No preview available
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 4260 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