This EIR is a programmatic document and does not evaluate the environmental impacts of any
project-specific development. Therefore, the impact is less than significant.
Significance Without Mitigation: Less than significant.
PS-11 Implementation of the proposed Project, in combination with past, present,
and reasonably foreseeable projects, would result in less than significant
cumulative impacts with respect to parks and recreational facilities.
As discussed in Chapter 4, Environmental Evaluation, of this Draft EIR, this EIR takes into account growth
projected by the proposed 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). The geographic scope for this
discussion includes park and recreation facilities within the city boundary, as well as Santa Clara County, and
the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. As described above, the City would require subdivision
development to fund park improvements and dedicate land through compliance with Municipal Code
Chapter 14.05 and Title 18, which would help to ensure the provision of adequate parklands in compliance
with the City standard of providing three acres per 1,000 residents.
Although buildout of the proposed Project would cumulatively increase the demand for park and
recreational services in the city, compliance with the City’s Municipal Code, along with the policies listed in
Impact PS-9, would ensure that adequate parklands and recreational facilities are provided through in-lieu
fees, maintenance fees, or parkland dedication in order to meet the City standards, which would mitigate
potential impacts that future development would have on park and recreation services in the city.
Further, potential future impacts to Santa Clara Parks, as well as the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space
District, would be mitigated through the contribution of property taxes to ensure facilities at these locations
are adequately maintained and sufficient to accommodate growth associated with implementation of the
proposed Project.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PUBLIC SERVICES & RECREATION
4.12-34 JUNE 18, 2014
Overall, the proposed Project would not contribute to any potential cumulative impacts to park and
recreational facilities and cumulative impacts to park and recreational services would be less than
significant.
Significance Without Mitigation: Less than significant.
PS-11 Implementation of the proposed Project, in combination with past, present,
and reasonably foreseeable projects, would result in less than significant
cumulative impacts with respect to parks and recreational facilities.
As discussed in Chapter 4, Environmental Evaluation, of this Draft EIR, this EIR takes into account growth
projected by the proposed 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). The geographic scope for this
discussion includes park and recreation facilities within the city boundary, as well as Santa Clara County, and
the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. As described above, the City would require development to
fund park improvements and dedicate land through compliance with Municipal Code Chapter 14.05 and
Title 18, which would help to ensure the provision of adequate parklands in compliance with the City
standard of providing three acres per 1,000 residents.
Although buildout of the proposed Project would cumulatively increase the demand for park and
recreational services in the city, compliance with the City’s Municipal Code, along with the policies listed in
Impact PS-7, would ensure that adequate parklands and recreational facilities are provided through in-lieu
fees, maintenance fees, or parkland dedication in order to meet the City standards, which would mitigate
potential impacts that future development would have on park and recreation services in the city.
Further, potential future impacts to Santa Clara Parks, as well as the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space
District, would be mitigated through the contribution of property taxes to ensure facilities at these locations
are adequately maintained and sufficient to accommodate growth associated with implementation of the
proposed Project.
Overall, the proposed Project would not contribute to any potential cumulative impacts to park and
recreational facilities and cumulative impacts to park and recreational services would be less than
significant.
Significance Without Mitigation: Less than significant.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
PLACEWORKS 4.13-1
4.13 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
This chapter describes the regulatory framework and existing conditions in the City of Cupertino related to
transportation and traffic, and the potential impacts on transportation and traffic from future development
that could occur by adopting and implementing the proposed Project. The chapter and traffic analysis were
prepared by Hexagon Transportation Consultants. The analysis was conducted in accordance with the
standards and methodologies set forth by the City of Cupertino and Santa Clara Valley Transportation
Authority (VTA). The technical appendices for the traffic analysis are included in Appendix G,
Transportation and Traffic Data, of this Draft EIR.
4.13.1 STUDY INTERSECTIONS AND ROADWAY SEGMENTS
The following study intersections, roadway segments, and freeway segments were selected for inclusion in
this analysis by the City and Hexagon Transportation Consultants.
4.13.1.1 STUDY INTERSECTIONS
The study intersections, all of which are signalized, are identified below in Table 4.13-1. The responsible
jurisdiction is noted for each intersection since not all the intersections are within Cupertino. Those
intersections that fall within the VTA Congestion Management Program (CMP), discussed in more detail
below under Section 4.13.2.1, Regulatory Framework, are also noted. Roadways that are part of the Santa
Clara County’s Expressway System, such as Lawrence Expressway, are under the jurisdiction of the County.
Table 4.13-1 also includes the appropriate level of service (LOS) standard for each intersection. The LOS
standards are discussed in Section 4.13.3.2, Level of Service Standards and Analysis Methodologies, but are
included here for ease of reference.
TABLE 4.13‐1 STUDY INTERSECTIONS
Study
Intersection Intersection Jurisdiction CMP
LOS
Standard
1 SR 85 SB Ramps and Stevens Creek Boulevard Cupertino CMP D
2 SR 85 NB Ramps and Stevens Creek Boulevard Cupertino CMP D
3 Stelling Road and Stevens Creek Boulevard Cupertino CMP E+
4 Sunnyvale‐Saratoga Road and Fremont Avenue Sunnyvale CMP E
5 Sunnyvale‐Saratoga Road/De Anza Boulevard and
Homestead Road Cupertino CMP D
6 De Anza Boulevard and I‐280 NB Ramp Cupertino CMP D
7 De Anza Boulevard and I‐280 SB Ramp Cupertino CMP D
8 De Anza Boulevard and Stevens Creek Boulevard Cupertino CMP E+
9 De Anza Boulevard and McClellan Road/Pacifica Drive Cupertino D
10 De Anza Boulevard and Bollinger Road Cupertino CMP E+
11 De Anza Boulevard and SR 85 NB Ramp Cupertino CMP D
12 De Anza Boulevard and SR 85 SB Ramp Cupertino CMP D
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
4.13-2 JUNE 18, 2014
TABLE 4.13‐1 STUDY INTERSECTIONS
Study
Intersection Intersection Jurisdiction CMP
LOS
Standard
13 Blaney Avenue and Homestead Road Cupertino D
14 Wolfe Road and El Camino Real (SR 82) Sunnyvale CMP E
15 Wolfe Road and Fremont Avenue Sunnyvale E
16 Wolfe Road and Homestead Road Cupertino D
17 Wolfe Road and Pruneridge Avenue Cupertino D
18 Wolfe Road and I‐280 NB Ramp Cupertino CMP D
19 Wolfe Road and I‐280 SB Ramp Cupertino CMP D
20 Wolfe Road and Vallco Pkwy Cupertino D
21 Wolfe Road‐Miller/Avenue and Stevens Creek Boulevard Cupertino CMP D
22 Miller Avenue and Bollinger Road San Jose D
23 Finch Avenue and Stevens Creek Boulevard Cupertino D
24 North Tantau Avenue/Quail Avenue and Homestead Road Cupertino D
25 North Tantau Avenue and Pruneridge Avenue Cupertino D
26 North Tantau Avenue and Vallco Pkwy Cupertino D
27 Tantau Avenue and Stevens Creek Boulevard Cupertino D
28 Lawrence Expressway and Homestead Road County
Expressway CMP E
29 I‐280 SB Ramp and Stevens Creek Boulevard Santa Clara CMP E
30 Agilent Tech Driveway and Stevens Creek Boulevard Santa Clara D
31 Lawrence Expressway SB Ramp and Stevens Creek
Boulevard
County
Expressway CMP E
32 Lawrence Expressway NB Ramp and Stevens Creek
Boulevard
County
Expressway CMP E
33 Lawrence Expressway and Calvert Drive/I‐280 SB Ramp County
Expressway CMP E
34 Lawrence Expressway and Bollinger Road/Moorpark
Avenue
County
Expressway CMP E
35 De Anza Boulevard and Rainbow Drive Cupertino D
36 Bubb Road/Peninsula Boulevard and Stevens Creek
Boulevard Cupertino D
37 North Stelling Road/Hollenbeck Avenue and Homestead
Road Sunnyvale D
38 Blaney Avenue and Stevens Creek Boulevard Cupertino D
39 Foothill Boulevard and Stevens Creek Boulevard Cupertino D
40 Stelling Road and McClellan Road Cupertino D
41 Wolfe Road and Apple Campus Access a Cupertino D
Notes: NB = northbound; SB = southbound; EB = eastbound; WB = westbound.
a. This is a future intersection.
Source: Hexagon Transportation Consultants, 2014.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
PLACEWORKS 4.13-3
4.13.1.2 STUDY ROADWAY SEGMENTS
The following 33 roadway segments were selected for inclusion in this analysis:
De Anza Boulevard/Sunnyvale-Saratoga Road between:
Fremont Avenue and Homestead Road
Homestead Road and I-280 Northbound Ramps
I-280 Southbound Ramps and Stevens Creek Boulevard
Stevens Creek Boulevard and McClellan Road
Bollinger Road and SR 85 Northbound Ramps
Stevens Creek Boulevard between:
Foothill Boulevard and Bubb Road
SR 85 Northbound Ramps and Stelling Road
Stelling Road and De Anza Boulevard
De Anza Boulevard and Blaney Avenue
Blaney Avenue and Wolfe Road
Wolfe Road and Tantau Avenue
Tantau Avenue and Southbound I-280 Ramp
Wolfe Road/Miller Avenue between:
Fremont Avenue and Homestead Road
Homestead Road and Pruneridge Avenue
Northbound I-280 Ramps and Southbound I-280 Ramps (over I-280)
Southbound I-280 Ramps and Stevens Creek Boulevard
Stevens Creek Boulevard and Greenwood Drive/Greenwood Court
Homestead Road between:
Mary Avenue and Hollenbeck/Stelling Road
Hollenbeck/Stelling Road and De Anza Boulevard
De Anza Boulevard and Blaney Avenue
Blaney Avenue and Wolfe Road
Wolfe Road and Tantau Avenue
Stelling Road between:
Homestead Road and Stevens Creek Boulevard
Stevens Creek Boulevard and McClellan Road
Bollinger Road between:
De Anza Boulevard and Miller Avenue
Miller Avenue and Lawrence Expressway
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
4.13-4 JUNE 18, 2014
Lawrence Expressway between:
Homestead Road and Stevens Creek Boulevard ramps (N)
Stevens Creek Boulevard ramps (S) and Bollinger Road
Other Streets:
Foothill Boulevard between Stevens Creek Boulevard and I-280
Bubb Road between Stevens Creek Boulevard and McClellan Road
Blaney Avenue between Homestead Road and Stevens Creek Boulevard
Vallco Parkway between Wolfe Road and Tantau Avenue
Tantau Avenue between Vallco Parkway and Pruneridge Avenue
4.13.1.3 STUDY FREEWAY SEGMENTS
The following ten freeway segments were selected for inclusion in this analysis.
I-280 between:
Magdalena Avenue and Foothill Boulevard
Foothill Boulevard and SR 85
SR 85 and De Anza Boulevard
De Anza Boulevard and Wolfe Road
Wolfe Road and Lawrence Expressway
Lawrence Expressway and Saratoga Avenue
SR 85 between:
Homestead Road and I-280
I-280 and Stevens Creek Boulevard
Stevens Creek Boulevard and De Anza Boulevard/Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road
De Anza Boulevard/Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road and Saratoga Avenue
The study intersections, roadway and freeway segments are shown in Figure 4.13-1.
4.13.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
4.13.2.1 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
This section describes federal, State, regional, and local environmental laws and policies that are relevant to
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review process for transportation and circulation.
Source: Hexagon Transportation Consultants.
Figure 4.13-1Study Intersections and Roadway Segments
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING PROJECT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
4.13-6 JUNE 18, 2014
Federal Regulations
Federal Highway Administration
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is the agency of the United States (US) Department of
Transportation (DOT) responsible for the federally funded roadway system, including the interstate highway
network and portions of the primary State highway network, such as Interstate 280 (I-280).
Americans with Disabilities Act
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 provides comprehensive rights and protections to
individuals with disabilities. The goal of the ADA is to assure equality of opportunity, full participation,
independent living, and economic self-sufficiency for people with disabilities. To implement this goal, the
US Access Board, an independent Federal agency created in 1973 to ensure accessibility for people with
disabilities, has created accessibility guidelines for public rights-of-way. While these guidelines have not been
formally adopted, they have been widely followed by jurisdictions and agencies nationwide in the last
decade. These guidelines, last revised in July 2011, address various issues, including roadway design
practices, slope and terrain issues, and pedestrian access to streets, sidewalks, curb ramps, street
furnishings, pedestrian signals, parking, public transit, and other components of public rights-of-way. These
guidelines would apply to proposed roadways in the Project Study Area.
State Regulations
State Transportation Improvement Program
The California Transportation Commission (CTC) administers the public decision-making process that sets
priorities and funds projects envisioned in long-range transportation plans. The CTC’s programming
includes the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), a multi-year capital improvement program
of transportation projects on and off the State highway system, funded with revenues from the State
Highway Account and other funding sources. The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)
manages the operation of State highways.
California Department of Transportation
Caltrans is the primary State agency responsible for transportation issues. One of its duties is the
construction and maintenance of the State highway system. Caltrans approves the planning, design, and
construction of improvements for all State-controlled facilities including I-280, State Route (SR) 85, and the
associated interchanges for these facilities located in the Project Study Area. Caltrans has established
standards for roadway traffic flow and developed procedures to determine if State-controlled facilities
require improvements. For projects that may physically affect facilities under its administration, Caltrans
requires encroachment permits before any construction work may be undertaken. For projects that would
not physically affect facilities, but may influence traffic flow and levels of service at such facilities, Caltrans
may recommend measures to mitigate the traffic impacts of such projects.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
PLACEWORKS 4.13-7
The following Caltrans procedures and directives are relevant to the proposed Project, particularly to State
roadway facilities:
Level of Service Target. Caltrans maintains a minimum level of service (LOS) at the transition
between LOS C and LOS D for all of its facilities.1 Where an existing facility is operating at less than the
LOS C/D threshold, the existing measure of effectiveness should be maintained.2
Caltrans Project Development Procedures Manual. This manual outlines pertinent statutory
requirements, planning policies, and implementing procedures regarding transportation facilities. It is
continually and incrementally updated to reflect changes in policy and procedures. For example, the
most recent revision incorporates the Complete Streets policy from Deputy Directive 64-R1, which is
detailed below.
Caltrans Deputy Directive 64. This directive requires Caltrans to consider the needs of non-
motorized travelers, including pedestrians, bicyclists, and persons with disabilities, in all programming,
planning, maintenance, construction, operations, and project development activities and products. This
includes incorporation of the best available standards in all of Caltrans’ practices.
Caltrans Deputy Directive 64-RI. This directive requires Caltrans to provide for the needs of
travelers of all ages and abilities in all planning, programming, design, construction, operations, and
maintenance activities and products on the State highway system. Caltrans supports bicycle, pedestrian,
and transit travel with a focus on “complete streets” that begins early in system planning and continues
through project construction and maintenance and operations.
Caltrans Director’s Policy 22. This policy establishes support for balancing transportation needs
with community goals. Caltrans seeks to involve and integrate community goals in the planning, design,
construction, and maintenance and operations processes, including accommodating the needs of
bicyclists and pedestrians.
California Complete Streets Act of 2008 (AB 1358)
Originally passed in 2008, California’s Complete Streets Act took effect in 2011 and requires local
jurisdictions to plan for land use transportation policies that reflect a “complete streets” approach to
mobility. “Complete streets” comprises a suite of policies and street design guidelines which provide for the
needs of all road users, including pedestrians, bicyclists, transit operators and riders, children, the elderly,
and the disabled. From 2011 onward, any local jurisdiction—county or city—that undertakes a substantive
update of the circulation element of its general plan must consider “complete streets” and incorporate
corresponding policies and programs.
1 Level of service is explained further below in Section 4.13.3.2, Level of Service Standards and Analyses Methodologies.
2 California Department of Transportation, 2010, Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
4.13-8 JUNE 18, 2014
Senate Bill 743
On September 27, 2013, Senate Bill (SB) 743 was signed into law.3 The Legislature found that with the
adoption of the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008 (SB 375), the State had
signaled its commitment to encourage land use and transportation planning decisions and investments that
reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and thereby contribute to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions
(GHG), as required by the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (Assembly Bill [AB 32]).
Additionally, AB 1358, described above, requires local governments to plan for a balanced, multimodal
transportation network that meets the needs of all users. To further the State’s commitment to the goals of
SB 375, AB 32 and AB 1358, Senate Bill 743 adds Chapter 2.7, Modernization of Transportation Analysis for
Transit-Oriented Infill Projects, to Division 13 (Section 21099) of the Public Resources Code.
SB 743 started a process that could fundamentally change transportation impact analysis as part of CEQA
compliance. These changes will include the elimination of auto delay, level of service (LOS), and other
similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion as a basis for determining significant impacts in
many parts of California (if not statewide). Further, parking impacts will not be considered significant
impacts on the environment for select development projects within infill areas with nearby frequent transit
service. SB 743 includes amendments that allow cities and counties to opt out of traditional LOS standards
where CMPs are used and requires the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to update the CEQA
Guidelines and establish “criteria for determining the significance of transportation impacts of projects
within transit priority areas.4 As part of the new CEQA Guidelines, the new criteria “shall promote the
reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, the development of multimodal transportation networks, and a
diversity of land uses.” OPR is in the process of investigating alternative metrics, but a preliminary metrics
evaluation suggests that auto delay and LOS may work against goals such as greenhouse gas reduction and
accommodation of all transportation modes. OPR expects to publish the final draft of changes to CEQA
Guidelines by July 1, 2014, which will require certification and adoption by the Secretary for Resources
before they go into effect, which may take multiple months depending on the amount and type of input
received during the rulemaking review process.5
California Building Code
The State of California provides a minimum standard for building design through the California Building
Code (CBC), which is located in Part 2 of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations. The CBC is based
on the 1997 Uniform Building Code, but has been modified for California conditions. The CBC provides fire
and emergency equipment access standards for public roadways in Part 9, Appendix D. These standards
include specific width, grading, design, and other specifications for roads, which provide access for fire
3 An act to amend Sections 65088.1 and 65088.4 of the Government Code, and to amend Sections 21181, 21183, 21186, 21187,
21189.1, and 21189.3 of, to add Section 21155.4 to, to add Chapter 2.7 (commencing with Section 21099) to Division 13 of, to add and
repeal Section 21168.6.6 of, and to repeal and add Section 21185 of, the Public Resources Code, relating to environmental quality.
4 A “transit priority area” is defined in as an area within one-half mile of an existing or planned major transit stop. A "major transit stop"
is defined in Public Resources Code Section 21064.3 as a rail transit station, a ferry terminal served by either a bus or rail transit service, or the
intersection of two or more major bus routes with a frequency of service interval of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak
commute periods.
5 Is LOS Obsolete in California, Understanding the Transportation Analysis Implications of Senate Bill (SB) 743
http://www.fehrandpeers.com/sb743/, accessed June 13, 2014.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
PLACEWORKS 4.13-9
apparatuses; the code also indicates which areas are subject to requirements for such access. The CBC also
incorporates by reference the standards of the International Fire Code (IFC). The modification of streets in
the Project Study Area would be subject to these and any modified State standards. Per Section 16.04.010 in
Chapter 16.04 (Building Code) of the City’s Municipal Code, the City of Cupertino adopted the 2013
edition of the CBC.
Regional Regulations
Metropolitan Transportation Commission
The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) is the transportation planning, coordinating, and
financing agency for the nine-county Bay Area, including Santa Clara County. It also functions as the
federally mandated metropolitan planning organization (MPO) for the region. It is responsible for regularly
updating the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), a comprehensive blueprint for the development of mass
transit, highway, airport, seaport, railroad, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities.
As previously stated, the passage of AB 32, the State of California committed itself to reducing statewide
GHG emissions. Subsequent to adoption of AB 32, the State adopted SB 375 as the means for achieving
regional transportation-related GHG targets. Among the requirements of SB 375 is the creation of a
Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) that provides a plan for meeting regional targets. The SCS and the
RTP must be consistent with one other, including action items and financing decisions. MPOs must use
transportation and air emissions modeling techniques consistent with guidelines prepared by the State CTC.
The current RTP, Plan Bay Area: Strategy for a Sustainable Region, was adopted on July 18, 2013 and
includes both the region’s SCS and the 2040 Regional Transportation Plan. Plan Bay Area was prepared by
MTC in partnership with the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and cities and counties
throughout the region. Plan Bay Area is an integrated long-range transportation and land-use/housing plan
intended to support a growing economy, provide more housing and transportation choices, and reduce
transportation-related pollution in the Bay Area.
The MTC has established its policy on Complete Streets in the Bay Area. The policy states that projects
funded all, or in part, with regional funds (e.g. federal, State Transportation Improvement Program, and
bridge tolls) must consider the accommodation of bicycle and pedestrian facilities, as described in Caltrans
Deputy Directive 64. These recommendations do not replace locally adopted policies regarding
transportation planning, design, and construction. Instead, these recommendations facilitate the
accommodation of pedestrians, including wheelchair users, and bicyclists into all projects where bicycle and
pedestrian travel is consistent with current adopted regional and local plans.
Santa Clara County Congestion Management Plan
The MTC requires the local transportation authority, in this case the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA),
to establish transportation plans that are incorporated into the larger RTP. In Santa Clara County, the VTA is
also the Congestion Management Agency (CMA) tasked with preparing a comprehensive transportation
improvement program among local jurisdictions (i.e. the CMP) that describes the strategies to reduce traffic
congestion , and improve land use decision-making. VTA’s latest CMP is the 2013 Congestion Management
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
4.13-10 JUNE 18, 2014
Program. VTA’s countywide travel demand forecasting model must be consistent with the regional
transportation model developed by the MTC with ABAG data described above. The countywide
transportation model is used to help evaluate cumulative transportation impacts of local land use decisions
on the CMP system. In addition, VTA’s updated CMP includes multi-modal performance standards and trip
reduction and transportation demand management (TDM) strategies consistent with the goals of reducing
regional VMT in accordance with SB 375. Strategies identified in the 2013 CMP for Santa Clara County,
where local jurisdictions are a responsible agency, include:6
Traffic Level of Service: Monitor and submit report on the level of service (LOS) on CMP roadway
network intersections using CMP software and procedures.
Transportation Model and Database: Certify that Member Agency models are consistent with the
CMP model.
Community Form and Impact Analysis: Prepare a Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) for
projects that generate 100 or more peak hour trips and submit to the CMP according to TIA Guidelines
schedule.
Community Form and Impact Analysis: Submit relevant conditions of approval to VTA for
projects generating TIAs.
Community Form and Impact Analysis: Prepare and submit land use monitoring data to the CMP
on all land use project approved from July 1 to June 30 of the previous year.
Community Form and Impact Analysis: Submit an annual statement certifying that the Member
Agency has complied with the CMP Land Use Impact Analysis Program.
Monitoring and Conformance: Outline the requirements and procedures established for
conducting annual traffic LOS and land use monitoring efforts. Support the Traffic Level of Service and
Community Form and Impact Analysis Elements.
Capital Improvement Program: Develop a list of projects intended to maintain or improve the
level of service on the designated system and to maintain transit performance standards.
Deficiency Plan: Prepare Deficiency Plans for facilities that violate CMP traffic LOS standards or that
are projected to violate LOS standards using the adopted Deficiency Plan Requirements.
Deficiency Plan: Submit Deficiency Plan Implementation Status Report as part of annual monitoring.
As shown in the first bulleted item, the CMP contains level-of-service standards for highways and arterials.
The minimum level-of-service standard for Santa Clara County is LOS E, except for grandfathered facilities
that had already reached LOS F. Because the level-of-service standards for Santa Clara County were
established in October of 1991; any intersection operating at LOS F prior to the established 1991 level-of-
service standards is not held to the minimum standard of LOS E.7 Member Agencies, which are the cities
and County of Santa Clara, must ensure that CMP roadways operate at or better than the minimum level-of-
service standard or they face losing gas tax subventions. The VTA monitors the performance of the CMP
6 Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), 2013. 2013 Congestion Management Program http://www.vta.org/sfc/
servlet.shepherd/version/download/068A0000001Q7pt, October.
7 Santa Clara County VTA, Congestion Management Plan, 2013, page 29.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
PLACEWORKS 4.13-11
facilities at a minimum of every two years. If the minimum level-of-service standards are not met, Member
Agencies must develop multimodal improvement plans to address the congestion.8
To manage the transportation system and monitor the performance in relation to the established level-of-
service standards, the VTA has designated a CMP roadway system for Santa Clara County. The CMP roadway
system contains 434.5 miles of roadways, of which 267.4 miles (61 percent) are State highways, 58.7 miles
(14 percent) are expressways, and 108.4 miles (25 percent) are city/county arterials.9 If adopted standards
are not being maintained on a specific roadway in the designated system, actions must be taken to address
problems on that facility or plans must be developed to improve the overall level of service of the system
and improve air quality. The CMP roadway system is a subset of the broader Metropolitan Transportation
System (MTS).
Valley Transportation Plan 2040
The Valley Transportation Plan 2040 (VTP 2040), prepared by the VTA, is the countywide long-range
transportation plan for Santa Clara County. As the CMA for the county, the VTA periodically updates this
25-year plan.
The VTP 2040 provides a planning and policy framework for developing and delivering future
transportation projects. Location-specific improvements for all modes of travel are covered in three major
program areas: Highways, Local System, and Transit. The Highways Program includes major freeway
improvements, local freeway interchanges, and express lanes. The Local System includes local roadway
improvements, expressway improvements, pedestrian and bicycle projects, and technology-related projects.
The Transit Program includes projects related to transit efficiency and new transit improvements. Additional
program areas are discussed in VTP 2040, but do not include specific projects. These additional program
areas are pavement management, community design and Transportation Programs. The Plan also identifies
transportation needs through a systematic approach based on input from local jurisdictions, elected officials
and the community.
Plan Bay Area: Strategy for a Sustainable Region
As discussed above under the subheading “Metropolitan Transportation Commission,” the Plan Bay Area:
Strategy for a Sustainable Region, was adopted by both the MTC and the ABAG on July 18, 2013. The Plan
Bay Area serves as both the region’s SCS and the 2040 Regional Transportation Plan. Plan Bay Area is an
integrated long-range transportation and land-use/housing plan intended to support a growing economy,
provide more housing and transportation choices, and reduce transportation-related pollution in the Bay
Area. Through this initiative, local governments identified Priority Development Areas (PDAs), which form
the implementing framework for Plan Bay Area. The PDAs are areas along transportation corridors which
are served by public transit that allow opportunities for development of transit-oriented, infill development
within existing communities that are expected to host the majority of future development. Overall, well
over two-thirds of all regional growth by 2040 is allocated within PDAs. The PDAs throughout the San
Francisco Bay Area are expected to accommodate 80 percent (or over 525,570 units) of new housing and 66
8 Santa Clara County VTA, Congestion Management Plan, 2013, pages 29-30.
9 Santa Clara County VTA, Congestion Management Plan, 2013, Appendix B, pages 2 to 3.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
4.13-12 JUNE 18, 2014
percent (or 744,230) of new jobs.10 As shown on Figure 4.11-1, in Chapter 4.11, Population and Housing,
of this Draft EIR, the PDAs in Cupertino are located along Stevens Creek Boulevard between SR 85 and the
City of Santa Clara and along De Anza Boulevard between Stevens Creek Boulevard and the City of
Sunnyvale.
The RTP also specifies a detailed set of investments and strategies to maintain, manage, and improve the
region’s transportation system, specifying how anticipated federal, State, and local transportation funds will
be spent. Among the cornerstones of the plan is a program to provide incentives for cities and counties to
promote future growth near transit in already urbanized portions of the Bay Area.
Local Regulations
City of Cupertino General Plan 2000-2020
The City of Cupertino’s 2000-2020 General Plan, adopted on November 15, 2005, includes policies that
are relevant to transportation and traffic in Section 2, Land Use/Community Design and Section 4,
Circulation. As part of the proposed Project, some General Plan policies would be amended. Substantive
policy changes under the proposed Project include the addition, removal, or functional revision (e.g. not
purely semantic) of policies in ways that have the potential to result in a physical impact on the environment.
Policies of the 2000-2020 General Plan that are relevant to transportation and traffic and were not
substantially modified (e.g. renumbered or minor text change) are listed below in Table 4.13-2. A
comprehensive list of policy changes is provided in Appendix I, Proposed General Plan Policy Amendments,
of this Draft EIR. Discussions of how substantive policy changes may result in adverse physical changes are
included in the analyses under each impact criterion in Section 4.13.3, Impact Discussion, below.
TABLE 4.13‐2 POLICIES AND STRATEGIES OF THE CUPERTINO 2000‐2020 GENERAL PLAN
New Policy
Number
Original Policy
Number Policies and Strategies
Section 2, Land Use/Community Design
Policy 4‐5 Policy 2‐57 Pedestrian Access. Create pedestrian access between new subdivisions and school sites.
Review existing neighborhood circulation plans to improve safety and access for pedestrians
and bicyclists to school sites, including completing an accessible network of sidewalks and
paths.
Policy 2‐84 Policy 2‐75
Park Walking Distance. Ensure that each household is within a half‐mile walk of a
neighborhood park, or community park with neighborhood facilities, and that the route is
reasonably free of physical barriers, including streets with heavy traffic. Wherever possible,
provide pedestrian links between parks.
Section 4, Circulation
Policy 4‐11 Policy 4‐9
Curb Cuts. Minimize the number of driveway openings in each development.
Strategy 1. Shared Driveway Access. Encourage property owners to use shared driveway
access and interconnected roads on specific properties where feasible. Require driveway
access closures, consolidations or both when a non‐residential site is remodeled. Ensure
that the driveway accommodates the traffic volume for all affected properties, and that the
10 Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), 2013, Final Plan Bay Area,
Strategy for a Sustainable Region.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
PLACEWORKS 4.13-13
TABLE 4.13‐2 POLICIES AND STRATEGIES OF THE CUPERTINO 2000‐2020 GENERAL PLAN
New Policy
Number
Original Policy
Number Policies and Strategies
maintenance responsibilities are clearly defined.
Strategy 2. Direct Access from Secondary Streets. Encourage property with frontages on
major and secondary streets to provide direct access to driveways from the secondary
street.
Strategy 3. Temporary Curb Cuts On Non‐Residential Sites. Permit temporary curb cuts on a
non‐residential site subject to the City finding that the opening is necessary for public
safety. These temporary openings may be closed and access to the driveway made available
from other driveways when surrounding properties are developed or redeveloped.
Policy 4‐13 Policy 4‐11
Safe Parking Lots. Require parking lots that are safe for pedestrians.
Strategy. Safe Spaces for Pedestrians. Require parking lot design and construction to include
clearly defined spaces for pedestrians so that foot traffic is separated from the hazards of
car traffic and people are directed from their cars to building entries.
Policy 4‐14 Policy 4‐14
Limited Street Closures. Do not close streets unless there is a demonstrated safety or over
whelming through traffic problem and there are no acceptable alternatives. Closures may
shift traffic to other local streets, thus moving the problem from one neighborhood to
another.
Section 6, Health and Safety
Policy 6‐8 Policy 6‐7 Early Project Review. Involve the Fire Department in the early design stage of all projects
requiring public review to assure Fire Department input and modifications as needed.
Policy 6‐13 Policy 6‐14
Roadway Design. Involve the Fire Department in the design of public roadways for review
and comments. Attempt to ensure that roadways have frequent median breaks for timely
access to properties.
Policy 6‐14 Policy 6‐15
Dead‐End Street Access. Allow public use of private roadways during an emergency for
hillside subdivisions that have dead‐end public streets longer than 1,000 feet or find a
secondary means of access.
Policy 6‐15 Policy 6‐16 Hillside Access Routes. Require new hillside development to have frequent grade breaks in
access routes to ensure a timely response from fire personnel.
Policy 6‐16 Policy 6‐17 Hillside Road Upgrades. Require new hillside development to upgrade existing access roads
to meet Fire Code and City standards.
Policy 6‐17 Policy 6‐18
Private Residential Electronic Security Gates. Discourage the use of private residential
electronic security gates that act as a barrier to emergency personnel.
Strategy 1. Fence Exception. Require a fence exception for electronic security gates.
Strategy 2. Access to Gates. Where electronic security gates are allowed, require the
installation of an approved key switch.
Source: City of Cupertino and the Cupertino 2000‐2020 General Plan.
City of Cupertino Municipal Code
The City of Cupertino Municipal Code contains all ordinances for the city. The Municipal Code is organized
by Title, Chapter, and Section. The current Municipal Code is up to date through Ordinance 14-2117,
passed March 18, 2014.
The Municipal Code identifies land use categories, site development regulations, and other general
provisions that ensure consistency between the General Plan and proposed development projects. The
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
4.13-14 JUNE 18, 2014
following provisions from the Municipal Code help minimize transportation and traffic-related impacts
associated with new development projects in Cupertino:
Title 11, Vehicles and Traffic, establishes regulations with respect to parking, traffic, and circulation.
Additionally, Title 11 establishes regulations governing roadway design features, such as speed bumps.
Chapter 14.04, Street Improvements, requires that any person who proposes to erect, construct, add
to, alter or repair any building or structure, for which a permit is required, adjacent to land of an
unimproved street, must install street improvements. These improvements include, but are not limited
to, street signs, curbs and gutters, driveways, sidewalks, street paving, and/or dedications and
improvements of service roads, and parking facilities. Section 14.04.110, Improvements Installed Prior
to Permit–Imposition of Street Improvement Reimbursement Charges, Cost of Land and Interest,
requires that when street improvements are made by the City in advance of development of adjacent
property, upon development the property owner must reimburse City for all costs advanced.
Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan
Cupertino’s 2011 Bicycle Transportation Plan is a citywide plan to encourage bicycling as a safe, practical
and healthy alternative to the use of the family car. The 2011 Bicycle Transportation Plan includes standards
for engineering, encouragement, education, and enforcement intended to improve the bicycle infrastructure
in the City to enable people to bike to work and school, to utilize a bicycle to run errands, and to enjoy the
health and environmental benefits that bicycling provides cyclists of every age.
Cupertino Pedestrian Transportation Plan
The 2002 Cupertino Pedestrian Transportation Plan contains goals, policies, and specific recommendations
to increase the walkability of Cupertino, including the Pedestrian Guidelines. The Pedestrian Transportation
Plan is a companion document to the City of Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan. It includes specific
recommendations to improve pedestrian conditions, which fall into three main categories: policies and
programs, citywide capital projects, and site-specific recommendations.
4.13.3 METHODOLOGY AND LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS
This section presents the methods used to determine the existing level of service for the study intersections
and freeway segments. It includes descriptions of the data requirements, the analysis methodologies, and the
applicable level of service standards.
4.13.3.1 DATA REQUIREMENTS
The data required for the analysis were obtained from new traffic counts, the City of Cupertino, recent
Transportation Impact Analyses conducted for the City, and field observations. The following data were
collected from these sources:
Existing traffic volumes
Existing lane configurations
Signal timing and phasing
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
PLACEWORKS 4.13-15
4.13.3.2 LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS AND ANALYSIS METHODOLOGIES
Signalized Intersections
Traffic conditions at the study intersections were evaluated using level of service. The level of service is a
qualitative description of operating conditions ranging from LOS A, or free-flow conditions with little or no
delay, to LOS F, or jammed conditions with excessive delays. The various analysis methods are described
below.
As previously listed in Section 4.13.1.1, Study Intersections, all of the 41 study intersections are signalized
and 30 of the study intersections (including the one future intersection) are located in the City of
Cupertino, and 11 intersections are not within the City’s jurisdiction.
The City of Cupertino, as well as the CMP, the neighboring Cities of Sunnyvale, Santa Clara, and San Jose,
and the County of Santa Clara, utilize the TRAFFIX software and the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM)
methodology to evaluate signalized intersection operations. The HCM methodology evaluates signalized
intersection operations on the basis of average delay time for all vehicles at the intersection. Since TRAFFIX
is also the CMP-designated intersection level of service software, the City of Cupertino employs the CMP
default values for the analysis parameters. The correlation between average delay and level of service is
shown in Table 4.13-3.
TABLE 4.13‐3 SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS BASED ON AVERAGE DELAY
Level of
Service Description
Average Control
Delay Per Vehicle
(Seconds)
A Signal progression is extremely favorable. Most vehicles arrive during the green phase and
do not stop at all. Short cycle lengths may also contribute to the very low vehicle delay. 10.0 or less
B Operations characterized by good signal progression and/or short cycle lengths. More
vehicles stop than LOS A, causing higher levels of average vehicle delay. 10.1 to 20.0
C
Higher delays may result from fair signal progression and/or longer cycle lengths. Some
vehicles must wait more than one cycle at this level. The number of vehicles stopping is
significant, though may still pass through the intersection without stopping.
20.1 to 35.0
D
The influence of congestion becomes more noticeable. Longer delays may result from some
combination of unfavorable signal progression, long cycle lengths, or high volume‐to‐
capacity (V/C) ratios. Many vehicles stop and wait more than one cycle.
35.1 to 55.0
E
This is considered to the limit of acceptable delay. These high delay values generally indicate
poor signal progression, long cycle lengths, and high volume‐to‐capacity (V/C) ratios. Some
vehicles must wait more than two cycles.
55.1 to 80.0
F
This level of delay is considered unacceptable by most drivers. This condition often occurs
with oversaturation, that is, when arrival flow rates exceed the capacity of the intersection.
Many vehicles must wait more than two cycles. Poor progression and long cycle lengths may
also be major contributing causes of such delay levels.
Greater than 80.0
Source: Transportation Research Board, 2000 Highway Capacity Manual. (Washington, D.C. 2000)
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
4.13-16 JUNE 18, 2014
The LOS standard for signalized intersections in the City of Cupertino is LOS D or better at City-
controlled intersections, except at the following three intersections:
Stelling Road and Stevens Creek Boulevard (#3)
De Anza Boulevard and Stevens Creek Boulevard (#8)
De Anza Boulevard and Bollinger Road (#10)
The threshold for these three intersections is LOS E+, with no more than 60 seconds of weighted average
control delay.
Santa Clara County has established LOS E as the LOS standard for all County Expressway intersections. The
VTA has established LOS E as the LOS standard for all CMP intersections. However, the City of Cupertino
uses its own standards for CMP intersections within its boundaries.
The LOS standards for the neighboring cities of Sunnyvale, Santa Clara, and San Jose are also set at D, with
certain exceptions for CMP intersections (Sunnyvale and Santa Clara – LOS E), regionally significant
roadways (Sunnyvale – LOS E), and Expressway intersections (Santa Clara – LOS E).
Freeway Segments
As prescribed in the CMP technical guidelines, the level of service for freeway segments is estimated based
on the density of the traffic flow using methods described in the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual. Density is
expressed in vehicles per mile per lane and is calculated by the following formula:
D = V / (N*S)
where:
D= density, in vehicles per mile per lane (vpmpl)
V= peak hour volume, in vehicles per hour (vph)
N= number of travel lanes
S= average travel speed, in miles per hour (mph)
The vehicle density on a segment is correlated to LOS as shown in Table 4.13-4. The CMP requires that
mixed-flow lanes and auxiliary lanes be analyzed separately from high-occupancy vehicle (HOV and also
known as carpool) lanes. The CMP specifies that a capacity of 2,300 vehicles per hour per lane (vphpl) be
used for segments three lanes or wider in one direction and a capacity of 2,200 vphpl be used for segments
two lanes wide in one direction. The LOS standard for freeway segments is LOS E.
For this analysis, the criteria used to determine impacts on freeway segments are based on CMP standards.
Per CMP requirements, freeway impacts are measured relative to existing conditions. A project is said to
create a significant adverse impact on traffic conditions on a freeway segment if, for either peak hour:
1. The level of service of the freeway segment is LOS F under existing conditions, and
2. The number of new trips added by the project is more than one percent of the freeway capacity.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
PLACEWORKS 4.13-17
TABLE 4.13‐4 FREEWAY SEGMENT LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS BASED ON DENSITY
Level of
Service Description
Density
(Vehicles/Mile/Lane)
A Average operating speeds at the free‐flow speed generally prevail. Vehicles are
almost completely unimpeded in their ability to maneuver within the traffic stream. 11.0 or less
B
Speeds at the free‐flow speed are generally maintained. The ability to maneuver
within the traffic stream is only slightly restricted, and the general level of physical
and psychological comfort provided to drivers is still high.
11.1 to 18.0
C
Speeds at, or near, the free‐flow speed of the freeway prevail. Freedom to
maneuver within the traffic stream is noticeably restricted, and lane changes require
more vigilance on the part of the driver.
18.1 to 26.0
D
Speeds begin to decline slightly with increased flows at this level. Freedom to
maneuver within the traffic stream is more noticeably limited, and the driver
experiences reduced physical and psychological comfort levels.
26.1 to 46.0
E
At this level, the freeway operates at or near capacity. Operations in this level are
volatile, because there are virtually no usable gaps in the traffic stream, leaving little
room to maneuver within the traffic stream.
46.1 to 58.0
F Vehicular flow breakdowns occur. Large queues form behind breakdown points. Greater than 58.0
Source: Santa Clara County 2009 CMP (Based on Highway Capacity Manual (2000), Washington, D.C.)
4.13.4 EXISTING CONDITIONS AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
This section describes the existing transportation facilities in Cupertino, including the roadway network,
bicycle and pedestrian facilities, public transit network, aviation facilities, and current intersection and
roadway segment operations. This section presents the existing conditions in the city as they relate to the
selected study intersections, roadway segments, and freeway segments identified above.
4.13.4.1 ROADWAY NETWORK
Freeways
The City of Cupertino is served by the following two facilities:
I-280 is a north-south freeway that extends from US 101 in San Jose to I-80 in San Francisco. Within
the City of Cupertino, it is generally an east-west oriented eight-lane freeway with six mixed-flow lanes
and two carpool lanes, which are also known as HOV lanes. These lanes restrict use to vehicles with two
or more persons, motorcycles, or special vehicles during the morning and evening peak commute hours
(5:00 a.m.to 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.). Auxiliary lanes, which run from an entrance ramp
to the next exit ramp, are provided along I-280 from Winchester Boulevard to SR 85, with the
exception of the segment between Wolfe Road and De Anza Boulevard. Access to/from the City of
Cupertino is provided via interchanges at Foothill Boulevard, SR-85, De Anza Boulevard, Wolfe Road,
Stevens Creek Boulevard, and Lawrence Expressway.
SR 85 is a north-south freeway that extends from US 101 in South San Jose to US 101 in Mountain
View. The freeway has four mixed-flow lanes and two HOV lanes. Access to/from the City of Cupertino
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
4.13-18 JUNE 18, 2014
is provided via its interchange with I-280 and interchanges at Homestead Road, Stevens Creek
Boulevard, and De Anza Boulevard.
Major Arterials
A major arterial is a through-road that is expected to carry large volumes of traffic. The major arterials
within and near the City of Cupertino are described below.
Stevens Creek Boulevard is a major east-west roadway, extending from Permanente Road in
unincorporated Santa Clara County to West San Carlos Street in San Jose. The number of lanes ranges
from two lanes in the western part of the City, to six lanes east of SR 85.
Homestead Road is a four-lane, east-west arterial that extends from Foothill Expressway in the west
to Lafayette Street in the east. Much of Homestead Road runs along the northern border of the City of
Cupertino. It has a partial freeway interchange with access to southbound SR 85 and access from
southbound SR 85.
De Anza Boulevard is an eight-lane, north-south arterial that extends from the City of Sunnyvale to
the City of Saratoga. De Anza Boulevard becomes Sunnyvale-Saratoga Road north of Homestead Road
and Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road south of Prospect Road. Access is provided to/from I-280 and SR 85 via
full interchanges at each freeway.
Wolfe Road is a four- to six-lane, north-south arterial that extends from Stevens Creek Boulevard in
Cupertino to Arques Avenue in Sunnyvale. North of Arques Avenue, it merges with Fair Oaks Avenue.
South of Stevens Creek Boulevard it transitions into Miller Avenue, which is a four-lane roadway. Wolfe
Road provides access to/from I-280 via a partial cloverleaf interchange.
Lawrence Expressway is an eight-lane north-south expressway. Between US 101 and I-280, the
right-most lane in each direction of travel is designated as a HOV lane. The HOV lane designation is in
effect in both directions of travel during both the AM and PM peak commute hours. During other
times, the lane is open to all users. South of I-280, Lawrence Expressway is a six-lane expressway.
Lawrence Expressway begins at its junction with SR 237 and extends southward into Saratoga, where it
transitions into Quito Road at Saratoga Avenue. Full interchanges are located at SR 237, US 101, and I-
280.
El Camino Real (SR 82) is a six-lane divided major arterial that provides access to the City of
Cupertino from adjacent cities, but does not fall within Cupertino’s boundaries. El Camino Real
extends from Mission Street in Colma to The Alameda in Santa Clara.
Roadway Segments
The key roadway segments within the City of Cupertino are described below and shown in Figure 4.13-1.
Pruneridge Avenue is a four-lane east-west roadway that currently spans from Tantau Avenue in the
west to Winchester Boulevard in the east. Pruneridge Avenue is identified as a minor collector in the
City of Cupertino and a minor arterial in the City of Santa Clara. The City of Santa Clara recently
reduced the travel lanes from four to two lanes and installed bicycle lanes. Pruneridge Avenue in
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
PLACEWORKS 4.13-19
Cupertino was recently vacated between Wolfe Road and Tantau Avenue as part of the Apple Campus 2
project.
Tantau Avenue is a two-lane and four-lane roadway that extends from Homestead Road to Bollinger
Road in Cupertino. Tantau Avenue primarily serves residential uses south of Stevens Creek Boulevard. It
serves commercial, office and industrial uses north of Stevens Creek Boulevard. The intersection of
Tantau Avenue with Stevens Creek Boulevard (#27) is signalized. The southbound through movement
on Tantau Avenue across Stevens Creek Boulevard is not permitted.
Finch Avenue is a two-lane roadway that extends between Stevens Creek Boulevard in the north and
Phil Lane (residential road) in the south. The intersection of Finch Avenue with Stevens Creek
Boulevard (#23) is signalized. No through-movement is allowed across Stevens Creek Boulevard on
Finch Avenue.
Miller Avenue is a continuation of Wolfe Road south of Stevens Creek Boulevard. Miller Avenue is a
four-lane major collector that extends between Stevens Creek Boulevard in Cupertino and Cox Avenue
in Saratoga.
Vallco Parkway is a short, six-lane, east-west roadway that spans Wolfe Road and Tantau Avenue.
Vallco Parkway primarily serves the shopping centers in the surrounding area. Much development is
expected to occur in the shopping centers adjacent to Vallco Parkway, and many roadway modifications
are expected that will narrow the roadway to four lanes in each direction, allow for on-street parking
along parts of the roadway, and add traffic lights at Finch Avenue and at the new Main Street garage
entrance.
Blaney Avenue is a two-lane north-south street extending from Homestead Road to Prospect Road.
Blaney Avenue mainly serves residential areas.
Hollenbeck Avenue is a two-lane, north-south residential collector extending from the City of
Sunnyvale in the north to Homestead Road in the south, where it becomes North Stelling Road.
Hollenbeck provides access to/from Sunnyvale.
Stelling Road is a two- to four-lane collector that runs in the north-south direction from Prospect
Road in the south to Homestead Road in the north, where it becomes Hollenbeck Avenue. The segment
of Stelling Road from Alves Drive to McClellan Road is a four-lane roadway. Other segments of Stelling
Road in Cupertino are two lanes.
McClellan Road is a two-lane, east-west minor collector that spans Foothill Boulevard and De Anza
Boulevard. McClellan is mainly used to access residential areas and De Anza College.
Bollinger Road is primarily a four-lane, east-west minor collector that extends from De Anza
Boulevard to Lawrence Expressway, where it becomes Moorpark Avenue. West of De Anza Boulevard,
Bollinger Road is a two-lane, local street. Bollinger Road runs along the southeastern border of
Cupertino.
Rainbow Drive in Cupertino is a two-lane minor collector that extends from west of Bubb Road to
De Anza Boulevard in the east. Rainbow Drive in San Jose is a two-lane roadway that extends from De
Anza Boulevard in the west to Johnson Avenue in the east. Rainbow Drive can be used to access
Cupertino from West San Jose.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
4.13-20 JUNE 18, 2014
Bubb Road is a two- to four- lane minor collector that extends from Stevens Creek Boulevard in the
north to Rainbow Drive in the south. Bubb Road consists of four lanes north of McClellan Road and
two lanes south of McClellan Road. Bubb Road south of McClellan Road is mostly residential.
Foothill Boulevard is a four-lane divided major collector that begins at Foothill Expressway near I-
280 and ends at McClellan Road in the south, where it continues as Stevens Canyon Road. Foothill
Boulevard is mostly residential and provides access to I-280 via a full interchange on Foothill
Expressway. Foothill Boulevard can be used to access locations north of Cupertino, such as Los Altos
and Los Altos Hills.
Fremont Avenue is a two- to six-lane, east-west minor ar terial that extends from Los Altos in the
northwest to El Camino Real near Wolfe Road in the east. Fremont Avenue can be used to access
numerous roadways that lead into the City of Cupertino, such as Sunnyvale-Saratoga Road and Wolfe
Road. Fremont Avenue provides access to SR 85 via a full interchange.
4.13.4.2 EXISTING BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES
Cupertino has an extensive network of bicycle facilities, as shown in Figure 4.13-2. Although much of
Cupertino’s infrastructure was originally built in the 1950s and 1960s to serve a car-oriented suburban city,
significant progress has been made in providing a more bicycle-friendly environment in many parts of the
city.
Bicycle facilities are categorized into the following three types of bikeways:
Class I Bike Path: A completely separated right-of-way for the exclusive use of bicycles and
pedestrians, with cross-flow minimized.
Class II Bike Lane: A striped bike lane for one-way bike travel on a street or highway and is designed
for the exclusive use of cyclists with certain exceptions. For instance, right-turning vehicles must merge
into the lane before turning.
Class III Bike Route: A routes where cyclists share the road with motor vehicles. These can be streets
with low traffic volumes that are well-suited for bicycling or arterials where it is infeasible to widen the
roadway to provide a bike lane due to right-of-way or topographical constraints. Class III bikeways may
also be defined by a wide curb lane and/or use of a shared use arrow stencil marking on the pavement,
known as a “sharrow.”
As shown on Figure 4.13-2, Class I Bike Paths within the city include the Stevens Creek Trail from
McClellan Road to Blackberry Farm, the Mary Avenue Bicycle-Pedestrian Bridge providing access over I-
280, and a path adjacent to Lawrence Expressway. Most of the major streets include Class II bike lanes,
providing an excellent network of bicycle facilities, both within the city and leading to adjacent cities.
Cupertino adopted a Bicycle Transportation Plan in 2011, which describes the location and current status of
17 bikeways within the city. Work to be done to further improve each of the bikeways is outlined and
prioritized in the Bicycle Transportation Plan, and cost estimates for the proposed improvements are
provided. In addition, the Santa Clara Countywide Bicycle Plan identifies Cross County Bicycle Corridors
(CCBC) and other projects of intercity significance, several of which go through Cupertino.
Source: Hexagon Transportation Consultants.
Figure 4.13-2Existing Bicycle Facilities
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING PROJECT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
4.13-22 JUNE 18, 2014
Many of the 17 bikeways defined in Cupertino’s Bicycle Transportation Plan are cross-referenced with the
CCBC routes. High priority improvement projects include work on the following bikeways:
Bikeway 4: Mary Avenue to De Anza College between Homestead Road and McClellan Road ($10,000)
Bikeway 13: Greenleaf Drive – Mariani Avenue – Merritt Drive – Portal Avenue ($75,000)
Bikeway 8: Portal Avenue between Merritt Drive and Wilson Park ($100,000)
Bikeway 9: Miller Avenue – Wolfe Road ($100,000)
Bikeway 5: Stelling Road between Homestead Road and Prospect Road ($150,000)
Bikeway 12: Alves Drive – Bandley Drive – Lazaneo Drive – Forest Avenue – Amherst Drive
($250,000)
Bikeway 14: Rodrigues Avenue – Wilson Park – Creekside Park – Phil Lane – Barnhart Avenue
($250,000)
Bikeway 3: Orange Avenue – Fort Baker Drive ($300,000)
Bikeway 15: McClellan Road between Foothill Boulevard and De Anza Boulevard ($2,400,000)
The City of Cupertino also provides an extensive network of pedestrian facilities, including sidewalks,
crosswalks, and pedestrian signals at signalized intersections, to promote the ease and safety of walking
within the city. Most of the residential neighborhoods in the city include sidewalks.
Along the arterials and major collectors, the following gaps in sidewalks have been identified:
McClellan Road
From the SR 85 overpass to Rose Blossom Drive westbound
From Bonny Drive to McClellan Place eastbound
From Byrne Avenue to San Leandro Avenue (Note: there is a CIP project to construct a sidewalk here).
Homestead Road
Quail Avenue to Swallow Way eastbound
Bubb Road
Just south of Stevens Creek Boulevard to McClellan Road northbound
Columbus Avenue to Vai Avenue northbound
Stelling Road
Seven Springs Drive to Prospect Road southbound
Tantau Avenue
I-280 interchange to Stevens Creek Boulevard southbound
Vallco Parkway
Finch Avenue to Tantau Avenue eastbound
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
PLACEWORKS 4.13-23
4.13.4.3 EXISTING TRANSIT SERVICE
Existing transit service to the City of Cupertino is provided by the VTA. As shown on Figure 4.13-3, eight
local bus lines (Lines 23, 25, 26, 51, 53, 54, 55, and 81), two limited-stop bus lines (Lines 323 and 328),
and two express routes (Lines 101 and 182) serve Cupertino. Express routes 102 and 103 cross through
Cupertino on I-280 and SR 85, but do not exit the freeway within the city boundaries. Table 4.13-5, below,
provides the commute hour headways and routes of these bus lines. See Figure 4.13-3 for a map of the VTA
bus routes.
A VTA Transit Center is located at De Anza College on Stevens Creek Boulevard. This Transit Center
provides a transfer site and passenger shelter for the VTA routes that serve it.
4.13.4.4 EXISTING AVIATION FACILITIES
There are no heliports located within the city of Cupertino listed by the Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA).11 The nearest heliport is located approximately 3.4 miles to the east of Cupertino at the County
Medical Center in San Jose. Another nearby heliport is located at McCandless Towers in Sunnyvale, 3.6
miles northeast of Cupertino. There are no additional heliports within five miles of Cupertino.12
There are no public or private airports or airstrips in Cupertino. At the nearest points within city
boundaries, Cupertino is located approximately 4.0 miles to the southwest of the San Jose International
Airport. The Santa Clara County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) has adopted a Comprehensive
Land Use Plan (CLUP) for areas surrounding San Jose International Airport. The city is not located within
any protected airspace zones defined by the ALUC.13 Cupertino is located approximately 4.4 miles to the
south of Moffett Federal Airfield, 8.4 miles to the southeast of the Palo Alto Airport, 24 miles to the
southeast of San Francisco International Airport, and 27 miles to the southeast of Oakland International
Airport.14Additional small airports in the vicinity include the San Carlos Airpor t, 17 miles to the northwest,
Hayward Executive Airport, 23 miles to the north-northwest, and the Half Moon Bay airport, 26 miles to
the northwest. The Cupertino City Boundary does not fall within the airport land use planning
areas/airport influence areas or runway protection zones.15,16
11 Federal Aviation Administration, 2011, Airport Facilities Data, www.faa.gov/airports/airport_safety/airportdata_5010/, accessed
August 13, 2013.
12 AirNav, http://www.airnav.com/airports/us/CA, accessed on April 12, 2014.
13 Santa Clara County Airport Land-Use Commission, 2011, Comprehensive Land Use Plan, Santa Clara County, Norman Y. Mineta, San
Jose International Airport.
14 AirNav, http://www.airnav.com/airports/us/CA, accessed on accessed on April 12, 2014.
15 Santa Clara County Airport Land Use Commission, 2012. Moffett Federal Airfield Comprehensive Land Use Plan, Figures 5
and 8, http://www.sccgov.org/sites/planning/PlansPrograms/ALUC/Documents/ALUC_20121128_NUQ_CLUP_adopted.pdf, accessed
on May 7, 2014.
16 Santa Clara County Airport Land Use Commission, 2011. Norman Y. Mineta San Jose International Airport Comprehensive Land
Use Plan, Figures 6 and 8 http://www.sccgov.org/sites/planning/PlansPrograms/ALUC/Documents/ALUC_SJC_CLUP_
maps_082010.pdf.
Source: Hexagon Transportation Consultants.
Figure 4.13-3Existing Transit Services
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING PROJECT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
PLACEWORKS 4.13-25
TABLE 4.13‐5 VTA ROUTES AND PEAK PERIOD HEADWAYS IN CUPERTINO
Bus Route
Approximate Peak
Period Headways
(min.) Route Description
23 10 De Anza College to Alum Rock Transit Center via Stevens Creek
25 10 De Anza College to Alum Rock Transit Center via Valley Medical Center
26 15/30 Sunnyvale/Lockheed Martin Transit center to Eastridge Transit Center
51 60 De Anza College to Moffett Field/Ames Center
53 60 West Valley College to Sunnyvale Transit Center
54 30 De Anza College to Sunnyvale/Lockheed Martin Transit Center
55 15 De Anza College to Great America
81 30 Weekday Vallco to San Jose State University Sat/Sun Vallco to Santa Clara
Transit Center
101 2 runs in peaka Camden and State Route 85 to Palo Alto
182 1 run in peaka Palo Alto to IBM/Bailey Avenue
323 15 Downtown San Jose to De Anza College
328 2 runs in peaka Almaden Expressway to Lockheed Martin/Moffett Industrial Park
a. Number of runs provided in both AM and PM peak periods.Service is provided in peak commute direction only.
Source: Hexagon Transportation Consultants, 2013.
4.13.4.5 EXISTING LANE CONFIGURATIONS AND TRAFFIC VOLUMES
The existing lane configurations at the study intersections were obtained from field observations and
previous traffic impact analyses, and are shown on Figures 4.13-4a through 4.13-4c. Existing traffic volumes
were obtained from previous traffic impact analyses and supplemented with new manual peak-hour turning-
movement counts. These are shown on Figures 4.13-5a through 4.13-5c. For the 34 intersections that were
also included in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) of the Apple Campus 2 project, the same traffic
volumes were used from that study, which were collected in 2012.17
In addition, there were two intersections (Bubb Road/Peninsula Boulevard and Stevens Creek Boulevard
[#36]) and Blaney Avenue and Stevens Creek Boulevard [#38]) where counts had been conducted in 2013
for other studies and four intersections (De Anza Boulevard and Rainbow Drive [#35], North Stelling
Road/Hollenbeck Avenue and Homestead [#37], Foothill Boulevard and Stevens Creek Boulevard [#39],
and Stelling Road and McClellan Road [#40]) where new counts were conducted in 2014.
17 Apple Campus 2 Project Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse Number 2011082055, June 2013, certified October
2013.
Source: Hexagon Transportation Consultants.
Figure 4.13-4aStudy Intersections 1 - 16 Existing Intersection Lane Configurations
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING PROJECT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Source: Hexagon Transportation Consultants.
Figure 4.13-4bStudy Intersections 17- 32 Existing Intersection Lane Configurations
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING PROJECT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Source: Hexagon Transportation Consultants.
Figure 4.13-4cStudy Intersections 33 - 40 Existing Intersection Lane Configurations
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING PROJECT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Source: Hexagon Transportation Consultants.
Figure 4.13-5aStudy Intersections 1-16 Existing Traffic Volumes
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING PROJECT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Source: Hexagon Transportation Consultants.
Figure 4.13-5bStudy Intersections 17-32 Existing Traffic Volumes
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING PROJECT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Source: Hexagon Transportation Consultants.
Figure 4.13-5cStudy Intersections 33 - 40 Existing Traffic Volumes
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING PROJECT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
4.13-32 JUNE 18, 2014
For all CMP intersections, however, PM peak-hour volumes and signal timing were obtained from the 2012
CMP TRAFFIX database. The traffic counts are included in Appendix G, Transportation and Traffic Data, of
this Draft EIR.
Intersection SR 85 Northbound Ramps and Stevens Creek Boulevard (#2), Northbound SR 85 Ramps and
Stevens Creek Boulevard, is actually a five-legged intersection because there is also an exit from the De Anza
College campus at that location. The volumes for that intersection shown in Figure 4.13-5a as southbound
AM volumes actually represent the volumes entering the intersection from the campus exit roadway. For the
PM peak, the volumes shown are taken from the CMP TRAFFIX database since this is a CMP intersection.
4.13.4.6 EXISTING INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE
Forty-one study intersections were selected for analysis. However, intersection Wolfe Road and Apple
Campus Access (#41) is a future intersection; thus, no existing level of service information is available.
The analysis of study intersections was conducted during weekday peak commute hours of AM (7:00 a.m. –
10:00 a.m.) and PM (4:00 p.m. – 7:00 p.m.) traffic conditions.
Table 4.13-6 presents the existing AM and PM peak-hour LOS for all Project Study Area intersections. The
results show that, measured against the City of Cupertino’s standards, other jurisdictions’ standards, and
CMP standards described above in Section 4.13.1.1, Study Intersections, all the signalized study
intersections currently operate at acceptable LOS during the AM and PM peak hours.18
The LOS calculation sheets are included in Appendix G, Transportation and Traffic Data, of this Draft EIR.
TABLE 4.13‐6 EXISTING AM AND PM PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE RESULTS
Study
Intersection Intersection
LOS
Standard
Peak
Hour
Count
Date
Average
Delay
Existing
LOS
1 SR 85 SB Ramps and Stevens Creek Boulevarda D
AM 05/10/11 27.5 C
PM 09/06/12 25.1 C
2 SR 85 NB Ramps and Stevens Creek Boulevarda D
AM 05/10/11 42.8 D
PM 09/06/12 19.5 B‐
3 Stelling Road and Stevens Creek Boulevarda E+
AM 05/10/11 42.4 D
PM 09/06/12 32.9 C‐
4 Sunnyvale‐Saratoga Road and Fremont Avenueb E
AM 01/26/12 40.9 D
PM 09/06/12 43.9 D
5 Sunnyvale‐Saratoga Road/De Anza Boulevard and
Homestead Roada D
AM 05/10/11 43.2 D
PM 09/06/12 37.2 D+
6 De Anza Boulevard and I‐280 NB Rampa D
AM 05/10/11 33.9 C‐
PM 09/06/12 33.0 C‐
18 The LOS standard for each intersection was presented in Table 4.13-1 in Section 4.13.1.1, Study Intersections.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
PLACEWORKS 4.13-33
TABLE 4.13‐6 EXISTING AM AND PM PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE RESULTS
Study
Intersection Intersection
LOS
Standard
Peak
Hour
Count
Date
Average
Delay
Existing
LOS
7 De Anza Boulevard and I‐280 SB Rampa D
AM 05/10/11 34.2 C‐
PM 09/06/12 18.9 B‐
8 De Anza Boulevard and Stevens Creek Boulevarda E+
AM 05/03/11 37.4 D+
PM 09/06/12 43.1 D
9 De Anza Boulevard and McClellan Road/
Pacifica Drive D
AM 05/10/11 29.0 C
PM 05/10/11 48.9 D
10 De Anza Boulevard and Bollinger Roada E+
AM 05/11/11 39.3 D
PM 09/06/12 26.1 C
11 De Anza Boulevard and SR 85 NB Rampa D
AM 05/18/11 30.9 C
PM 09/06/12 12.9 B
12 De Anza Boulevard and SR 85 SB Rampa D
AM 05/18/11 20.5 C+
PM 09/06/12 18.1 B‐
13 Blaney Avenue and Homestead Road D
AM 05/11/11 22.1 C+
PM 05/11/11 11.8 B+
14 Wolfe Road and El Camino Real (SR 82)b E
AM 05/11/11 45.2 D
PM 09/05/12 48.3 D
15 Wolfe Road and Fremont Avenuec E
AM 05/11/11 43.2 D
PM 05/11/11 44.5 D
16 Wolfe Road and Homestead Road D
AM 05/05/11 28.1 C
PM 05/05/11 31.4 C
17 Wolfe Road and Pruneridge Avenue D
AM 05/05/11 22.6 C+
PM 05/05/11 32.8 C‐
18 Wolfe Road and I‐280 NB Rampa D
AM 05/05/11 12.8 B
PM 09/06/12 12.7 B
19 Wolfe Road and I‐280 SB Rampa D
AM 05/05/11 11.9 B+
PM 09/06/12 8.4 A
20 Wolfe Road and Vallco Pkwy D
AM 05/04/11 18.5 B‐
PM 05/04/11 35.8 D+
21 Wolfe Road‐Miller/Avenue and Stevens Creek
Boulevarda D
AM 05/05/11 37.4 D+
PM 09/06/12 38.0 D+
22 Miller Avenue and Bollinger Roadg D
AM 05/11/11 40.2 D
PM 05/11/11 37.5 D+
23 Finch Avenue and Stevens Creek Boulevard D
AM 05/12/11 23.5 C
PM 05/12/11 23.5 C
24 North Tantau Avenue/Quail Avenue and
Homestead Road D
AM 05/05/11 35.7 D+
PM 05/05/11 34.2 C‐
25 North Tantau Avenue and Pruneridge Avenue D
AM 05/24/11 38.5 D+
PM 05/24/11 20.6 C+
26 North Tantau Avenue and Vallco Pkwy D
AM 06/01/11 24.1 C
PM 06/02/11 27.8 C
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
4.13-34 JUNE 18, 2014
TABLE 4.13‐6 EXISTING AM AND PM PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE RESULTS
Study
Intersection Intersection
LOS
Standard
Peak
Hour
Count
Date
Average
Delay
Existing
LOS
27 Tantau Avenue and Stevens Creek Boulevard D
AM 05/12/11 36.6 D+
PM 05/12/11 37.9 D+
28 Lawrence Expressway and Homestead Roadd E
AM 05/17/11 48.0 D
PM 09/06/12 45.8 D
29 I‐280 SB Ramp and Stevens Creek Boulevarde E
AM 05/12/11 27.6 C
PM 11/14/12 30.8 C
30 Agilent Tech Driveway and Stevens Creek
Boulevardf D
AM 01/11/11 12.1 B
PM 12/30/12 15.9 B
31 Lawrence Expressway SB Ramp and Stevens Creek
Boulevardd E
AM 05/17/11 22.7 C+
PM 11/07/12 26.8 C
32 Lawrence Expressway NB Ramp and Stevens Creek
Boulevardd E
AM 05/17/11 32.6 C‐
PM 09/06/12 28.9 C
33 Lawrence Expressway and Calvert Drive/I‐280 SB
Rampd E
AM 05/17/11 42.1 D
PM 10/09/12 33.2 C‐
34 Lawrence Expressway and Bollinger
Road/Moorpark Avenued E
AM 05/17/11 52.8 D‐
PM 09/06/12 47.5 D
35 De Anza Boulevard and Rainbow Drive (south) D
AM 09/18/13 20.2 C+
PM 09/18/13 18.7 B‐
36 Bubb Road/Peninsula Boulevard and Stevens Creek
Boulevard D
AM 03/07/13 23.3 C
PM 03/07/13 22.3 C+
37 North Stelling Road/Hollenbeck Avenue and
Homestead Road D
AM 09/18/13 35.1 D+
PM 09/18/13 37.1 D+
38 Blaney Avenue and Stevens Creek Boulevard D
AM 11/03/11 25.0 C
PM 11/03/11 26.6 C
39 Foothill Boulevard and Stevens Creek Boulevard D
AM 09/18/13 40.4 D
PM 09/18/13 23.1 C
40 Stelling Road and McClellan Road D
AM 09/18/13 31.0 C
PM 09/18/13 33.0 C‐
41 Wolfe Road and Apple Campus Access h D
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Notes: NB = northbound; SB = southbound; EB = eastbound; WB = westbound.
a. This is a CMP intersection within the City of Cupertino. Cupertino applies its own standard of LOS D to CMP intersections.
b. This is a CMP intersection within the City of Sunnyvale. The CMP’s standard of LOS E applies.
c. The City of Sunnyvale is the controlling jurisdiction for the intersection.
d. This is a CMP Intersection on a County Expressway. The CMP and County’s standard of LOS E applies.
e. This is a CMP intersection within the City of Santa Clara. The CMP’s standard of LOS applies.
f. The City of Santa Clara is the controlling jurisdiction for the intersection.
g. The City of San Jose is the controlling jurisdiction for the intersection.
h. This is a future intersection.
Sources: Except as noted below, all volume data is from Fehr & Peers, Apple Campus 2 Draft Transportation Impact Analysis, May 31, 2013.
Volume data for intersections #36 and #38 taken from previous Hexagon studies.
Volume data for intersections #35, #37, #39, and #40 is from new counts conducted for this proposed Project.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
PLACEWORKS 4.13-35
4.13.4.7 EXISTING ROADWAY SEGMENT AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES
In order to better characterize the existing conditions on Cupertino’s arterials and major collectors, 33
roadway segments were selected for 24-hour traffic counts.
The average daily traffic (ADT) was collected on Wednesday, Sept. 18, 2013. Table 4.13-7 presents the
24-hour traffic volume data for each roadway segment, and each roadway segment number is shown on
Figure 4.13-6, which graphically illustrates the traffic volumes, rounded to the nearest thousand.
TABLE 4.13‐7 AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC ON SELECTED ROADWAY SEGMENTS
Segment # Location ADT
1 Foothill Boulevard north of Stevens Creek Boulevard 20,878
2 Stevens Creek Boulevard east of Crescent Road 20,598
3 Bubb Road south of Stevens Creek Boulevard 13,339
4 Stevens Creek Boulevard west of Stelling Road 30,587
5 Stelling Road south of Stevens Creek Boulevard 14,710
6 Stelling Road north of Stevens Creek Boulevard 17,493
7 Stevens Creek Boulevard east of Stelling Road 28,730
8 Homestead Road east of Ontario Drive 18,357
9 De Anza Boulevard south of Bollinger Road 36,756
10 De Anza Boulevard south of Stevens Creek Boulevard 43,216
11 De Anza Boulevard north of Stevens Creek Boulevard 42,455
12 De Anza Boulevard south of Homestead Road 52,676
13 Sunnyvale‐Saratoga Road north of Homestead Road 42,246
14 Bollinger Road east of De Anza Boulevard 15,877
15 Stevens Creek Boulevard east of De Anza Boulevard 30,779
16 Homestead Road east of De Anza Boulevard 24,876
17 Blaney Avenue north of Stevens Creek Boulevard 6,294
18 Stevens Creek Boulevard east of Blaney Avenue 30,348
19 Homestead Road east of Blaney Avenue 22,895
20 Miller Avenue south of Stevens Creek Boulevard 17,379
21 Wolfe Road north of Vallco Pkwy 34,200
22 Wolfe Road south of Homestead Road 31,751
23 Wolfe Road north of Homestead Road 18,825
24 Vallco Parkway east of Wolfe Road 2,917
25 Homestead Road east of Wolfe Road 21,463
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
4.13-36 JUNE 18, 2014
TABLE 4.13‐7 AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC ON SELECTED ROADWAY SEGMENTS
Segment # Location ADT
26 Tantau Avenue north of Vallco Pkwy 6,839
27 Stevens Creek Boulevard east of Tantau Avenue 27,515
28 Bollinger Road east of Johnson Avenue 21,523
29 Lawrence Expy north of Bollinger Road 47,363
30 Lawrence Expy south of Pruneridge Avenue 69,249
31 Stevens Creek Boulevard west of Tantau Avenue 25,476
32 Wolfe Road south of I‐280 NB Ramps (over I‐280) 33,786
33 Homestead Road west of Stelling Road 16,990
Notes: NB = northbound; SB = southbound; EB = eastbound; WB = westbound.
Source: Tube counts conducted on Wed, Sept. 18, 2013 by Hexagon Transportation Consultants.
4.13.4.8 EXISTING FREEWAY LEVELS OF SERVICE
Traffic volumes and level of service for the study freeway segments during the AM and PM peak hours were
obtained from the 2012 CMP Annual Monitoring Report and are listed in Table 4.13-8. As listed below, the
results show that the following study freeway segments currently operate at LOS F in at least one direction
during at least one peak hour:
SR 85
Northbound between De Anza Boulevard and Stevens Creek Boulevard – AM peak hour
Northbound between I-280 and Homestead Road – AM peak hour
HOV lane northbound between I-280 and Homestead Road – AM peak hour
Southbound between I-280 and Stevens Creek Boulevard – PM peak hour
Southbound between Stevens Creek Boulevard and De Anza Boulevard – PM peak hour
I-280
Southbound between Lawrence Expressway and Saratoga Avenue – PM peak hour
Northbound between Saratoga Avenue and Lawrence Expressway – AM peak hour
Northbound between Lawrence Expressway and Wolfe Road – AM peak hour
Northbound between Wolfe Road and De Anza Boulevard – AM peak hour
Northbound between De Anza Boulevard and SR 85 – AM peak hour
Northbound between SR 85 and Foothill Expressway – AM peak hour
HOV lane northbound between Wolfe Road and De Anza Boulevard – AM peak hour
HOV lane northbound between De Anza Boulevard and SR 85 – AM peak hour
HOV lane northbound between SR 85 and Foothill Expressway – AM peak hour
Source: Hexagon Transportation Consultants.
Figure 4.13-6Roadway Segment Volumes
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING PROJECT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
4.13-38 JUNE 18, 2014
TABLE 4.13‐8 EXISTING FREEWAY LEVELS OF SERVICE
Fwy Segment Dir.
Peak
Hour
Mixed‐Flow Lanes HOV Lane Traffic Volume
Avg.
Speed
# of
Lanes Volume Density LOS
Avg.
Speed
# of
Lanes Volume Density LOS
SR 85 Saratoga Ave. to
De Anza Blvd. NB
AM 46 2 4,330 47.1 E 45 1 2,160 48.0 E
PM 66 2 2,910 22.0 C 70 1 420 6.0 A
SR 85 De Anza Blvd. to
Stevens Creek Blvd. NB
AM 19 2 3,200 84.0 F 47 1 2,170 46.2 E
PM 66 2 2,910 22.0 C 70 1 350 5.0 A
SR 85 Stevens Creek Blvd.
to I‐280 NB
AM 66 2 2,640 20.0 C 52 1 2,190 42.1 D
PM 67 2 2,400 17.9 B 70 1 420 6.0 A
SR 85 I‐280 to W.
Homestead Rd. NB
AM 9 2 2,660 123.0 F 9 1 1,080 120.0 F
PM 66 2 3,650 23.0 C 70 1 840 12.0 B
SR 85 W. Homestead Rd.
to I‐280 SB
AM 67 2 2,270 17.1 B 67 1 270 4.0 A
PM 66 2 3,440 26.0 C 70 1 980 14.0 B
SR 85 I‐280 to Stevens
Creek Blvd. SB
AM 67 3 2,880 18.0 B 67 1 610 9.1 A
PM 26 3 4,440 71.0 F 60 1 2,400 40.0 D
SR 85 Stevens Creek Blvd.
to De Anza Blvd. SB
AM 66 2 2,640 20.0 C 67 1 410 6.1 A
PM 16 2 3,010 94.1 F 70 1 2,100 30.0 D
SR 85 De Anza Blvd. to
Saratoga Ave. SB
AM 66 2 2,780 21.1 C 67 1 270 4.0 A
PM 24 2 3,600 75.0 F 70 1 1,820 26.0 C
I‐280 Magdalena Ave. to
Foothill Expwy. SB
AM 66 3 5,510 27.8 D 67 1 940 14.0 B
PM 63 3 6,430 34.0 D 70 1 1,260 18.0 B
I‐280 Foothill Expwy. to
SR 85 SB
AM 65 3 5,850 30.0 D 66 1 1,320 20.0 C
PM 54 3 6,650 41.0 D 70 1 980 14.0 B
I‐280 SR 85 to De Anza
Blvd. SB
AM 66 3 5,150 26.0 D 67 1 1,080 16.1 B
PM 41 3 ,6280 51.0 E 70 1 1,330 19.0 C
I‐280 De Anza Blvd. to
Wolfe Rd. SB
AM 66 3 4,560 23.0 C 67 1 940 14.0 B
PM 39 3 6,210 53.1 E 70 1 2,100 30.0 D
I‐280 Wolfe Rd. to
Lawrence Expwy. SB
AM 66 3 5,150 26.0 D 67 1 810 12.1 B
PM 52 3 6,560 42,1 D 70 1 1,330 19.0 C
I‐280 Lawrence Expwy.
to Saratoga Ave. SB
AM 61 3 6,590 36.0 D 67 1 810 12.1 B
PM 32 3 5,960 62.1 F 60 1 2,220 37.0 D
I‐280 Saratoga Ave. to
Lawrence Expwy. NB
AM 16 3 4,420 92.1 F 36 1 2,060 57.2 E
PM 66 3 5,310 26.8 D 70 1 630 9.0 A
I‐280 Lawrence Expwy. to
Wolfe Rd. NB
AM 17 3 4,590 90.0 F 43 1 2,110 49.1 E
PM 66 3 5,310 26.8 D 70 1 840 12.0 B
I‐280 Wolfe Rd. to De
Anza Blvd. NB
AM 27 3 5,590 69.0 F 33 1 1,980 60.0 F
PM 65 3 5,850 30.0 D 70 1 840 12.0 B
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
PLACEWORKS 4.13-39
TABLE 4.13‐8 EXISTING FREEWAY LEVELS OF SERVICE
Fwy Segment Dir.
Peak
Hour
Mixed‐Flow Lanes HOV Lane Traffic Volume
Avg.
Speed
# of
Lanes Volume Density LOS
Avg.
Speed
# of
Lanes Volume Density LOS
I‐280 De Anza Blvd. to
SR 85 NB
AM 26 3 5,460 70.0 F 3 1 1,980 60.0 F
PM 66 3 4,950 25.,0 C 70 1 350 5.0 A
I‐280 SR 85 to Foothill
Expwy. NB
AM 27 3 5,590 69.0 F 30 1 1,920 64.0 F
PM 65 3 5,660 29.0 D 70 1 490 7.0 A
I‐280 Foothill Expwy. to
Magdalena Ave. NB
AM 59 3 6,550 37.0 D 47 1 2,170 46.0 D
PM 66 3 4,360 22.0 C 70 1 700 10.0 A
Notes: NB = northbound; SB = southbound; EB = eastbound; WB = westbound.
Source: Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Congestion Management Program Monitoring Study, 2012.
4.13.4.9 EXISTING VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED
The VMT refers to Cupertino trips multiplied by the trip distances. Cupertino trips are defined as trips with
one or both "trip ends" in Cupertino. Generally, trips have two ends, in that every trip has an origin and a
destination. As described above under Section 4.13.2.1, Regulatory Setting, the VTA countywide travel
demand model is used to help evaluate cumulative transportation impacts of local land use decisions on the
CMP system. The VMT estimates in the VTA model are sensitive to changes in land use. Generally, land uses
that reflect a more balanced jobs-housing ratio in the VTA model result in lower per capita VMT. The VMT is
also a statistic that is also used in noise and air quality analyses because it provides an indication of the overall
performance of the automobile and truck transportation system within the city. A greater number of VMTs
means more noise and more air pollution. For a discussion of VMT as it relates to air quality and noise, see
Chapter 4.2, Air Quality, and Chapter 4.10, Noise, of this Draft EIR.
The daily (24-hour) VMT were tabulated for existing (2013) conditions using the Santa Clara VTA travel
demand models and for purposes of looking at additional characteristics of trip making, VMT per capita and
VMT by trip orientation were analyzed. VMT Per Capita
The VMT per capita (miles per service population per day) is a commonly used metric. It is represented by
VMT, divided by day population, which is a combination of residential and working population. The existing
VMT and VMT per capita are presented in Table 4.13-9.
Table 4.13‐9 VMT Per Capita
Existing 2013 Conditions
Daily VMT 897,419
Household Units 21,399
Total Population 58,302
Total Jobs 27,387
VMT Per Capita 10.5
Source: Association of Bay Area Government (ABAG) Projections 2013. Hexagon Transportation
Consultants. 2014.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
4.13-40 JUNE 18, 2014
VMT By Trip
Some trips are made to Cupertino from outside the city, and conversely some trips are made from
Cupertino to outside the city. Trip-making is also made within the city. These trip orientations can be
broadly classified as:
Internal-External: when a trip is made from Cupertino to outside the city,
External-Internal: when a trip is made to Cupertino from outside the city, and
Internal-internal: when a trip is made within the city of Cupertino.
Citywide VMT can be divided into these trip orientation categories by tabulating estimates from the Santa
Clara VTA travel demand models. The VMT by trip orientation is presented in Table 4.13-10. As shown in
the table, the VMT is generally balanced with slightly more internal-external than external-internal. The
internal trip-making appears small, but that is largely due to the fact that Cupertino is geographically
compact, and internal trips are short.
TABLE 4.13‐10 DAILY VMT BY TRIP ORIENTATION
Trip Orientation Existing 2013 Conditions Existing VMT Proportions
Total Cupertino VMTa 897,419 100%
Internal‐External VMTb 462,789 51%
External‐Internal VMTc 391,367 44%
Internal‐Internal VMTd 43,263 5%
Notes: Estimate of 2030 VMT is based on the current Comprehensive Plan and on preliminary land use projections.
a. Trips with one trip end outside Cupertino were counted as one trip‐end, whereas trips with both ends in Cupertino were counted as
two trip‐ends.
b. “Internal‐External” VMT refers to VMT generated by trips associated with a home base in Cupertino and a work or non‐work
destination outside Cupertino.
c. “External‐Internal” VMT refers to VMT generated by trips associated with a home base outside Cupertino and a work or non‐work
destination in Cupertino.
d. “Internal‐Internal” VMT refers to VMT generated by trips associated with a home base in Cupertino and a work or non‐work
destination in Cupertino.
Source: Hexagon Transportation Consultants. 2014.
4.13.4.10 2040 NO PROJECT TRAFFIC CONDITIONS AT STUDY
INTERSECTIONS
This section analyzes future traffic conditions at all 41 study intersections under 2040 No Project Traffic
Conditions using the Apple Campus 2 project EIR as a starting point, which projected traffic related to that
project, as well as the following approved and pending projects in Cupertino and neighboring cities.
1. Hewlett Packard/Agilent Technologies
(Office)
2. Downtown Sunnyvale Area Projects (Mixed-
Use)
3. North Santa Clara Area Projects (Mixed-Use)
4. Vallco South Area Projects (Mixed-Use)
5. 10212 and 10165 North De Anza Boulevard
(Retail, Hotel)
6. Villa Serra (Condominiums)
7. PW Market (Retail)
8. 19770 Stevens Creek Boulevard (Retail)
9. De Anza College Expansion (Junior College)
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
PLACEWORKS 4.13-41
10. 10100 North Tantua Avenue (Retail)
11. Cupertino Village (Retail)
12. Oaks Shopping Center (Mixed-Use)
13. 900 Kiely Boulevard (Mixed-Use)
14. Carden Academy - 2499 Homestead Road
(Private School)
15. Main Street Cupertino (Mixed-Use)
16. Crossroads (Mixed-Use)
17. Biltmore (Mixed-Use)
18. 3175 El Camino Real (Apartments)
19. 5403 Stevens Creek Boulevard (Office)
20. Kaiser, 3800 Homestead Road (Medical
Offices)
21. Valley Fair Expansion (Shopping Mall)
22. Apple Cafeteria (Cafeteria)
23. Cupertino Bay Club (Health Club)
24. City of San Jose Projects (Various)
25. Saich Way Station (Mixed-Use)
26. 3515 Monroe Street (Apartments)
27. 2645 El Camino Real (Apartments)
28. 2585 El Camino Real (Condominiums)
In addition, Downtown Sunnyvale Area Projects included Apartments Trips associated with their existing
General Plan that were added to the Apple Campus 2 project analysis files to create the 2040 No Project
conditions. The trips associated with the proposed Project were then added to the 2040 No Project
conditions to describe the impacts of the proposed Project.
The 2040 forecasts of freeway traffic, average daily traffic, and vehicle miles traveled were completed using
the VTA countywide travel demand forecasting model. The VTA model is a mathematical representation of
travel demand based on the buildout of all of the cities within Santa Clara County, including Cupertino. The
model uses socioeconomic data, such as number of jobs and households, for different geographic areas
(transportation analysis zones) to predict the travel from place to place in the future. The model
incorporates current socioeconomic data to predict current traffic volume. Model forecasts are validated by
comparing output to existing vehicle counts for the existing conditions scenario. There are 54 transportation
analysis zones within the model to represent Cupertino. The 2040 socioeconomic data are generated by the
ABAG and refined by VTA. For the 2040 No Project and Project model forecasts, socioeconomic data were
supplied by the Cupertino Planning Department. Table 14.13-11 shows the total jobs and households that
were input into the model for Cupertino and for other nearby cities.
TABLE 4.13‐11 2040 NO PROJECT AND PROJECT MODEL FORECASTS
Cities
Households Jobs
2014 2040 2014 2024
Cupertinoa 21,399 25,820 27,387 44,242
San Jose 318,775 431,916 394,919 522,050
Santa Clara 44,916 57,240 116,873 145,560
Sunnyvale 55,964 72,760 77,371 95,320
a. Cupertino citywide household totals and job totals based on the Project scenario.
Source: ABAG, “One Bay Area: Jobs‐Housing Connection Strategies,” 2013.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
4.13-42 JUNE 18, 2014
2040 No Project Intersection Conditions
This section describes traffic conditions that would occur in 2040 without the adoption of the proposed
Project, as described in Chapter 5.1, No Project Alternative, of this Draft EIR. Therefore, this scenario is
called the “2040 No Project Scenario” and is considered the 2040 baseline condition for comparison with
the proposed Project.
2040 No Project Roadway Network
A number of intersection improvements will be completed before 2040 in association with approval of the
Apple Campus 2 project. The following improvements are included in the 2040 No Project roadway
network.
Wolfe Road and I-280 Northbound Ramps: Add a westbound lane to create two left-turn lanes and two
right-turn lanes.
Tantau Avenue and Vallco Parkway: Add a northbound lane to create one left-turn lane, one through
lane, and one shared through/right-turn lane.
Stevens Creek Boulevard/Calvert Drive/I-280 Ramps (west): Add an exclusive right turn lane to
eastbound Stevens Creek Boulevard.
De Anza Boulevard and Homestead Road: Add an exclusive right-turn lane from southbound De Anza
Boulevard to westbound Homestead Road.
Tantau Avenue and Homestead Road: Add an exclusive right-turn lane from eastbound Homestead Road
to southbound Tantau Avenue.
Tantau Avenue and Stevens Creek Boulevard: Add an exclusive southbound right-turn lane to create one
right-turn lane and two left-turn lanes (through traffic is prohibited).
Stevens Creek Boulevard and Lawrence Expressway Northbound Ramps (east): Add a northbound left-
turn lane and right-turn lane to create two exclusive left-turn lanes, one shared left-turn and through
lane, and one shared through and right-turn lane, and one exclusive right-turn lane.
Lawrence Expressway and I-280 Southbound Ramps: Add an eastbound through lane to create one
shared left-turn and through lane, one exclusive through lane, and one right-turn lane.
Wolfe Road and Vallco Parkway: Modify the striping in the westbound direction to provide two right-
turn lanes, one shared through and left turn lane, and one exclusive left-turn lane. Modify the signal
operation to provide a westbound right turn overlap phase and east-west split phasing.
Wolfe Road and Apple Campus Driveway (#41): Add new signalized intersection to provide access to
the Apple campus.
I-280 Northbound Off-ramp to Wolfe Road: Add a second lane to the off-ramp.
I-280 Southbound Off-ramp to Wolfe Road: Add a second lane to the off-ramp.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
PLACEWORKS 4.13-43
2040 No Project Traffic Volumes
Traffic projections for the 2040 No Project conditions were based on the buildout of the remaining land use
allocations described in Chapter 5.1, No Project Alternative, of this Draft EIR.
2040 No Project Intersection Levels of Service
The results of the LOS analysis under the 2040 No Project conditions are summarized in Table 4.13-9. The
analysis of study intersections was conducted during the same AM (7:00 a.m. – 10:00 a.m.) and PM (4:00
p.m. – 7:00 p.m.) peak hours of traffic analyzed under the existing conditions. The results show that,
measured against the various signalized intersection LOS standards described above in Section 4.13.3,
Methodology and Level of Service Standards, 34 of the 41 study intersections would continue to operate at
acceptable levels of service during the AM and PM peak hours under the 2040 No Project scenario. The
LOS calculation sheets are included in Appendix G, Transportation and Traffic Data, of this Draft EIR.
As shown on Table 4.13-12 and listed below, the results indicate that the following eight (8) study
intersections, shown in bold in Table 4.13-12, would operate at unacceptable levels of service during the AM
peak hour, the PM peak hour or both peak hours under the 2040 No Project conditions. The intersection
number, as used within the Table 4.13-12, is shown in parentheses.
Homestead Road and De Anza Boulevard/Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road (#5): LOS E – PM peak hour
De Anza Boulevard and I-280 Northbound Ramp (#6): LOS E – PM peak hour
De Anza Boulevard and Stevens Creek Boulevard (#8): LOS E- – PM peak hour
De Anza Boulevard and McClellan Road/Pacifica Drive (#9): LOS E – PM peak hour
Wolfe Road and I-280 Northbound Ramp (#18): LOS F – AM peak hour
Wolfe Road/Miller Avenue and Stevens Creek Boulevard (#21): LOS E – PM peak hour
Tantau Avenue and Stevens Creek Boulevard (#27): LOS E+ - PM peal hour
Stevens Creek Boulevard and I-280 SB Ramps/Calvert Drive (#29): LOS F – PM peak hour
The level of service of these intersections are bold and underlined in Table 4.13-12.
TABLE 4.13‐12 2040 NO PROJECT AM AND PM PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE RESULTS
Study
Intersection Intersection
LOS
Standard
Peak
Hour
Average
Delay
No Project
LOS
1 SR 85 SB Ramps and Stevens Creek Boulevarda D
AM 29.2 C
PM 29.1 C
2 SR 85 NB Ramps and Stevens Creek Boulevarda D
AM 51.1 D‐
PM 20.9 C+
3 Stelling Road and Stevens Creek Boulevarda E+
AM 46.2 D
PM 52.9 D‐
4 Sunnyvale‐Saratoga Road and Fremont Avenueb E
AM 42.8 D
PM 52.5 D‐
5 Sunnyvale‐Saratoga Road/De Anza Boulevard and
Homestead Roada D
AM 51.2 D‐
PM 66.1 E
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
4.13-44 JUNE 18, 2014
TABLE 4.13‐12 2040 NO PROJECT AM AND PM PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE RESULTS
Study
Intersection Intersection
LOS
Standard
Peak
Hour
Average
Delay
No Project
LOS
6 De Anza Boulevard and I‐280 NB Rampa D
AM 46.4 D
PM 71.7 E
7 De Anza Boulevard and I‐280 SB Rampa D
AM 47.0 D
PM 35.3 D+
8 De Anza Boulevard and Stevens Creek Boulevarda E+
AM 45.8 D
PM 76.2 E‐
9 De Anza Boulevard and McClellan Road/Pacifica Drive D
AM 33.0 C‐
PM 70.7 E
10 De Anza Boulevard and Bollinger Roada E+
AM 44.0 D
PM 25.1 C
11 De Anza Boulevard and SR 85 NB Rampa D
AM 32.9 C‐
PM 16.4 B
12 De Anza Boulevard and SR 85 SB Rampa D
AM 23.9 C
PM 22.2 B‐
13 Blaney Avenue and Homestead Road D
AM 34.9 C‐
PM 16.4 B
14 Wolfe Road and El Camino Real (SR 82)b E
AM 47.6 D
PM 51.8 D‐
15 Wolfe Road and Fremont Avenuec E
AM 45.8 D
PM 51.8 D‐
16 Wolfe Road and Homestead Road D
AM 36.3 D+
PM 51.9 D‐
17 Wolfe Road and Pruneridge Avenue D
AM 17.0 B
PM 26.9 C
18 Wolfe Road and I‐280 NB Rampa D
AM 88.3 F
PM 36.5 D+
19 Wolfe Road and I‐280 SB Rampa D
AM 38.9 D+
PM 24.7 C
20 Wolfe Road and Vallco Pkwy D
AM 26.4 C
PM 51.2 D‐
21 Wolfe Road/Miller Avenue and Stevens Creek
Boulevarda D
AM 46.5 D
PM 72.2 E
22 Miller Avenue and Bollinger Road g D
AM 42.0 D
PM 44.2 D
23 Finch Avenue and Stevens Creek Boulevard D
AM 26.6 C
PM 41.8 D
24 North Tantau Avenue/Quail Avenue and Homestead
Road D
AM 49.6 D
PM 43.6 D
25 North Tantau Avenue and Pruneridge Avenue D
AM 29.2 C
PM 16.6 B
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
PLACEWORKS 4.13-45
TABLE 4.13‐12 2040 NO PROJECT AM AND PM PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE RESULTS
Study
Intersection Intersection
LOS
Standard
Peak
Hour
Average
Delay
No Project
LOS
26 North Tantau Avenue and Vallco Pkwy D
AM 29.2 C
PM 34.6 C‐
27 Tantau Avenue and Stevens Creek Boulevard D
AM 47.4 D
PM 56.8 E+
28 Lawrence Expressway and Homestead Roadd E
AM 59.0 E+
PM 58.0 E+
29 I‐280 SB Ramp and Stevens Creek Boulevarde E
AM 34.8 C‐
PM 84.9 F
30 Agilent Tech Driveway and Stevens Creek Boulevardf D
AM 52.9 D‐
PM 29.8 C
31 Lawrence Expressway SB Ramp and Stevens Creek
Boulevardd E
AM 72.8 E
PM 29.9 C
32 Lawrence Expressway NB Ramp and Stevens Creek
Boulevardd E
AM 53.9 D‐
PM 30.1 C
33 Lawrence Expressway and Calvert Drive/I‐280 SB Rampd E
AM 48.6 D
PM 50.6 D
34 Lawrence Expressway and Bollinger Road/Moorpark
Avenued E
AM 60.5 E
PM 46.0 D
35 De Anza Boulevard and Rainbow Drive (south) D
AM 20.2 C+
PM 19.2 B‐
36 Bubb Road/Peninsula Boulevard and Stevens Creek
Boulevard D
AM 31.0 C
PM 31.1 C
37 North Stelling Road/Hollenbeck Avenue and Homestead
Road D
AM 38.5 D+
PM 43.6 D
38 Blaney Avenue and Stevens Creek Boulevard D
AM 34.1 C‐
PM 40.0 D
39 Foothill Boulevard and Stevens Creek Boulevard D
AM 48.7 D
PM 25.2 C
40 Stelling Road and McClellan Road D
AM 32.1 C‐
PM 35.6 D+
41 Wolfe Road and Apple Campus Access h D
AM 18.9 B‐
PM 36.8 D+
Notes: Notes: NB = northbound; SB = southbound; EB = eastbound; WB = westbound. Bold and underlined indicates a substandard level of service.
a. This is a CMP intersection within the City of Cupertino. Cupertino applies its own standard of LOS D to CMP intersections.
b. This is a CMP intersection within the City of Sunnyvale. The CMP’s standard of LOS E applies.
c. The City of Sunnyvale is the controlling jurisdiction for the intersection.
d. This is a CMP Intersection on a County Expressway. The CMP and County’s standard of LOS E applies.
e. This is a CMP intersection within the City of Santa Clara. The CMP’s standard of LOS applies.
f. The City of Santa Clara is the controlling jurisdiction for the intersection.
g. The City of San Jose is the controlling jurisdiction for the intersection.
h. This is a future intersection.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
4.13-46 JUNE 18, 2014
4.13.5 THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
According to Appendix G, Environmental Checklist, of the CEQA Guidelines, the proposed Project would
have a significant impact with regard to transportation and traffic, if it would:
1. Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the
performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass
transit and non-motorized travel, and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not
limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit.
2. Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to, LOS
standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads or highways.
3. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in
location that results in substantial safety risks.
4. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment).
5. Result in inadequate emergency access.
6. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian
facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities.
4.13.5.1 THRESHOLDS NOT DISCUSSED FURTHER
With regards to Threshold 3, as discussed under Section 4.13.4.4, Existing Aviation Facilities, the Project
Study Area is not located near any airports, approach, or departure zones, and development within the city
boundary would be expected to have no impact to air traffic; therefore, no further discussion on impacts to
aviation facilities is warranted in this Draft EIR.
Average daily traffic on selected Cupertino roadways and vehicle miles traveled are additional measures of
transportation system performance that are included in this section of the EIR. The City of Cupertino and
other relevant agencies (San Jose, Santa Clara, Sunnyvale, VTA, Caltrans) do not have guidelines, standards,
or definitions of impact for these measures. Therefore, they are included for informational purposes only.
4.13.5.2 INTERSECTION IMPACT CRITERIA
Significance criteria are used to establish what constitutes an impact by a project. In addition to the above
Appendix G, Environmental Checklist, State CEQA Guidelines, the following impact criteria for the city
and surrounding jurisdictions were used to evaluate the effects of the proposed Project.
City of Cupertino and Neighboring Cities
The LOS standard for signalized intersections in the City of Cupertino is LOS D or better at City-
controlled intersections, except at the following three intersections:
Stelling Road and Stevens Creek Boulevard (#3)
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
PLACEWORKS 4.13-47
De Anza Boulevard and Stevens Creek Boulevard (#8)
De Anza Boulevard and Bollinger Road (#10)
The threshold for these three intersections is LOS E+, with no more than 60 seconds of weighted average
control delay.
According to City of Cupertino standards, a project is said to create a significant adverse impact on traffic
conditions at a signalized intersection if, for either peak hour:
The LOS at the intersection drops below its respective LOS standard (LOS D except at three specified
intersections) when project traffic is added, or
An intersection that operates below its LOS standard under no project conditions experiences an
increase in critical-movement delay of four or more seconds, and the volume-to-capacity ratio (V/C) is
increased by 0.01 or more when project traffic is added, or
The V/C ratio is to increase by 0.01 or more at an intersection with unacceptable operations (LOS E or
F) when the change in critical delay is negative (decreases). This can occur if the critical movements
change.
A significant impact is said to be satisfactorily mitigated when measures are implemented that would restore
intersection conditions to its LOS standard or to an average delay better than No Project conditions.
The neighboring cities of Sunnyvale, Santa Clara and San Jose also use this standard of significance. As
described in Section 4.13.3, Methodology and Level of Service Standards, each of these cities has also
established LOS D as their LOS standard with the following exceptions:
City of Sunnyvale: LOS E threshold for CMP intersections and all regionally significant corridors,
including El Camino Real and Sunnyvale-Saratoga Road.
City of Santa Clara: LOS E threshold for CMP intersections and expressway intersections.
Santa Clara VTA
The LOS standard for CMP and expressway intersections is LOS E. (As noted above, however, the City of
Cupertino applies its own LOS standard of D to CMP intersections within its jurisdiction.) Traffic impacts
at CMP and Expressway intersections would occur when the addition of traffic associated with
implementation of the proposed Project causes:
Intersection operations to deteriorate from an acceptable level (LOS E or better) to an unacceptable
level (LOS F);
Exacerbation of unacceptable operations by increasing the average critical delay by more than four
seconds and increasing the critical volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratio by 0.01 or more at an intersection
operation at LOS F; or
The V/C ratio to increase by 0.01 or more at an intersection with unacceptable operations (LOS F)
when the change in critical delay is negative (i.e. decreases). This can occur if the critical movements
change.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
4.13-48 JUNE 18, 2014
4.13.5.3 FREEWAY IMPACT CRITERIA
The LOS standard for CMP freeway segments is LOS E. Traffic impacts on a CMP freeway segment occur
when:
The level of service of the freeway segment is LOS F under existing conditions, and
The number of new trips added by the project is more than 1 percent of the freeway capacity.
4.13.5.4 PEDESTRIAN IMPACT CRITERIA
The current General Plan for the City of Cupertino identifies existing pedestrian networks and identifies
improvements and/or related policies necessary to ensure that these facilities are safe and effective for
Cupertino residents and employees. Using the current General Plan as a guide, significant impacts to
pedestrian facilities would occur when a project or an element of a project:
Degrades or diminishes existing pedestrian facilities, or otherwise interferes with pedestrian
accessibility to the site and adjoining areas;
Creates a substantial increase in demand for pedestrian facilities where none currently exist or creates
conditions that would lead to overcrowding on existing facilities;
Conflicts with an existing or planned pedestrian facility;
Conflicts with policies related to pedestrian activity adopted by the City of Cupertino for its pedestrian
facilities.
4.13.5.5 BICYCLE IMPACT CRITERIA
The current General Plan and 2011 Bicycle Transportation Plan for the City of Cupertino identify existing
and planned bicycle networks, and improvements and/or related policies necessary to ensure that these
facilities are safe and effective for Cupertino residents and employees. Using the current General Plan as a
guide, significant impacts to bicycle facilities would occur when a project or an element of a project:
Creates a challenging condition that currently does not exist for bicyclists, or otherwise interferes with
bicycle accessibility to the site and adjoining areas;
Creates a substantial increase in demand for bicycle facilities where none currently exist or creates
conditions that would lead to overcrowding on existing facilities;
Conflicts with an existing or planned bicycle facility; or
Conflicts with policies related to bicycle activity adopted by the City of Cupertino for bicycle facilities
in the Project Area.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
PLACEWORKS 4.13-49
4.13.5.6 TRANSIT IMPACT CRITERIA
Significant impacts to transit service would occur if the proposed Project or any part of the proposed
Project:
Creates a substantial increase in transit demand that could not be accommodated by existing or planned
transit capacity, measured by comparing the expected transit capacity with the expected demand for
transit service;
Causes a substantial increase in delay to transit vehicles;
Reduces transit availability or interferes with existing transit users on a permanent or temporary basis;
or
Conflicts with transit policies adopted by the cities of Cupertino, Sunnyvale, San Jose, Santa Clara,
Saratoga, Santa Clara County, VTA, or Caltrans for their respective facilities.
4.13.6 IMPACT DISCUSSION
This section analyzes potential impacts of the proposed Project on transportation and traffic.
TRAF-1 Implementation of the proposed 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.
This impact discussion focuses on vehicular transportation. Impacts related to other modes of transportation
are discussed under Impact TRAF-5 below.
Intersection Levels of Service
This section describes the traffic conditions that would result with the addition of the trips generated by the
development under the proposed Project on the local roadway network, compared to traffic conditions with
the 2040 No Project scenario. The roadway network is assumed to be the same as under the 2040 No
Project scenario.
The results of the LOS analysis under the proposed Project scenario compared to the 2040 No Project
scenario are presented in Table 4.13-13. The results show that, of the 41 study intersections, 26
intersections would operate at an acceptable level of service under the proposed Project, and 16
intersections would operate at an unacceptable level of service during the AM peak hour, the PM peak hour,
or both peak hours.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
4.13-50 JUNE 18, 2014
Five (5) of the sixteen (16) intersections that would operate at an unacceptable level of service for at least
one peak hour under the proposed Project were also predicted to operate at an unacceptable level of service
under the No Project scenario.
The intersections that would operate at an unacceptable level of service are bolded and underlined in Table
4.13-13. All other study intersections would continue to operate at acceptable levels of service under the
proposed Project conditions. The LOS calculation sheets are included in Appendix G, Transportation and
Traffic Data, of this Draft EIR.
TABLE 4.13‐13 PROPOSED PROJECT INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE TABLE
# Intersection
LOS
Standard
Peak
Hour
No Project Proposed Project
Avg.
Delay LOS
Avg.
Delay LOS
Change in
Crit. V/C
Change in
Crit. Delay
1 SR 85 SB Ramps and Stevens
Creek Blvd.a D
AM 29.2 C 31.9 C 0.127 4.6
PM 29.1 C 32.2 C‐ 0.103 4.4
2 SR 85 NB Ramps and Stevens
Creek Blvd.a D
AM 51.1 D‐ 65.1 E 0.084 25.3
PM 20.9 C+ 21.5 C+ 0.110 2.2
3 Stelling Rd. and Stevens Creek
Blvd.a E+
AM 46.2 D 47.7 D 0.050 ‐0.7
PM 52.9 D‐ 88.2 F 0.240 71.7
4 Sunnyvale‐Saratoga Rd. and
Fremont Ave.b E
AM 42.8 D 44.5 D 0.054 3.1
PM 52.5 D‐ 63.0 E 0.075 17.6
5 Sunnyvale‐Saratoga Rd./De
Anza Blvd. and Homestead Rd.a D
AM 51.2 D‐ 101.5 F 0.273 88.4
PM 66.1 E 181.4 F 0.486 214.8
6 De Anza Blvd. and I‐280 NB
Rampa D
AM 46.4 D 100.0 F 0.393 170.6
PM 71.7 E 162.2 F 0.623 274.1
7 De Anza Blvd. and I‐280 SB
Rampa D
AM 47.0 D 110.9 F 0.345 142.6
PM 35.3 D+ 99.9 F 0.550 237.3
8 De Anza Blvd. and Stevens
Creek Blvd.a E+
AM 45.8 D 53.6 D‐ 0.079 10.8
PM 76.2 E‐ 160.4 F 0.445 188.9
9
De Anza Blvd. and McClellan
Rd./
Pacifica Dr.
D
AM 33.0 C‐ 39.3 D 0.138 9.3
PM 70.7 E 108.8 F 0.153 57.3
10 De Anza Blvd. and Bollinger Rd.a E+
AM 44.0 D 51.4 D‐ 0.067 10.7
PM 25.1 C 22.6 C+ 0.029 ‐1.3
11 De Anza Blvd. and SR 85 NB
Rampa D
AM 32.9 C‐ 37.6 D+ 0.099 5.9
PM 16.4 B 27.8 C 0.130 18.2
12 De Anza Blvd. and SR 85 SB
Rampa D
AM 23.9 C 26.2 C 0.063 3.6
PM 22.2 C+ 29.5 C 0.148 13.7
13 Blaney Ave. and Homestead Rd. D
AM 34.9 C‐ 52.9 D‐ 0.205 26.5
PM 16.4 B 25.0 C 0.187 10.7
14 Wolfe Rd. and El Camino Real
(SR 82)b E
AM 47.6 D 48.0 D 0.016 0.7
PM 51.8 D‐ 53.2 D‐ 0.027 1.4
15 Wolfe Rd. and Fremont Ave.c E
AM 45.8 D 47.4 D 0.045 ‐1.5
PM 51.8 D‐ 59.3 E+ 0.060 7.1
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
PLACEWORKS 4.13-51
TABLE 4.13‐13 PROPOSED PROJECT INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE TABLE
# Intersection
LOS
Standard
Peak
Hour
No Project Proposed Project
Avg.
Delay LOS
Avg.
Delay LOS
Change in
Crit. V/C
Change in
Crit. Delay
16 Wolfe Rd. and Homestead Rd. D
AM 36.3 D+ 39.6 D 0.094 4.7
PM 51.9 D‐ 105.2 F 0.224 77.2
17 Wolfe Rd. and Pruneridge Ave. D
AM 17.0 B 32.0 C 0.204 18.8
PM 26.9 C 43.2 D 0.118 20.6
18 Wolfe Rd. and I‐280 NB Rampa D
AM 88.3 F 113.2 F 0.100 44.0
PM 36.5 D+ 70.3 E 0.146 57.9
19 Wolfe Rd. and I‐280 SB Rampa D
AM 38.9 D+ 86.0 F 0.175 69.9
PM 24.7 C 85.7 F 0.230 84.9
20 Wolfe Rd. and Vallco Pkwy D
AM 26.4 C 31.1 C 0.113 5.9
PM 51.2 D‐ 50.1 D ‐0.011 ‐3.4
21 Wolfe Rd./Miller Ave. and
Stevens Creek Blvd.a D
AM 46.5 D 57.8 E+ 0.114 16.5
PM 72.2 E 54.6 D‐ ‐0.072 ‐22.4
22 Miller Ave. and Bollinger Rd. g D
AM 42.0 D 42.6 D 0.019 1.0
PM 44.2 D 49.3 D 0.046 8.1
23 Finch Ave. and Stevens Creek
Blvd. D
AM 26.6 C 23.1 C 0.195 ‐1.1
PM 41.8 D 46.6 D 0.032 3.5
24 North Tantau Ave./Quail Ave.
and Homestead Rd. D
AM 49.6 D 67.7 E 0.130 28.4
PM 43.6 D 56.7 E+ 0.107 18.5
25 North Tantau Ave. and
Pruneridge Ave. D
AM 29.2 C 31.1 C 0.050 ‐8.0
PM 16.6 B 17.4 B 0.032 1.3
26 North Tantau Ave. and Vallco
Pkwy D
AM 29.2 C 31.4 C 0.135 13.9
PM 34.6 C‐ 37.5 D+ 0.034 2.8
27 Tantau Ave. and Stevens Creek
Blvd. D
AM 47.4 D 58.1 E+ 0.134 15.2
PM 56.8 E+ 85.3 F 0.136 41.7
28 Lawrence Expressway and
Homestead Rd.d E
AM 59.0 E+ 62.9 E 0.022 6.5
PM 58.0 E+ 66.9 E 0.032 10.7
29 I‐280 SB Ramp and Stevens
Creek Blvd.e E
AM 34.8 C‐ 63.1 E 0.136 42.8
PM 84.9 F 118.3 F 0.159 70.4
30 Agilent Tech Drive Way and
Stevens Creek Blvd.f D
AM 52.9 D‐ 82.9 F 0.096 37.6
PM 29.8 C 30.1 C ‐0.008 ‐0.1
31 Lawrence Expressway SB Ramp
and Stevens Creek Blvd.d E
AM 72.8 E 112.4 F 0.126 52.3
PM 29.9 C 29.9 C ‐0.012 ‐0.6
32 Lawrence Expressway NB Ramp
and Stevens Creek Blvd.d E
AM 53.9 D‐ 89.4 F 0.142 52.3
PM 30.1 C 29.8 C 0.016 0.7
33 Lawrence Expressway and
Calvert Dr./I‐280 SB Rampd E
AM 48.6 D 54.3 D‐ 0.026 7.0
PM 50.6 D 65.1 E 0.062 21.9
34 Lawrence Expressway and
Bollinger Rd./Moorpark Ave.d E
AM 60.5 E 62.8 E 0.014 3.5
PM 46.0 D 46.0 D ‐0.005 0.5
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
4.13-52 JUNE 18, 2014
TABLE 4.13‐13 PROPOSED PROJECT INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE TABLE
# Intersection
LOS
Standard
Peak
Hour
No Project Proposed Project
Avg.
Delay LOS
Avg.
Delay LOS
Change in
Crit. V/C
Change in
Crit. Delay
35 De Anza Blvd. and Rainbow Dr.
(south) D
AM 20.2 C+ 19.5 B‐ 0.036 ‐0.4
PM 19.2 B‐ 18.8 B‐ 0.061 0.3
36 Bubb Rd./Peninsula Blvd. and
Stevens Creek Blvd. D
AM 31.0 C 31.9 C 0.107 2.3
PM 31.1 C 33.8 C‐ 0.104 2.7
37
North Stelling Rd./
Hollenbeck Ave. and
Homestead Rd.
D
AM 38.5 D+ 39.9 D 0.072 4.8
PM 43.6 D 44.4 D 0.036 2.9
38 Blaney Ave. and Stevens Creek
Blvd. D
AM 34.1 C‐ 40.9 D 0.194 11.9
PM 40.0 D 43.5 D 0.115 14.4
39 Foothill Blvd. and Stevens Creek
Blvd. D
AM 48.7 D 48.9 D 0.011 1.8
PM 25.2 C 26.3 C 0.024 0.4
40 Stelling Rd. and McClellan Rd. D
AM 32.1 C‐ 32.4 C‐ ‐0.001 0.0
PM 35.6 D+ 36.6 D+ 0.014 1.8
41 Wolfe Rd. and Apple Campus
Access h D
AM 18.9 B‐ 22.8 C+ 0.069 9.1
PM 36.8 D+ 48.2 D 0.077 12.2
Notes: Notes: NB = northbound; SB = southbound; EB = eastbound; WB = westbound. Bold and underlined indicates a substandard level of service.
Bold, underlined, and shaded in gray indicates a significant project impact
a. This is a CMP intersection within the City of Cupertino. Cupertino applies its own standard of LOS D to CMP intersections.
b. This is a CMP intersection within the City of Sunnyvale. The CMP’s standard of LOS E applies.
c. The City of Sunnyvale is the controlling jurisdiction for the intersection.
d. This is a CMP Intersection on a County Expressway. The CMP and County’s standard of LOS E applies.
e. This is a CMP intersection within the City of Santa Clara. The CMP’s standard of LOS applies.
f. The City of Santa Clara is the controlling jurisdiction for the intersection.
g. The City of San Jose is the controlling jurisdiction for the intersection.
h. This is a future intersection.
As shown in Table 4.13-13, above, the proposed Project would result in significant impacts to seventeen
(17) intersections during at least one of the peak hours.
SR 85 Northbound Ramps and Stevens Creek Boulevard (#2): LOS E – AM Peak Hour
Stelling Road and Stevens Creek Boulevard (#3): LOS F – PM Peak Hour
Sunnyvale-Saratoga Road/De Anza Boulevard and Homestead Road (#5): LOS F – AM and PM Peak
Hours
De Anza Boulevard and I-280 Northbound Ramp (#6): LOS F – AM and PM Peak Hours
De Anza Boulevard and I-280 Southbound Ramp (#7): LOS F – AM and PM Peak Hours
De Anza Boulevard and Stevens Creek Boulevard (#8): LOS F – PM Peak Hour
De Anza Boulevard and McClellan Road/Pacifica Drive (#9): LOS F – PM Peak Hour
Wolfe Road and Homestead Road (#16): LOS F – PM Peak Hour
Wolfe Road and I-280 Northbound Ramp (#18): LOS F – AM Peak Hour
Wolfe Road and I-280 Southbound Ramp (#19): LOS F – AM and PM Peak Hours
Stevens Creek Boulevard and Wolfe Road/Miller Avenue (#21): LOS E+ AM Peak Hour
North Tantau Avenue/Quail Avenue and Homestead Road (#24): LOS E – AM Peak Hour and E+ –
PM Peak Hour
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
PLACEWORKS 4.13-53
Stevens Creek Boulevard and Tantau Avenue (#27): LOS F – PM Peak Hour
Stevens Creek Boulevard and I-280 SB Ramps/Calvert Drive (#29): LOS F – PM Peak Hour
Agilent Tech Drive Way and Stevens Creek Boulevard (#30): LOS F - AM Peak Hour
Lawrence Expressway Southbound Ramp and Stevens Creek Boulevard (#31): LOS F – AM Peak Hour
Stevens Creek Boulevard and Lawrence Expressway Northbound Ramp (#32): LOS F – AM Peak Hour
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure TRAF-1: The City of Cupertino shall commit to preparing and implementing a
Traffic 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 Traffic 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 proposed Project. The established procedures under AB 1600 require that a
"reasonable relationship" or nexus exist between the traffic improvements and facilities required to
mitigate the traffic impacts of new development pursuant to the proposed Project. The following
examples of traffic 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 (#2): 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 (#3): 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 (#5): 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 (#6): 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. Painting a bike box at the front of the lane to provide space for bikes wait at red lights
may enhance the bicycle experience.
De Anza Boulevard and Stevens Creek Boulevard (#8): 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.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
4.13-54 JUNE 18, 2014
De Anza Boulevard and McClellan Road/Pacifica Drive (#9): Realign the intersection
that is currently offset resulting in inefficient signal timing such that the McClellan Road and
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): An additional northbound through lane for
a total of three through-movement lanes may be required. This will require widening the Wolfe
Road overcrossing. The lane needs to be extended north of the interchange so that there are a
continuous three lanes northbound. Right-of-way acquisition may be required. 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 heavy volumes in the right lane,
which contributes to the level-of-service deficiency.
Wolfe Road and I-280 Southbound Ramp (#19): An additional through lane for a total of
three through-movement lanes for the northbound leg of the intersection at the Wolfe Road and I-
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.
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-
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
PLACEWORKS 4.13-55
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 I-280 SB Ramps/Calvert Drive (#29): Make the eastbound
to southbound right turn a free movement. This would require building an island and separating the
right turn from signal control. It also would require building a third southbound lane on Calvert
Drive to receive the right turn traffic.
Stevens Creek Boulevard and Agilent Technologies Driveway (#30): 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.
While implementation of Mitigation Measure TRAF-1 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, 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 under the jurisdictions of the Cities of
Sunnyvale and Santa Clara and Caltrans. Specifically, the following intersections are outside the jurisdiction
of Cupertino:
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
4.13-56 JUNE 18, 2014
SR 85 Northbound Ramps and Stevens Creek Boulevard (#2)
De Anza Boulevard and I-280 Northbound Ramp (#6)
Wolfe Road and Homestead Road (#16)
Wolfe Road and I-280 Northbound Ramp (#18)
Wolfe Road and I-280 Southbound Ramp (#19)
North Tantau Avenue/Quail Avenue and Homestead Road (#24)
Stevens Creek Boulevard and Agilent Technologies Driveway (#30)
Lawrence Expressway Southbound Ramp and Stevens Creek Boulevard (CMP, County)(#31)
Lawrence Expressway Northbound Ramp and Stevens Creek Boulevard (CMP, County) (#32)
However, 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.
Significance With Mitigation: Significant and Unavoidable.
Roadway Segments Average Daily Volumes
In order to better characterize the existing conditions on Cupertino’s arterials and major collectors, 33
roadway segments were selected for evaluation under 2040 conditions. Figure 4.13-1 above in Section
4.13.1, Study Intersections and Roadway Segments, showed each roadway segment number, and Figure
4.13-6 above in Section 4.13.4, Existing Conditions and Environmental Setting, graphically illustrated the
existing traffic volumes on these roadway segments, rounded to the nearest thousand. Table 4.13-14
presents the existing 24-hour traffic volume data (Average Daily Traffic, or ADT) for each roadway segment,
as well as ADT under No Project conditions, and under the proposed Project Conditions. Cupertino does
not have level of service analysis methodologies, standards, or thresholds of significance for roadway
segments. Therefore, the ADT projections for the future scenarios are presented for informational purposes.
Any project impacts to traffic operations are fully captured by the intersection analysis.
TABLE 4.13‐14 AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC ON SELECTED ROADWAY SEGMENTS UNDER THE PROPOSED PROJECT
Segment # Location
Existing
ADT
2040 Forecast Volume
No
Project
Proposed
Project
1 Foothill Blvd. north of Stevens Creek Blvd. 20,878 24,183 25,445
2 Stevens Creek Blvd. east of Crescent Rd. 29,371 34,689 34,183
3 Bubb Rd. south of Stevens Creek Blvd. 13,339 16,436 18,336
4 Stevens Creek Blvd. west of Stelling Rd. 30,587 30,404 32,978
5 Stelling Rd. south of Stevens Creek Blvd. 14,710 29,485 30,840
6 Stelling Rd. north of Stevens Creek Blvd. 17,493 23,644 26,330
7 Stevens Creek Blvd. east of Stelling Rd. 28,730 39,569 43,123
8 Homestead Rd. east of Ontario Dr. 18,357 20,246 25,532
9 De Anza Blvd. south of Bollinger Rd. 36,756 46,073 48,394
10 De Anza Blvd. south of Stevens Creek Blvd. 43,216 52,030 54,672
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
PLACEWORKS 4.13-57
TABLE 4.13‐14 AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC ON SELECTED ROADWAY SEGMENTS UNDER THE PROPOSED PROJECT
Segment # Location
Existing
ADT
2040 Forecast Volume
No
Project
Proposed
Project
11 De Anza Blvd. north of Stevens Creek Blvd. 42,455 53,221 57,004
12 De Anza Blvd. south of Homestead Rd. 52,676 53,666 53,915
13 Sunnyvale‐Saratoga Rd. north of Homestead Rd. 42,246 47,833 47,528
14 Bollinger Rd. east of De Anza Blvd. 15,877 20,202 21,434
15 Stevens Creek Blvd. east of De Anza Blvd. 30,779 41,803 46,177
16 Homestead Rd. east of De Anza Blvd. 24,876 35,070 36,793
17 Blaney Ave. north of Stevens Creek Blvd. 6,294 8,677 9,390
18 Stevens Creek Blvd. east of Blaney Ave. 30,348 42,549 48,125
19 Homestead Rd. east of Blaney Ave. 22,895 32,807 34,725
20 Miller Ave. south of Stevens Creek Blvd. 17,379 26,621 30,251
21 Wolfe Rd. north of Vallco Pkwy. 34,200 45,606 52,241
22 Wolfe Rd. south of Homestead Rd. 31,751 41,655 42,936
23 Wolfe Rd. north of Homestead Rd. 18,825 31,744 33,265
24 Vallco Parkway east of Wolfe Rd. 2,917 3,947 17,416
25 Homestead Rd. east of Wolfe Rd. 10,481 21,456 22,481
26 Tantau Ave. north of Vallco Pkwy. 6,839 9,708 11,887
27 Stevens Creek Blvd. east of Tantau Ave. 27,515 32,208 35,143
28 Bollinger Rd. east of Johnson Ave. 11,164 23,374 24,256
29 Lawrence Expy north of Bollinger Rd. 23,577 42,606 45,589
30 Lawrence Expy south of Pruneridge Ave. 69,249 87,142 91,934
31 Stevens Creek Blvd. west of Tantau Ave. 25,476 34,543 35,430
32 Wolfe Rd. south of I‐280 NB Ramps (over 280) 36,190 44,547 49,730
33 Homestead Rd. west of Stelling Rd. 16,990 22,541 24,453
Source: Tube counts conducted on Wed, Sept. 18, 2013. Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Freeway Levels of Service
Ten freeway segments were selected for analysis under 2040 conditions. As described in Section 4.13.5.1,
Intersection Impact Criteria, the addition of project traffic causes a traffic impact on a CMP freeway
segment when:
The LOS of the freeway segment is LOS F under existing conditions, and
The number of new trips added by the project is more than one percent of the freeway capacity.
Table 4.13-15 presents the daily capacity of both the mixed-flow lanes and the High Occupancy Vehicle
(HOV) lanes on each of the study freeway segments. Since daily LOS is not available for freeway segments,
the lowest of the two peak-hour LOS levels, as reported in VTA’s 2012 CMP Monitoring Study, is also
shown.
GE
N
E
R
A
L
P
L
A
N
A
M
E
N
D
M
E
N
T
,
H
O
U
S
I
N
G
E
L
E
M
E
N
T
U
P
D
A
T
E
,
A
N
D
A
S
S
O
C
I
A
T
E
D
R
E
Z
O
N
I
N
G
D
R
A
F
T
E
I
R
CI
T
Y
O
F
C
U
P
E
R
T
I
N
O
TR
A
N
S
P
O
R
T
A
T
I
O
N
A
N
D
T
R
A
F
F
I
C
4.
1
3
-
5
8
JUNE 18, 2014
TAB
L
E
4.
1
3
‐15
DAI
L
Y
FRE
E
W
A
Y
SEG
M
E
N
T
IMP
A
C
T
ANA
L
Y
S
I
S
UN
D
E
R
PRO
P
O
S
E
D
PRO
J
E
C
T
Fw
y
Se
g
m
e
n
t
Di
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
Mi
x
e
d
‐Fl
o
w
La
n
e
HOV Lane
# of
La
n
e
s
Da
i
l
y
Ca
p
a
c
i
t
y
(v
e
h
i
c
l
e
)
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
LO
S
a
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Tr
i
p
s
%
Ca
p
a
c
i
t
y
Im
p
a
c
t
?
# of
La
n
e
s
Ca
p
a
c
i
t
y
(v
p
h
)
Da
i
l
y
Ca
p
a
c
i
t
y
(v
e
h
i
c
l
e
)
Existing LOSa Project Trips % CapacityImpact?
SR
85
Sa
r
a
t
o
g
a
Av
e
to
De
An
z
a
Bl
v
d
NB
2
44
,
0
0
0
E
34
3
0.
8
%
No
1
1,
6
5
0
16
,
5
0
0
E 37 0.2% No
SR
85
De
An
z
a
Bl
v
d
to
St
e
v
e
n
s
Cr
e
e
k
Bl
v
d
NB
2
44
,
0
0
0
F
32
2
0.
7
%
No
1
1,
6
5
0
16
,
5
0
0
E 1 0.0% No
SR
85
St
e
v
e
n
s
Cr
e
e
k
Bl
v
d
to
I‐28
0
NB
2
44
,
0
0
0
C
47
1
1.
1
%
No
1
1,
6
5
0
16
,
5
0
0
D 5 0.0% No
SR
85
I‐28
0
to
W.
Ho
m
e
s
t
e
a
d
Rd
NB
2
44
,
0
0
0
F ‐
72
0
‐
1.
6
%
No
1
1,
6
5
0
16
,
5
0
0
F 58 0.4% No
SR
85
W.
Ho
m
e
s
t
e
a
d
Rd
to
I‐28
0
SB
2
44
,
0
0
0
C ‐
64
4
‐
1.
5
%
No
1
1,
6
5
0
16
,
5
0
0
B 27 0.2% No
SR
85
I‐28
0
to
St
e
v
e
n
s
Cr
e
e
k
Bl
v
d
SB
3
69
,
0
0
0
F
1,
8
6
2
2.
7
%
Ye
s
1
1,
6
5
0
16
,
5
0
0
D 135 0.8% No
SR
85
St
e
v
e
n
s
Cr
e
e
k
Bl
v
d
to
De
An
z
a
Bl
v
d
SB
2
44
,
0
0
0
F
34
4
0.
8
%
No
1
1,
6
5
0
16
,
5
0
0
D 107 0.6% No
SR
85
De
An
z
a
Bl
v
d
to
Sa
r
a
t
o
g
a
Av
e
SB
2
44
,
0
0
0
F
22
4
0.
5
%
No
1
1,
6
5
0
16
,
5
0
0
C 117 0.7% No
I‐28
0
Ma
g
d
a
l
e
n
a
Av
e
to
Fo
o
t
h
i
l
l
Ex
p
w
y
SB
3
69
,
0
0
0
D ‐
1,
0
1
8
‐
1.
5
%
No
1
1,
6
5
0
16
,
5
0
0
B 463 2.8% No
I‐28
0
Fo
o
t
h
i
l
l
Ex
p
w
y
to
SR
85
SB
3
69
,
0
0
0
D
54
8
0.
8
%
No
1
1,
6
5
0
16
,
5
0
0
C 139 0.8% No
I‐28
0
SR
85
to
De
An
z
a
Bl
v
d
SB
3
69
,
0
0
0
E
64
5
0.
9
%
No
1
1,
6
5
0
16
,
5
0
0
C 94 0.6% No
I‐28
0
De
An
z
a
Bl
v
d
to
Wo
l
f
e
Rd
SB
3
69
,
0
0
0
E
1,
7
4
0
2.
5
%
No
1
1,
6
5
0
16
,
5
0
0
D 104 0.6% No
I‐28
0
Wo
l
f
e
Rd
to
La
w
r
e
n
c
e
Ex
p
w
y
SB
3
69
,
0
0
0
D
1,
4
0
6
2.
0
%
No
1
1,
6
5
0
16
,
5
0
0
C 328 2.0% No
I‐28
0
La
w
r
e
n
c
e
Ex
p
w
y
to
Sa
r
a
t
o
g
a
Av
e
SB
3
69
,
0
0
0
F
1,
5
2
8
2.
2
%
Ye
s
1
1,
6
5
0
16
,
5
0
0
D 205 ‐1.2% No
I‐28
0
Sa
r
a
t
o
g
a
Av
e
to
La
w
r
e
n
c
e
Ex
p
w
y
NB
3
69
,
0
0
0
F
88
5
1.
3
%
Ye
s
1
1,
6
5
0
16
,
5
0
0
E 80 0.5% No
I‐28
0
La
w
r
e
n
c
e
Ex
p
w
y
to
Wo
l
f
e
Rd
NB
3
69
,
0
0
0
F ‐
3,
4
7
9
‐
5.
0
%
No
1
1,
6
5
0
16
,
5
0
0
E 50 0.3% No
I‐28
0
Wo
l
f
e
Rd
to
De
An
z
a
Bl
v
d
NB
3
69
,
0
0
0
F
1,
1
5
2
1.
7
%
Ye
s
1
1,
6
5
0
16
,
5
0
0
F 120 0.7% No
I‐28
0
De
An
z
a
Bl
v
d
to
SR
85
NB
3
69
,
0
0
0
F
83
9
1.
2
%
Ye
s
1
1,
6
5
0
16
,
5
0
0
F 198 1.2% Yes
I‐28
0
SR
85
to
Fo
o
t
h
i
l
l
Ex
p
w
y
NB
3
69
,
0
0
0
F ‐
24
7
‐
0.
4
%
No
1
1,
6
5
0
16
,
5
0
0
F 0 0.0% No
I‐28
0
Fo
o
t
h
i
l
l
Ex
p
w
y
to
Ma
g
d
a
l
e
n
a
Av
e
NB
3
69
,
0
0
0
D
32
7
0.
5
%
No
1
1,
6
5
0
16
,
5
0
0
D ‐1 0.0% No
No
t
e
:
No
t
e
s
:
NB
= no
r
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
;
SB
= so
u
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
;
EB
= ea
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
;
WB
= we
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
.
Bo
l
d
Ye
s
in
d
i
c
a
t
e
s
a si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
pr
o
j
e
c
t
im
p
a
c
t
.
So
u
r
c
e
:
Sa
n
t
a
Cl
a
r
a
Va
l
l
e
y
Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
Au
t
h
o
r
i
t
y
Co
n
g
e
s
t
i
o
n
Ma
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
Pr
o
g
r
a
m
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
St
u
d
y
,
20
1
2
.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
PLACEWORKS 4.13-59
Table 4.13-15 presents the number of additional trips that would be generated under the proposed Project
conditions compared to the trips generated under the 2040 No Project conditions in both the mixed-flow
lanes and the HOV lane on each of the study freeway segments. Table 4.13-15 also indicates the percentage
of capacity that the projected number of additional trips represents. If there is a percentage increase greater
than 1 percent and the existing LOS is F, then there would be a significant impact.
Under the proposed Project, one (1) of the HOV lane segments and the following five (5) mixed-lane
freeway segments would have significant impacts:
SR 85 Southbound between I-280 and Stevens Creek Boulevard.
I-280 Southbound between Lawrence Expressway and Saratoga Avenue
I-280 Southbound between Saratoga Avenue and Lawrence Expressway
I-280 Southbound between Wolfe Road and De Anza Boulevard
I-280 Southbound between De Anza Boulevard and SR 85 (mixed-flow lanes and HOV lane)
Mitigation Measures
Even with implementation of Mitigation Measure TRAF-1, which includes preparing and implementing a
Traffic 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, the impacts
would be significant and unavoidable.
However, the City of Cupertino 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.
Significance With Mitigation: Significant and Unavoidable.
Vehicle Miles Traveled with the Project
As described above under Section 4.13.2.1, Regulatory Setting, the VTA countywide travel demand model
is used to help evaluate cumulative transportation impacts of local land use decisions on the CMP system.
Therefore, the daily (24-hour) VMT were tabulated with the proposed Project using the Santa Clara VTA
countywide travel demand model with refined land use estimates for the City of Cupertino. The VMT
estimates in the VTA model are sensitive to changes in land use. Generally, land uses that reflect a more
balanced jobs-housing ratio in the VTA model result in lower per capita VMT.
The total daily VMT and the VMT per capita are presented in Table 4.13-16. As shown in the table, VMT per
capita is forecast to increase to 10.9 miles per service population per day in 2040 with the Project,
compared to 10.5 miles per service population per day in 2013 under existing conditions. As discussed in
Chapter 4.2, Air Quality, of this Draft EIR, daily VMT in the Project Study Area would increase at a slightly
greater rate (0.9 percent) between 2013 and 2040 than would the service population of the Project Study
Area (34.8 percent). A slight increase such as this could be indicative of increased development of both
households and jobs, with potentially higher rates of increases in jobs (than households) in a relatively jobs-
rich area, providing opportunities for increases in average trip lengths.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
4.13-60 JUNE 18, 2014
TABLE 4.13‐16 VMT PER CAPITA
2000‐2020 General Plan Project
Daily VMT 997,145 1,264,271
Household Units 23,294 25,820
Total Population 63,873 71,300
Total Jobs 30,848 44,242
VMT Per Capita 10.5 10.9
Source: Association of Bay Area Government (ABAG) Projections 2013; Hexagon Transportation Consultants.
2014.
The VMT by trip orientation is presented in Table 4.13-17. As shown in the table for the Project, much of
the VMT is oriented to internal-external trip making. However, there is not an overwhelming imbalance of
internal-external trip making over external-internal trip making for the proposed Project.
TABLE 4.13‐17 VMT BY TRIP ORIENTATION
Trip Orientation
2000‐2020
General Plan
2000‐2020 General Plan
VMT Proportions Project
Project VMT
Proportions
Total Cupertino VMTa 997,145 100% 1,264,271 100%
Internal‐External VMTb 540,670 54% 698,433 55%
External‐Internal VMTc 413,479 42% 501,078 40%
Internal‐Internal VMTd 42,996 4% 64,760 5%
Notes: Estimate of 2030 VMT is based on the current Comprehensive Plan and on preliminary land use projections.
a. Trips with one trip end outside Cupertino were counted as one trip‐end, whereas trips with both ends in Cupertino were counted as two trip‐
ends.
b. “Internal‐External” VMT refers to VMT generated by trips associated with a home base in Cupertino and a work or non‐work destination
outside Cupertino.
c. “External‐Internal” VMT refers to VMT generated by trips associated with a home base outside Cupertino and a work or non‐work destination
in Cupertino
d. “Internal‐Internal” VMT refers to VMT generated by trips associated with a home base in Cupertino and a work or non‐work destination in
Cupertino.
Source: Hexagon Transportation Consultants. 2014.
As discussed in Section 4.13.2.1, Regulatory Setting, SB 743 requires impacts to transportation network
performance to be viewed through a filter that promotes the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, the
development of multimodal transportation networks, and a diversity of land uses. Some alternative metrics
were identified in SB 743 including VMT, which can help identify how projects (land development and
infrastructure) influence accessibility (i.e. access to places and people) and even emissions, but they do not
provide information about how the transportation network performs or functions with respect to efficiency
or user experience. Accessibility is an important planning objective in many communities, including
Cupertino, but so is travel time or delay experienced by users. SB 743 does not prevent a city or county
from continuing to analyze delay or LOS as part of other plans (i.e. the general plan), studies, or on-going
network monitoring, but once the new CEQA Guidelines are implemented, which is estimated to be
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
PLACEWORKS 4.13-61
following the certification and adoption by the Secretary for Resources of the final draft of changes to
CEQA Guidelines by OPR on July 1, 2014, these metrics may no longer constitute the sole basis for CEQA
impacts.
While Cupertino does not currently have VMT analysis methodologies, standards, or thresholds of
significance, this analysis has been provided for informational purposes only. However, because future
growth under the proposed Project would come incrementally over approximately 26 years and would be
guided by a policy framework that is generally consistent with many of the principal goals and objectives
established in regional planning initiatives for the Bay Area, this additional growth would be consistent with
the regional planning objectives established for the Bay Area, which concentrates new development within
infill sites and within PDAs.
TRAF-2 Implementation of the proposed 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.
CMP Impacts
Of the 41 study intersections included in this analysis, 21 are included in Santa Clara County’s Congestion
Management Program (CMP). Impact TRAF-1, which presents the results of the impact analysis under 2040
No Project Conditions and the proposed Project on all of the study intersections, includes the 21 CMP
intersections. The proposed Project would result in significant impacts to the following twelve (12) CMP
intersections at least one of the peak hours:
SR 85 Northbound Ramps and Stevens Creek Boulevard (#2)
Stelling Road and Stevens Creek Boulevard(#3)
Sunnyvale-Saratoga Road/De Anza Boulevard and Homestead Road (#5)
De Anza Boulevard and I-280 Northbound Ramp (#6)
De Anza Boulevard. and I-280 Southbound Ramp (#7)
De Anza Boulevard and Stevens Creek Boulevard (#8)
Wolfe Road and I-280 Northbound Ramp (#18)
Wolfe Road and I-280 Southbound Ramp (#19)
Wolfe Road/Miller Avenue and Stevens Creek Boulevard (#21)
Stevens Creek Boulevard and I-280 Ramps/Calvert Drive (#29)
Lawrence Expressway Southbound Ramp and Stevens Creek Boulevard (County) (#31)
Lawrence Expressway Northbound Ramp and Stevens Creek Boulevard (County) (#32)
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
4.13-62 JUNE 18, 2014
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation for these impacts is described above in the Impact TRAF-1, and as discussed, even with
implementation of Mitigation Measures TRAF-1, which includes preparing and implementing a Traffic
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, the impacts to
these CMP intersections would be significant and unavoidable.
Significance With Mitigation: Significant and unavoidable.
TRAF-3 Implementation of the proposed Project would not substantially increase
hazards due to a design feature (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous
intersection) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment).
Because the proposed Project is a program-level planning effort, it does not directly address project-level
design features or building specifications; however, the current General Plan contains policies, as identified
in Table 4.13-2 in Section 4.13.2.1, Regulatory Framework, that would reduce potential hazards due to
roadway design or incompatible uses. The General Plan includes policies and strategies that, once adopted,
would ensure that hazardous features are minimized.
Policy 4-10, Roadway Plans that Complement the Needs of Adjacent Land Use, would require that roadway
plans complement the needs of adjacent land uses. Additionally, Policy 4-10 would require the City to
survey intersections to ensure their operation is efficient and promotes the safety of pedestrians and
bicyclists. Policy 6-13, Roadway Design, would continue to require the City to involve the Fire Department
in the design of public roadways. Policy 6-16, Hillside Road Upgrades, would “require new hillside
development to upgrade existing access roads to meet Fire Code and City standards.” Policy 4-11, Curb
Cuts, would direct developments to minimize the number of resulting curb cuts, thereby reducing potential
for vehicle conflicts. Policy 4-12, Street Improvement Planning, would require streetscape planning to be
“an integral part of a project to ensure an enhanced streetscape and the safe movement of people and
vehicles,” and Policy 4-13, Safe Parking Lots, would “require parking lots that are safe for pedestrians.”
Policy 6-56, Road Improvements to Reduce Truck Impacts, directs the City to consider road improvements
to reduce the impact from trucks. Finally, Strategy 3, Community Protection, of Policy 4-16,
Transportation, Noise, Fumes and Hazards, calls for protecting the community from the effects of the
transportation system, by enforcing laws related to dangerous and abusive driving, among other
requirements.
Future development under the proposed Project would increase in both residential and commercial land
uses. As these land uses develop, construction and modifications of new and existing roadways would be
necessary to support the growth. As with current practice, the improvements would be designed and
reviewed in accordance to the City of Cupertino Standard Details, which are promulgated and administered
by the City Engineering Department. Therefore, the impact of the proposed Project would be less than
significant.
Significance Without Mitigation: Less than significant.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
PLACEWORKS 4.13-63
TRAF-4 Implementation of the proposed Project would not result in inadequate
emergency access.
Because the proposed Project is a program-level planning effort, it does not directly address project-level
design features or building specifications; however, the General Plan includes polices that once adopted
would ensure efficient circulation and adequate access are provided in the city, which would help facilitate
emergency response. Within the Health and Safety Element, Policy 6-8, Early Project Review, would direct
the City to “involve the Fire Department in early design stages of projects requiring public review.” Policy 6-
9, Commercial and Industrial Fire Protection Guidelines, would require the City to coordinate with the Fire
Department to develop new guidelines for fire protection for commercial and industrial land uses. Policy 6-
10, Fire Prevention and Emergency Preparedness, would require the City to promote fire prevention and
emergency preparedness through city-initiated public education programs, through the government
television channel, the Internet and the Cupertino Scene. Policy 6-13, Roadway Design, would continue to
require the City to involve the Fire Department in the design of public roadways and directs the City to
ensure that frequent median breaks are used to provide “timely access.” Together, these two policies would
serve to ensure that development of land uses and transportation infrastructure under the proposed Project
meet standards for emergency access. Additionally, Policy 6-14, Dead-End Street Access, would continue to
allow the use of private roadways during emergency responses in hillside subdivisions where dead-end
streets impair access. Policy 6-15, Hillside Access Routes, would direct the city to require new hillside
development to have frequent grade breaks in access routes to ensure a timely response from fire personnel.
Policy 6-16, Hillside Road Upgrades, would continue to require new hillside development to upgrade
existing access roads to meet Fire Code and City standards. Policy 6-18, Private Residential Electronic
Security Gates, continues to discourage the use of private residential electronic security gates to help ensure
timely emergency access to these areas. Policy 6-38, Emergency Operations Center, would continue to
require the City to ensure ongoing training of identified City employees on their functions/responsibilities
in the EOC. Policy 6-39, Emergency Public Information, would require the City to maintain an Emergency
Public Information program to be used during emergency situations. Policy 6-42, Evacuation Map, would
require the City to prepare and update periodically an evacuation map for the flood hazard areas and
distribute it to the general public. Any new streets or developments that would result from implementation
of the proposed Project would be subject to City engineering standards and the General Plan policies
described above.
Ongoing implementation of the General Plan policies and the City’s engineering standards would ensure
that adequate emergency access is provided in Cupertino. Therefore, impacts associated with the
implementation of the proposed Project would be less than significant.
Significance Without Mitigation: Less than significant.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
4.13-64 JUNE 18, 2014
TRAF-5 Implementation of the proposed Project would not conflict with adopted
policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian
facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities.
Both the VTP 2040, enacted by the VTA, and Plan Bay Area: Strategy for a Sustainable Region, the 2040
Regional Transportation Plan enacted the MTC in 2013, contain strategies designed to support alternative
modes of transportation, including walking, bicycling, and public transit. The City of Cupertino’s Pedestrian
Transportation Plan with Pedestrian Guidelines and Bicycle Transportation Plan identify and prioritize
improvements to enhance the pedestrian and bicycle environment.
Additionally, the General Plan includes policies and strategies that, once adopted, would ensure adequate
public transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities are available to the residents of Cupertino. Within the Land
Use/Community Design Element, Policy 2-26, Heart of the City Special Area, and supporting strategies,
would require the City to create a positive and memorable image along Stevens Creek Boulevard of mixed-
use development; enhanced activity gateways and nodes; and safe and efficient circulation and access for all
modes of transportation. Within the Circulation Element, Policy 4-3, Reduced Reliance on the Use of
Single-Occupant Vehicles, continues to call for the City to promote the use of alternative forms of
transportation instead of single-occupancy vehicles (SOVs) by encouraging attractive alternatives.
Supportive strategies under this policy encourage new developments to include facilities supportive of
walking, biking, and transit use, as well as providing street space for bus turnouts, bike lanes, or other
alternative transportation infrastructure. Policy 4-4, Improve Pedestrian and Bicycle Circulation Throughout
Cupertino, would expressly direct the City to expand city-wide pedestrian and bicycle circulation in order
to provide improved recreation, mobility and safety. Policy 4-5, Pedestrian Access, would require the City
to create pedestrian access between new subdivisions and school sites. Review existing neighborhood
circulation plans to improve safety and access for pedestrians and bicyclists to school sites, including
completing accessible network of sidewalks and paths. Policy 4-6, Regional Trail Development, continues to
call for the City to continue to plan and provide for a comprehensive system of trails and pathways
consistent with regional systems, including the Bay Trail, Stevens Creek Corridor and Ridge Trail, and with
the policies contained in the Land Use and Community Design Element. The General Alignment of the Bay
Trail, as shown in the Association of Bay Area Governments’ Bay Trail planning document, is incorporated in
the General Plan by reference. Policy 4-7, Increased Use of Public Transit, would require the City to
support and encourage the increased use of public transit. Policy 4-9, Traffic Service and Pedestrians Needs,
would require the City to balance the needs of pedestrians with desired traffic service, and, where necessary
and appropriate, allow a lowered LOS standard to better accommodate pedestrians on major streets and at
specific intersections. Policy 4-12, Street Improvement Planning, would require the City to plan street
improvements such as curb cuts, sidewalks, bus stop turnouts, bus shelters, light poles, benches and trash
containers as an integral part of a project to ensure an enhanced streetscape and the safe movement of
people and vehicles with the least possible disruption to the streetscape. Policy 4-13, Safe Parking Lots,
would direct the City to require parking lots that are safe for pedestrians. Policy 4-15, School Traffic Impacts
on Neighborhoods, would require the City to minimize the impact of school drop-off, pick-up and parking
on neighborhoods.
Implementation of the proposed Project would therefore support and would not conflict with plans,
programs and policies regarding bicycle or pedestrian facilities, or decrease the performance and safety of
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
PLACEWORKS 4.13-65
such facilities. Therefore, related impacts from implementation of the proposed Project would be less than
significant.
Significance Without Mitigation: Less than significant.
TRAF-6 Implementation of the proposed Project, in combination with past, present,
and reasonably foreseeable projects, would result in additional
cumulatively considerable impacts.
The analysis of the proposed Project, above, addresses cumulative impacts to the transportation network in
the city and its surroundings; accordingly, cumulative impacts would be the same as proposed Project-
specific impacts.
Significance With Mitigation: Significant and unavoidable.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
4.13-66 JUNE 18, 2014
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
PLACEWORKS 4.14-1
4.14 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
This chapter describes the existing utilities and service systems in the Project Study Area and evaluates the
potential environmental consequences of future development that could occur by adopting and
implementing the proposed Project. Water supply, wastewater, solid waste, and energy conservation are
each addressed in separate sections of this chapter. Stormwater, as it relates to both water quality and
capacity, is addressed in Chapter 4.8, Hydrology and Water Quality, of this Draft EIR. In each section, a
summary of the relevant regulatory settings and existing conditions is followed by a discussion of impacts
and cumulative impacts from the implementation of the proposed Project.
4.14.1 WATER
This section outlines the regulatory setting, describes existing conditions, and discusses potential impacts of
the proposed Project with regard to local water supply, treatment, and distribution. The analysis in this
section is based on the City of Cupertino, California, Proposed General Plan Amendment Water Supply
Evaluation (WSE) dated May 20, 2014 by Yarne & Associates, Inc. The complete WSE is included as
Appendix H, Utilities and Service Data, of this Draft EIR.
4.14.1.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Regulatory Framework
This section summarizes existing federal, State, regional, and local policies and regulations that apply to
utilities and service systems.
Federal and State Regulations
Federal Safe Drinking Water Act
The Safe Drinking Water Act authorizes the United States Environmental Protect Agency (USEPA) to set
national standards for drinking water, called the National Primary Drinking Water Regulations, to protect
against both naturally-occurring and man-made contaminants. These standards set enforceable maximum
contaminant levels in drinking water and require all water providers in the United States to treat water to
remove contaminants, except for private wells serving fewer than 25 people. In California, the State
Department of Health Services conducts most enforcement activities. If a water system does not meet
standards, it is the water supplier’s responsibility to notify its customers.
California Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
Under the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act,1 which was passed in California in 1969 and
amended in 2013, established the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) has authority over State
1 California Water Code Section, Division 7. Sections 13000 et seq.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
4.14-2 JUNE 18, 2014
water rights and water quality policy. This Act divided the state into nine regional basins, each under the
jurisdiction of a Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) to oversee water quality on a day-to-day
basis at the local and regional level. RWQCBs engage in a number of water quality functions in their
respective regions. RWQCBs regulate all pollutant or nuisance discharges that may affect either surface
water or groundwater.2 Cupertino is overseen by the San Francisco Bay RWQCB.
California Senate Bills 610 and 221
The Senate Bill (SB) 610 and SB 221 amended State law to ensure better coordination between local water
supply and land use decisions and confirm that there is an adequate water supply for new development.
SB 610 is not a applicable to General Plan Amendments that do not propose or authorize specific
development projects. SB 221 only applies to residential subdivisions. Both statutes require that detailed
information regarding water availability be provided to City and County decision-makers prior to approval
of large development projects. SB 610 requires the preparation of a water supply assessment (WSA) for
certain types of projects, as defined by Water Code Section 10912, which are subject to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Projects required to prepare a WSA are defined as follows:
Residential development of more than 500 dwelling units.
Shopping center or business establishment employing more than 1,000 persons or having more than
500,000 square feet of floor area.
Hotel or motel, or both, having more than 500 rooms.
Industrial, manufacturing or processing plant, or industrial park planned to employ more than 1,000
persons, occupying more than 40 acres of land, or having more than 650,000 square feet of floor area.
Mixed-use project that includes one or more of the projects specified above.
Project that would demand an amount of water equivalent to, or greater than, the amount of water
required for 500 dwelling units.
The SB 221 establishes consultation and analysis requirements related to water supply planning for
residential subdivisions including more than 500 dwelling units. The water supplier must provide written
verification that sufficient water is available for the project is required before construction begins. The
document used to determine compliance with both SB 610 and SB 221 is the Urban Water Management
Plan (UWMP).
California Urban Water Management Planning Act
Through the Urban Water Management Planning Act of 1983, the California Water Code requires all urban
water suppliers within California to prepare and adopt an Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) and
update it every 5 years. This requirement applies to all suppliers providing water to more than 3,000
2 California Wetlands Information System, Summary of the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, http://ceres.ca.gov/
wetlands/permitting/Porter_summary.html, accessed on March 28, 2014.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
PLACEWORKS 4.14-3
customers or supplying more than 3,000 acre feet per year (afy). This Act is intended to support
conservation and efficient use of urban water supplies at the local level. The Act requires that total projected
water use be compared to water supply sources over a 20-year horizon, in 5-year increments, that planning
occur for single and multiple dry water years, and that plans include a water recycling analysis that
incorporates a description of the wastewater collection and treatment system within the agency’s service
area along with current and potential recycled water uses.3
California Groundwater Management Act
The Groundwater Management Act of the California Water Code, Assembly Bill 3030 (AB 3030) provides
guidance for applicable local agencies to develop voluntary Groundwater Management Plans (GMP) in
State-designated groundwater basins. GMPs can allow agencies to raise revenue to pay for measures
influencing the management of the basin, including extraction, recharge, conveyance, facilities’
maintenance, and water quality.4
The Water Conservation Act of 2009
The Water Conservation Act of 2009, SB X7 7,5 enacted in 2009, requires all water suppliers to increase
water use efficiency. The legislation sets an overall goal of reducing per capita water by 20 percent by 2020,
with an interim goal of a 10 percent reduction in per capita water use by 2015. Effective in 2016, urban
retail water suppliers who do not meet the water conser vation requirements established by this bill are not
eligible for state water grants or loans. The SB X7 7 requires that urban water retail suppliers determine
baseline water use and set reduction targets according to specified standards, it also requires agricultural
water suppliers prepare plans and implement efficient water management practices.
State Updated Model Landscape Ordinance
Under Assembly Bill 1881 (AB 1881), the updated Model Landscape Ordinance requires cities and counties
to adopt landscape water conservation ordinances by January 31, 2010 or to adopt a different ordinance that
is at least as effective in conserving water as the updated Model Ordinance (MO). In accordance with AB
1881, Cupertino has adopted its Landscape Ordinance on May 4, 2010. The ordinance has been in effect
since June 3, 2010. See City of Cupertino Municipal Code below for a discussion of local ordinances that
are required to reduce water consumption and conserve water.
CALGreen Building Code
On July 17, 2008, the California Building Standards Commission adopted the nation’s first green building
standards. The California Green Building Standards Code (Part 11, Title 24, known as “CALGreen”) was
3 Department of Water Resources, About Urban Water Management, http://www.water.ca.gov/urbanwatermanagement/, accessed on
March 28, 2014.
4 Department of Water Resources Planning and Local Assistance Central District, Groundwater, Groundwater Management,
http://www.cd.water.ca.gov/groundwater/gwab3030.cfm, accessed on March 28, 2014.
5 Department of Water Resources, Senate Bill SBX7-7 2009 Information, http://www.water.ca.gov/wateruseefficiency/sb7/,
accessed on May 15, 2014.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
4.14-4 JUNE 18, 2014
adopted as part of the California Building Standards Code (Title 24, California Code of Regulations [CCR])
to apply to the planning, design, operation, construction, use, and occupancy of every newly constructed
building or structure, unless otherwise indicated in the code, throughout the State of California. CALGreen
established planning and design standards for sustainable site development including water conservation and
requires new buildings to reduce water consumption by 20 percent.6 The mandatory provisions of the
California Green Building Code Standards became effective January 1, 2011. The building efficiency
standards are enforced through the local building permit process.
The purpose of CALGreen is to improve public health, safety, and general welfare by enhancing the design
and construction of buildings through the use of building concepts having a reduced negative impact or
positive environmental impact and encouraging sustainable construction practices in the following
categories:
Planning and design.
Energy efficiency.
Water efficiency and conservation.
Material conservation and resource efficiency.
Environmental quality.
2010 California Plumbing Code
The 2010 California Plumbing Code (Part 5, Title 24, CCR) was adopted as part of the California Building
Standards Code. The general purpose of the universal code is to prevent disorder in the industry as a result
of widely divergent plumbing practices and the use of many different, often conflicting, plumbing codes by
local jurisdictions. Among many topics covered in the code are water fixtures, potable and non-potable
water systems, and recycled water systems.
Regional Regulations
Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan
The Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan presents the Santa Clara Valley Water District’s
(SCVWD) overall plan for water resource management in Santa Clara County. The SCVWD is the primary
water resources agency for Santa Clara County. This Plan outlines the key water resource issues facing the
county and provides a framework for understanding SCVWD’s policies related to water supply, natural
flood protection, and water resources stewardship. The Plan provides factsheets for all cities within Santa
Clara County, that include shared responsibilities with SCVWD, Citywide Programs and Projects related to
water resources management issues, and a list of related Plan Elements.
6 The green building standards became mandatory in the 2010 edition of the California Code of Regulations.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
PLACEWORKS 4.14-5
2010 Urban Water Management Plan
In compliance with the SB X7 7 and the Urban Water Management Planning Act, both water service
providers for the City of Cupertino—California Water Service Company (Cal Water) and San Jose Water
Company (SJWC)—adopted their 2010 UWMPs in June 2011. The SCVWD, which provides water supply
to both service providers, also adopted its 2010 UWMP in May 2011.
Water Shortage Contingency Plan – San Jose Water Company
The San Jose Water Company developed a Water Shortage Contingency Plan in 1992 to document measure
it would take to conserve water during drought conditions. For example, the plan includes as part of its
mandatory water rationing plans a list of water uses that are classified as non-essential or unauthorized. The
plan was coordinated with the SCVWD and local cities and was developed in conformance with the
California Water Code.
Local Regulations
City of Cupertino General Plan 2000-2020
The City of Cupertino’s 2000-2020 General Plan, adopted on November 15, 2005, contains the
Environmental Resources/Sustainability Element in Section 5 of the General Plan. This section contains
goals and policies that ensure adequate supply of clean water, as well as the effective management of natural
watershed resources. As part of the proposed Project, some General Plan policies would be amended.
Substantive policy changes under the proposed Project include the addition, removal, or functional revision
(e.g. not purely semantic) of policies in ways that have the potential to result in a physical impact on the
environment. Policies of the 2000-2020 General Plan that are relevant to water supply and not substantially
modified (e.g. renumbered or minor text change) are listed below in Table 4.14-1. A comprehensive list of
policy changes is provided in Appendix I, Proposed General Plan Policy Amendments, of this Draft EIR.
Discussions of how substantive policy changes may result in adverse physical changes are included in the
analyses under each impact criterion in Section 4.14.1.3, Impact Discussion, below.
TABLE 4.14‐1 POLICIES AND STRATEGIES OF THE CUPERTINO 2000‐2020 GENERAL PLAN
New Policy
Number
Original Policy
Number Policies and Strategies
Section 2, Land Use/Community Design
Policy 2‐76 Policy 2‐67
Stevens Creek Park. The Santa Clara County Parks program should pursue the goal of
connecting upper and lower Stevens Creek Parks. The County parks budget should pursue
acquisition to the extent possible and emphasize passive park development in keeping with
the pristine nature of the hillsides. Work to keep the watershed and storage basin
properties of Stevens Creek.
Policy 2‐77 Policy 2‐68
Continuous Open Space Actively pursue inter‐agency cooperation in acquiring properties
near the western planning area boundary to complete a continuous open space green belt
along the lower foothills and to connect the open space to the trail system and the
neighborhoods.
Source: City of Cupertino and Cupertino 2000‐2020 General Plan.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
4.14-6 JUNE 18, 2014
City of Cupertino Municipal Code
Besides the General Plan, the City of Cupertino Municipal Code is the primary tool that shapes the form
and character of physical development in the Cupertino. The Municipal Code contains all City ordinances
and identifies land use categories, site development regulations, and other general provisions that ensure
consistency between the General Plan and proposed development projects. The Municipal Code is organized
by Title, Chapter, and Section. The current Municipal Code is up to date through Ordinance 14-2117 and
was passed on March 18, 2014. The following provisions from the Municipal Code help conserve water
resources in Cupertino.
Chapter 16.58, Green Building Ordinance, includes the CAlGreen requirements with local
amendments for projects in the city. The City’s Green Building Ordinance codifies green building
techniques, including measures affecting water use efficiency and water conservation. Sections
16.58.100 through 16.58.220 sets forth the standards for green building requirements by type of
building. As shown on Table 101.10 in Section 16.58.220, single family and multi-family homes greater
than nine (9) homes and buildings larger than 50,000 square feet are required to be Leadership in
Energy & Environmental Design (LEED)7 Certified and buildings from 25,000 to 50,000 square feet to
be Silver. Section 16.58.230 permits applicants to apply an alternate green building standard for a
project in lieu of the minimum standards outlined in Section 16.58.220 that meet the same intent of
conserving resources and reducing solid waste.
Chapter 14.15, Landscaping Ordinance, establishes water-efficient landscaping standards to conserve
water use on irrigation. The provisions of this chapter apply to landscaping projects that include
irrigated landscape areas, exceeding 2,500 square feet when these projects are associated with new
water service, subdivision improvements, grading and drainage improvements, a new construction
subject to a building permit, or building additions or modifications subject to grading and drainage plan
approval.
Existing Conditions
This section describes water supply sources, water supply infrastructure, water treatment facilities, as well
as projected demand and supply through 2040.
Water Supply Sources
Cal Water and SJWC are the municipal water utilities that provide retail water service to Cupertino. SJWC
also has a lease agreement to operate and maintain the City of Cupertino’s water system. Figure 4.14-1
shows the service area boundaries of each water utility. CalWater and SJWC derived the vast majority of
their water via wholesale purchase from the SCVWD.
7 Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design (LEED) is a green building certification program that recognizes best-in-class building
strategies and practices that reduce consumption energy, and water, and reduce solid waste directly diverted to landfills. LEED certified
building are ranked in order of effienciy from Certified, Silver, Gold and Platinum being the highest ranking with the greatest efficieincy
standard. LEED Silver certified buildings typically reduce is the third highest ranking out of the four, with just being certified being the lowest
and Gold and Platinum being the second highest
PLACEWORKS
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEM
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING PROJECT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Figure 4.14-1
Cupertino Water Service Areas
Source: Yarne & Associates, Inc, May 2014.
Cupertino Water
(Leased to San Jose Water until 2022)
San Jose Water Service
California Water
0
Scale (Miles)
1
Project Component
Locations
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
4.14-8 JUNE 18, 2014
City of Cupertino Water System
The City of Cupertino owns a Water Utility system which it used to operate until 1997. The City ended
operations of this system and entered into a lease agreement with SJWC for operations and maintenance of
its water system (designated Cupertino Water). The lease was signed on October 1, 1997 for a 25-year
term; therefore, on October 1, 2014, a total of eight (8) years will remain on the lease. Section 7,
Operation of Water System, of the lease states that SJWC shall “throughout the term of the lease undertake
any utility plant addition, betterment, replacement, repair and perform routine and emergency
maintenance of the Water System…” Section 10, Water Supply, states that SJWC “will perform and honor all
supply contracts executed by the City…” It also states that “If assignment or transfer of any water right or
contract is deemed necessary by either SJWC or the City, the City will cooperate with SJWC in completing
such assignment or transfer for the duration of the lease.”
Representatives of the City and SJWC indicate that SJWC has been, and is responsible for, maintaining an
adequate water supply for the Cupertino water system, and will continue to do so under the terms of the
lease. Cupertino has two 500 gallon per minute (gpm) wells that are primarily kept on standby. As a result,
under normal operations, all of the water for the City’s Cupertino Water service area is purchased by SJWC
from SCVWD. Accordingly, proposed development in both SJWC’s and Cupertino Water’s service areas are
combined for the purposes of evaluating supply for SJWC.
Cal Water – Los Altos Suburban District
The Los Altos Suburban (LAS) District of Cal Water currently provides water service to lots where
specified, under portions of the City of Cupertino. Water supply for the LAS District is a combination of
groundwater from wells in the District and treated water purchased from SCVWD. For the past five (5)
years, approximately 32 percent of supply has come from groundwater production and 68 percent from
SCVWD.8
In a given year, the amount of groundwater production versus purchased treated water varies depending on
the supply available from SCVWD. SCVWD imports surface water to its service area from the South Bay
Aqueduct of the State Water Project (SWP), the San Felipe Division of the federal Central Valley Project
(CVP) and the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission’s (SFPUC) Regional Water System. However, Cal
Water only receives SCVWD water from the SWP and CVP sources.9
The SCVWD owns and operates three separate surface water treatment plants (the Penitencia, Rinconada,
and Santa Teresa water treatment plants) that are supplied by surface water from local runoff and imported
water from the CVP, SWP and SFPUC. Treated water is delivered to the LAS District from the Rinconada
treatment plant through a large-diameter high-pressure transmission pipeline that runs through Cupertino
and along Foothill Expressway. This transmission pipeline, commonly referred to as the West Pipeline, has
branch lines that distribute water to the cities of Santa Clara and Mountain View (“distributaries”).
8 Yarne & Associates, Inc. 2014. City of Cupertino, California, Proposed General Plan Amendment Water Supply Evaluation, May 15, 2014.
9 Yarne & Associates, Inc. 2014. City of Cupertino, California, Proposed General Plan Amendment Water Supply Evaluation, May 15, 2014.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
PLACEWORKS 4.14-9
Cal Water has a contract with SCVWD until 2035 to purchase treated surface water and convey it to the
LAS District. The SCVWD “contract” water is delivered through four connections within its transmission
system. These connections are called the Vallco, Granger, Farndon, and Covington turnouts. The Farndon
and Granger turnouts are located directly on the West Pipeline, while the Vallco turnout is located on the
Santa Clara Distributary, and the Covington connection is located on the Mountain View Distributary. Each
of these turnouts is equipped with pressure and flow control devices that provide a hydraulic transition
between their respective delivery main and the LAS District distribution system.10 The LAS District owns
and operates a water system that includes 295 miles of pipeline, 65 booster pumps, and 46 storage tanks.
Cal Water proactively maintains and upgrades its facilities to ensure a reliable, high-quality water supply.
San Jose Water Company
SJWC has three sources of supply: local surface water, imported purchased treated surface water, and
groundwater.
SJWC has “pre-1914 surface water rights” to raw water in Los Gatos Creek and local watersheds in the
Santa Cruz Mountains. Prior to 1872, appropriative water rights could be acquired by taking and
beneficially using water. In 1914, the California Water Code was adopted and it grandfathered in all existing
water entitlements to license holders. SJWC filed for a license in 1947 and was granted license number
10933 in 1976 by the State Water Resources Control Board to draw 6,240 afy from Los Gatos Creek. 11,12
SJWC has upgraded the collection and treatment system that draws water from this watershed which has
increased the capacity of this entitlement to approximately 11,200 afy for an average rain year. The surface
waters from the local watersheds of the Santa Cruz Mountains provide about ten percent of the water
supply depending on the amount of annual rainfall. A series of dams and automated intakes collect the water
released from SJWC’s lakes. The water is pumped into to SJWC’s Montevina water treatment plant for
treatment prior to entering the distribution system. SJWC’s Saratoga water treatment plant draws water
from a local stream which collects water from the nearby Santa Cruz Mountains. The SJWC owns and
operates its water distribution system consisting of a pipe network which lies predominantly beneath the
traveled roadway in the public street rights-of-way.
In 1981, SJWC entered into a 70-year master contract with SCVWD for the purchase of treated water. This
accounts for a little over 50 percent of its water supply.
SJWC has the right to withdraw groundwater from aquifers below properties within its service area
boundary when in compliance with SCVWD’s permitting requirements. In Santa Clara County, this right is
subject to a groundwater extraction fee levied by SCVWD based on the amount of groundwater pumped
into SJWC’s distribution system. SJWC draws water from the Santa Clara Valley subbasin (basin) in the
north part of Santa Clara County. The basin extends from near Coyote Narrows at Metcalf Road to the
County’s northern boundary. It is bounded on the west by the Santa Cruz Mountains and on the east by the
10 Yarne & Associates, Inc. 2014. City of Cupertino, California, Proposed General Plan Amendment Water Supply Evaluation, May 15, 2014.
11 One acre-foot is equal to approximately 325,821 gallons.
12 Yarne & Associates, Inc. 2014. City of Cupertino, California, Proposed General Plan Amendment Water Supply Evaluation, May 15, 2014.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
4.14-10 JUNE 18, 2014
Diablo Range; these two ranges converge at the Coyote Narrows to form the southern limit of the basin.
The basin is 22 miles long and 15 miles wide, with a surface area of 225 square miles. The groundwater
elevation in the basin has been steadily on the rise for the past 40 years under the management of the
SCVWD. On average, groundwater from the major water-bearing aquifers of the Santa Clara Valley sub-
basin comprises one third of the SJWC’s water supply. These aquifers are recharged naturally by rainfall and
streams, and artificially by recharge ponds operated by SCVWD.
The SJWC generally uses the most economical source of water, which is largely determined by SCVWD’s
groundwater extraction fee rates and contracted water rates.13
Water Demand and Supply Projections - Cal Water LAS District
Table 4.14-2 presents actual and projected LAS District water demand through 2040, based on total
demand projections that meet the revised SB X7 7 gallons per capita per day (gpcd) targets and distribution
system losses. The projected demand for 2015 is close to the 2008 demand, and the demand in 2020 is
lower than that in 2015 due to anticipated increased water conservation. For the years 2025, 2030, 2035
and 2040, increases in demand are projected to occur due to growth in the District’s population and
customer services.14
The WSE indicates Cal Water has adequate water supply plans to meet these demand forecasts. The
remainder of this section provides additional detail regarding Cal Water demand management measures.
Cal Water continues negotiations with Sunnyvale, South Bay Recycling and SCVWD to inter-tie the
Sunnyvale recycled water system with that of South Bay Recycling. Cal Water’s LAS District manager
indicates that there is a reasonable probability that this recycled water project will be implemented.
TABLE 4.14‐2 CAL WATER LAS DISTRICT PROJECTED SB X7 7 WATER DEMAND (AFY)
2008
(Actual)
2012
(Actual) 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
LAS DISTRICT 15,490 12,779 13,641 12,651 13,200 13,749 14,298 14,847
Note: afy = acre feet per year.
Source: Table 4 (Cal Water) of Water Supply Evaluation (Yarne & Associates), May 20, 2014.
Cal Water is intensifying its water conservation programs for its 24 service districts by significantly
increasing expenditures to reduce per capita urban water use. In 2010, Cal Water developed 5-year
conservation program plans for each of its districts. The complete Los Altos Suburban District Conservation
Master Plan is in Appendix G of the LAS district’s 2010 UWMP.15 Cal Water has developed Water
Conservation Master Plans (WCMPs) for each of its districts. The WCMP is a plan for water use reduction
13 Yarne & Associates, Inc. 2014. City of Cupertino, California, Proposed General Plan Amendment Water Supply Evaluation, May 15, 2014.
14 Yarne & Associates, Inc. 2014. City of Cupertino, California, Proposed General Plan Amendment Water Supply Evaluation, May 15, 2014.
15 California Water Service Company. 2010. 2010 Urban Water Management Plan, Los Altos-Suburban District. June 2011.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
PLACEWORKS 4.14-11
and describes specific conservation actions to be implemented in a 5-year period. Table 4.14-3 is a summary
of water conservation programs selected in the WCMP for the LAS District.
TABLE 4.14‐3 CAL WATER CONSERVATION PROGRAMS
Program Name Description Target Market
CORE PROGRAMS
Rebate/Vouchers for toilets, urinals,
and clothes washers
Provide customer rebates for high‐efficiency
toilets, urinals, and clothes washers.
All customer segments.
Residential Surveys Provide residential surveys to low‐income
customers, high‐bill customers, and upon
customer request or as pre‐screen for
participation in direct install programs.
All residential market segments.
Residential Showerhead/Water
Conservation Kit Distribution
Provide residential showerhead/water
conservation kits to customers upon request,
as part of residential surveys, and as part of
school education curriculum.
All residential market segments.
Pop‐Up Nozzle Irrigation System
Distribution
Offer high‐efficiency pop‐up irrigation
nozzles through customer vouchers or direct
install.
All customer segments.
Public Information/Education Provide conservation messaging via radio, bill
inserts, direct mail, and other appropriate
methods. Provide schools with age
appropriate educational materials and
activities. Continue sponsorship of Disney
Planet Challenge program.
All customer segments.
NON‐CORE PROGRAMS
Toilet/Urinal Direct Install Program Offer direct installation programs for
replacement of non‐HE toilets and urinals.
All customer segments.
Smart Irrigation Controller Contractor
Incentives
Offer contractor incentives for installation of
smart irrigation controllers.
All customer segments.
Large Landscape Water Use Reports Expand existing Cal Water Large Landscape
Water Use Report Program providing large
landscape customers with monthly water use
reports and budgets.
Non‐residential customers with
significant landscape water use and
potential savings.
Large Landscape Surveys & Irrigation
System Incentives
Provide surveys and irrigation system
upgrade financial incentives to large
landscape customers participating in the
Large Landscape Water Use Reports
programs and other targeted customers.
Non‐residential customers with
significant landscape water use and
potential savings.
Food Industry Rebates/Vouchers Offer customer/dealer/distributor
rebates/vouchers for high‐efficiency
dishwashers, food steamers, ice machines,
and pre‐rinse spray valves.
Food and drink establishments,
institutional food service providers.
Cooling Tower Retrofits Offer customer/dealer/distributor
rebates/vouchers of cooling tower retrofits.
Non‐residential market segments
with significant HVAC water use.
Industrial Process Audits and Retrofit
Incentives
Offer engineering audits/surveys and
financial incentives for process water
efficiency improvement.
Non‐residential market segments
with significant industrial process
water uses.
Source: Table 8 (Cal Water) of Water Supply Evaluation (Yarne & Associates), May 20, 2014.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
4.14-12 JUNE 18, 2014
Cal Water has also developed Water Shortage Allocation Plans (WSAPs), which are plans of action to reduce
water demand should significant water supply shortages occur, primarily due to drought. These actions may
be implemented for several months or several years, depending on circumstances. The WSAPs differ from
the WCMPs, which are focused on achieving permanent reductions in per capita water use by Cal Water’s
customers, and are not driven by significant short or long reductions in supply. In the short-term, the
WSAPs assist Cal Water in further reducing demand to match any possible significant reductions in supply.
Cal Water has developed a four-stage approach as shown in Table 4.14-4 to drought response that
corresponds to specific levels of water supply
shortage. At higher stages, Cal Water will become
more aggressive in requiring water use reductions
from its customers. The decision to move to a higher
stage is based on consideration of a variety of factors
including wholesale supply, availability of alternative
supplies, time of year and regional coordinated
activities. In each progressive stage, actions taken in
earlier stages are carried through to the next stage,
either at the same or an increased intensity level,
thereby becoming more restrictive.16
Water Demand and Supply Projections – San Jose Water Company
The SJWC’s service area spans 139 square miles, including most of the Cities of San Jose and Cupertino, the
entire cities of Campbell, Monte Sereno, Saratoga, the Town of Los Gatos, and parts of unincorporated
Santa Clara County. Most of SJWC’s customers are residential or commercial. The SJWC also provides
water to industrial, municipal, private fire services, and public fire protection services. The SJWC’s total
demand is the sum of projected metered demand plus seven percent of that amount for non-revenue water,
which includes authorized unmetered uses for firefighting, main flushing and public use and unauthorized
use due to meter reading discrepancies, reservoir cleaning, malfunctioning valves, leakage, and theft. Table
4.14-5 shows the SJWC 2010 UWMP total projected demand to 2035.
TABLE 4.14‐5 SJWC TOTAL DEMAND (AFY)
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035
Customer Metered Demand 122,834 132,254 134,920 137,640 140,415 143,246
Non‐Revenue Water 9,024 9,649 9,844 10,042 10,245 10,451
Total System Demand 131,858 141,903 144,764 147,682 150,660 153,697
Note: afy = acre feet per year.
Source: Table 4 (SJWC) of Water Supply Evaluation (Yarne & Associates), May 20, 2014.
16 California Water Service Company. 2010. 2010 Urban Water Management Plan, Los Altos-Suburban District. June 2011.
TABLE 4.14‐4 CAL WATER SUPPLY SHORTAGE
REDUCTION STAGES
Stage
Supply Reduction
Percent
1 5 to 10
2 10 to 20
3 20 to 35
4 35 to 50+
Source: Table 8 (Cal Water) of Water Supply Evaluation (Yarne &
Associates), May 15, 2014.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
PLACEWORKS 4.14-13
The projected 2040 demand is estimated to be an increase of 3,037 afy over the 2035 demand resulting in a
total of 156,734 afy.17 The projected increase in total demand between 2015 and 2040 is 14,831 afy.
The WSE indicates SJWC has adequate water supply plans to meet the referenced demand forecasts.
The SJWC classifies conservation as an additional source of water which offsets potable water demand.
SJWC projects an increase in conservation through 2035 to over 5,500 afy due to implementation of a more
restrictive conservation program. Conservation savings are anticipated resulting from increased use of ultra-
low flush toilets, high-efficiency toilets, low-flow showerheads, water efficient appliances, individual
conservation, and reduction in landscape irrigation requirements.
4.14.1.2 THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
According to Appendix G, Environmental Checklist, of the CEQA Guidelines, the proposed Project would
have a significant impact on water service if it would:
1. Have insufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources,
or new or expanded entitlements are needed.
2. Require or result in the construction of new water facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which would cause significant environmental effects.
4.14.1.3 IMPACT DISCUSSION
This section analyzes the proposed Project’s potential impacts and cumulative impacts to water supply and
infrastructure.
UTIL-1 Implementation of the proposed Project would have sufficient water
supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and
resources, and new or expanded entitlements are not needed.
As previously discussed, the Project Study Area is within the water utility service area of Cal Water and
SJWC. Table 4.14-6 shows the development at buildout (2040) for the proposed Project by water utility
service area. The following discussion describes the impacts of the proposed Project by the Cal Water and
SJWC service areas.
17 This is the same increase projected for the 5-year interval between 2030 and 2035.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
4.14-14 JUNE 18, 2014
TABLE 4.14‐6 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IN CAL WATER AND SJWC SERVICE AREAS BY 2040
Proposed Project Cal Water
SJWC
(+ Cupertino Water) Total
Residential 3,484 units 937 units 4,421 units
Office 3,785,000 sf 255,231 sf 4,040,231 sf
Commercial 972,734 sf 370,945 sf 1,343,679 sf
Hotel 1,339 rooms – 1,339 rooms
Notes: sf = square feet.
Source: Table 2 of Water Supply Evaluation (Yarne & Associates), May 20, 2014; prepared with input from the City of Cupertino.
Cal Water
The 2010 Cal Water LAS District UWMP did not account for the 18.9 percent population increase between
2000 and 2010 provided by US Census data; therefore, the Cal Water LAS District demand was revised in
the WSE due to an increase in population projected for the next 26 years. However, stronger water
conservation targets were used in the WSE than were used in the 2010 UWMP in terms of average water
usage per capita are projected, i.e.159 gpcd for 2020 rather than 193 gpcd as indicated in the 2010 UWMP.
This projection is based on Cal Water data showing that per capital water usage has declined in the past
five years. Between 2009 and 2013, it averaged 136 gpcd. Even using conservative assumptions results in
2040 projected LAS District total demand of 15,302 afy compared to the actual 2008 demand of 15,490
afy.
For the proposed Project, it is assumed that projected water demand would be added to the LAS District
and Apple Campus 2 demands. Also, it is assumed that development would occur at a relatively constant rate
over the proposed Project’s 26-year horizon period (i.e. the growth in water demand will be roughly the
same each year over the 26-year horizon period). The WSE includes detailed calculations of water demand
from the proposed Project, based on the land uses shown in Table 4.14-6.
Table 4.14-7 presents the combined projected water demand for the Cal Water LAS District and proposed
Project. The WSE determined the water demand at buildout (2040) for the proposed Project in the Cal
Water LAS District would be 2,137 afy. Therefore, the 5-year increase for proposed Project demand is 427
afy.18
In normal hydrologic years, “non-contract” water19 is expected to be available. Cal Water also expects
increases in approved SCVWD deliveries will eventually reduce availability of “non-contract” water.
18 2,137 afy divided by 5 years = 427 afy.
19 Cal Water has a contract with SCVWD until 2035 to purchase treated surface water and convey it to the LAS District. The SCVWD
“contract” water is delivered through four connections within its transmission system.”Non-contract” water is water not included in the
contracted water.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
PLACEWORKS 4.14-15
TABLE 4.14‐7 PROJECTED WATER DEMAND CAL WATER LAS DISTRICT + PROPOSED PROJECT (AFY)
2008
(Actual)
2012
(Actual) 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
LAS District 15,490 12,779 13,641 12,651 13,200 13,749 14,298 14,847
Proposed Project 0 0 0 427 855 1,282 1,710 2,137
Total 15,490 12,779 13,641 13,078 14,055 15,031 16,008 16,984
Note: afy = acre feet per year.
Source: Table 9 (Cal Water) of Water Supply Evaluation (Yarne & Associates), May 20, 2014. Note: the 2015 “Total” demand value in Table 9 of the WSE
(14,065) appears to be in error; the assumed correct value (13,641) is reported here.
According to the SCVWD, LAS District projected water scheduled delivery amounts will be available
through at least 2035.20
As previously indicated, the LAS District has historically pumped only a fraction of its total annualized
groundwater well capacity, leaving the remainder in groundwater storage. Because of this banking practice,
there is an adequate supply of stored groundwater in the aquifers supplying LAS District wells.
Normal Hydrologic Year
Total groundwater supplied is the quantity necessary to make up the difference between LAS District
demand and SCVWD supplies – both scheduled and non-contract deliveries. Therefore, total supply equals
projected demand for any given year. A normal hydrologic year supply is considered the same as the SB X7 7
target water demand projections. Table 4.14-8 shows that groundwater will be reliable throughout the 26-
year planning horizon of the proposed Project and that no supply deficiencies are expected during a normal
hydrologic year.21
TABLE 4.14‐8 DEMAND AND SUPPLY COMPARISON ‐ NORMAL HYDROLOGIC YEAR: CAL WATER LAS DISTRICT +
PROPOSED PROJECT (AFY)
2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
Total Demand 13,641 13,078 14,055 15,031 16,008 16.984
SCVWD Supply 10,200 9,700 10,200 11,200 12,120 13,000
LAS Groundwater 3,441 3,378 3,855 3,831 3,888 3,984
Total Supply 13,641 13,078 14,055 15,031 16,008 16,984
Difference 0 0 0 0 0 0
Note: Total groundwater actually supplied would be the quantity necessary to make up the difference between LAS District demand and SCVWD supplies –
both scheduled and Non‐Contract deliveries. Hence, in practice, total supply always equals projected demand for any given year (i.e., the difference
between supply and demand is zero).
Source: Table 14 (Cal Water) of Water Supply Evaluation (Yarne & Associates), May 20, 2014.
20 California Water Service Company. 2010. 2010 Urban Water Management Plan, Los Altos-Suburban District. June 2011.
21 California Water Service Company. 2010. 2010 Urban Water Management Plan, Los Altos-Suburban District. June 2011.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
4.14-16 JUNE 18, 2014
Single-Dry Year
In single-dry years, Cal Water can expect a reduction in “non-contract” water and may possibly see a
reduction in firm scheduled deliveries. If any reduction in scheduled deliveries were to occur, the needed
supply could be made up by pumping stored groundwater.22
During a single-dry year it is unlikely that SCVWD would request a reduction in its retailer’s (i.e. Cal
Water’s or SJWC’s) water demand. SCVWD maintains carryover storage in its reservoirs, locally stored
groundwater reserves, and has access of up to 50,000 afy of drought supplies stored as groundwater in the
Semitropic Groundwater Bank.23 According to SCVWD’s 2010 UWMP, there will be a 5 percent shortfall
in treated water contract deliveries in 2020 and 2025. After this time it is expected that capital
improvement projects listed in the Water Master Plan will result in sufficient additional supplies so that
contract deliveries can be met during single-dry years. It is assumed that groundwater will provide the
necessary supply to meet dry year demands, if purchased water reductions are required.
Table 4.14-9 shows that increased groundwater pumping would be able to supply the difference in order to
meet 2020 and 2025 demand. Because no reduction in SCVWD supplies are anticipated, the groundwater
supply would remain the same. Therefore, the combination of pumped groundwater and purchased water
will be sufficient to meet projected single-dry year demands.
TABLE 4.14‐9 DEMAND AND SUPPLY COMPARISON ‐ ONE DRY YEAR: CAL WATER LAS DISTRICT + PROPOSED PROJECT
(AFY)
2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
Total Demand 13,641 13,078 14,055 15,031 16,008 16,984
SCVWD Supply 10,200 9,700 10,200 11,200 12,120 13,000
LAS Groundwater 3,441 3,378 3,855 3,831 3,888 3,984
Total Supply 13,641 13,078 14,055 15,031 16,008 16,984
Difference 0 0 0 0 0 0
Note: afy = acre feet per year.
Total groundwater actually supplied would be the quantity necessary to make up the difference between LAS District demand and SCVWD supplies – both
scheduled and Non‐Contract deliveries. Hence, in practice, total supply always equals projected demand for any given year (i.e., the difference between
supply and demand is zero).
Source: Table 15 (Cal Water) of Water Supply Evaluation (Yarne & Associates), May 20, 2014. Multiple Dry Years
SCVWD gives highest priority to delivery of Contract water to urban water retailers and indicates it can
deliver 100 percent of its contracted supply obligations even during multiple-dry year periods. However,
during such periods, SCVWD will reduce or eliminate deliveries of Non-Contract water. If drought
conditions warrant, SCVWD will reduce or eliminate surface water recharging to aquifers within its service
22 California Water Service Company. 2010. 2010 Urban Water Management Plan, Los Altos-Suburban District. June 2011.
23 SCVWD.2013.Board Agenda Memo; Budget Adjustment for 2012 Water Banking Operations; January 22, 2013.
http://cf.valleywater.org/About_Us/Board_of_directors/Board_meetings/_2013_Published_Meetings/MG49261/AS49274/AI49995/DO
50113/DO_50113.pdf.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
PLACEWORKS 4.14-17
area. If further reductions are necessary, deliveries to agricultural customers will be reduced or eliminated.
Deliveries to SCVWD urban water retailers are the last to be affected by drought conditions. Based on
SCVWD supplies and policies, Cal Water expects that 100 percent of “contract” water will be delivered to
the LAS District during a multiple dry year period. Cal Water also plans on pumping its LAS District
groundwater supplies so that there will be no reduction in total supply available to meet water demands.
In the following multiple dry year period analysis, normal supply of “contract” water is expected to be
available, but “non-contract” deliveries are not. This assumes that reservoir carryover storage in SWP, CVP,
and local systems is average prior to the drought. At the beginning of a prolonged drought period, it is also
assumed that there are adequate supplies of groundwater stored in the aquifers pumped.
Cal Water also assumes that in future multiple dry year periods, SCVWD would initially ask for voluntary
reductions in supply requested by 10 percent. The magnitude of reductions requested could increase
depending on the degree and duration of the drought. SCVWD considers its groundwater and imported
supplies as one source, and does not distinguish between water sources when asking for demand reductions
from its retailers. As a result, retail agencies would be asked to reduce total demand, not just imported
water use. Cal Water expects that its LAS District customers will be able to achieve these requested
reductions in water use. In the LAS District, total annual water use per customer is expected to be lower
than in previous dry year periods due to the greater investment in water conservation programs that would
be implemented in coming years. As seen in the more recent drought from 2007-2009, the response by Cal
Water customers in reducing water use will likely occur faster than in past droughts due to improved water
conservation plans and better communications on the need to reduce water use.
Table 4.14-10 compares demand to supply for a four-year multiple-dry year period. For the first three
years, the analysis conservatively assumes that demand would remain unchanged from a normal hydrologic
year, and that in the fourth year demand would decrease by 10 percent as does the delivery of SCWVD
“contract” water.
In all cases, the supply is projected to meet 100 percent of demand. It is noted that even if demand did not
decrease by 10 percent in year four and SCVWD supply did, the increased groundwater supplied in 2040
would be 1,698 acre feet for a total of 5,284 acre feet, which can be pumped by the LAS District by
increasing well operation times.
As summarized in the WSE, for the next 26 years of operation (2014 – 2040), based on the facts listed
below, it can be reasonably concluded the LAS District will have adequate water supplies to meet projected
demands associated with the proposed Project under the most conservative assumptions regarding potable
water use for normal hydrologic, single-dry year and multiple-dry year conditions:24
Adequacy of existing and planned supplies from SCVWD and LAS District groundwater.
Plans to maintain existing wells and construct new ones to increase well production capacity.
Plans to continue to purchase SCVWD non-contract water whenever it is made available and thereby
increase basin groundwater storage for use during drought periods.
24California Water Service Company. 2010. 2010 Urban Water Management Plan, Los Altos-Suburban District. June 2011.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
4.14-18 JUNE 18, 2014
TABLE 4.14‐10 DEMAND AND SUPPLY COMPARISON ‐ MULTIPLE DRY YEAR PERIOD (4 YEARS): CAL WATER LAS
DISTRICT + PROPOSED PROJECT (AFY)
2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
Total Demand: Years 1 – 3 13,641 13,078 14,055 15,031 16,008 16,984
SCVWD Supply 10,200 9,700 10,200 11,200 12,120 13,000
LAS Groundwater 3,441 3,378 3,855 3,831 3,888 3,984
Total Supply 13,641 13,078 14,055 15,031 16,008 16,984
Difference 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total Demand: Year 4 12,277 11,770 12,650 13,528 14,407 15,286
SCVWD Supply 9,180 8,730 9,180 10,080 10,908 11,700
LAS Groundwater 3,097 3,040 3,470 3,448 3,499 3,586
Difference 0 0 0 0 0 0
Note: afy = acre feet per year.
Total groundwater actually supplied would be the quantity necessary to make up the difference between LAS District demand and SCVWD supplies – both
scheduled and Non‐Contract deliveries. Hence, in practice, total supply always equals projected demand for any given year (i.e., the difference between
supply and demand is zero).
Source: Table 16 (Cal Water) of Water Supply Evaluation (Yarne & Associates), May 205, 2014.
In-place, ongoing and planned expanded water conservation programs and best management practices
for reducing demand during normal hydrologic years, single-dry year, and multiple-dry years in
compliance with SB X7 7, CPUC and MOU requirements.
Cal Water’s proven success in obtaining increased reductions in water use during multiple dry years by
implementing its demand reduction program.
Over 80 years of experience in continuously providing an adequate supply to meet demands during
normal, single- and multiple-dry years in the LAS District.
In summary, buildout of the proposed Project would not result in insufficient water supplies from Cal Water
under normal year conditions. In addition, during single-dry year and multiple-dry years, with the proposed
and existing water conservation regulations and measures in place, buildout of the proposed Project also
would not result in a significant impact on water supply from Cal Water.
San Jose Water Company
Table 4.14-11 shows the actual amount of water supplied to SJWC’s system from each source in 2010 and
projections until 2035. Projected surface water is based on a long-term average at SJWC. Groundwater and
SCVWD Treated Water projections include SJWC’s plan to acquire additional water needed for
development projects by installing production wells within the distribution system, by purchasing additional
treated water from SCVWD and recycled water from the South Bay Water Recycling Program. The overall
long-term strategy for groundwater, as discussed in the 2003 SCVWD Integrated Water Resource Planning
Study (IWRP), is to maximize the amount of water available in the groundwater basins to protect against
drought and emergencies. SCVWD attempts to maximize use of treated local and imported water when
available.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
PLACEWORKS 4.14-19
TABLE 4.14‐11 CURRENT AND PROJECTED SJWC WATER SUPPLY – INCLUDING CONSERVATION (AFY)
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035
SCVWD Treated Water 64,783 72,636 74,344 76,086 77,864 79,677
SJWC Groundwater 51,107 57,187 58,340 59,516 60,716 61,940
SJWC Surface Water 15,968 12,080 12,080 12,080 12,080 12,080
Total Demand 131,858 141,903 144,764 147,682 150,660 153,697
Recycled Water 1,208 2,556 4,980 5,234 5,501 5,782
Additional Conservation 4,886 5,106 5,300 5,438 5,579 5,579
Total with Conservation 137,952 149,565 155,044 158,354 161,740 165,058
Note: afy = acre feet per year.
Source: Table 6 (SJWC) of Water Supply Evaluation (Yarne & Associates), May 20, 2014.
As previously noted, the SJWC classifies water conservation as an additional source which offsets potable
water demand. SJWC projects an increase in conservation through 2035 to over 5,500 afy conserved due to
implementation of a more intensified conservation program. Conservation savings are anticipated resulting
from increased use of ultra low-flush toilets, high-efficiency toilets, low-flow showerheads, water efficient
appliances, individual conservation, and reduction in landscape irrigation requirements.
The SCVWD will continue to work with SJWC and other local water retailers to refine future projections
of both treated water and groundwater use to ensure planning efforts are consistent. Groundwater from the
Basin is a substantial source of water for SJWC’s entire service area. In the past 5 years, groundwater has
been the source for approximately one-third of SJWC’s total supply.
As previously noted, the SJWC operates and maintains Cupertino’s water system. Based on information
from SJWC, approximately 98 percent of water supply for the City’s water system is purchased from
SCVWD. SJWC periodically operates two City wells with a nominal pumping rate of 500 gpm each for a
combined production of 1,000 gpm. For the 17 years that SJWC has been operating the Cupertino system,
increases in demand have been met by increased purchases from SCVWD and are factored into the demand
projections made by SJWC, shown in Table 4.14-5. Therefore, the water supply analysis provided for SJWC
also applies to the City of Cupertino system.
SJWC has multiple sources of water which provide a high degree of supply reliability. For added reliability,
SJWC incorporates diesel-fueled generators which will operate wells and pumps in the event of power
outages. Because SCVWD supplies nearly 90 percent of SJWC’s annual water supply, SJWC depends on
SCVWD’s supply reliability measures.
SJWC has an established well replacement program. The program identifies and replaces two wells per year
based on numerous criteria, including the well’s production and observed water quality problems. The
replacement of older wells and optimization of existing wells will allow SJWC to maintain its groundwater
supply reliability. SCVWD’s policy is to achieve 95-percent reliability of supply during significant water
shortages that occur during multiyear droughts. To accomplish this, SJWC can use less groundwater in
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
4.14-20 JUNE 18, 2014
certain areas or zones to achieve the overall balance which best meets SCVWD’s and SJWC’s operational
goals.
Normal, Single-Dry and Multiple-Dry Hydrologic Years
Table 4.14-12 presents 2035 projected supply and demand during normal, single-dry, and multiple-dry
years. These numbers were generated by multiplying the current and 2035 demands by the percentages of
normal water supply SJWC experienced during the 1977 single year and the 1987-1992 multiple-year
droughts.
TABLE 4.14‐12 SJWC 2035 SUPPLY AND DEMAND ‐‐ NORMAL, SINGLE‐DRY, AND MULTIPLE‐DRY YEARS (ACRE FEET)
2035 Supply and Demand
Normal
Water Year
Single‐Dry
Water Year
Multiple‐Dry Water Years
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
Supply Total 153,697 109,279 152,929 149,701 123,572 121,882 110,816
Demand Total 153,697 109,279 152,929 149,701 123,572 121,882 110,816
Difference 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Source: Table 15 (SJWC) of Water Supply Evaluation (Yarne & Associates), May 20, 2014.
If the SJWC should experience a shortage of supply during a drought, it will activate its current Water
Shortage Contingency Plan. As noted in the WSE (May 20, 2014) prepared for the City, “although there
appears to be shortages during droughts, in reality, voluntary and involuntary water conservation greatly reduces demand.”
The SJWC foresees meeting all future demands.
SJWC has multiple sources of water which provide a high degree of supply reliability. For added reliability,
SJWC incorporates diesel fueled generators which will operate wells and pumps in the event of power
outages. SJWC also has an established well replacement program. The program identifies and replaces two
wells per year based on numerous criteria, including a well’s production and observed water quality
problems. The replacement of older wells and optimization of existing wells will allow SJWC to maintain its
groundwater supply reliability.
The WSE includes detailed calculations of water demand from the proposed Project, based on the land use
in the SJWC and Cupertino Water service areas. As reported in the WSE, total projected water demand at
build out of the proposed Project for the SJWC and leased Cupertino Water service areas is estimated to be
399 afy without taking into account requirements for water conservation measures that will be incorporated
into new development. If these measures are accounted for, the proposed Project water demand in the
SJWC service area would be 339 afy.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
PLACEWORKS 4.14-21
As previously noted, the total projected increase in the SJWC demand between 2015 and 2040 (25 years)
for a normal hydrologic year is 14,831afy.25 The proposed Project demand at buildout represents 2.3
percent of this total SJWC demand.
Since the SJWC 2010 UWMP projected demand is based on general growth in its service area, it is
reasonable to assume that the proposed Project demand is accounted for in the overall demand forecast,
given the relatively small percentage of the total demand.
SJWC currently owns the rights to receive water from the following sources: 1) groundwater from the
Santa Clara Valley Subbasin; 2) imported surface water from the SCVWD; and 3) local surface water from
Los Gatos Creek and Local Watershed.
Based on the foregoing reasons, there is sufficient SJWC water available to supply the demand projected for
the proposed Project for all existing demand and other projected increases in water demand for the next 26
years for normal, single-dry year and multiple-dry year periods.
In summary, buildout of the proposed Project would not result in insufficient SJWC water supplies under
normal year conditions. In addition, during single-dry year and multiple-dry years, with the proposed and
existing water conservation regulations and measures in place, buildout of the proposed Project would not
result in a significant impact on SJWC water supply.
Combined Water Supply
In conclusion, compliance applicable regulations outlined in Section 4.14-1.1 and listed below would
further reduce potential impacts on water supplies for both retailers (SJWC and Cal Water). Future
development within the Project Study Area would include the latest technology in water efficient plumbing
fixtures and irrigation systems, as specified in the 2010 California Plumbing Code and the Cal Water’s and
SJWC’s water efficiency measures relevant to new residential and commercial development. Chapter 16.58
of the Municipal Code requires developers of single family and multi-family homes greater than nine (9)
homes and buldings larger than 50,000 square feet to be LEED Certified and buildings from 25,000 to
50,000 square feet to be LEED Silver certied or the equivialent of a similar ranking structure approved by
the City. Furthermore, the General Plan includes policies and strategies that, once adopted, would also
ensure adequate water supplies are available for the residents of Cupertino. Within the Land
Use/Community Design Element, Policy 2-76, Stevens Creek Park, calls for the Santa Clara County Parks
program to pursue the goal of connecting upper and lower Stevens Creek Parks. Additionally, this policy
calls for the County parks budget to pursue acquisition to the extent possible and emphasize passive park
development in keeping with the pristine nature of the hillsides and to work to retain the watershed and
storage basin properties of Stevens Creek. Policy 2-77, Continuous Open Space, would require the City to
actively pursue inter-agency cooperation in acquiring properties near the western planning area boundary to
complete a continuous open space green belt along the lower foothills and to connect the open space to the
trail system and the neighborhoods. Policy 2-88, Park Design, would require the City to design parks among
25 156,734 afy minus 141,903 afy equals14,831 afy; see Table 4.14-5 .
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
4.14-22 JUNE 18, 2014
other things to utilize natural features and topography of the site. Two strategies have been identified to help
preserve resources including maximizing the use of native plants and minimizing water use and where
possible, open and restore covered creeks and riparian habitat. Within the Environmental
Resources/Sustainability Element, Policy 5-1, Principles of Sustainability, would require the City to
incorporate the principles of sustainability into Cupertino’s planning and development system in order to
improve the environment, reduce greenhouse gas emission and meet the needs of the present community
without compromising the needs of future generations.Policy 5-29, Coordination of Local Conservation
Policies with Region-wide Conservation Policies, would direct the City to continue coordination with
regional water districts regarding water conservation efforts, including compliance with drought plans.
Additionally, Policy 6-19, Water Conservation and Demand Reduction Measures, would direct the City to
proactively reduce water use, consistent with State goals. Strategies 1 through 3 under this policy would,
respectively, direct the City to develop and UWMP, comply with the State’s Water Conservation Plan, and
increase the use of recycled water where feasible. This coordination and compliance with regional and State
conservation programs and requirements would serve to reduce water use and demand overall and
especially during drought years, which would serve to ensure adequate water supplies.
Accordinlgy, buildout of the proposed Project would not result in insufficient water supplies from either
SJWC or Cal Water under normal, single-dry, or multiple-dry years, and new or expanded entitlements
would not be needed; thus, impacts would be less than significant.
Applicable Regulations
The Water Conservation Act of 2009 (Senate Bill SB X7 7)
2010 California Plumbing Code that requires water conserving fixtures
Cupertino’s Landscaping Ordinance – Municipal Code Chapter 14.15
Cupertino’s Water Conservation Ordinance – Municipal Code Chapter 15.32
SJWC’s, Cal Water’s and SCVWD’s water supply and demand management strategies and water
shortage contingency plan identified in the UWMPs
City of Cupertino General Plan
Cupertino Green Building Ordinance
Significance Without Mitigation: Less than significant.
UTIL-2 Implementation of the proposed Project would not require or result in the
construction of new water facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which would cause significant environmental effects.
As discussed in Impact UTIL-1 above, the water demand associated with the proposed Project would be
served with available and planned water supplies provided by Cal Water and SJWC.
The General Plan includes policies and strategies that, once adopted, would ensure adequate water supplies
are available for the residents of Cupertino. Within the Environmental Resources Element, Policy 5-26,
Recycled Water, would direct the City to explore opportunities for the use of recycled water, including the
potential expansion of an existing recycled water line from Sunnyvale to the Homestead Road Special Area.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
PLACEWORKS 4.14-23
Policy 7-4, New Development Public Infrastructure Requirements, would require new development to
provide or pay for adequate public facilities to accommodate growth; this policy could therefore result in
the construction of new water facilities or the expansion of existing facilities to serve new development.
Although creation of new infrastructure or facilities associated with these policies could create significant
environmental effects, compliance with applicable regulations, as discussed below, as well as project-level
environmental review would serve to evaluate and mitigate potential adverse physical effects.
In addition, future development under the proposed Project would be located within already developed
urban areas and therefore, would connect to an existing water distribution system.
In summary, in accordance with the General Plan policies listed under Impact UTIl-1, and applicable
regulations below, buildout of the proposed Project would not result in water demands that would require
the construction of new water treatment facilities or the expansion of existing facilities; thus, impacts would
be less than significant.
Applicable Regulations
The Water Conservation Act of 2009 (Senate Bill SB X7 7)
2010 California Plumbing Code that requires water conserving fixtures
Cupertino’s Landscaping Ordinance – Municipal Code Chapter 14.15
Cupertino’s Water Conservation Ordinance – Municipal Code Chapter 15.32
SJWC’s, Cal Water’s and SCVWD’s water supply and demand management strategies and water
shortage contingency plan identified in the UWMPs
Cupertino Green Building Ordinance
Significance Without Mitigation: Less than significant.
UTIL-3 Implementation of the proposed Project, in combination with past, present,
and reasonably foreseeable projects, would not result in significant
cumulative impacts with respect to water supply.
This section analyzes potential impacts to water supply that could occur from the proposed Project in
combination with other reasonably foreseeable projects in the surrounding area. The geographic scope of
this cumulative analysis is the Cal Water and SJWC service areas. While the proposed Project would
contribute to an increased cumulative demand for water supply, the increased demand would not exceed the
long-term supply under normal circumstances, as discussed above. Additionally, Cal Water, SJWC and
SCVWD UWMPs determine that the water supply will be sufficient to accommodate future demand in the
Cal Water and SJWC service areas through 2035, and by extension through 2040, under normal
circumstances. In the multiple dry years, with Cal Water, SJWC and SCVWD drought contingency plans in
place, any shortages would be managed through demand reductions and other measures such as increased
groundwater pumping. In addition, with SB X7 7 and the State, county, and local water conservation
ordinances in place, each jurisdiction would be required to conserve its water use through establishing water
efficiency measures. In addition, the General Plan includes policies and strategies that, once adopted, would
ensure adequate water supplies are available for the residents of Cupertino. Policy 5-29, Coordination of
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
4.14-24 JUNE 18, 2014
Local Conservation Policies with Region-wide Conservation Policies, directs the City to continue
coordination with regional water districts regarding water conservation efforts, including compliance with
drought plans. This coordination and compliance would serve to reduce water use and demand overall and
especially during drought years. Additionally, Policy 6-19, Water Conservation and Demand Reduction
Measures, would direct the City to proactively reduce water use, consistent with State goals. Strategies 1
through 3 under this policy would, respectively, direct the City to develop and Urban Water Management
Plan (UWMP), comply with the State’s 20x20x20 Water Conservation Plan, and increase the use of
recycled water where feasible. In addition, pursuant to SB 610 and SB 221, WSAs would be prepared for
large development projects prior to approval of each project to ensure adequate water supply for new
development. Together, these regulations, policies, and other considerations would ensure that impacts
under the proposed Project with respect to water supply would be less than significant.
Applicable Regulations
The Water Conservation Act of 2009 (Senate Bill SB X7 7)
2010 California Plumbing Code that requires water conserving fixtures
State Updated Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (Assembly Bill 1881 [2006])
SCVWD Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan
SJWC’s, Cal Water’s and SCVWD’s water supply and demand management strategies and water
shortage contingency plan identified in the UWMPs
City of Cupertino General Plan
City of Cupertino Municipal Code – Green Building Ordinance
Overall, cumulative water demands would neither exceed planned levels of supply nor require building new
water treatment facilities or expanding existing facilities beyond what is currently planned. In addition,
future development would be required to pay development fees, which would offset the costs of system
maintenance and capital upgrades to support the new development in the Cal Water and SJWC service
areas. Therefore, the cumulative impact would be less than significant.
Significance Without Mitigation: Less than significant.
4.14.2 WASTEWATER
This section describes the existing conditions and potential impacts of the proposed Project with regard to
wastewater collection and treatment facilities.
4.14.2.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Regulatory Framework
Federal Regulations
The federal government regulates wastewater treatment and planning through the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act of 1972, more commonly known as the Clean Water Act (CWA), as well as through the
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
PLACEWORKS 4.14-25
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program, both of which are discussed in
further detail below.
Clean Water Act
The CWA regulates the discharge of pollutants into watersheds throughout the nation. The CWA consists of
two parts, one being the provisions which authorize federal financial assistance for municipal sewage (i.e.
wastewater) treatment plant construction. The other is the regulatory requirements that apply to industrial
and municipal dischargers. Under the CWA, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)
implements pollution control programs and sets wastewater standards.
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
The NPDES permit program was established in the CWA to regulate municipal and industrial discharges to
surface waters of the United States. Federal NPDES permit regulations have been established for broad
categories of discharges, including point-source municipal waste discharges and nonpoint-source
stormwater runoff. NPDES permits generally identify effluent and receiving water limits on allowable
concentrations and/or mass emissions of pollutants contained in the discharge; prohibitions on discharges
not specifically allowed under the permit; and provisions that describe required actions by the discharger,
including industrial pretreatment, pollution prevention, self-monitoring, and other activities. Wastewater
discharge is regulated under the NPDES permit program for direct discharges into receiving waters and by
the National Pretreatment Program for indirect discharges to a sewage (i.e. wastewater) treatment plant.
State Regulations
Wastewater treatment and planning is regulated by the State. The specific State regulations relevant to the
proposed Project are described below.
State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB)
On May 2, 2006 the SWRCB adopted a General Waste Discharge Requirement (Order No. 2006-0003) for
all publicly owned sanitary sewer collection systems in California with more than 1 mile of sewer pipe. The
order provides a consistent statewide approach to reducing sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs) by requiring
public sewer system operators to take all feasible steps to control the volume of waste discharged into the
system, to prevent sanitary sewer waste from entering the storm sewer system, and to develop a Sewer
System Management Plan (SSMP). The General Waste Discharge Requirement also requires that storm
sewer overflows be reported to the SWRCB using an online reporting system.
The SWRCB has delegated authority to nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards to enforce these
requirements within their region. The City of Cupertino is within the jurisdiction of the San Francisco Bay
RWQCB.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
4.14-26 JUNE 18, 2014
Sanitary District Act of 1923
The Sanitary District Act of 1923 (Health and Safety Code Section 6400 et seq.) authorizes the formation of
sanitation districts and enforces the districts to construct, operate, and maintain facilities for the collection,
treatment, and disposal of wastewater.26 This Act was amended in 1949 to allow the districts to also provide
solid waste management and disposal services, including refuse transfer and resource recovery.
Local Regulation
City of Cupertino 2000-2020 General Plan
The City of Cupertino’s 2000-2020 General Plan, adopted on November 15, 2005, contains the
Environmental Resources/Sustainability Element in Section 5 of the General Plan. This section contains
goals and policies that ensure adequate wastewater treatment capacity and infrastructure. As part of the
proposed Project, some General Plan policies would be amended. Substantive policy changes under the
proposed Project include the addition, removal, or functional revision (e.g. not purely semantic) of policies
in ways that have the potential to result in a physical impact on the environment. Policies of the 2000-2020
General Plan that are relevant to wastewater and were not substantially changed (e.g. renumbered or minor
text change) are listed below in Table 4.14-13. A comprehensive list of policy changes is provided in
Appendix I, Proposed General Plan Policy Amendments, of this Draft EIR. Discussions of how substantive
policy changes may result in adverse physical changes are included in the analyses under each impact
criterion in Section 4.14.2.3, Impact Discussion, below.
TABLE 4.14‐13 POLICIES AND STRATEGIES OF THE CUPERTINO 2000‐2020 GENERAL PLAN
New Policy
Number
Original Policy
Number Policies and Strategies
Section 5, Environmental Resources/Sustainability
Policy 7‐2 Policy 5‐46 Sunnyvale Treatment Plant. Consider the impacts on the Sunnyvale sanitary sewer system
if significant office uses are proposed in the east Stevens Creek Boulevard area.
Source: City of Cupertino and Cupertino 2000‐2020 General Plan
City of Cupertino Municipal Code
The Municipal Code contains all City ordinances and identifies land use categories, site development
regulations, and other general provisions that ensure consistency between the General Plan and proposed
development projects. The Municipal Code is organized by Title, Chapter, and Section. The current
Municipal Code is up to date through Ordinance 14-2117, and was adopted March 18, 2014.
26 California Health and Safety Code, http://leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/calawquery?codesection=hsc, accessed on November 18, 2011.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
PLACEWORKS 4.14-27
The following provisions from the Municipal Code help ensure wastewater treatment capacity and sewer
infrastructure is adequate to serve the residents and employees of Cupertino:
Chapter 16.58, Green Building Standards Code Adopted, describes the 2013 California Green Building
Standards adopted by the City, and any local amendments made with indications of additions or
amendments to the State Standards. The Green Building Ordinance for the City of Cupertino provides
minimum Green Building Requirements for new construction, and renovation and additions.
Chapter 15.20, Sewage Disposal Systems, establishes standards for the approval, installation, and
operation of individual onsite sewage disposal systems consistent with the California Regional Water
Quality Board standards. The chapter sets regulation for connecting to public sanitary sewer system,
including required permits, Soil Test requirement, and procedures for plan approval by the Health
Officer.
Cupertino Sanitary District Operations Code
The Cupertino Sanitary District (CSD) provides sanitary sewer service for Cupertino, portions of Saratoga,
Sunnyvale, Los Altos, and surrounding unincorporated Santa Clara County communities. Chapter IV of
Cupertino Sanitary CSD’s Operations Code requires all new buildings within the CSD to be connected to
the CSD sewer system and all land development projects to include provisions for future buildings to
connect to the CSD’s sewer system. Article 3 of Chapter VI of the CSD’s Operations Code requires a
Wastewater Discharge Permit before connecting to or discharging into a CSD’s sewer. The Wastewater
Discharge Permit would be attached to a specific duration, which cannot exceed 5 years.
Cupertino Sanitary District Sewer System Management Plan
The Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP) was prepared in compliance with the State Water Resources
Control Board (SWRCB) Order 2006-0003: Statewide General Waste Discharge Requirements for Sanitary
Sewer Systems (GWDR), as revised by Order No. WQ 2008-0002.EXEC on February 20, 2008. The
GWDR prohibits sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs), requires reporting of SSOs using the statewide
electronic reporting system, and requires the preparation of an SSMP.
The SSMP is also required by the San Francisco Bay RWQCB. Requirements are outlined in the Sewer
System Management Plan Development Guide dated July 2005 by the RWQCB in cooperation with the Bay
Area Clean Water Agencies (BACWA).
The CSD is one of a number of stakeholder agencies within a local watershed area of Santa Clara County;
each is accountable by permit to the State Water Resources Control Board under the Clean Water Act. These
stakeholders include:
San Jose/Santa Clara Water Pollution Control Plant
Santa Clara Valley Water District
Cities of Cupertino, Saratoga, Sunnyvale, Santa Clara, Los Altos and San Jose
Santa Clara County Roads and Airports and Public Works Departments
Other stakeholders include the Santa Clara County Environmental Services Department, Department of
Fish and Wildlife and several privately organized environmental groups.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
4.14-28 JUNE 18, 2014
Existing Conditions
Wastewater Collection
Cupertino Sanitary District
The Project Study Area is primarily served by the CSD; however, the area east of Finch Avenue and south of
Stevens Creek Boulevard, which comprises approximately 4.4 percent of the Heart of the City Special Area,
is served by the City of Sunnyvale. Figure 4.14-2 shows the boundaries of the two wastewater collection
providers.
The CSD is a separate governmental entity established as a special district. As an independent special
district, the CSD Board of Directors is elected from the constituency within its Service Area Boundary. The
CSD was formed in 1956 to provide sewer services to the cities of Cupertino, Los Altos, and Saratoga, and
unincorporated areas within the service boundaries.
The CSD lies within the watershed basins of Stevens Creek and Calabazas Creek; both creeks lead to San
Francisco Bay. Tributaries to Calabazas Creek are seasonal creeks which include, Rodeo Creek and Regnart
Creek.
The CSD provides sewage collection, treatment and disposal services for these areas comprising
approximately 15 square miles with a population of over 50,000 residents and more than 23,000 homes and
businesses. The CSD owns and manages more than one million lineal feet of sewer mains, 500,000 lineal
feet of sewer laterals and seventeen pump stations. The collected wastewater from all areas is conveyed to
the San Jose/Santa Clara Water Pollution Control Plant (SJ/SC WPCP) through mains and interceptor lines
shared with both the cities of San Jose and Santa Clara, pursuant to a joint use agreement.
Of the seventeen pump stations, eleven are located in Cupertino, and six are located in the City of Saratoga.
Wastewater pipes within the CSD’s service area range from 4 to 27 inches in size, and all sewer mains are 8
inches or larger in diameter. Approximately 70 percent of the sewer mains were constructed in the 1960s,
20 percent in the 1970s, and the remaining 10 percent after 1980. A service review by the Local Agency
Formation Commission of Santa Clara County in 2013 indicated that CSD considers its pipe network to be
generally in good condition.27
Primary trunk lines serving the Project Study Area include 12-inch facilities in Homestead Road, 15- and
18-inch facilities along the north side of Interstate 280 (I-280), 12- and 15-inch facilities on Wolfe Road, 10-
inch facilities on De Anza Boulevard, 18-inch facilities on Shetland Place, and 27-inch facilities on
Pruneridge Avenue. A metered outfall to the City of Santa Clara sanitary sewer system is located on
Homestead Road Near Tantau Avenue. Other minor outfalls to the City of San Jose are located in the
southern part of Cupertino.
27 Local Agency Formation Commission of Santa Clara County, “Special Districts Service Review: Phase 2,” Adopted December 4,
2013, http://www.santaclara.lafco.ca.gov/service_reviews/2013/Phase2/3_CupertinoSD.pdf, accessed May 20, 2014.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
PLACEWORKS 4.14-29
The 27-inch line in Prunridge Avenue is being removed and replaced with a new 27-inch line to be
constructed in Wolfe Road between Pruneridge Avenue and Homestead Road, and on Homestead Road
between Wolfe Road and the meter near Tantau Avenue. This work is being performed as part of the Apple
Campus 2 project.
The CSD has a contractual treatment allocation with the SJ/SC WPCP of 7.85 million gallon per day (mgd),
on average. Current wastewater flow to SJ/SC WPCP is 5.3 mgd.28 Approximately 4.8 mgd is routed to the
Santa Clara system at the Homestead Road meter, while the remaining 0.5 mgd is routed through the City
of San Jose. The CSD prepared a flow capacity analysis in 2008 to determine whether the CSD had excess
contractual SJ/SC WPCP capacity available to sell to the City of Milpitas. The analysis indicated that the
total CSD wide demand would be 7.2 mgd upon buildout of the 2020 General Plan,29 leaving 0.6 mgd
remaining capacity for development beyond that previously allocated.
A sewer main flow study was prepared in 2000 for the Cupertino City Center project.30 The study identified
one trunk line flowing at or above capacity, and another flowing near capacity prior to development of the
City Center project. Study recommendations focused on the system that collected a majority of the City
Center flow, which was the trunk line identified as flowing near capacity. The upstream section of this
system consists of an 8-inch diameter that connects to a 12-inch line on the south side of Stevens Creek
Boulevard and was found to flow at slightly over 50-percent of capacity. Wastewater in this upstream section
is primarily generated by residential uses and a small amount of commercial development. The downstream
sections of this system consist of 12-inch lines on Stevens Creek Boulevard and Wolfe Road up to a point just
south of Interstate 280, where it increases to a 15-inch line. With the City Center project, this section of
pipe was estimated to flow at 90-percent of capacity. North of Interstate 280, the line decreased to 12-
inches in diameter and was projected to flow in a surcharged condition at nearly 140-percent of capacity.
The section of pipe between I-280 and Prunridge Avenue was upsized to a 15-inch pipe as part of the City
Center project. Upon upsizing of this line, this trunk line system was projected to flow at 90 percent of
capacity from Stevens Creek Boulevard near Randy Lane to Wolfe Road, and north on Wolfe Road to the
north side of Interstate 280, and at 75-percent of capacity from Interstate 280 to Pruneridge Avenue The
report concludes that future development expected to contribute flow to this trunk line will be responsible
for upsizing additional sections of sewer line to accommodate the additional flow.
Additional31 capacity enhancing improvements were made along Wolfe Road between Stevens Creek
Boulevard and Interstate 280 that included construction of a parallel 12-inch sewer line.
28 Tanaka, Richard. Letter to Ms. Aarti Shrivastava, Assistant City Manager. 23 May 2014.
29 Tanaka, Richard. Letter to Ms. Aarti Shrivastava, Assistant City Manager. 23 May 2014.
30 Ross, David E. Memorandum to Cupertino Sanitary District Board of Directors. 1 Nov 2000. TS.
31 Tanaka, Richard. Personal communication. 21 May 2014.
City of Sunnyvale
%&'(280
|ÿ85
City of San Jose
City of
Santa
Clara
Santa Clara
County
Santa Clara
County
City of
Los Altos
City of Saratoga
S
B
L
A
N
E
Y
A
V
E
N
B
L
A
N
E
Y
A
V
E
B O L LI N G E R RD
N
S
T
E
L
L
I
N
G
R
D
B
U
B
B
R
D
NTANTAU
AVE
S
D
E
A
N
Z
A
B
L
V
D
BL
A
N
E
Y
A
V
E
FO
O
T
H
I
L
L
B
L
V
D
N
FOOTHILL
BLVD
RAINBOW DR
S
ST
E
L
L
I
N
G
R
D
HOMESTEAD R D
P R U N ERIDGE AVE
M
I
L
L
ER
AVE
STEVENS CREEK BLVD
S
TANTAUAVE
G
R
A
N
T
R
D
N
D
E
A
N
Z
A
B
L
V
D
P R OS PE C T RD
MCCLELLAN RD
N
W
O
L
F
E
R
D
S
W
O
L
F
E
R
D
Sewer DistrictsCupertino Sanitation DistrictSunnyvale Sewer CollectionProject Components
Figure 4.14-2Sewer Districts
Source: City of Cupertino, 2013; MIG, Inc, 2014; BKF Engineers, 2014; PlaceWorks, 2014.
PROJECT DESCRIPTIONCITY OF CUPERTINOGENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING PROJECT
0 0.5 10.25
Miles
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
PLACEWORKS 4.14-31
The 2000 flow study prepared for the Cupertino City Center project also identified another trunk line
operating at or above capacity at the time of the study. This line consists of 10-inch to 18-inch sewer lines
located in Randy Lane, Wheaton Drive, Denison Avenue, and Norwich Avenue. Flow data indicated that
segments of this line flowed at 88-percent of capacity.
The current General Plan also notes capacity deficiencies with specific lines in the system. In addition to the
lines discussed above, sewer lines in Stelling Road and Foothill Boulevard are running either at capacity or
over capacity. No additional capacity improvements to these lines have been made to date.
Sunnyvale Sewer Collection System
The City of Sunnyvale sanitary sewer collection system serves a population of approximately 140,000 in a
25-square-mile service area. The sewer system consists of 283 miles of gravity sewers, five sewer lift (pump)
stations, and over two miles of sewer force main. The sewer mains range in size from 6 to 42 inches in
diameter. Service is provided to all Sunnyvale residents, and to a portion of the City of Cupertino, including
two blocks of Cupertino’s commercial properties along east Stevens Creek Boulevard. This service area also
includes unincorporated single-family residential properties within the Cupertino Urban Service Area. The
SWPCP has a daily treatment capacity of 29 mgd of which approximately 15 mgd are being utilized.
Wastewater Treatment
San Jose/Santa Clara Water Pollution Control Plant
The SJ/SC WPCP cleans and treats the wastewater of approximately 1,500,000 people that live and work in
the 300-square-mile area encompassing the cities of San Jose, Santa Clara, Milpitas, Campbell, Cupertino,
Los Gatos, Saratoga and Monte Sereno. CSD entered into a master agreement with the cities of San Jose and
Santa Clara for wastewater treatment in 1983. The agreement establishes capacity rights and obligations for
the operation and operating, maintenance and capital costs of the plant by member agencies. The SJ/SC
WPCP has the capacity to treat 167 mgd utilizing an advanced, tertiary wastewater system. Most of the final
treated water from the SJ/SC WPCP is discharged as fresh water through Artesian Slough and into South
San Francisco Bay. About 10 percent is recycled through South Bay Water Recycling pipelines for
landscaping, agricultural irrigation, and industrial needs around the South Bay. Despite a steady increase in
population served by the SJ/SC WPCP, influent wastewater flows at the SJ/SC WPCP have decreased since
the late 1990s due to the loss of heavy industry and increased water conservation. Flows in 2000 were 131
mgd and flows in 2010 were less than 110 mgd. The plant currently treats 105 mgd. According to the SJ/SC
WPCP Master Plan, the SJ/SC WPCP wet weather capacity will be increased to 450 mgd. Should the
SJ/SC WPCP be upgraded as described in the Master Plan, the recycling capabilities would be increased,
with much of the recycled water used in groundwater recharge ponds. The CSD has a contract with the City
of San Jose to use a percentage of the capacity of the City’s sewage treatment facilities. In return, the
contract requires the CSD to pay its share of debt service, operation, maintenance and improvement costs.
In October 2010, the SCVWD and SJ/SC WPCP began construction of a new water treatment facility,
known as the Advanced Water Treatment Facility (AWT) which will have the capacity to produce up to eight
million gallons of highly purified water per day. The AWT is expected to begin operations in mid-2014. The
SCVWD will own and operate the new treatment facility, while the City of San Jose will continue to
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
4.14-32 JUNE 18, 2014
operate the South Bay Water Recycling (SBWR) system. The AWT facility will use microfiltration, reverse
osmosis, and ultraviolet disinfection to produce highly purified water. This highly purified water will be
blended into existing recycled water provided by the neighboring SJ/SC WPCP, which will improve overall
recycled water quality so that the water can be used for a wider variety of irrigation and industrial purposes.
Longer term, the SCVWD is investigating the possibility of using highly purified recycled water for
replenishment of groundwater basins. However, a feasibility study, including pilot research studies, will be
conducted before a decision is made regarding whether to use highly purified recycled water as a water
supply option.
Sunnyvale Water Pollution Control Plant
The City of Sunnyvale sewer collection system, which serves a small area of the Project Study Area along
Stevens Creek Boulevard, directs wastewater to the Sunnyvale Water Pollution Control Plant (SWPCP). The
SWPCP has an average dry weather flow design capacity of 29.5 mgd and a 40 mgd peak wet weather flow
capacity. The current total service area population is approximately 136,000. The SWPCP provides
advanced secondary treatment of wastewater from domestic, commercial and industrial sources from its
service areas.
The City of Sunnyvale owns and operates the SWPCP and its associated collection system (collectively the
facility). Wastewater treatment processes at the SWPCP include grinding and grit removal, primary
sedimentation, secondary treatment through the use of oxidation ponds, fixed-film reactor nitrification,
dissolved air flotation, dual media filtration, chlorine disinfection, and de-chlorination. The SWPCP’s
collection system is a 100 percent separate sanitary sewer. It contains approximately 327 miles of pipes
ranging from 6 inches to 48 inches in diameter, and one lift station. Treated wastewater from the plant flows
into Moffett Channel, a tributary to Guadalupe Slough and South San Francisco Bay.
4.14.2.2 THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
According to Appendix G, Environmental Checklist, of the CEQA Guidelines, the proposed Project would
have a significant impact on wastewater service if it would:
1. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board.
2. Require or result in the construction of new wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects.
3. 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 proposed Project’s projected demand in addition to
the provider’s existing commitments.
4.14.2.3 IMPACT DISCUSSION
This section analyzes the proposed Project’s potential impacts and cumulative impacts to wastewater
collection and treatment facilities.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
PLACEWORKS 4.14-33
UTIL-4 Implementations of the proposed Project would not exceed wastewater
treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control
Board.
San Jose/Santa Clara Water Pollution Control Plant
The CSD sewer collection system directs wastewater to the SJ/SCWPCP, a joint powers authority. The San
Francisco RWQCB established wastewater treatment requirements for the SJ/SCWPCP in an NPDES
Permit (Order No. R2-2009-0038), adopted April 8, 2009 and effective June 1, 2009.32 The NPDES Order
sets out a framework for compliance and enforcement applicable to operation of the SJ/SCWPCP and its
effluent, as well as those contributing influent to the SJ/SCWPCP. This NPDES Order currently allows dry
weather discharges of up to 167 mgd with full tertiary treatment, and wet weather discharges of up to 271
mgd with full tertiary treatment.
As the dischargers named in the NPDES Permit, the City of San Jose and the City of Santa Clara implement
and enforce pretreatment programs for effluent discharged into Artesian Slough, a tributary to Coyote
Creek and South San Francisco Bay. The dischargers conduct programs to educate residents, professionals,
and business owners about the proper use of their sewer and drainage systems in order to help preserve
their own facilities and to help protect the environment.
The CSD is one of six additional satellite collection systems that discharge into the SJ/SCWPCP. Each
satellite collection system is responsible for an ongoing program of maintenance and capital improvements
for sewer lines and pump stations within its respective jurisdiction in order to ensure adequate capacity and
reliability of the collection system. The responsibilities include managing overflows, controlling Infiltration
and Inflow (I&I) and implementing collection system maintenance.
The SJ/SCWPCP, serving as the Discharger, has an approved pretreatment program, which includes
approved local limits as required by prior permits. The previous permit required the Discharger to evaluate
its local limits—such as those established by the CSD—to ensure compliance with updated effluent limits.
These local limits are approved as part of the pretreatment program required by this permit. The
SJ/SCWPCP is required to monitor the permitted discharges in order to evaluate compliance with permit
conditions.
With continued compliance with applicable regulations listed below, projected wastewater generated from
potential future development under the proposed Project would not exceed the wastewater treatment
requirements or capacity of the SJ/SCWPCP. Therefore, the wastewater treatment requirements of the San
Francisco RWQCB would not be exceeded due to buildout of the proposed Project, resulting in a less-
than-significant impact.
32 San Francisco RWQCB NPDES Permit (Order No. R2-2009-0038) for SJ/SCWPCP.
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/rwqcb2/board_info/agendas/2009/april/SJSC_FinalOrder%20-%204-09.pdf
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
4.14-34 JUNE 18, 2014
City of Sunnyvale Water Pollution Control Plant
The Sunnyvale sewer collection system, which serves a small area of the Project Component locations along
Seven Creek Boulevard, directs wastewater to the SWPCP. The San Francisco RWQCB established
wastewater treatment requirements for the SWPCP in an NPDES Permit (Order No.R2-2009-0061),
adopted August 12, 2009 and effective October 1, 2009. Discharge Prohibition III.C of the permit states the
average dry weather effluent flow shall not exceed 29.5 mgd. Exceeding the treatment SWPCP’s average
dry weather flow design capacity (29.5 mgd) may result in lowering the reliability of achieving compliance
with water quality requirements. The prohibition against exceeding design capacity is meant to ensure
effective wastewater treatment by limiting flows to the SWPCP’s design treatment capability.
Treated wastewater from the SWPCP flows into Moffett Channel, which is a tributary to the Guadalupe
Slough and the South San Francisco Bay. The SWPCP has an average dry weather flow design capacity of
29.5 mgd and a 40 mgd peak wet weather flow capacity. The average dry weather flow discharged to Moffett
Channel during the months of June, July, August, and September between 2006 to 2008 was 9.4 mgd. The
average flow discharged to Moffett Chanel was 11.8 mgd from 2006 to 2008, the average wet weather flow
(October-May) discharged to Moffett Chanel was 13.1 mgd from 2006 to 2008, and the maximum daily
effluent flow rate was 35 mgd from 2006 to 2008.33
All public entities that own or operate sanitary sewer systems greater than one mile in length—including
the CSD and the SJ/SCWPCP—that collect and/or convey untreated or partially treated wastewater to a
publicly owned treatment facility in the State of California, are required to comply with the terms of
SWRCB Order. No. 2006-0003-DWQ, as amended by Order No. WQ 2008-0002-EXEC. These public
entities are considered “enrollees” of the statewide permit, as amended. One purpose of the statewide
SWRCB permit is to prevent sewer system overflows (SSOs). Major causes of SSOs include: grease
blockages, root blockages, sewer line flood damage, manhole structure failures, vandalism, pump station
mechanical failures, power outages, excessive storm or ground water inflow/infiltration, debris blockages,
sanitary sewer system age and construction material failures, lack of proper operation and maintenance,
insufficient capacity, and contractor-caused damages. Many SSOs are preventable with adequate and
appropriate facilities, source control measures, and operation and maintenance of the sanitary sewer system.
To facilitate proper management of sanitary sewer systems, each “enrollee” must develop and implement a
system-specific Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP).
With continued compliance with applicable regulations listed below, projected wastewater generated from
potential future development under the proposed Project would not exceed the wastewater treatment
requirements or capacity of the SWPCP. Therefore, the wastewater treatment requirements of the San
Francisco RWQCB would not be exceeded due to buildout of the proposed Project, resulting in a less-
than-significant impact.
33 San Francisco RWQCB NPDES Permit (Order No. R2-2009-0061 )for City of Sunnyvale WPCP.
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/rwqcb2/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2009/R2-2009-0061.pdf
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
PLACEWORKS 4.14-35
Applicable Regulations
San Francisco RWQCB NPDES Permit (Order No. R2-2009-0038) for SJ/SCWPCP
San Francisco RWQCB NPDES Permit (Order No. R2-2009-0061) for SWPCP
SWRCB Order No. 2006-0003-DWQ for Statewide General Waste Discharge Requirements for
Sanitary Sewer Systems
SWRCB Order No. WQ 2008-0002-EXEC revising SWRCB Order No. 2006-0003-DWQ
Chapter 15.20 of the City’s Municipal Code establishing standards for individual onsite sewage disposal
systems consistent with RWQCB standards.
Cupertino Sanitary District Operations Code
Cupertino Sanitary District Sewer System Management Plan
Significance Without Mitigation: Less than significant.
UTIL-5 Implementation of the proposed Project would not require or result in the
construction of new wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects.
Buildout of the proposed Project would have a significant impact if it would result in the construction of
new wastewater treatment facilities or the expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which would
have a significant effect on the environment. As discussed above in Impact UTIL-4 above and Impact UTIL-6
below, future demands from the proposed Project would not exceed the design or permitted capacity of the
wastewater treatment plants serving the Project Study Area (i.e. SJ/SCWPCP and SWPCP). The potential
impacts to the collection system would be addressed through applicable General Plan policies and measures
as identified in Impact UTIL-6 below. In addition, the CSD’s requirement for new projects to prepare a
hydraulic model and, if necessary, improve collection system capacity,34 would ensure that demands from
individual projects in the Project Study Area would not significantly impact the wastewater collection
service. The General Plan includes policies and strategies that, once adopted, would ensure adequate
wastewater collection and treatment facilities are available for the residents of Cupertino. Policy 5-26,
Recycled Water, would direct the City to continue to explore opportunities for the use of recycled water,
including the potential expansion of an existing recycled water line from Sunnyvale to the Homestead road
area. Additionally, Policy 7-4, New Development Public Infrastructure Requirements, would require new
development to provide or pay for adequate public facilities to accommodate growth; this policy could
therefore result in the construction of new wastewater facilities or the expansion of existing facilities to
serve new development. The development of treatment facilities or conveyance systems associated with
recycled water, wastewater, and/or improved stormwater systems could cause significant environmental
effects; however, compliance with applicable regulations, as discussed below, and project-level
environmental review would serve to evaluate and mitigate potential adverse physical effects. As a result, the
impact would be less than significant.
34 Tanaka, Richard. Personal meeting with Fletcher Parsons, BKF Engineering. May 9, 2014.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
4.14-36 JUNE 18, 2014
Applicable Regulations
San Francisco RWQCB NPDES Permit (Order No. R2-2009-0038) for SJ/SCWPCP
San Francisco RWQCB NPDES Permit (Order No. R2-2009-0061) for SWPCP
SWRCB Order No. 2006-0003-DWQ for Statewide General Waste Discharge Requirements for
Sanitary Sewer Systems
SWRCB Order No. WQ 2008-0002-EXEC revising SWRCB Order No. 2006-0003-DWQ
Chapter 15.20 of the City’s Municipal Code establishing standards for individual onsite sewage disposal
systems consistent with RWQCB standards.
Cupertino Sanitary District Operations Code
Cupertino Sanitary District Sewer System Management Plan
Significance Without Mitigation: Less than significant.
UTIL-6 Implementation of the proposed 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 proposed Project would have a significant impact if future projected demand exceeds the
wastewater service capacity of the SJ/SCWPCP or SWPCP, or the CSD or City of Sunnyvale collection
systems.
Collection Systems
Cupertino Sanitary District
Specific capacity deficiencies were identified in the current Cupertino General Plan update, including sewer
lines serving the City Center area, and lines on Stelling Road and Foothill Boulevard. City Center is the
general area at the southeast quadrant of the intersection of De Anza Blvd and Stevens Creek Blvd. Trunk
lines serving City Center identified as flowing either at or above capacity include those in Stevens Creek
Boulevard between Randy Lane and Wolfe Road, and those in Wolfe Road south of I-280 and between
Pruneridge Avenue and I-280. An additional trunk line, consisting of 10-inch to 18-inch sewer lines located
in Randy Lane, Wheaton Drive, Denison Avenue and Norwich Avenue, was also identified as operating at or
above capacity in a 2000 flow study performed as part of the City Center development.. Capacity
improvements have been made to the lines on Wolfe Road The other lines identified as providing insufficient
capacity for existing flows have not been upgraded to date. New development that substantially increases
wastewater capacity, including projects potentially associated with the proposed Project buildout, could
result in wastewater flows that exceed the collection system capacity. To address this possibility, the CSD
requires developers of substantial projects to demonstrate that adequate capacity exists, or to identify the
necessary mitigations. The CSD defines substantial projects as those projected to generate substantial
increases in wastewater. In these situations, the developer is required to prepare a hydraulic model of the
pipe system between the project and the downstream limits of CSD facilities. To demonstrate capacity is
available, the model must show that existing pipes flow less than two-thirds full when the new development
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
PLACEWORKS 4.14-37
wastewater flow is added to existing flows. In the event that adequate capacity is not available,
improvements would need to be identified and constructed to provide a system that flows at less than two-
thirds full. The CSD requires new development to prepare a hydraulic model and, if necessary, improve
capacity as a standard condition independent of the proposed Project. As a result, impacts on the CSD
collection system would be less than significant.
Furthermore, the CSD is currently performing a capacity analysis of their entire collection system.
Improvements required to mitigate system deficiencies as well as to accommodate future development will
be identified and added to their Capital Improvement Program (CIP). Capacity fees will then be developed
to fund the CIP. New development that increases wastewater transmission and treatment demand would be
required to contribute towards system capacity enhancement improvements through payment of the
capacity fee. In this manner, CSD would be responsible for upgrading their system rather than placing the
responsibility on the developers of the largest wastewater generators, as is currently the case. If and when
this fee is developed and implemented, it will create a more reliable and equitable mitigation for new
development.
City of Sunnyvale
Buildout of the portion of the Heart of the City Special Area east of Finch Avenue and south of Stevens
Creek Boulevard could result in wastewater flows to the City of Sunnyvale that exceed the downstream pipe
capacity if large office developments are allowed. Trunk service mains would require capacity enhancing
improvements if large office users are allowed in the Cupertino service area.
Development in this area is guided by the Heart of the City Specific Plan. This Specific Plan does allow office
uses in the entire corridor with appropriate mitigation measures. However, development adjacent to the
single family residences on the east side along Stevens Creek Boulevard would not be large office campuses
due to the small size of the properties and the need to maintain compatibility with adjoining single-family
residential uses. Offices allowed in this area would be smaller, like attorney’s offices or small office spaces35.
Modification of the Heart of the City Specific Plan to allow large office space in the area would require
further environmental review, which would address sanitary sewer capacity issues, as well as neighborhood
compatibility. Without modification of the Heart of the City Specific Plan, the City of Sunnyvale could
continue to provide system capacity for future growth in its Cupertino service area. As a result, impacts on
the City of Sunnyvale collection system would be less than significant.
Treatment Systems
San Jose/Santa Clara Water Pollution Control Plant
The CSD calculated wastewater flow associated with the 2020 General Plan development allocations,
together with existing flows at the time the General Plan was approved, to be 7.2 mgd. The projected
additional wastewater generated by buildout of the proposed Project, over and above the current General
35 Ghosh, Piu, City of Cupertino. Personal communication with Fletcher Parsons, BKF. May 21, 2014.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
4.14-38 JUNE 18, 2014
Plan flows, are calculated to be 1.45 mgd. Adding the proposed Project buildout flows (1.45 mgd) to the
current General Plan flow (7.2 mgd) results in a total wastewater generation of 8.65 mgd. The total
contractual treatment allocation with the SJ/SC WPCP is 7.8 mgd. Thus, the proposed Project would
exceed the current contractually available treatment capacity by 0.85 mgd.The following discussion
identifies alternatives to increase treatment capacity, analyses to reduce projected treatment requirements,
and a tracking mechanism to allow development to occur up to such time as the contractual treatment
threshold is reached, at which time a development moratorium would be implemented.
Increase Treatment Capacity
Both the SJ/SCWPCP and City of Sunnyvale treatment plants have excess capacity, and would be able to
treat wastewater produced by development under the proposed Project. The CSD would need to enter into
an agreement with either or both of these agencies to provide additional treatment capacity. Implementation
of such an agreement would allow the Project to proceed without the need for any physical expansion of
existing facilities.
CSD, with assistance from the City of Cupertino, could potentially purchase additional capacity from any
one, or combination of the six other agencies with contractual rights to direct flow to the SJ/SC WPCP.
These agencies include Cities of San Jose, Santa Clara, and Milpitas, West Valley Sanitation District,
Sanitation District # 2 – 3, and the Burbank Sanitary District. No discussions have yet taken place with any
of these agencies to determine the viability of this approach.
There is no contractual limit on the amount of wastewater Cupertino can send to Sunnyvale, and the
SWPCP has capacity available to treat the Project flow. The transmission pipes between Cupertino and the
SWPCP, however, are undersized to convey the needed flow. Upsizing the transmission lines would be
required if additional flow were to be directed to the SWPCP.
Generation Rates
In addition, as explained above, flows have decreased over time: in 2000 the flows were 131 mgd and flows
in 2010 were less than 110 mgd.36 The SJ/SCWPCP currently treats 105 mgd. The SJ/SC WPCP Master
Plan sets a future capacity of 450 mgd. Projections of future wastewater treatment demands are based on
generation rates provided by CSD. While the rates used for residential development are mandated by the
SJ/SC WCPC contract with CSD, the generation rates for office, commercial and hotel uses are subject to
discretion. CSD believes the rates used are conservative, but hasn’t performed the analysis needed to
determine how conservative they may be. Studies could be performed in the future to identify realistic
generation rates. This could reduce the amount of additional treatment capacity required for the buildout of
the proposed Project. Over the 26-year Project buildout time frame, it is expected that implementation of
current green building standards will result in reduced wastewater treatment demands. As described above
in the Section 4.14.1.1, Regulatory Setting, Municipal Code Chapter 16.58 requires that buildings larger
than 50,000 square feet to be LEED Certified and buildings from 25,000 to 50,000 square feet to be LEED
36 San Francisco RWQCB NPDES Permit (Order No. R2-2009-0038) for SJ/SCWPCP.
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/rwqcb2/board_info/agendas/2009/april/SJSC_FinalOrder%20-%204-09.pdf
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
PLACEWORKS 4.14-39
Silver certified. The wastewater generation rates used by CSD in projecting Project impacts do not consider
the green technology that will be implemented over the course of Project buildout. The City is considering
the preparation of a study to determine the actual building wastewater generation for both standard and
green/LEED buildings pursuant to Chapter 16.58. The results of such a study would provide the CSD a
more realistic generation rate to apply to the qualifying buildings that are within the CSD jurisdiction. This
would allow projections to be updated to determine a realistic development allocation that would not
exceed the contractual treatment threshold with SJ/SCWPCP.
Monitoring
The CSD projects the remaining contractual treatment capacity at the SJ/SCWPCP to be 0.6 mgd (7.8 mgd
minus 7.2 mgd) upon buildout of the 2020 General Plan. That projection includes the remaining
development allocation, which is also part of the Project. The remaining development allocation is projected
to generate 0.72 mgd, and the remaining contractual treatment capacity for the Project is 1.32 mgd (0.6
mgd plus 0.72 mgd). Based on the conservative wastewater generation rates used by CSD, over half the
proposed development allocation under the proposed Project could be built before exceeding the
contractual treatment threshold with SJ/SCWPCP. A development monitoring system could be
implemented to track the projected wastewater generation as projects are approved.
Nevertheless, the proposed Project exceeds the current contractually available treatment capacity at
SJ/SCWPCP by 0.85 mgd. As a result, unless and until additional contractual capacity is achieved, impacts
on the contractual treatment capacity at SJ/SCWPCP would be significant.
City of Sunnyvale
The SWPCP has a capacity of 29.5 mgd and is currently operating at a daily treatment rate of less than 15
mgd. The projected wastewater generation for the entire Heart of the City Special Area is 1.16 mgd. The
portion of this Special Area served by the SWPCP is 4 percent of the total area of this Special Area.
Assuming a uniform use distribution across the entire Special Area, the wastewater flow to the City of
Sunnyvale would be 0.05 mgd. This projected increase amounts to 0.32 percent of the current daily
treatment flow of 15 mgd, and 0.16 percent of the SWPCP’s dry weather permitted capacity. Thus, the
projected increase in wastewater is within the available capacity, and impacts on the SWPCP would be less
than significant.
While the current General Plan recognizes existing system deficiencies in both the CSD and City of
Sunnyvale wastewater service areas and includes the following policies to address this issue, the proposed
Project exceeds the current contractually available treatment capacity at SJ/SCWPCP by 0.85 mgd and
impacts would be significant.
The General Plan includes policies and strategies that, once adopted, would ensure adequate wastewater
collection and treatment facilities are available for the residents of Cupertino. Within the Environmental
Resources Element, Policy 7-2, Sunnyvale Treatment Plant, would require the City to consider the impacts
on the Sunnyvale sanitary sewer system if significant office uses are proposed in the east Stevens Creek
Boulevard area. Policy 7-3, Sewer Tributary Lines, would require the City to recognize that new high
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
4.14-40 JUNE 18, 2014
discharge users in the Vallco, Stevens Creek Boulevard and Blaney Avenue areas will require private
developers to pay for the upgrading of tributary lines.
Applicable Regulations
SWRCB Order No. 2006-0003-DWQ for Statewide General Waste Discharge Requirements for
Sanitary Sewer Systems
SWRCB Order No. WQ 2008-0002-EXEC revising SWRCB Order No. 2006-0003-DWQ
Chapter 15.20 of the City’s Municipal Code establishing standards for individual onsite sewage disposal
systems consistent with RWQCB standards.
Cupertino Sanitary District Operations Code
Cupertino Sanitary District Sewer System Management
Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measures are recommended to ensure that CSD has adequate capacity to serve the
Project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments:
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.
Significance With Mitigation: Less than significant.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
PLACEWORKS 4.14-41
UTIL-7 Implementation of the proposed Project, in combination with past, present,
and reasonably foreseeable projects, would not result in a significant
cumulative impacts with respect to wastewater treatment.
This section analyzes potential impacts related to wastewater treatment that could occur from the proposed
Project in combination with reasonably foreseeable growth within the SJ/SCWPCP and SWPCP service
areas.
Buildout of the proposed Project would generate a minor increase in the volume of wastewater delivered for
treatment at SJ/SCWPCP and SWPCP. This increase represents 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. Both the SJ/SCWPCP and SWPCP serving the Project Study Area currently use less than their design
and permitted wastewater treatment capacity. 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 proposed 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 by the proposed Project, the construction of new wastewater treatment facilities would
not be necessary.
Additionally, future development under the proposed Project would be subject to the development review
process and would be required to mitigate any effects to wastewater treatment services on a project-by-
project basis. Future development would also be required to comply with all applicable regulations and
ordinances protecting wastewater treatment services as described in Section 4.14.2.1.
Wastewater from cumulative projects would be treated according to the wastewater treatment requirements
documented in the respective NPDES permits for the SJ/SCWPCP and SWPCP, and enforced by the San
Francisco RWQCB.
Therefore, with implementation of Mitigation Measure UTIL-6, cumulative development combined with
the proposed Project would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements, and cumulative impacts to
sanitary wastewater service would be less than significant.
Significance With Mitigation: Less than significant.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
4.14-42 JUNE 18, 2014
4.14.3 SOLID WASTE
This section describes existing conditions related to solid waste disposal services and the potential impacts
of the proposed Project.
4.14.3.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Regulatory Framework
State Regulations
California Integrated Waste Management Act
California’s Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989, AB 939 (Sher), subsequently amended by SB 1016
(Wiggins), set a requirement for cities and counties throughout the State to divert 50 percent of all solid
waste from landfills by January 1, 2000 though source reduction, recycling, and composting. To help achieve
this, the Act required that each city and county prepare and submit a Source Reduction and Recycling
Element. AB 939 also established the goal for all California counties to provide at least 15 years of on-going
landfill capacity. As part of the California Integrated Waste Management Board’s (CIWMB’s) Zero Waste
Campaign, regulations affect what common household items can be placed in the trash. As of February
2006, household materials including fluorescent lamps and tubes, batteries, electronic devices, and
thermostats that contain mercury are no longer permitted in the trash.37
In 2007, SB 1016 amended AB 939 to establish a per capita disposal measurement system. The per capita
disposal measurement system is based on two factors: a jurisdiction’s reported total disposal of solid waste
divided by a jurisdiction’s population. The California Integrated Waste Management Board was replaced by
the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) in 2010. CalRecycle sets a
target per capita disposal rate for each jurisdiction. Each jurisdiction must submit an annual report to
CalRecyclewith an update of its progress in implementing diversion programs and its current per capital
disposal rate.38 In 2012, the statewide per capita disposal rate was 4.3 pounds per resident per day.39
In 2011, Assembly Bill 341 was passed that sets a State policy goal of not less than 75 percent of solid waste
that is generated to be source reduced, recycled, or composted by the year 2020. CalRecycle was required
to submit a report to the legislature by January 1, 2014 outlining the strategy that will be used to achieve
this policy goal.
37 California Department of Resources, Recycling, and Recovery, http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/homehazwaste, accessed on June 2,
2014.
38 California Department of Resources, Recycling, and Recovery, http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/lgcentral/AnnualReport/Sample/ ,
accessed on June 2, 2014.
39 California Department of Resources, Recycling, and Recovery,
http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/lgcentral/goalmeasure/disposalrate/MostRecent/default.htm, accessed on June 2, 2014.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
PLACEWORKS 4.14-43
Assembly Bill 341
Assembly Bill (AB) 341 sets forth the requirements of the statewide mandatory commercial recycling
program. It is intended to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by diverting solid waste to recycling efforts and
to expand the opportunity for additional recycling services and recycling manufacturing facilities in
California. This bill affects local governments in that each jurisdiction is required to implement a
commercial solid waste recycling program that consists of education, outreach and monitoring of
businesses. An annual report of the progress of such efforts is required by the law. CalRecycle is responsible
for reviewing each jurisdiction’s commercial recycling program.
Passed in 2011, AB 341 sets a State policy goal at least 75 percent of solid waste should be source reduced,
recycled, or composted by the year 2020. Under AB 341, CalRecycle was required to submit a report to the
legislature by January 1, 2014 outlining the strategy that will be used to achieve this policy goal. Most
recently, in October 2013, CalRecycle submitted an update on AB 341 Legislative Report to the
Legislature.
California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Access Act of 199140
The California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Access Act requires areas to be set aside for collecting and
loading recyclable materials in development projects. The Act required CIWMB to develop a model
ordinance (for adoption by any local agency) relating to adequate areas for collection and loading of
recyclable materials as part of development projects. Local agencies are required to adopt the model
ordinance, or an ordinance of their own41, governing adequate areas for collection and loading of recyclable
materials in development projects.
Mandatory Commercial Recycling Measure42
The Mandatory Commercial Recycling Measure is part of the California Global Warming Solutions Act of
2006 (also known as Assembly Bill 32) Scoping Plan, which was adopted by the Air Resources Board (ARB).
The Mandatory Commercial Recycling Measure focuses on diverting commercial waste as a means to
reduce GHG emissions, with the goal of reducing GHG emissions by 5 million metric tons of carbon
dioxide equivalents (MTCO2e), consistent with the 2020 targets set by AB 32. To achieve the Measure’s
objective, the commercial sector will need to recycle an additional 2 to 3 million tons of materials annually
by the year 2020.
CalRecycle adopted this Measure at its January 17, 2012 Monthly Public Meeting. The regulation was
approved by the Office of Administrative Law on May 7, 2012 and became effective immediately. On June
27, 2012, the Governor signed Senate Bill 1018, which included an amendment requiring both businesses
40 CalRecycle, accessed on May 19, 2014.
41 Cupertino Municipal Code (CMC) Chapter 9.16 addresses recycling and CMC 9.18.210, sections H and K, refer to the City’s
requirements for trash and recycling enclosures.
42 CalRecycle, http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/Recycle/Commercial/, accessed on May 19, 2014.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
4.14-44 JUNE 18, 2014
that generate 4 cubic yards or more of commercial solid waste per week and multi-family residences with
five or more units to arrange for recycling services. This requirement became effective on July 1, 2012.
CALGreen Building Code
On July 17, 2008, the California Building Standards Commission adopted the nation’s first green building
standards. The California Green Building Standards Code (Part 11, Title 24, known as “CALGreen”) was
adopted as part of the California Building Standards Code (Title 24, California Code of Regulations [CCR])
to apply to the planning, design, operation, construction, use, and occupancy of every newly constructed
building or structure throughout the State of California, unless otherwise indicated in this code. (Also see
CALGreen as it relates to water conservation in Section 4.14.1.1 above.)
Section 4.408, Construction Waste Reduction Disposal and Recycling, mandates that, in the absence of a
more stringent local ordinance43, a minimum of 50 percent of non-hazardous construction and demolition
debris must be recycled or salvaged. CALGreen requires that all applicants have a waste management plan
for on-site sorting of construction debris. The waste management plan shall do the following:
Identify the materials to be diverted from disposal by recycling, reused on the project, or salvaged for
future use or sale.
Specify if materials will be sorted on-site or mixed for transportation to a diversion facility.
Identify the diversion facility where the material collected will be taken.
Identify construction methods employed to reduce the amount of waste generated.
Specify that the amount of materials diverted shall be calculated by weight or volume, but not by both.
Regional Regulations
Santa Clara County Integrated Waste Management Plan
As described above, the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (Assembly Bill 939) was
passed due to concerns about increases in waste production and declining landfill capacity. AB 939 mandated
that jurisdictions divert 50 percent of their landfill waste by the year 2000 and establish a disposal reporting
system. Solid waste facility compliance required that each county prepare and adopt a Countywide
Integrated Waste Management Plan (IWMP).
The Santa Clara County Integrated Waste Management Plan contains goals, policies, and objectives aimed to
ensure an effective and efficient integrated waste management system in Santa Clara County.
43 Cupertino Municipal Code (CMC) Chapter 16.72 addresses construction debris recycling and mandates applicants for any covered
project are required to recycle or divert at least 60 percent of all generated debris from demolition projects to an approved facility or by
salvage.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
PLACEWORKS 4.14-45
The cities in Santa Clara County and the County of Santa Clara have established the following policies for
reducing waste and for implementing the programs identified in individual Source Reduction and Recycling
Elements (SRREs), Household Hazardous Waste Elements (HHWEs), and in the Countywide plan:
Similar programs selected by neighboring jurisdictions should be combined when and if this will result
in the achievement of economies of scale in capitalizing and operating programs, and as long as such
consolidation does not conflict with the interests of the jurisdictions.
The cities of the County will work together to ensure that new disposal and non-disposal facilities are
appropriately sized, designed, and sited, in order to avoid duplication of effort, unnecessary expenditure
of funds, and environmental degradation, and so that the specific integrated waste management needs of
each jurisdiction are met.
In order to avoid confusion and duplication of effort, the Solid Waste Commission (now called the
Recycling and Waste Reduction Commission [RWRC]) of Santa Clara County, advised by the Technical
Advisory Committee (of which Cupertino is a member), shall coordinate and oversee implementation
of new countywide integrated waste management programs, administer programs selected for
countywide implementation, and address issues of regional or countywide concern, as these arise. State
and local legislation dealing with integrated waste management issues affecting Santa Clara County shall
be monitored, and countywide compliance with State and federal requirements shall be encouraged.44
Public Resources Code (PRC) Sections 41770 and 41822, and Title 14, California Code of Regulations
(CCR) Section 18788 require that each countywide or regional agency’s integrated waste management plan
(CIWMP/RAIWMP), and the elements thereof, be reviewed, revised, if necessary, and submitted to the
Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) every five years. The last such review was
done in 2010 and showed that no jurisdiction reported the need to revise the CIWMP or RAIWMP. The
next review of this sort will be done in 2015.45
Local Regulations
City of Cupertino 2000–2020 General Plan
The City of Cupertino’s 2000–2020 General Plan, adopted on November 15, 2005, contains the
Environmental Resources/Sustainability Element in Section 5 of the General Plan. This Section contains
goals and policies that ensure adequate landfill capacity is available for the residents and employees of
Cupertino. Under the proposed Project, some of the General Plan policies would be amended. Appendix I,
Proposed General Plan Policy Amendments, of this Draft EIR provides a comprehensive list of policy
changes. The General Plan policies relevant to solid waste and recycling that are applicable to potential
future development under the proposed Project are discussed in more detail in Section 4.14.3.3 below.
44 The City is represented on the TAC and monthly TAC meetings are attended by the Environmental Programs Manager (Public Works).
45 State of California, Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), May 2010, Five-year CIWMP/RAIWMP
Review.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
4.14-46 JUNE 18, 2014
City of Cupertino Municipal Code
The Municipal Code contains all city ordinances and identifies land use categories, site development
regulations, and other general provisions that ensure consistency between the General Plan and proposed
development projects. The Municipal Code is organized by Title, Chapter, and Section. The current
Municipal Code is up to date through Ordinance 14-2117, and was adopted March 18, 2014. The following
provisions from the Municipal Code help divert waste and ensure hazardous waste is properly managed in
Cupertino:
Chapter 9.12, Hazardous Material Storage, establishes regulations to prevent and control unauthorized
discharges of hazardous materials. The provisions of the chapters establish regulations for new, existing,
and out-of-service storage facilities.
Chapter 9.16, Recycling Areas, requires recycling areas to be located at a convenient location for
persons depositing, collecting, loading the recyclable materials, and be adjacent to the solid waste
collection area, if feasible. The chapter also requires the recycling areas to comply with the site and
design guidelines, and be maintained by the proper ty owners to avoid waste accumulation that creates a
visual, public health, or safety nuisance.
Chapter 16.58, Green Building Standards Code Adopted, describes the 2013 California Green Building
Standards adopted by the City, and any local amendments made with indications of additions or
amendments to the State Standards. The Green Building Ordinance for the City of Cupertino provides
minimum Green Building Requirements for new construction, and renovation and additions.
Chapter 16.72, Recycling and Diversion of Construction and Demolition Waste, establishes regulations
to comply with the California Waste Management Act of 1989. The chapter requires all projects within
the city that involve construction, demolition, or renovation of 3,000 square feet or more, to be
complied with the provisions of the chapter, and the compliance with the chapter will be attached as
conditions of approval of any building or demolition permit issued. An applicant for a covered project is
required to recycle or divert at least 60 percent of all generated construction and demolition (C&D)
waste by salvage or by transfer to an approved facility. Prior to the permit issuance, the applicant is
required to submit a properly completed Waste Management Plan, which includes the estimated
maximum amount of C&D waste that can feasibly be diverted, which facility will handle the waste, and
the total amount of C&D waste that will be landfilled.
Existing Conditions
The Environmental Services division of the Public Works Department of the City of Cupertino is
responsible for monitoring the City’s contract for solid waste disposal. In 2010, the City entered into a new
solid waste franchise agreement with Recology South Bay (Recology) in 2010 to provide curbside recycling,
garbage, and compost and yard waste service to the residents of Cupertino.46 Previous to the November 1,
2010 franchise agreement, Recology provided service for Cupertino as Los Altos Garbage Company. With
46 City of Cupertino, garbage and Recycling Services Fact Sheet, http://www.recyclestuff.org/Guides/CityGuideCupertino.pdf,
accessed May 13, 2014.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
PLACEWORKS 4.14-47
the adoption of this 5-year contract, including the possibility of a 5-year extension, the two parties agreed to
a restructuring of how the City and Recology share revenues and costs.47
Non-Hazardous Waste
All non-hazardous solid waste collected under the Recology franchise agreement is taken to Newby Island
Sanitary Landfill for processing.Under the agreement recyclable materials also are handled (at no cost to
customers) by Recology. Self-hauled waste is generated from private projects and hauled to a landfill by the
property owner or the contractor. The City has a contract with Newby Island Sanitary Landfill until 2023.
In 2012, “self-hauled” waste originating from Cupertino was disposed of at 11 different locations, including
the Newby Island Landfill. The 10 landfill sites other than Newby Island that were used were a result of this
“self-hauled” waste.These locations include the Altamont Landfill and Resource Recovery facility, the
Corinda Los Trancos Landfill, Forward Landfill Inc., Guadalupe Sanitary Landfill, Kirby Canyon Recycling
and Disposal Facility, the Monterey Peninsula Landfill. Recology Hay Road, the Vasco Road Sanitary Landfill,
the Zanker Material Processing Facility, and the Zanker Road Class III Landfill.
Of the 27,593 tons of solid waste disposed in 2012, 25,440 tons, or 92 percent was disposed of at the
Newby Island Landfill. The Monterey Peninsula Landfill, the Guadalupe Sanitary Landfill and the Altamont
Landfill and Resource Recovery Facility accepted the next highest amounts of waste from Cupertino,
respectively receiving 1,260 tons (4.6 percent of total), 321 tons (1.2 percent) and 238 tons (0.9 percent)
of waste.
Newby Island Landfill
The Newby Island Sanitary Landfill is a subsidiary of Republic Services, and is located at 1601 Dixon
Landing Road in the city of Milpitas. This facility was established in 1938 and has an area of 342 acres.48 This
landfill’s total capacity is 50.8 million cubic yards; as of 2000, the landfill’s total estimated used capacity was
32.5 million cubic yards, or 64 percent of the landfill’s total capacity. The remaining capacity was
18,274,953 cubic yards, as of October 16, 2006. The permitted daily disposal capacity is 4,000 tons per day,
and the landfill is anticipated to have sufficient overall capacity until June 2025, its estimated closure date.
Changes to the design or operation of the facility could extend the estimated closure date. According to the
franchise agreement, the Newby Island Sanitary Landfill is prepared to accept all of the waste generated in
Cupertino.
Guadalupe Sanitary Landfill
The Guadalupe Landfill is owned and operated by Guadalupe Rubbish Disposal Company and located at
15999 Guadalupe Mines Road in San Jose. The maximum permitted disposal capacity for the Guadalupe
Landfill is 3,375 tons per day. In 2005, the facility received 190,465 tons of solid waste for disposal and
47 City of Cupertino, Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for Fiscal year ending June 20, 2012.
48 Newby Island Resource Recovery Park information sheet by Republic Services,
http://www.republicservices.com/site/santa-clara-ca/en/documents/newbyislandresourcerecoverypark.pdf, accessed May 19, 2014.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
4.14-48 JUNE 18, 2014
diverted 285,270 tons of solid waste. As of January 1, 2011, the remaining capacity for the Guadalupe
Sanitary Landfill was 11,055,758 cubic yards. It is anticipated to reach its capacity in 2048.49 As noted
above, the City does not rely on Guadalupe landfill for solid waste disposal; only self-hauled waste from
private projects within the city goes to this landfill.
Monterey Peninsula Landfill
The Monterey Peninsula Landfill is operated by the Monterey Regional Waste Management District and
located on a 461-acre site at 14201 Del Monte Boulevard in Marina, California. The facility is permitted to
receive 1,500 tons per day, and currently receives approximately 300,000 tons per year of municipal solid
waste for disposal. As of December 31, 2004, the facility had approximately 48,560,000 cubic yard of
remaining capacity, it is estimated to reach its capacity by February 2107. Additionally, in June 2013, the
construction of a new 23-acre landfill module was completed. This new lined landfill module has a waste
capacity of approximately 5 million tons and service life of 17 years.50 According to the 2012 Cupertino
Disposal by Facility report, Monterey Peninsula Landfill received 1,260 tons of solid waste from Cupertino
in 2012.51 As previously noted, the City does not rely on Monterey Peninsula landfill for solid waste
disposal; only self-hauled waste from private projects within the City goes to this landfill.
Altamont Landfill and Resource Recovery Facility
The Altamont Landfill and Resource Recovery facility is owned and operated by Waste management Inc.,
and is located on a 2,130 acres site at 10840 Altamont Pass Road, Livermore, CA 94550. It is a Class II and
Class III landfilland features a disposal area of approximately 472 acres.The facility can receive up to 11,500
tons of solid waste for disposal per day, with a maximum permitted capacity of approximately 62 million
cubic yards. As of August 22, 2005, the facility has approximately 45,720,000 cubic yards of remaining
capacity, with an estimated closure date of January 1, 2025.52
Hazardous Waste
Waste Management At Your Door, contracted by Recology, offers door-to-door household hazardous waste
collection upon request for Cupertino residents and businesses. This includes paint, pesticides, herbicides,
automotive parts, florescent lights, batteries, computers, cell phones, cleaning products, solvents, and
medical needles. Apple’s Computer Recycling facility also offers free electronic waste drop-off for
Cupertino residents. The City also participates in the County of Santa Clara Household Hazardous Waste
(HHW) program to provide hazardous waste disposal options for Cupertino residents at drop-off facilities.
49 CalRecycle, “Facility/Site Summary Details: Guadalupe Sanitary Landfill (43-AN-0015),” http://www.mrwmd.org/programs-
services/disposal/monterey-peninsula-landfill/, accessed May 15, 2014.
50 Monterey Regional Waste Management District, “Monterey Peninsula Landfill,” http://www.mrwmd.org/programs-
services/disposal/monterey-peninsula-landfill/, accessed May 15, 2014.
51 CalRecycle, “Jurisdiction Disposal by Facility: Disposal during 2012 for Cupertino,” http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov, accessed May
15, 2014.
52 CalRecycle, “Facility Site summary Details: Altamont Landfill and Resource Recovery Facility (01-AA-0009)”
http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Directory/01-AA-0009/Detail/, accessed June 2, 2014.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
PLACEWORKS 4.14-49
Recycling
The City of Cupertino has a franchise agreement with Recology to provide recycling services within the city
boundary. The recycling programs for Cupertino expanded on November 1, 2010 to include more items for
recycling, including compostable food waste and a broader range of plastic items. Recology also provides a
pick-up service for old TVs and unwanted appliances, for a small fee. The City of Cupertino also has a door-
to-door e-waste recycling program with Waste Management, whereby residents can request pick-up of their
old computers. Also, households are allowed two free on-call disposal days per year, including either two
garbage disposal days, two yard waste/wood waste recycling days, or a combination of both. The free
disposal service is provided by Recology, and must be scheduled by appointment.53
Composting
The City of Cupertino operates a compost give-away site which is leased from Stevens Creek Quarry and is
located at 12100 Stevens Canyon Road, across from Stevens Creek Reservoir. The compost material is
collected from Cupertino’s food waste and yard waste recycling program and processed at Recology’s South
Valley Organics facility near Gilroy then trucked to the City’s give-away site where it is available for
gardening use to Cupertino residents at no cost.54
4.14.3.2 THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
According to Appendix G, Environmental Checklist, of the CEQA Guidelines, the proposed Project would
have a significant impact on solid waste service if:
1. Implementation of the proposed Project would not be served by a landfill(s) with sufficient permitted
capacity to accommodate the proposed Project’s solid waste disposal needs.
2. Implementation of the proposed Project would be out of compliance with federal, State, and local
statues and regulations related to solid waste.
4.14.3.3 IMPACT DISCUSSION
This section analyzes the proposed Project’s potential impacts and cumulative impacts to solid waste service.
UTIL-8 Implementation of the proposed Project would not be served by a
landfill(s) with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the proposed
Project’s solid waste disposal needs.
Existing and potential development under the proposed Project would not be served by landfill sites with
sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the city’s solid waste disposal needs, based on existing
53 City of Cupertino, City of Cupertino Recycling webpage, http://www.cupertino.org/index.aspx?page=166, accessed May 15,
2015.
54 City of Cupertino, City of Cupertino website, http://www.cupertino.org/index.aspx?page=1195, accessed May 13, 2013.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
4.14-50 JUNE 18, 2014
contractual agreements. As described above, 99 percent of all solid waste generated in Cupertino – which
includes City [Recology] hauled waste, as well as self-hauled waste from private projects within the City -- is
disposed at four different landfill facilities. One hundred percent (100 percent) of City [Recology] hauled
waste – which accounts for 92 percent of the total waste volume – goes to one landfill (Newby Island).Table
4.14-14 compares the remaining capacity, maximum daily and annual capacity, and estimated closure date
for each of the four facilities.
In 2012, the city of Cupertino’s actual disposal rate for residents was 2.6 pounds per person per day (PPD)
with the target of 4.3 PPD. For employees, the disposal rate was 4.3 PPD with the target rate of 8.1 PPD.55
The city of Cupertino’s disposal rates for both residents and employees have been below target rates and
steadily decreasing since 2007.56
The percapita disposal rate target is also known as “the 50 percent equivalent per capita disposal target.” It is
the amount of disposal Cupetino would have had during the 2003 – 2006 base period (designated by
CalRecycle) if it had been exactly at a 50 percent diversion rate. It is calculated by CalRecycle using the
average base period per capita generation for Cupertino (in pounds), then dividing this generation average
in half to determine the 50 percent equivalent per capita disposal target. The target is an indicator for
comparison with that jurisdiction’s annual per capita per day disposal rate beginning with the 2007 program
year.57
TABLE 4.14‐14 LANDFILLS EXISTING CAPACITY AND ESTIMATED CLOSURE DATE
Landfill Facility
Remaining Capacity
(cubic yard)
Daily Capacity
(tons/day)
Estimated
Closure Date
Newby Island Landfill
(as of10/16/2006) 18,274,953 4,000 6/1/2025a
Guadalupe Sanitary Landfill
(as of 1/1/2011) 11,055,758 1,300 1/1/2048
Monterey Peninsula Landfill
(as of 12/31/2004) 48,560,000 3,500 2/28/2107
Altamont Landfill
(as of 8/22/2005) 45,720,000 11,500 1/1/2025
a. The agreement between the Newby Island Landfill and the City of Cupertino ends in 2023.
Source: CalRecycle, 2014.
As shown on Table 4.14-15, at the projected 2040 buildout of the proposed Project, it is anticipated that the
development in Cupertino will generate solid waste at a rate of 121,353 tons/year, which equates to
approximately 332 tons/day. The anticipated amount of solid waste would have a less-than-significant
impact with regard to daily per capita disposal targets, but two of four landfill facilities that receive the
majority of the city’s solid waste are likely to reach their permitted maximum capacities by 2040. The
55 CalRecycle, “Jurisdiction per Capita Disposal Trends: Cupertino,” http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/, accessed May 15, 2014.
56 CalRecycle, “Jurisdiction per Capita Disposal Trends: Cupertino,” http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/, accessed May 15, 2014.
57 CalRecycle, Understanding SB 1016 Solid Waste Per Capita Disposal Measurement
Act,www.calrecycle.ca.gov/lgcentral/goalmeasure/Tools/Presentation.ppt, accessed June 2, 2014.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
PLACEWORKS 4.14-51
Newby Island Landfill facility will reach its capacity in 2025 (the City’s agreement with the facility ends
earlier, in 2023), and Altamont Landfill also is anticipated to reach its capacity in 2025, as shown in the Table
4.14-14.
TABLE 4.14‐15 PROJECTED RESIDENTS, EMPLOYMENT, AND WASTE GENERATION AT 2040 BUILDOUT – PROPOSED PROJECT
2012a Existing 2040 Buildout
Residents 59,022 58,302 71,300
Employment 35,438 27,387 44,242
Residential Disposal Rate Target (pounds/person/day) 4.3 4.3 4.3
Employee Disposal Rate Target (pounds/person/day) 8.1 8.1 8.1
Maximum Disposal (tons/year) 98,704 86,237 121,353
Actual Disposal (tons/year) 27,652 ‐ ‐
a. The latest data on the actual disposal information was from 2012.
Source: CalRecycle, 2014.
Newby Island likely have sufficient landfill space for the City of Cupertino through its agreement
termination date of November 20, 2023. The estimated closure of the Newby Island Landfill could be
extended beyond 2025 due to widespread municipal efforts to meet and exceed diversion requirements as
well as the trend by municipalities to adopt programs and policies that will ultimately achieve “zero waste.”
However, because the Newby Island Landfill facility currently accepts 92 percent of the solid waste
generated by Cupertino, the City must find an alternative landfill in approximately ten years.
The General Plan includes policies and strategies that, once adopted, would ensure adequate waste
collection and disposal facilities are available for the residents of Cupertino. Policy 5-39, Residential
Recycling, would continue to direct the City to provide comprehensive recycling services for single and
multi-family residences, consistent with State law. Similarly, Policy 5-40, On-site Garbage and Organic
Collection Area Dedication, would continue to serve to ensure that developments provide adequate areas
for the disposal of waste, and compostable and recyclable materials. Together these policies would serve to
increase diversion of waste, thereby helping Cupertino continue to meet its per capita waste disposal
targets. By serving to reduce the proportion of solid waste that must be landfilled, these policies could also
serve to extend the lifetime of landfills used by the city.
Anticipated rates of solid waste disposal would have a less-than-significant impact in regard to target
disposal rates, and 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
the facility’s estimated closure date in 2025 would result in insufficient solid waste disposal capacity at
buildout of the proposed Project, resulting in a significant impact.
Mitigation Measure
The following mitigation measure is recommended to ensure the landfills that serve the Study Area have
adequate permitted capacity to accommodate future development permitted under the proposed Project:
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
4.14-52 JUNE 18, 2014
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.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure UTIL-8 would serve to ensure sufficient capacity of landfill is
available for future development under the proposed Project. In addition, the trend of lower per capita solid
waste volumes would continue to reduce the amount of waste disposed at landfills overall, which may delay
the estimated closure date of landfill sites, including the Newby Island Landfill facility.
Significance With Mitigation: Less than significant.
UTIL-9 Implementation of the proposed Project would not be out of compliance
with federal, State, and local statues and regulations related to solid waste.
As discussed above, the City has complied with State requirements to reduce the volume of solid waste
through recycling and reuse of solid waste. The City’s per capita disposal rate is below the target rate
established by CalRecycle. Cupertino adopted a Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE) and a
Household Hazardous Waste Element (HHWE) in compliance with the California Integrated Waste
Management Act. The City has gone beyond the SRRE by implementing several programs, including the
City’s and Recology’s organics or food waste collection program and Environmental Recycling Day events
offered to residents 3 times per year by Recology. Implementation of the referenced strategies, programs
and plans, as well as the Climate Action Plan that launched in May 2014, will enable the city to meet the 75
percent of solid waste by the year 2020. These programs will be sufficient to ensure that future development
in Cupertino would not compromise the ability to meet or perform better than the State mandated target.
The General Plan includes policies and strategies that once adopted would ensure adequate waste collection
and disposal facilities are available for the residents of Cupertino. Policy 5-39, Residential Recycling, would
continue to direct the City to provide comprehensive recycling services for single and multi-family
residences, consistent with State law. Similarly, Policy 5-40, On-site Garbage and Organic Collection Area
Dedication, would continue to serve to ensure that developments provide adequate areas for the disposal of
waste, and compostable and recyclable materials. Together these policies would help to ensure that
implementation of the proposed Project is consistent with statutes and regulations related to solid waste.
Construction and demolition associated with future development under the proposed Project would
generate significant solid waste. At least 60 percent of this waste, however, would be expected to be
diverted from landfill disposal by recycling in accordance with the City’s construction debris ordinance.
Therefore, future development would comply with applicable statutes and regulations and the impact would
be less than significant.
Significance Without Mitigation: Less than significant.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
PLACEWORKS 4.14-53
UTIL-10 Implementation of the proposed Project, in combination with past, present,
and reasonably foreseeable projects, would result in significant cumulative
impacts with respect to solid waste.
The buildout of the proposed Project will increase the quantity of solid waste for disposal. Although AB 939
established a goal for all California cities to provide at least 15 years of ongoing landfill capacity, growth
from other cities in the region may exceed that which was taken into account when calculating landfill
capacity. Also, because the Newby Island Landfill facility, which 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.
As shown in the Chapter 4.11, Population and Housing, of this Draft EIR, projected growth in Cupertino
with the proposed Project is greater than that anticipated by regional projections. The 2040 buildout of the
proposed Project would add 400 fewer residents than ABAG’s 2040 projection for Cupertino, but the 2040
buildout employment levels and housing units would be well above regional projections. Table 4.14-16
compares the 2040 buildout of the proposed Project and the regional growth scenario.
TABLE 4.14‐16 BUILDOUT AND REGIONAL GROWTH COMPARISON – PROPOSED PROJECT
ABAG Projection 2040 Buildout Difference
Residents 71,700 71,300 ‐400
Housing Units 24,180 25,820 1,640
Employment 33,260 44,242 10,982
Source: Association of Bay Area Governments, Plan Bay Area, Projections 2013, Subregional Study Area Table, Santa Clara
County; PlaceWorks, 2014.
Although implementation of existing waste reduction programs and diversion requirements discussed above
would reduce the potential for exceeding existing capacities of landfills, the potential lack of landfill capacity
for disposal of solid waste would have a significant impact. However, with incorporation of the Mitigation
Measure UTIL-8, this impact related to the potential for the proposed Project, in combination with past,
present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, to result in significant cumulative impacts with respect to solid
waste would be less than significant.
Significance With Mitigation: Less than significant.
4.14.4 ENERGY CONSERVATION
In order to assure that energy implications are considered in project decisions, Appendix F, Energy
Conservation, of the CEQA Guidelines, requires that EIRs include a discussion of the potential energy
impacts of proposed projects, with particular emphasis on avoiding or reducing inefficient, wasteful, and
unnecessary consumption of energy. However, no specific thresholds of significance for potential energy
impacts are suggested in the State CEQA Guidelines. This section provides a general description of the
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
4.14-54 JUNE 18, 2014
regulatory setting addressing existing electric and natural gas services and infrastructure, and supply and
demand in Cupertino.
4.14.4.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Regulatory Framework
Federal Regulations
Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007
Signed into law in December 2007, this Act is an energy policy law that contains provisions designed to
increase energy efficiency and the availability of renewable energy. The Act contains provisions for increasing
fuel economy standards for cars and light trucks, while establishing new minimum efficiency standards for
lighting as well as residential and commercial appliance equipment.58
Energy Policy Act of 2005
Passed by Congress in July 2005, the Energy Policy Act includes a comprehensive set of provisions to
address energy issues. The Act includes tax incentives for the following: energy conservation improvements
in commercial and residential buildings; fossil fuel production and clean coal facilities; and construction and
operation of nuclear power plants, among other things. Subsidies are also included for geothermal, wind
energy, and other alternative energy producers.
National Energy Policy
Established in 2001 by the National Energy Policy Development Group, this policy is designed to help the
private sector and state and local governments promote dependable, affordable, and environmentally sound
production and distribution of energy for the future.59 Key issues addressed by the energy policy are energy
conservation, repair and expansion of energy infrastructure, and ways of increasing energy supplies while
protecting the environment.
State Regulations
California Public Utilities Commission
In September 2008, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) adopted the Long Term Energy
Efficiency Strategic Plan, which provides a framework for energy efficiency in California through the year
2020 and beyond. It articulates a long-term vision, as well as goals for each economic sector, identifying
specific near-term, mid-term, and long-term strategies to assist in achieving these goals. This Plan sets forth
58 CRS, 2007.
59 NEPDG, 2001.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
PLACEWORKS 4.14-55
the following four goals, known as Big Bold Energy Efficiency Strategies, to achieve significant reductions in
energy demand:
1. All new residential construction in California will be zero net energy by 2020;
2. All new commercial construction in California will be zero net energy by 2030;
3. Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning (HVAC) will be transformed to ensure that its energy
performance is optimal for California’s climate; and
4. All eligible low-income customers will be given the opportunity to participate in the low income
energy efficiency program by 2020.
With respect to the commercial sector, the Long Term Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan notes that
commercial buildings, which include schools, hospitals, and public buildings, consume more electricity than
any other end-use sector in California. The commercial sector’s 5 billion-plus square feet of space accounts
for 38 percent of the state’s power use and over 25 percent of natural gas consumption. Lighting, cooling,
refrigeration, and ventilation account for 75 percent of all commercial electric use, while space heating,
water heating, and cooking account for over 90 percent of gas use. In 2006, schools and colleges were in the
top five facility types for electricity and gas consumption, accounting for approximately 10 percent of state’s
electricity and gas use.
The CPUC and the California Energy Commission (CEC) have adopted the following goals to achieve zero
net energy (ZNE) levels by 2030 in the commercial sector:
Goal 1: New construction will increasingly embrace zero net energy performance (including clean,
distributed generation), reaching 100 percent penetration of new starts in 2030.
Goal 2: 50 percent of existing buildings will be retrofit to zero net energy by 2030 through
achievement of deep levels of energy efficiency and with the addition of clean distributed generation.
Goal 3: Transform the commercial lighting market through technological advancement and innovative
utility initiatives.
California Building Code (California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Parts 6 11)
Energy conservation standards for new residential and nonresidential buildings were adopted by the
California Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission in June 1977 and most recently
revised in 2008 (Title 24, Part 6, of the California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Title 24 requires the design
of building shells and building components to conserve energy. The standards are updated periodically to
allow for consideration and possible incorporation of new energy efficiency technologies and methods. On
May 31, 2012, the CEC adopted the 2013 Building and Energy Efficiency Standards, which went into effect
on January 1, 2014. Buildings that are constructed in accordance with the 2013 Building and Energy
Efficiency Standards are 25 percent (residential) to 30 percent (nonresidential) more energy efficient than
the 2008 standards as a result of better windows, insulation, lighting, ventilation systems, and other features
that reduce energy consumption in homes and businesses.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
4.14-56 JUNE 18, 2014
On July 17, 2008, the California Building Standards Commission adopted the nation’s first green building
standards. The California Green Building Standards Code (Part 11, Title 24, known as “CALGreen”) was
adopted as part of the California Building Standards Code (Title 24, California Code of Regulations).
CALGreen established planning and design standards for sustainable site development, energy efficiency (in
excess of the California Energy Code requirements), water conservation, material conservation, and
internal air contaminants. The mandatory provisions of the California Green Building Code Standards
became effective January 1, 2011. The building efficiency standards are enforced through the local building
permit process.
The purpose of CALGreen is to improve public health, safety, and general welfare by enhancing the design
and construction of buildings through the use of building concepts having a reduced negative impact or
positive environmental impact and encouraging sustainable construction practices in the following
categories:
Planning and design.
Energy efficiency.
Water efficiency and conservation.
Material conservation and resource efficiency.
Environmental quality.
The provisions of CALGreen apply to the planning, design, operation, construction, use, and occupancy of
every newly constructed building or structure, unless otherwise indicated in this code, throughout the State
of California. Compliance with the CALGreen Code is not a substitution for meeting the certification
requirements of any green building program. CALGreen requires new buildings to reduce water
consumption by 20 percent, divert 50 percent of construction waste from landfills, and install low
pollutant-emitting materials.
2006 Appliance Efficiency Regulations
The 2006 Appliance Efficiency Regulations (Title 20, CCR Sections 1601 through 1608) were adopted by
the CEC on October 11, 2006, and approved by the California Office of Administrative Law on December
14, 2006. The regulations include standards for both federally regulated appliances and non-federally
regulated appliances. Though these regulations are now often viewed as “business-as-usual,” they exceed the
standards imposed by all other states and they reduce GHG emissions by reducing energy demand.
Governor’s Green Building Executive Order (S-20-04)
In 2004, Executive Order (EO) S-20-04 was signed by the Governor, committing the State to take
aggressive action to reduce state building electricity usage by retrofitting, building, and operating the most
energy and resource-efficient buildings by taking all cost-effective measures described in the Green Building
Action Plan for facilities owned, funded or leased by the State and to encourage cities, counties and schools
to do the same. It also calls for State agencies, departments, and other entities under the direct executive
authority of the Governor to cooperate in taking measures to reduce grid-based energy purchases for State-
owned buildings by 20 percent by 2015, through cost-effective efficiency measures and distributed
generation technologies. These measures should include, but are not limited to:
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
PLACEWORKS 4.14-57
Designing, constructing and operating all new and renovated State-owned facilities paid for with state
funds as “LEED Silver” or higher certified buildings;
Identifying the most appropriate financing and project delivery mechanisms to achieve these goals;
Seeking out office space leases in buildings with a U.S. EPA Energy Star rating; and
Purchasing or operating Energy Star electrical equipment whenever cost-effective.
Order S-20-04 also required the Division of the State Architect in the Department of General Services to
adopt guidelines by December 31, 2005, enabling and encouraging schools built with State funds to be
resource and energy efficient. Pursuant to this requirement, the Division of the State Architect convened a
schools workgroup and this group concluded that the best guideline to meeting this requirement is the Best
Practices Manual by the Collaborative for High Performance Schools (CHPS).
State Greenhouse Gas Regulations
The Governor’s Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Reduction Executive Order S-3-05 was signed on June 1, 2005,
and set GHG reduction targets for the State. Soon after, Assembly Bill 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act
(2006) was passed by the California state legislature on August 31, 2006, to place the State on a course
toward reducing its contribution of GHG emissions. In response to AB 32, the California Air Resources
Board (CARB) developed a Scoping Plan outlining California’s approach to achieving the goal of reducing
GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. The final Scoping Plan was adopted by CARB on December 11,
2008. CARB is in the process of completing a 5-year update to the 2008 Scoping Plan, as required by AB 32.
For a detailed discussion on these regulations, see Chapter 4.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of this Draft
EIR.
Local Regulations
City of Cupertino 2000-2020 General Plan
The City of Cupertino’s 2000-2020 General Plan, adopted on November 15, 2005, contains the
Environmental Resources/Sustainability Element in Section 5 of the General Plan. This section contains
goals and policies that ensure energy conservation practices are upheld in Cupertino. Under the proposed
Project, some General Plan policies would be amended. Substantive policy changes under the proposed
Project include the addition, removal, or functional revision (e.g. not purely semantic) of policies in ways
that have the potential to result in a physical impact on the environment. A comprehensive list of policy
changes is provided in Appendix I, Proposed General Plan Policy Amendments, of this Draft EIR.
Discussions of how substantive policy changes may result in adverse physical changes are included in the
analyses under each impact criterion in Section 4.14.4.3, Impact Discussion, below.
City of Cupertino Municipal Code
The Municipal Code contains all City ordinances and identifies land use categories, site development
regulations, and other general provisions that ensure consistency between the General Plan and proposed
development projects. The Municipal Code is organized by Title, Chapter, and Section. The current
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
4.14-58 JUNE 18, 2014
Municipal Code is up to date through Ordinance 14-2117, and was adopted March 18, 2014. The following
provisions from the Municipal Code help conserve energy resources:
Chapter 16.58, Green Building Ordinance, includes the CalGreen requirements with local amendments
for projects in the City. As part of the City’s Green Building Ordinance, the City of Cupertino requires
new construction over certain sizes (greater than 9 residential units or 25,000 square feet of non-
residential development) to build to Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) or
alternative reference standards. The LEED construction and/or other types of equivalent green building
verification systems typically require enhanced building energy efficiency, which reduces heating and
cooling requirements of a building and, therefore, also reduces GHG emissions.
Draft Cupertino Climate Action Plan
The City of Cupertino is preparing a Climate Action Plan (CAP). The City’s CAP is proposed to align the
City’s GHG reduction goals with the statewide targets of AB 32. Once adopted, the City’s CAP would
outline local measures and policies.
Existing Conditions
California’s Energy Supplies
In 2010, California’s in-state supply (71 percent of total) of electricity was derived from the following
sources: natural gas (53.4 percent), nuclear (15.7 percent), hydroelectric (14.6 percent), renewables (14.6
percent), and coal (1.7 percent).60 California policies aimed at diversifying the state’s electrical supply have
reduced the reliance upon two fossil fuels (natural gas and coal) from more than 80 percent in 2006 to
approximately 55 percent of the 2010 energy consumed in the State.
Overall, electricity demand is forecast to increase an average of 1.28 percent (with peak demand increasing
by 1.50 percent), even with the more aggressive building and appliance energy efficiency standards and
programs. For commercial growth, electricity demand is expected to increase by 1.47 percent annually
from 2010 through 2022. In 2011, 40 percent of electricity consumption was in the commercial sector, 47
percent in the residential sector, and 13 percent in the industrial sector.61 A 2006 CEC study determined
that commercial office buildings throughout the state accounted for 37 percent of total electricity
consumption and 14 percent of total gas use in the commercial sector.62 California produces a relatively
minor portion of its own natural gas supplies. In-state production in 2010 was approximately 12 percent of
total supply, while the U.S. Southwest, the Rockies, and Canada provided approximately 42 percent, 23
percent, and 22 percent of the state’s supply, respectively. Of the State’s total demand for 6,041 million
cubic feet (MMcf) of natural gas in 2010, California produced 734 MMcf.. A third major source of energy
for California is crude oil. Oil supply sources for the State include in-state production, Alaska, and foreign
imports. For 2011, of the approximately 600 million barrels of crude oil delivered to refineries in the State,
60 CEC, 2012.
61 CEC, 2011.
62 CEC, 2006.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
PLACEWORKS 4.14-59
California produced 38.22 percent, while foreign sources and Alaska provided 49.94 percent and 11.84
percent, respectively.
Electricity and Gas Providers
Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) provides electricity and natural gas services to the City of
Cupertino. PG&E is a publicly traded utility company which generates, purchases, and transmits energy
under contract with the CPUC. PG&E owns and maintains above and below ground networks of electric
and gas transmission and distribution facilities throughout the city. Both gas and electrical service is available
throughout the Project Study Area.
PG&E’s service territory is 70,000 square miles in area, roughly extending north to south from Eureka to
Bakersfield, and east to west from the Sierra Nevada mountain range to the Pacific Ocean. PG&E’s
electricity distribution system consists of 141,215 circuit miles of electric distribution lines and 18,616
circuit miles of interconnected transmission lines. PG&E electricity is generated by a combination of
sources such as coal-fired power plants, nuclear power plants, and hydro-electric dams, as well as newer
sources of energy, such as wind turbines and photovoltaic plants or “solar farms.” “The Grid,” or bulk electric
grid, is a network of high-voltage transmission lines link power plants with the PG&E system. The
distribution system, comprised of lower voltage secondary lines, is at the street and neighborhood level, and
consists of overhead or underground distribution lines, transformers, and individual service “drops” that
connect to the individual customer.
PG&E produces or buys its energy from a number of conventional and renewable generating sources, which
travel through PG&E’s electric transmission and distribution systems. The power mix PG&E provided to
customers in 2012 consisted of non-emitting nuclear generation (21 percent), large hydroelectric facilities
(11 percent) and eligible renewable resources (19 percent), such as wind, geothermal, biomass, solar and
small hydro. The remaining portion came from natural gas/other (27 percent) and unspecified power (21
percent). Unspecified power refers to electricity that is not traceable to specific generation sources by any
auditable contract trail. In addition, PG&E has plans to increase the use of renewable power. For instance,
PG&E purchases power from customers that install small scale renewable generators (e.g. wind turbines or
photovoltaic cells) up to 1.5 megawatts in size.
PG&E’s natural gas (methane) pipe delivery system includes 42,141 miles of distribution pipelines, and
6,438 miles of transportation pipelines. Gas delivered by PG&E originates in gas fields in California, the US
Southwest, US Rocky Mountains, and from Canada. Transportation pipelines send natural gas from fields
and storage facilities in large pipes under high pressure. The smaller distribution pipelines deliver gas to
individual businesses or residences.
PG&E gas transmission pipeline systems serve approximately 4.2 million gas customers in northern and
central California. The system is operated under an inspection and monitoring program. The system
operates in real time on a 24-hour basis, and includes leak inspections, surveys, and patrols of the pipelines.
A new program, the Pipeline 2020 program, aims to modernize critical pipeline infrastructure, expand the
use of automatic or remotely-operated shut-off valves, catalyze development of next-generation inspection
technologies, develop industry-leading best practices, and enhance public safety partnerships with local
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
4.14-60 JUNE 18, 2014
communities, public officials, and first responders. Gas transmission facilities are located within the Project
Study Area on Stevens Creek Boulevard and North Stelling Road,63 and distribution pipelines are located
throughout the Project Study Area.
Regulatory requirements for efficient use of electricity and gas are contained in Title 24, Part 6, of the
California Code of Regulations, entitled “Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential
Buildings.” These regulations specify the State’s minimum energy efficiency standards and apply to new
construction of both residential and nonresidential buildings. The standards regulate energy consumed for
heating, cooling, ventilation, water heating, and lighting. Compliance with these standards is verified and
enforced through the local building permit process.
4.14.4.2 THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
As previously discussed, Appendix F, Energy Conservation, of the CEQA Guidelines, requires a discussion
of the potential energy impacts of proposed projects; however, no specific thresholds of significance for
potential energy impacts are suggested in the State CEQA Guidelines or are established by the City of
Cupertino. Therefore, impacts were measured to be significant if the proposed Project, upon buildout,
would result in a substantial increase in natural gas and electrical service demands that would require the
new construction of energy supply facilities and distribution infrastructure or capacity enhancing alterations
to existing facilities.
4.14.4.3 IMPACT DISCUSSION
This section analyzes the proposed Project’s potential impacts and cumulative impacts to electric and natural
gas services and infrastructure, supply and demand, and energy conservation.
UTIL-11 Implementation of the proposed Project would not result in a substantial
increase in natural gas and electrical service demands, and would not require
new energy supply facilities and distribution infrastructure or capacity
enhancing alterations to existing facilities.
The proposed Project, upon buildout, will result in 4,040,231 square feet of additional office space,
1,343,679 square feet of additional commercial space, 1,000 additional hotel rooms, and 4,421 additional
housing units. The proposed increase in development would result in a long-term increase in energy
demand, associated primarily with the operation of lighting and space heating/cooling in the added building
space. In addition, construction activities associated with development require the use of energy (e.g.
electricity and fuel) for various purposes such as the operation of construction equipment and tools, as well
as excavation, grading, demolition, and vehicle travel.
Future new development would be constructed using energy efficient modern building materials and
construction practices. The new buildings also would use new modern appliances and equipment, and would
63 PG&E Gas Transmission Pipeline System Map; http://www.pge.com/safety/systemworks/gas/transmissionpipelines.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
PLACEWORKS 4.14-61
comply with the current CALGreen Building Code, which requires the use of recycled construction
materials, environmentally sustainable building materials, building designs that reduce the amount of energy
used in building heating and cooling systems as compared to conventionally built structures, and landscaping
that incorporates water efficient irrigation systems.
In addition, there are several General Plan policies and strategies that once adopted would ensure energy
conservation is practiced in Cupertino. Within the Circulation Element, Policy 4-8 Transportation Network,
Complete Streets and Traffic Reduction Measures, would provide for a safe, efficient and multi-modal
transportation system that adequately services the movement of people of all abilities, goods and services
throughout Cupertino. In particular, expand an integrated, multi-modal transportation system that offers
desirable choices among different modes including pedestrian ways, public transportation, roadways and
bikeways. Strategy 1 would balance and protect levels of service for all modes of transportation including
potentially adopting a Protected Intersection policy which would identify intersections where
improvements would not be considered which would degrade levels of service for non-vehicular modes of
transportation. Potential locations include intersections in Priority Development Areas and other areas
where non-vehicular transportation is a key consideration. Strategy 2, Complete Streets, would require the
city to provide safe, comfortable and convenient travel along and across streets citywide to serve all users,
including pedestrians, the disabled, bicyclists, motorists, seniors, users of public transportation and movers
of commercial goods. This includes balancing the needs of all travel modes when planning transportation
improvements and managing transportation use in the public right-of-way. Improvements may include
enhanced sidewalks and pedestrian amenities, bicycle lanes or cycle-tracks, bus stops and approved transit
facilities. Strategy 3, Synchronization of Traffic Signals, would require the city to enhance the
synchronization of traffic signals on major streets to improve traffic flow and reduce congestion.Strategy 4,
Citywide Transportation Improvement Plan, would require the city to identify citywide transportation
improvements necessary to accommodate vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle transportation demand and
ensure that new developments share equitably in the cost of implementing the improvements. Strategy 5,
Alternative Fuel Charging Stations, would require the city to develop a strategy to construct a network of
public and private alternative fuel vehicle charging/fueling stations citywide.Strategy 6, Intelligent
Transportation Systems, would require the city to implement Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS)
strategies to maximize the efficiency of the existing transportation systems through advanced technologies,
such as adaptive signal controls, real-time transit information, and real-time parking availability.This policy
would help to reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and therefore, lead to energy conservation.
Within the Environmental Resources/Sustainability Element, Policy 5-1, Principles of Sustainability, would
require the City to incorporate the principles of sustainability into Cupertino’s planning and development
system in order to improve the environment, reduce greenhouse gas emission and meet the needs of the
present community without compromising the needs of future generations. Policy 5-3, Conservation and
Efficient Use of Energy Resources, would require the City to encourage the maximum feasible conservation
and efficient use of electrical power and natural gas resources for new and existing residences, businesses,
industrial and public uses. Implementation of this policy is expected to be implemented through the
following strategies. Strategy 1, Alternate Energy Sources, would require the City to continue to ensure the
ease of access to and use of solar energy and other alternate, renewable energy resources for all new and
significantly renovated private and public buildings through effective policies, programs and incentives.
Strategy 2, Comprehensive Energy Management Plan, would require the City to prepare and implement a
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
4.14-62 JUNE 18, 2014
comprehensive energy management plan for all applicable public facilities, equipment to achieve the energy
goals established in the City’s municipal Climate Action Plan, and to embed this plan into the City’s
Environmentally Preferable Procurement Policy to ensure measures are achieved through all future
procurement and construction practices. Strategy 3, Consistency with State and Federal Regulation, would
require the City to continue to evaluate, and revise as necessary, applicable City codes, ordinances and
procedures for inclusion of local, state and federal policies and standards that promote energy and water
conservation. Strategy 4, Energy Efficient Replacements would require the City to continue to use life cycle
cost analysis to identify City assets for replacement with more energy efficient technologies. Strategy 5,
Incentive Program, would require the City to support incentive programs to include such items as reduced
permit fees for building projects that exceed the City’s Green Building Ordinance and CalGreen.
Additionally, this strategy would require the City to continue to promote other incentives from the state,
county and federal governments for improving energy efficiency and expanding renewable energy
installations by posting information regarding incentive, rebate and tax credit programs on the City’s web
site. Strategy 6, Solar Access Standards, would require the City to continue to ensure compliance with the
State of California Subdivision Map Act solar access standards in order to maximize natural heating and
cooling opportunities for future residences and businesses. Encourage the inclusion of additional shade trees
and landscaping for energy efficiency. Strategy 7, Educational Programs, would require the City to continue
to offer conservation/efficiency educational programs and leverage those available through the County and
the Bay Regional Energy Network to serve all utility users, provide informational materials and host energy
conservation workshops for businesses and residents, [rovide, or partner with other agencies to offer,
educational materials, seminar and staff training on energy conservation/efficiency for those who design,
build and manage building facilities, and for those who regulate building design and construction, per the
City’s GreenBiz Program, and, in partnership with De Anza College develop a “Sustainable Building
Practices” guide for Cupertino residents and businesses that builds upon the City’s Green Building
Ordinance. The Guide should include information regarding current rebates and subsidies to make
implementing a sustainable building more financially attractive with references back to the City, State,
Federal and other web sites for up-to-date information, and provide, or partner with other agencies to offer,
educational materials, seminars and a certification program for contractors and architects who have
participated in “Sustainable Building” courses. Many of the curriculums are currently available at De Anza
College. As an incentive for participating in the “Sustainable Building” program the City will maintain a
“Sustainable Builder/ Developer” page on their current City website. This page will not be an endorsement
of the individual or company listed, but a resource center for the community. Establish and maintain an
Energy Information Center or Kiosk at City Hall where information concerning energy issues, building
standards, recycling and assistance is available. Strategy 8, Energy Cogeneration Systems, would require the
City to encourage the use of energy cogeneration systems through the provision of an awareness program
targeting the larger commercial and industrial users and public facilities. Strategy 9, Regulation of Building
Design, would require the City to ensure designers, developers, applicants and builders meet the City’s
Green Building Ordinance and CalGreen and encourage architects, building designers and contractors to
exceed these requirements for new projects through the provision of incentives, encourage either passive
solar heating and/or dark plaster interior with a cover for swimming pools, cabanas and other related
accessory uses where solar access is available, encourage the use of renewable energy sources where feasible,
and continue to offer energy audits and/or subvention programs that also advance community adoption of
alternative energy technologies. Strategy 10, Use of Discretionary Development Permits (Use Permits),
calls for the City to require, as conditions of approval for new and renovated projects, the provision of
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
PLACEWORKS 4.14-63
energy conservation/efficiency applications, aligned with the City’s Green Building Ordinance and
CalGreen. Strategy 11, Energy Efficient Transportation Modes, would require the City to continue to
encourage alternative, fuel-efficient transportation modes such as “clean” multi-modal public transit, car and
vanpooling, flexible work hours, safe routes to schools, and pedestrian and bicycle paths through
community education and training, infrastructure investment, and financial incentives, including commuter
benefits programs.
Policy 5-4, Green Building Design, would require the City to set standards for the design and construction
of energy and resource conserving/efficient building (Green Building Design). Strategy 1, “Green Building”
Program, would require the City to periodically review and revise the City’s Green Building Ordinance to
ensure alignment with state CalGreen requirements for all major private and public projects that ensure
reduction in energy and water use for new development through site selection and building design. Strategy
2, Building Energy Audits, would require the City to continue to offer and leverage regional partners’
programs to conduct building energy assessments for homes, commercial, industrial and city facilities and
recommend improvements that lead to energy and cost savings opportunities for participants.
Policy 7-4, New Development Public Infrastructure Requirements, would require new development to
provide adequate public facilities or pay its fair share of the cost for public facilities needed to provide
services to accommodate growth without adversely impacting current service levels. Strategy 2, Utility
Undergrounding, would direct the City to encourage the undergrounding of new utility lines, as well as the
undergrounding of existing utility lines. By encouraging undergrounding, this policy could result in the
creation of new underground utility lines and facilities. Nevertheless, as the City of Cupertino is already
fully urbanized, such infrastructure would not be added to any areas where utilities infrastructure is
currently absent, and would instead represent an upgrade or relocation of existing facilities. Although the
construction of these facilities could result in physical impacts, such impacts would be evaluated at the
project level as individual facilities or transmission lines are proposed.
With the implementation of these General Plan Policies and compliance with the CALGreen Building Code,
significant energy conservation and savings would be realized in future new development. Even with the
energy saving practices in place, it is possible that new electrical switches and/or transformers might be
required to handle additional loads. However, potential environmental impacts from possible new electrical
switches/transformers are not anticipated to be significant and, if necessary, would be addressed in project-
specific reviews. In addition, buildout of the proposed Project would not significantly increase energy
demands in the contextof the 70,000-square-mile PG&E service territory for electricity and natural gas
generation, transmission and distribution. As a result, new energy supply facilities and distribution
infrastructure, or capacity-enhancing alterations to existing facilities, would not be required. Therefore, with
consideration of the applicable regulations listed below, impacts related to energy conservation and
electrical utilities facilities would be less than significant.
Significance Without Mitigation: Less than significant.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT EIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
4.14-64 JUNE 18, 2014