C - PRSMP IS-MND Addendum-MPSP — Cupertino City Council, April 3, 2024

IniƟal Study/Addendum
Memorial Park Speciﬁc Plan
January 2024
Prepared by
In ConsultaƟon with
Prepared by
ATTACHMENT C

CUPERTINO
Ill DAVID J. POWERS
Elm~
& ASSOCIATES INC
Attachment C

Memorial Park Specific Plan i Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024
Table of Contents
Section 1.0 Introduction and Purpose ............................................................................................. 1 Section 2.0 Project Information ...................................................................................................... 3 Project Title .......................................................................................................................... 3 Applicant/Lead Agency Contact ........................................................................................... 3 Project Location ................................................................................................................... 3 Assessor’s Parcel Numbers ................................................................................................... 7 General Plan Designation and Zoning District ...................................................................... 7 Project-Related Approvals, Agreements, and Permits .......................................................... 7 Section 3.0 Background Information ............................................................................................... 8 Overview .............................................................................................................................. 8 Cupertino Parks and Recreation System Master Plan .......................................................... 9 Section 4.0 Project Description ..................................................................................................... 10 Primary Project Components ............................................................................................. 10 Hours of Operation and Park Programming ....................................................................... 13 Site Access, Parking, and Circulation .................................................................................. 13 Landscaping ........................................................................................................................ 14 Stormwater Treatment ...................................................................................................... 15 Construction ....................................................................................................................... 15 Section 5.0 Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Impact Discussion ........................................... 17 Aesthetics ........................................................................................................................... 18 Agriculture and Forestry Resources ................................................................................... 27 Air Quality .......................................................................................................................... 31 Biological Resources ........................................................................................................... 40 Cultural Resources ............................................................................................................. 52 Energy ................................................................................................................................ 60 Geology and Soils ............................................................................................................... 67 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ................................................................................................ 78 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ...................................................................................... 85 Hydrology and Water Quality ............................................................................................. 97 Land Use and Planning ..................................................................................................... 109 Mineral Resources ............................................................................................................ 113

2.1 2.2

2.3 2.4

2.5 2.6

3.1 3.2

4.1 4.2

4.3 4.4

4.5 4.6

5.1 5.2

5.3 5.4

5.5 5.6

5.7 5.8

5.9 5.10

5.11 5.12

Memorial Park Specific Plan ii Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024
Noise ................................................................................................................................ 115 Population and Housing ................................................................................................... 128 Public Services .................................................................................................................. 130 Recreation ........................................................................................................................ 136 Transportation ................................................................................................................. 140 Tribal Cultural Resources .................................................................................................. 149 Utilities and Service Systems ............................................................................................ 153 Wildfire ............................................................................................................................ 161 Section 6.0 References ................................................................................................................ 163 Section 7.0 Lead Agency and Consultants ................................................................................... 168 Lead Agency ..................................................................................................................... 168 Consultants ...................................................................................................................... 168 Section 8.0 Acronyms and Abbreviations .................................................................................... 169

Figures

Figure 2.3-1: Regional Map ................................................................................................................. 4 Figure 2.3-2: Vicinity Map ................................................................................................................... 5 Figure 2.3-3: Aerial Photograph and Surrounding Land Uses .............................................................. 6 Figure 4.1-1: Proposed Site Plan........................................................................................................ 12 Figure 4.6-1: Proposed Phasing Plan ................................................................................................. 16 Figure 5.13-1: Noise Measurement Locations ................................................................................. 121

Photos

Photos 1 & 2 .................................................................................................................................... 21 Photos 3 & 4 .................................................................................................................................... 22 Photos 5 & 6 .................................................................................................................................... 23

5.13 5.14

5.15 5.16

5.17 5.18

5.19 5.20

7.1 7.2

Memorial Park Specific Plan iii Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024
Tables

Table 4.1-1: Summary of Existing Conditions and Proposed Changes ............................................... 13 Table 5.3-1: Health Effects of Air Pollutants ...................................................................................... 31 Table 5.4-1: City Tree Replacement Ratios ........................................................................................ 43 Table 5.13-1: Groundborne Vibration Impact Criteria ..................................................................... 116 Table 5.13-2: Summary of Long-Term Noise Measurement Data (dBA) .......................................... 120 Table 5.13-3: Summary of Short-Term Noise Measurement Data (dBA) ......................................... 120 Table 5.13-4: Vibration Levels for Construction Equipment ............................................................ 126

Appendices

Appendix A: Memorial Park Specific Plan
Appendix B: Tree Inventory Report
Appendix C: Geotechnical Investigation
Appendix D: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Appendix E: Noise and Vibration Assessment
Appendix F: Trip Generation Technical Memorandum

All appendices are incorporated herein by reference.

Memorial Park Specific Plan 1 Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024
Section 1.0 Introduction and Purpose
The City of Cupertino, as the Lead Agency, has prepared this Initial Study/Addendum for the Memorial Park Specific Plan in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations §15000 et. seq.) and the regulations and policies of the City of Cupertino, California.

The project proposes to implement a Specific Plan for Memorial Park that outlines improvements planned for the park. This Initial Study/Addendum evaluates the environmental impacts that might reasonably be anticipated to result from implementation of the proposed project.

This Initial Study/Addendum tiers from the adopted October 2019 City of Cupertino Parks and Recreation System Master Plan Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (2019 IS/MND, State Clearinghouse [SCH] #2019109066). The primary purpose of the Parks and Recreation System Master Plan (Master Plan) was to align the City’s park and recreation services with community expectations, identify key projects that could be added to the recreation system, and ensure the City has the resources needed to create a park system that embodies Cupertino’s desires.

The CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a) states that when an EIR has been certified or a Negative Declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent EIR or Negative Declaration shall be prepared for that project unless the Lead Agency determined, on the basis of substantial evidence in light of the whole record, one or more of the following:
(1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;
(2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or (3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the Negative Declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:
(A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or Negative Declaration;
(B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR;
(C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or

Memorial Park Specific Plan 2 Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024
(D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15164(b) states that an addendum may be prepared if only minor technical changes or additions are necessary or none of the conditions described in Section 15162(a) (see above) calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR or Negative Declaration have occurred. Based on the analysis completed in this document, the City has determined that the project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts than previously disclosed in the 2019 IS/MND. Therefore, the standard for requiring a subsequent EIR or Negative Declaration has not been met, and an Addendum has been prepared consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15164.

If the project is approved, the City of Cupertino will file a Notice of Determination (NOD), which will be available for public inspection and posted within 24 hours of receipt at the County Clerk’s Office for 30 days. The filing of the NOD starts a 30-day statute of limitations on court challenges to the approval under CEQA (CEQA Guidelines Section 15075(g)).

Memorial Park Specific Plan 3 Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024
Section 2.0 Project Information
Project Title
Memorial Park Specific Plan

Applicant/Lead Agency Contact
Susan Michael
City of Cupertino
Public Works Department
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
(408) 777-1328
[email protected]

Project Location
The approximately 22.5-acre project site is located on the northeast corner of Mary Avenue and Stevens Creek Boulevard at 21121 Stevens Creek Boulevard in the City of Cupertino. The surrounding land uses include residential uses to the north and west, educational facility uses to the south, and residential and recreational uses to the east. Regional and vicinity maps are shown on Figure 2.3-1 and Figure 2.3-2 on the following pages. An aerial photograph of the project site and surrounding land uses is shown on Figure 2.3-3.

2.1 2.2

2.3 Base Map: ESRI, ArcGIS.

San José
Santa Clara
Campbell
Saratoga
CuperƟno
Los Gatos
Milpitas
Mountain
ViewLos Altos
Palo Alto
Woodside
Menlo Park
East Palo
Alto
Redwood
City
Sunnyvale
San José
Santa Clara
Campbell
Saratoga
CuperƟno
Los Gatos
Milpitas
Mountain
ViewLos Altos
Palo Alto
Woodside
Menlo Park
East Palo
Alto
Redwood
City
Sunnyvale
9 9
17 17
85 85
35 84
84 85
87 237
101
101
101
280
280
280
680
680
880
880
Project Site
Paciﬁc Ocean
Monterey Bay
San JoséSan José
SunnyvaleSunnyvale
FremontFremontSan MateoSan Mateo
Redwood CityRedwood City
LivermoreLivermore
OaklandOakland
San FranciscoSan Francisco
Santa CruzSanta Cruz
Mountain ViewMountain View
Morgan HillMorgan Hill
Project SiteProject Site
CuperƟnoCuperƟno
0246 1 8 Miles
REGIONAL MAP FIGURE 2.3-1
, ,
I
I
'
', ,-
I
I
' I
\
I
I , ,
0 -•
0 \
•
Christensen Drive
Alves Drive
North Stelling Road
Beardon Drive
North De Anz
a Boulevard
South De Anza Boul
ev
ar
d
South Stelling Road
Stevens Creek Boulevard Stevens Creek Boulevard
McClellan RoadMcClellan Road Orange Avenue Bubb Road
Mann Drive
M
adera Drive
Scenic Boulevard
Creston Drive
Parkwoo d Drive
Glen Place
Rodrigues Avenue
Vista Drive
Shelly Drive
CasƟne Avenue
Regnart Creek
Steve
ns Creek
Stev
ens
Cree
k
U.P
.R.R.

P .R.R
.

ChristensenD r ive
AlvesD rive
North Stelling Road
Beardon Drive
North De Anza Boulevard
South De Anza Boulevard
South Stelling Road
Stevens Creek Boulevard Stevens Creek Boulevard
McClellan RoadMcClellan Road Orange Avenue Bubb Road
Mann Drive
Ma
deraD
rive
Sc
eni
cBoulevard
Creston
Drive
Parkwoo d Drive
Glen Place
Rodrigues Avenue
Vista Drive
Shelly Drive
CasƟne Avenue
Regnart Creek
Steve
nsCreek
Stevens Creek
U.P .R.R.

U.P.R.R.
85 85
280 280
Base Map: ESRI, ArcGIS
0 250 1,000 1,500 2,500 Feet
Project Site
VICINITY MAP FIGURE 2.3-2
p-----,
-
..........

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
N
~
-------==-==.....;..aa=-----==........,_,;,,,.-----=----~-----:: - ,,....----..!....._ i_::,__.;;:_ _____ - _________ ---=-'_~---.....,,.. • -~------ I
CuperƟno
Sports
Center
ResidenƟal
ResidenƟal
ResidenƟal
ResidenƟal
ResidenƟal
ResidenƟal
Commercial
Church &
Preschool
Planned ResidenƟal/Commercial
(Under ConstrucƟon)
De Anza
College
South Stelling RoadSouth Stelling Road North Stelling RoadNorth Stelling Road Alves Drive Alves Drive
Stevens Creek Boulevard Stevens Creek Boulevard
Campus Drive
Mary Avenue
Anton Way
Garden Gate Drive
Hanford Drive
Elenda Drive
Christensen Drive
LaureƩa Drive
Place
Parkwood Drive
Parkwood Drive
Alves Drive Alves Drive
Stevens Creek Boulevard Stevens Creek Boulevard
Campus Drive
Mary Avenue
Anton Way
Garden Gate Drive
Hanford Drive
Elenda Drive
Christensen Drive
LaureƩa Drive
Glen Place
Parkwood Drive
Parkwood
Drive
85 1
2 4
4 4
4 8
6 5
3 3
7 len
Photo Date: Mar. 2022*
0 50 300 400 600 Feet
Project Boundary
Tennis Courts
So Ōball Field
Playground Areas
Picnic Areas
Amphitheater
Quinlan Community Center
CuperƟ no Senior Center
Gazebo
Aerial Source: Google Earth Pro, Sep. 6, 2023.
*This aerial photograph was taken prior to the compleƟon of the pond replacement project in August 2023.
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH AND SURROUNDING LAND USES FIGURE 2.3-3 \ e-------
\.

Memorial Park Specific Plan 7 Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024

Assessor’s Parcel Numbers
326-27-033, 326-29-006, and 326-54-041

General Plan Designation and Zoning District
The project site is within the boundaries of the Heart of the City Special Area and has General Plan designations of Transportation, Parks and Open Space, and Public Facilities. The Heart of the City Special Area is a key mixed-use, commercial corridor in Cupertino and includes five specific subareas: West Stevens Creek Boulevard, Crossroads, Central Stevens Creek Boulevard, City Center, and East Stevens Creek Boulevard. The project site is within the West Stevens Creek Boulevard subarea and Community Recreation Node, which consists of Memorial Park, the Senior Center, Sports Center, and Quinlan Community Center.

The site is within the Heart of the City Specific Plan Area zoning district, and has a zoning designation of Open Space/Public Park/Recreational Zone. The Heart of the City Specific Plan provides specific development guidance for the Stevens Creek Boulevard commercial corridor and is meant to guide the future development and redevelopment of the Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor in a manner that creates a greater sense of place and community identity in Cupertino.

Project-Related Approvals, Agreements, and Permits
The project requires the following discretionary approvals:
• Adoption of the Specific Plan

The project would also require the following ministerial approvals:
• Encroachment permit
• Tree Removal permit
• Demolition permit
• Grading permit
• Construction permit

2.4 2.5

2.6 Memorial Park Specific Plan 8 Initial Study/Addendum City of Cupertino January 2024
Section 3.0 Background Information
Overview
The approximately 22.5-acre (or 980,000 square feet) project site is generally referred to collectively as “Memorial Park” and contains Memorial Park, Quinlan Community Center, and Cupertino Senior Center. The current hours of operation are daylight hours to 10:00 PM.

Within Memorial Park, there are six tennis courts (including one court that is dual-lined to provide four pickleball courts), a softball field, an amphitheater, the Cupertino Veterans Memorial, playground areas, picnic areas, and the Memorial Park Gazebo. Until 2013, Memorial Park also contained a concrete-lined, artificial pond in the central portion of the park south of the softball field. It was drained in 2013 in response to the ongoing drought and proposed for removal under the City’s 2021-2022 Capital Improvement Program. In 2022, construction began to remove the concrete liner, backfill and grade the area, install landscaping and sodded turf, and pedestrian pathways. Since the commencement of this environmental analysis, construction of the project to replace the former pond area was completed in August 2023, and the area is currently open to the public.

Memorial Park currently hosts major events between May and November each year, including the following:

• Bhubaneswar Sister City Celebration
• Cherry Blossom Festival
• Diwali Festival
• Easter Egg Hunt
• Field Day
• Holi Celebration
• Independence Day Celebration
• Relay for Life: Silicon Valley North
• Rotary Fall Festival
• Veteran’s Day Memorial Ceremony
• YAB Summer Kick-Off

These events typically range in size from as low as 100 to 150 attendees for minor events to as high as 4,000 to 5,000 attendees for major events like the annual Cherry Blossom Festival. Spillover parking for larger events is accommodated in the surface parking areas at De Anza College, which is located across the street on the south side of Stevens Creek Boulevard.

3.1 Memorial Park Specific Plan 9 Initial Study/Addendum City of Cupertino January 2024
Cupertino Parks and Recreation System Master Plan
As discussed under Section 1.1, the primary purpose of the City’s 2020 Master Plan (Master Plan) was to align the City’s park and recreation services with community expectations, identify key projects that could be added to the recreation system, and ensure the City has the resources needed to create a park system that embodies Cupertino’s desires.

The Master Plan identified enhancement opportunities for Memorial Park that were separated into immediate, short-term, and longer-term timeframes. The immediate item for Memorial Park was to develop a site master plan for the park, which is the purpose of the proposed project. In the short- term, the Master Plan identified nature integration, shade creation, improvement of ADA accessibility, pathway and seating improvements, amphitheater improvements, additional sporting opportunities (e.g., pickleball), and the re-purposing of the empty pond as priorities for the park.

Throughout the Master Plan, Memorial Park was identified as a potential site for additional large- scale recreation opportunities such as an aquatic park, multi-use recreation center and gymnasium complex, and a performing and fine arts center.

3.2 Memorial Park Specific Plan 10 Initial Study/Addendum City of Cupertino January 2024
Section 4.0 Project Description
The project proposes to implement a Specific Plan for Memorial Park that outlines improvements for the park. Although no improvements are proposed for the Quinlan Community Center or Cupertino Senior Center buildings, the project would upgrade the courtyards outside these two buildings with new landscaping and seating areas. A draft of the proposed Specific Plan is included in Appendix A. The primary project components of the Specific Plan (also referred to as the “project”) are described below and shown on Figure 4.1-1. The changes to existing conditions proposed by the project are summarized in Table 4.1-1.

Primary Project Components

4.1.1 Softball Field
The existing softball field would continue to be used for programmed adult softball leagues, senior softball activities, and public rentals throughout the year under the Specific Plan as well as serve as a dog off-leash area (DOLA) when the softball field is not in use. Operation of the DOLA would be limited to several hours in the afternoon during normal park operating hours.

4.1.2 Sports Courts
The six existing tennis courts on the northwest corner of the project site would remain in the same location, and the only proposed change under the Master Plan would be to remove the pickleball dual-striping on one of the tennis courts. The project would add a new basketball court with lighting adjacent to the eastern side of the softball field, and the existing landscaped berms would be utilized as seating areas around the new basketball court. The project would also add eight pickleball courts on the southeast corner of the site, adjacent to the intersection of Stevens Creek Boulevard and Anton Way. A low fence and landscape screening would be installed around the perimeter of the new pickleball courts. Additional lighting would be installed for the pickleball courts, and the courts would be open during normal park operating hours. A bocce ball court would also be installed adjacent to the Senior Center, and would be programmed for Senior Center socials, classes, and public rentals. No new lights are proposed for the bocce ball court.

4.1.3 Playground Areas
Currently, the park contains two playground areas, one south of the tennis courts and one south of the amphitheater. The project would relocate and replace these playground areas with an All- Abilities Playground area and a Nature Playground area, both of which would be centrally located within the park between the Senior Center and softball field. A passive garden walk featuring a variety of native plants would be constructed south of the Nature Playground area. A new publicly accessible restroom would be constructed adjacent to the All-Abilities Playground area.

4.1 Memorial Park Specific Plan 11 Initial Study/Addendum City of Cupertino January 2024

4.1.4 Picnic Areas
The existing reservable picnic area east of the softball field would be renovated and three new, drop-in picnic areas would be added on-site. Renovation of the existing reservable picnic area would include replacing the decomposed granite surfacing with concrete surfacing, installing new shade structures, installing new landscaping and trees, and providing barbeques, sinks, and drinking fountains. The new picnic areas would be constructed adjacent to the All-Abilities Playground area, Nature Playground area, and Memorial Park Gazebo. All new picnic areas would include picnic tables and shade structures.

4.1.5 Amphitheater
The existing amphitheater has seats for approximately 140 people. Currently, the programming for the amphitheater includes concerts and theater productions that occur during the summer months (June through September). These events generally occur between 10:30 AM and 8:00 PM depending on the type of performance. The adjacent lawn areas act as additional seating areas for the attendees that cannot be accommodated by the seats. Performances at the amphitheater have drawn as many as 300 to 500 attendees.

The project would upgrade the existing amphitheater to provide additional designated seats, provide Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliant improvements such as reinforced stairs and pathways, and install a shade structure. In addition, the existing stage infrastructure would be improved through the installation of a new shade structure, new surfacing, and telecommunication and fiber optic equipment. The project would not create a larger stage. The types of performances and programming held at the amphitheater would remain the same as under existing conditions.

1 New Site Arrival
2 New Parking Stalls
3 Upgraded Restroom
4 Passive Garden Walk
5 Pickleball Courts
6 Expanded Senior Center Deck / Plaza
7 Fitness Station
8 Bocce Court
9 Reservable Picnic Area
10 Nature Playground
11 Enhanced Pedestrian / Bicycle Access
12 Veterans Memorial
13 Upgraded Amphitheater and Stage
14 Historic Gazebo
15 Event Lawns
16 Event Plaza
17 All-Abilities Playground
18 New Restrooms
19 Basketball Court
20 Existing Softball Field / DOLA
21 Dedicated Tennis Courts
22 Upgraded Quinlan Courtyard
23 Upgraded Parking Lots
Cupertino
Senior Center
Stevens Creek Boulevard
Anton Way
Mary Avenue
Alves Drive
North Stelling Road
Christensen Drive
Quinlan
Community
Center
16 11
18 18
17 15
15 14
13 2
5 4
76 8
10 12
11 1
1 20
3 21
15 23
23 23
23 9 22
19 0 50 200 400 Feet
PROPOSED SITE PLAN FIGURE 4.1-1
p-----, -
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
1, 0

Memorial Park Specific Plan 13 Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024
Table 4.1-1: Summary of Existing Conditions and Proposed Changes Existing Conditions Proposed Changes
Softball Field • Programmed softball leagues
• Unsanctioned DOLA
• Sanctioned DOLA at posted times
(TBD)
Sports Courts • Five dedicated tennis courts
• One tennis court with dual striping
to provide four pickleball courts
• Restripe to provide six dedicated
tennis courts
• Eight dedicated pickleball courts
• New full-size basketball court
• New bocce ball court
Playground Areas • Two playground areas • Relocate both playground areas with upgraded equipment to new
locations within Memorial Park
Picnic Areas • One large, reservable picnic area
• Three smaller, drop-in picnic areas
• Upgrade existing large, reservable
picnic area
• Three new drop-in picnic areas
Amphitheater • Approximately 140 designated seats
• Live performances throughout the
year
• Upgrade seating area to be ADA
compliant
• Additional designated seats
• New shade structure over stage and
amphitheater seating area
• New electrical equipment for stage
Hours of Operation • Daytime to 10:00 PM • None
Park Programming • Events throughout the year with
crowd sizes ranging from 100 to
5,000 attendees
• None

Hours of Operation and Park Programming
The project would not change the hours of operation for Memorial Park, Quinlan Community Center, or Cupertino Senior Center. The project would not alter the type or scale of the current events held at the park; however, if some of the currently scheduled events are no longer held in the future, alternative equivalent events may be scheduled to take their place. In addition to the existing event lawn area located west of the Quinlan Community Center, the project would reconfigure a smaller (i.e., approximately 70,000 square feet) area comprised of lawn and hardscaping south of the softball field where the concrete-lined pond was previously located.

Site Access, Parking, and Circulation
Vehicular access to the project site for the public is currently provided by three separate driveways.

There is a two-way driveway on North Sterling Road leading to the Quinlan Community Center, a two-way driveway on Alves Drive, and a two-way driveway on Mary Avenue adjacent to the Senior

4.2 4.3

Memorial Park Specific Plan 14 Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024
Center. There are additional access points for maintenance and emergency vehicles located on Anton Way and within the Mary Avenue parking lot.

The project would reconfigure the parking lot accessed via Alves Drive. The existing two-way driveway located in the center of the parking lot would be removed and two, one-way driveways would be constructed at each end of the parking lot. These driveways would be approximately 24 feet wide. Currently, the parking lot has 50 parking stalls (two ADA accessible stalls and 48 standard stalls). For the purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that the project would maintain the same number of stalls; however, the lot would be restriped to provide additional ADA accessible stalls. In addition, the project would reconfigure the westernmost parking lot accessed via Mary Avenue to reduce the size of several planter islands to accommodate enhanced bicycle and pedestrian facilities.

The project would add approximately nine, inset parallel parking stalls along Anton Way adjacent to the new pickleball courts.

Pedestrian access to the park is currently provided by several walking paths accessed via entry points on Christensen Drive, Alves Drive, Anton Way, Stevens Creek Boulevard, and Mary Avenue.

The project would maintain these pedestrian pathways; however, several would be realigned to accommodate proposed improvements. In addition, these pedestrian pathways would be resurfaced to ensure ADA compliance throughout the park and access points at the parking lots on- site would be updated with ADA compliant curb ramps.

Bicyclists currently utilize the pathways in the park; there are no official bicycle lanes on-site. The project would add Class I bicycle routes on-site that would connect Alves Drive, Mary Avenue, and Christensen Drive, allowing cyclists a designated pathway through the site. In addition, the project would install short- and long-term bicycle parking throughout the site and at key entry points.

Landscaping
The project site currently contains approximately 500 on-site trees, all of which have a protected status as public trees (pursuant to Chapter 14.12 of the City Code). The project would remove a total of approximately 140 existing trees on-site due to the proposed improvements and/or low tree preservation suitability. The remaining trees on-site would not conflict with the proposed improvements, are in good health, and would be preserved. Over the course of project buildout, approximately 150 replacement trees would be planted throughout the park in accordance with the Tree Succession Plan prepared for the site. In addition to the replacement trees, the project would plant new landscaping, including new shrubs and groundcover, throughout the site. The new landscaping would incorporate low to moderate water use plants and California native species.

4.4 Memorial Park Specific Plan 15 Initial Study/Addendum City of Cupertino January 2024
Stormwater Treatment
Currently, the project site contains approximately 350,000 square feet (or 36 percent) of impervious surfaces and 630,000 square feet (or 64 percent) of pervious surfaces. The proposed project would increase on-site impervious surfaces by approximately 72,000 square feet (or seven percent) compared to existing conditions. The increase in impervious surfaces results from the addition of new concrete pedestrian walkways, bicycle paths, and the paved asphalt surface parking stalls adjacent to the proposed pickleball courts. To manage stormwater runoff on-site, the project would construct landscaped bioretention areas and install pervious paving materials in select areas throughout the site to capture stormwater runoff and promote on-site infiltration.

Construction
For the purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that project construction would begin in 2028 and would be completed over the course of approximately 15 years as funding is made available for individual improvements. Construction activities would include demolition, site preparation, grading, site structures, paving, and landscaping. Although the timing of project implementation depends on the availability of funding, it is anticipated the first five years of construction would include improvements such as the upgrades to the existing parking lot accessed via Mary Avenue and construction of the All-Abilities Playground, Nature Playground, bocce court, pickleball courts, and new parallel parking stalls along Anton Way. The second five-year period would include improvements such as the upgrades to the existing amphitheater, renovation of the parking lot accessed via Alves Drive, construction of the basketball court, and renovation of the existing picnic area. Construction activities during the final five-year period are anticipated to consist of landscaping improvements in the parking lot areas adjacent to the Quinlan Community Center and Senior Center. For a map showing the recommended project phasing, see Figure 4.6-1.

4.5 4.6
Phase 1A
Phase 1B
Phase 2A
Phase 3
Phase 3
Phase 2B Phase 2C
North Stelling Road North Stelling Road
Stevens Creek Boulevard
Campus Drive
Christensen Drive
LaureƩa Drive
Stevens Creek Boulevard
Campus Drive
Christensen Drive
LaureƩa Drive
Alves Drive
Anton Way
Alves Drive
Anton Way
Mary Avenue
MaryAvenue
Parkwood Drive
ParkwoodDrive
0 200 Feet100
PROPOSED PHASING PLAN FIGURE 4.6-1

Memorial Park Specific Plan 17 Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024
Section 5.0 Environmental Setting, Checklist,
and Impact Discussion
This section presents the discussion of impacts related to the following environmental subjects in their respective subsections:

5.1 Aesthetics

5.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources

5.3 Air Quality

5.4 Biological Resources

5.5 Cultural Resources

5.6 Energy

5.7 Geology and Soils

5.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions

5.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

5.10 Hydrology and Water Quality

5.11 Land Use and Planning

5.12 Mineral Resources

5.13 Noise

5.14 Population and Housing

5.15 P ublic Services

5.16 Recreation

5.17 Transportation

5.18 Tribal Cultural Resources

5.19 Utilities and Service Systems

5.20 Wildfire

The discussion for each environmental subject includes the following subsections:

• Environmental Setting – This subsection 1) provides a brief overview of relevant plans, policies, and regulations that compose the regulatory framework for the project and 2) describes the existing, physical environmental conditions at the project site and in the surrounding area, as relevant.
• Impact Discussion – This subsection 1) includes the recommended checklist questions from Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines to assess impacts and 2) discusses the project’s impact on the environmental subject as related to the checklist questions. For significant impacts, feasible mitigation measures are identified. “Mitigation measures” are measures that will minimize, avoid, or eliminate a significant impact (CEQA Guidelines Section 15370). Each impact is labeled to correspond to the checklist question being answered. For example, the discussion under checklist question a) answers the first checklist question in the Biological Resources section. Mitigation measures are also numbered to correspond to the impact they address. For example, MM BIO-1.3 refers to the third mitigation measure for the first impact in the Biological Resources section.

Memorial Park Specific Plan 18 Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024
Aesthetics

5.1.1 Environmental Setting
The regulatory framework and existing conditions have not changed substantially since the adoption of the 2019 IS/MND. Key regulations and project site conditions are described below.

Regulatory Framework
State
Streets and Highway Code Sections 260 through 263
The California Scenic Highway Program (Streets and Highway Code, Sections 260 through 263) is managed by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). The program is intended to protect and enhance the natural scenic beauty of California highways and adjacent corridors through special conservation treatment.

Local
Cupertino General Plan: Community Vision 2015-2040
Community Vision 2040 is the City’s General Plan, which describes the community’s overall philosophy regarding the character and accessibility of existing and new neighborhoods and mixed- use corridors, and contains goals, policies, and strategies for implementing the community’s vision.

The proposed project is subject to General Plan policies and strategies including, but not limited to, the policies listed below pertaining to aesthetics.

Policy/Strategy Description
Policy LU-4.1 Ensure that the design of streets, sidewalks and pedestrian and bicycle amenities are consistent with the vision for each Planning Area and Complete Streets policies.

Policy LU-12.4 The Montebello foothills at the south and west boundary of the valley floor provide a scenic backdrop, adding to the City’s scale and variety. While it is not possible to guarantee an unobstructed view of the hills from every vantage point, an attempt should be made to preserve views of the foothills.

Policy LU-27.8 Protect residential neighborhoods from noise, traffic, light, glare, odors and visually intrusive effects from more intense development with landscape buffers, site and building design, setbacks and other appropriate measures.

Heart of the City Specific Plan
The Heart of the City Specific Plan describes the different areas and special centers within the Specific Plan area and provides development standards, design guidelines, and landscaping guidelines for sites within the Specific Plan area. These standards include tree species that should

5.1 5.1.1.1

Memorial Park Specific Plan 19 Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024
be planted on the Stevens Creek Boulevard corridor, the preferred location for on-site parking, and paving materials that should be utilized by developments.

City of Cupertino Municipal Code
The City’s Zoning Ordinance (Title 19 of the City’s Municipal Code) sets forth the standards requiring architectural and site review and stipulating aesthetic criteria for new development. Under Chapter

19.168, the City is responsible for the review of architectural and site designs of buildings, structures, signs, lighting, and landscaping within the City to promote and ensure compliance with the goals and objectives identified in the General Plan.

Title 14 of the City’s Municipal Code (Street, Sidewalks and Landscaping) contains development standards related to street improvements, encroachments, landscaping, and undergrounding of utilities.

Existing Conditions
Scenic 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).
1 Although the City has not designated any major roadways or any other streets/areas in Cupertino as scenic corridors or as being part of a scenic vista, the General Plan recognizes views of the foothills and Santa Cruz Mountains as important resources. 2 The project site is located in a highly developed area of the City. It is located on relatively flat land which limits the amount of expansive views from the project site. Obstructed views of the Santa

1 City of Cupertino. Final Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan Amendment, Housing Element Update, and Associated Rezoning Project (SCH# 2014032007). December 4, 2014. Page 4.1-21. 2 City of Cupertino. Parks and Recreation System Master Plan – Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. SCH # 2019109066. October 2019. Page 48.

5.1.1.2 Memorial Park Specific Plan 20 Initial Study/Addendum City of Cupertino January 2024
Cruz Mountains and foothills are provided in the project area, and a clearer view of the Santa Cruz Mountains can be seen looking west on Stevens Creek Boulevard.

There are no state-designated scenic highways in Cupertino. There is only one state-designated scenic highway in Santa Clara County: SR 9 from the Santa Cruz County line to the Los Gatos City limit. Eligible state scenic highways (not officially designated) include: SR 17 from the Santa Cruz County line to SR 9, SR 35 from Santa Cruz County line to SR 9, I-280 from the San Mateo County line to SR 17, and the entire length of SR 152 within the County. The nearest officially designated scenic highway is the segment of SR 9 approximately 4.5 miles south of the project site. 3 The
project site is not visible from a designated state scenic highway.

Visual Character and Quality
The project site is located in a developed area of the Cupertino and currently contains Memorial Park, the Quinlan Community Center, and the Cupertino Senior Center. Memorial Park includes tennis courts, a softball field, an amphitheater, the Cupertino Veterans Memorial, playground areas, picnic areas, and the Memorial Park Gazebo. It is landscaped with large grass areas, trees, and landscaped areas with small shrubs.

The Quinlan Community Center is a single-story, u-shaped building with ceramic roof tiles. The central portion of the building over the lobby is elevated above the surrounding roofline, and the building is surrounded by landscaped areas and trees. The Cupertino Senior Center is a single-story structure with ceramic roof tiles on a gable roof, a pergola in the front courtyard area, and a wooden deck on the east side of the building. The central portion of the park was previously a concrete-lined, artificial pond that has since been drained and redeveloped to provide additional landscaped area and walking paths under a separate project.

The surrounding area in the immediate vicinity of the project site consists primarily of one- to two- story single-family and multi-family residential properties. The Cupertino Sports Center is located to the east of the project site, and consists primarily of tennis courts. De Anza College is directly south of the site, and contains a variety of classroom buildings, administrative buildings, and surface parking areas. Most of the campus is shielded from view at the project site by landscaped areas in the median of Stevens Creek Boulevard and trees between Stevens Creek Boulevard and Campus Drive.

3 Caltrans. “California State Scenic Highway System Map.” Accessed August 16, 2023. https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8e8057116f1aacaa.

Photo 1: View from the southeast corner of the project site looking north towards Anton Way.

Photo 2: View from the southeast corner of the project site looking east on Stevens Creek Boulevard.

PHOTOS 1 & 2
Photo 3: View from the southern boundary of the project site looking west on Stevens Creek Boulevard.

Photo 4: View from the central porƟon of the project site looking east towards Alves Drive.

PHOTOS 3 & 4
Photo 5: View from the northwest corner of the project site looking north towards Christensen Drive.

Photo 6: View from the western boundary of the project site looking west towards adjacent residenƟal development.

PHOTOS 5 & 6

Memorial Park Specific Plan 24 Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024

5.1.2 Impact Discussion

New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
New Less than
Significant
Impact
Same Impact
as Approved
Project
Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section
21099, would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic
vista?

b) Substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a
state scenic highway?

c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade
the existing visual character or quality of public
views of the site and its surroundings?
4 If the
project is in an urbanized area, would the
project conflict with applicable zoning and other
regulations governing scenic quality?

d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare
which would adversely affect day or nighttime
views in the area?

a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?

The 2019 IS/MND determined that although views of the foothills (i.e., Montebello) and Santa Cruz Mountains are important resources, there are no designated scenic vistas within the City limits.

Therefore, projects carried out under the Master Plan that could potentially block views of the foothills from within individual parks would not result in an impact on scenic vistas.5

The project would implement a variety of improvements throughout Memorial Park, including the construction of playground areas, sports courts, and the planting of new landscaping. These improvements are consistent with the improvements evaluated in the 2019 IS/MND and, as disclosed in the 2019 IS/MND, they could potentially further obstruct views of the foothills and Santa Cruz Mountains on-site. However, there are no scenic vistas within the City. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in impacts to any scenic vistas, consistent with the findings of the 2019 IS/MND. (Same Impact as Approved Project)

4 Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage points. 5 City of Cupertino. Parks and Recreation System Master Plan – Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. SCH # 2019109066. October 2019. Page 67.
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□

Memorial Park Specific Plan 25 Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024
b) Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?

The 2019 IS/MND concluded that since there are no state-designated scenic highways or locally designated scenic corridors located within the City of Cupertino, implementation of the Master Plan would not impact a state designated Scenic Highway.6

The circumstances under which the project is being undertaken have not changed since the adoption of the 2019 IS/MND. As discussed in Section 5.1.1.2 Existing Conditions, there are no state-designated scenic highways in Cupertino. The closest state-designated scenic highway is a segment of SR 9 which is approximately 4.5 miles south of the project site. Since the project site is not visible from a designated state scenic highway, implementation of the project would not result in any impacts to scenic resources within a state scenic highway, consistent with the findings of the 2019 IS/MND. (Same Impact as Approved Project)

c) In non-urbanized areas, would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?

The 2019 IS/MND determined that future projects under the Master Plan would be designed, constructed, and maintained consistent with all adopted City policies and regulations, including those focused on visual quality of the urban environment. Therefore, implementation of the Master Plan would cause a less than significant impact to the visual character of the project areas and their surroundings.7

The project is consistent with the General Plan, Heart of the City Specific Plan, and Parks and Recreation Master Plan policies governing scenic quality by complying with applicable design guidelines in the Specific Plan, preventing light/glare from adversely affecting surrounding residential areas, and replacing trees consistent with the Municipal Code. In addition, as noted in Section 5.1.1.1 Regulatory Framework, Chapter 19.168 of the City’s zoning ordinance requires that the City review the site designs of any proposed buildings, structures, signs, lighting, and/or landscaping within the City to ensure compliance with the goals and objectives identified in the General Plan regarding visual quality. For these reasons, the project would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings, consistent with the findings of the 2019 IS/MND. (Same Impact as Approved Project)

6 Ibid. Page 67.
7 Ibid. Page 67.

Memorial Park Specific Plan 26 Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024
d) Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?

The 2019 IS/MND determined that implementation of the Master Plan would result in the addition of new lighting fixtures or extended nighttime lighting in various parks in the City. In order to reduce the potential for new night lighting associated with park and recreation activities to cause light and glare impacts to adjacent sensitive land uses, the 2019 IS/MND identified Mitigation Measure AES-1 which would require that a lighting plan be prepared for projects with new exterior lighting near adjacent properties to be and that those new lights be shielded as necessary. With implementation of this mitigation measure, the impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level.
8 In order to reduce any potential impacts, the project would implement 2019 IS/MND Mitigation Measure AES-1, which is described below.

2019 IS/MND Mitigation Measure
Mitigation Measure AES-1: New exterior lighting in proximity to adjacent property will be shielded as necessary to ensure that exterior light sources do not create a significant light or glare impact on an adjacent land use. A lighting plan that addresses potential light and glare impacts shall be prepared for projects that include new night lighting in proximity to adjacent private properties.

The project would add new light fixtures at the basketball court and pickleball courts. New exterior lighting would be designed to direct light downwards and would be shielded to avoid creating unnecessary glare at adjacent properties. In addition, consistent with the requirements of 2019 IS/MND Mitigation Measure AES-1, the project would prepare a lighting plan to evaluate and reduce any potential light and glare impacts to a less than significant level. With implementation of 2019 IS/MND Mitigation Measure AES-1, the project would not create any new or substantially more severe significant sources of light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area, which is consistent with the findings of the 2019 IS/MND. (Same Impact as Approved Project)

8 Ibid. Page 68.

Memorial Park Specific Plan 27 Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024
Agriculture and Forestry Resources

5.2.1 Environmental Setting
The regulatory framework and existing conditions have not changed substantially since the adoption of the 2019 IS/MND. Key regulations and project site conditions are described below.

Regulatory Framework
State
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program
The California Department of Conservation’s Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) assesses the location, quality, and quantity of agricultural land and conversion of these lands over time. Agricultural land is rated according to soil quality and irrigation status. The best quality land is identified as Prime Farmland. In CEQA analyses, the FMMP classifications and published county maps are used, in part, to identify whether agricultural resources that could be affected are present on-site or in the project area.
9 California Land Conservation Act
The California Land Conservation Act (Williamson Act) enables local governments to enter into contracts with private landowners to restrict parcels of land to agricultural or related open space uses. In return, landowners receive lower property tax assessments. In CEQA analyses, identification of properties that are under a Williamson Act contract is used to also identify sites that may contain agricultural resources or are zoned for agricultural uses. 10 Fire and Resource Assessment Program
The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) identifies forest land, timberland, and lands zoned for timberland production that can (or do) support forestry resources.
11 Programs such as CAL FIRE’s Fire and Resource Assessment Program and are used to

9 California Department of Conservation. “Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program.” Accessed February 17, 2023. http://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp/Pages/Index.aspx. 10 California Department of Conservation. “Williamson Act.” Accessed February 17, 2023. http://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/lca.
11 Forest Land is land that can support 10 percent native tree cover and allows for management of forest resources (California Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)); Timberland is land not owned by the federal government or designated as experimental forest land that is available for, and capable of, growing trees to produce lumber and other products, including Christmas trees (California Public Resources Code Section 4526); and Timberland Production is land used for growing and harvesting timber and compatible uses (Government Code Section 51104(g)).

5.2 5.2.1.1

Memorial Park Specific Plan 28 Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024
identify whether forest land, timberland, or timberland production areas that could be affected are located on or adjacent to a project site.12

Existing Conditions
According to the Santa Clara County Important Farmland 2018 map, the project site is designated as Urban and Built-Up Land, meaning the land is occupied by structures with a building density of at least one unit to 1.5 acres, or approximately six structures to a 10-acre parcel. Common examples include residential, industrial, commercial, institutional facilities, cemeteries, airports, golf courses, sanitary landfills, sewage treatment, and water control structures. 13 No lands adjacent to the
project site are used for agricultural production, forest land, or timberland. Surrounding properties are designated, zoned, and used for urban uses. There are no Williamson Act parcels on or in the vicinity of the project site.
14 The project site is within the boundaries of the Heart of the City Special Area of the General Plan and has General Plan designations of Transportation, Parks and Open Space, and Public Facilities.

The site is within the Heart of the City Specific Plan Area zoning district, and has a zoning designation of Open Space/Public Park/Recreational Zone.

The project site is currently developed with a park, amphitheater, recreational facilities, the Cupertino Senior Center, and the Quinlan Community Center. The site is surrounded primarily by residential uses, with De Anza College located south of the project site south of Stevens Creek Boulevard.

5.2.2 Impact Discussion

New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
New Less than
Significant
Impact
Same Impact
as Approved
Project
Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland),
as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of
the California Resources Agency, to non-
agricultural use?

12 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. “Fire and Resource Assessment Program.” Accessed February 17, 2023. http://frap.fire.ca.gov/.
13 California Department of Conservation. “California Important Farmland Finder.” Accessed March 6, 2023. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/
14 County of Santa Clara. “Williamson Act and Open Space Easement.” September 17, 2018. Accessed March 6, 2023. https://www.sccgov.org/sites/dpd/programs/wa/pages/wa.aspx.

5.2.1.2 □ □ □

Memorial Park Specific Plan 29 Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024

c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public
Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland
(as defined by Public Resources Code Section
4526), or timberland zoned Timberland
Production (as defined by Government Code
Section 51104(g))?

d) Result in a loss of forest land or conversion of
forest land to non-forest use?

e) Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of Farmland
to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest
land to non-forest use?

a) Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance, as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?

The 2019 IS/MND determined that the City’s existing parks were not located within prime or other agricultural lands as mapped by the State, and were located within areas designated as “Urban and Built-up Land,” therefore, implementation of the Master Plan would not impact any Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance.15 These conditions have not changed since the adoption of the 2019 IS/MND. Therefore, implementation of the project would not result in the conversion of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to non-agricultural use. (Same Impact as Approved Project)

b) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?

The project site is not used or zoned for agricultural use, nor is the project site subject to a Williamson Act contract. For these reasons, the project would not conflict with existing zoning for

15 City of Cupertino. Parks and Recreation System Master Plan – Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. SCH # 2019109066. October 2019. Page 70.
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
[8J
[8J
[8J
[8J

Memorial Park Specific Plan 30 Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024
agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract. This is the same impact as disclosed in the 2019 IS/MND. (Same Impact as Approved Project)

c) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production?

The project site is zoned Open Space/Public Park/Recreational Zone. Therefore, the project would not conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production. (Same Impact as Approved Project)

d) Would the project result in a loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?

The 2019 IS/MND determined that implementation of the Master Plan would not result in projects that would convert any forest land to a non-forest use because no forest lands lie within the City boundaries.16 The lack of forest land on and adjacent to the project site has not changed since the adoption of the 2019 IS/MND. Therefore, the project would not result in a loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use. (Same Impact as Approved Project)

e) Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?

The 2019 IS/MND determined that implementation of the Master Plan would not result in conversion of any farmland or forest land to a non-agricultural/non-forest use because no farmland or forest lands lie within the City boundaries.
17 As described in Section 5.2.1.2, these conditions
have not changed, therefore, the project would not impact any farmland. (Same Impact as Approved Project)

16 Ibid. Page 70.
17 Ibid. Page 70.

Memorial Park Specific Plan 31 Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024
Air Quality

5.3.1 Environmental Setting
The regulatory framework and existing conditions have not changed substantially since the adoption of the 2019 IS/MND, with the exception of BAAQMD updating their CEQA Guidelines in 2022. Key regulations and project site conditions are described below.

Background Information
Criteria Pollutants
Air quality in the Bay Area is assessed related to six common air pollutants (referred to as criteria pollutants), including ground-level ozone (O
3), nitrogen oxides (NOx), particulate matter (PM),
carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur oxides (SOx), and lead.18 Criteria pollutants are regulated because they result in health effects. An overview of the sources of criteria pollutants and their associated health are summarized in Table 5.3-1. The most commonly regulated criteria pollutants in the Bay Area are discussed further below.

Table 5.3-1: Health Effects of Air Pollutants
Pollutants Sources Primary Effects
Ozone (O3)
Atmospheric reaction of organic
gases with nitrogen oxides in
sunlight
• Aggravation of respiratory and
cardiovascular diseases
• Irritation of eyes
• Cardiopulmonary function impairment
Nitrogen Dioxide
(NO2)
Motor vehicle exhaust, high
temperature stationary combus-
tion, atmospheric reactions
• Aggravation of respiratory illness
• Reduced visibility
Fine Particulate
Matter (PM2.5)
and Coarse
Particulate
Matter (PM10)
Stationary combustion of solid
fuels, construction activities,
industrial processes,
atmospheric chemical reactions
• Reduced lung function, especially in
children
• Aggravation of respiratory and
cardiorespiratory diseases
• Increased cough and chest discomfort
• Reduced visibility

18 The area has attained both state and federal ambient air quality standards for CO. The project does not include substantial new emissions of sulfur dioxide or lead. These criteria pollutants are not discussed further.

5.3 5.3.1.1

Memorial Park Specific Plan 32 Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024
Table 5.3-1: Health Effects of Air Pollutants
Pollutants Sources Primary Effects
Toxic Air
Contaminants
(TACs)
Cars and trucks, especially
diesel-fueled; industrial sources,
such as chrome platers; dry
cleaners and service stations;
building materials and products
• Cancer
• Chronic eye, lung, or skin irritation
• Neurological and reproductive
disorders

High O3 levels are caused by the cumulative emissions of reactive organic gases (ROG) and NOX.

These precursor pollutants react under certain meteorological conditions to form high O3 levels.

Controlling the emissions of these precursor pollutants is the focus of the Bay Area’s attempts to reduce O3 levels. The highest O3 levels in the Bay Area occur in the eastern and southern inland valleys that are downwind of air pollutant sources.

PM is a problematic air pollutant of the Bay Area. PM is assessed and measured in terms of respirable particulate matter or particles that have a diameter of 10 micrometers or less (PM 10) and
fine particulate matter where particles have a diameter of 2.5 micrometers or less (PM2.5). Elevated concentrations of PM10 and PM2.5 are the result of both region-wide emissions and localized emissions.

Toxic Air Contaminants
TACs are a broad class of compounds known to have health effects. They include, but are not limited to, criteria pollutants. TACs are found in ambient air, especially in urban areas, and are caused by industry, agriculture, diesel fuel combustion, and commercial operations (e.g., dry cleaners). TACs are typically found in low concentrations, even near their source (e.g., diesel particulate matter [DPM] near a freeway).

Diesel exhaust is the predominant TAC in urban air and is estimated to represent about three- quarters of the cancer risk from TACs. Diesel exhaust is a complex mixture of gases, vapors, and fine particles. Medium- and heavy-duty diesel trucks represent the bulk of DPM emissions from California highways. The majority of DPM is small enough to be inhaled into the lungs. Most inhaled particles are subsequently exhaled, but some deposit on the lung surface or are deposited in the deepest regions of the lungs (most susceptible to injury). 19 Chemicals in diesel exhaust, such as
benzene and formaldehyde, have been previously identified as TACs by the California Air Resources Board (CARB).

19 California Air Resources Board. “Overview: Diesel Exhaust and Health.” Accessed August 16, 2023. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/overview-diesel-exhaust-and-health.

Memorial Park Specific Plan 33 Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024
Sensitive Receptors
Some groups of people are more affected by air pollution than others. CARB has identified the following persons who are most likely to be affected by air pollution: children under 16, the elderly over 65, athletes, and people with cardiovascular and chronic respiratory diseases. These groups are classified as sensitive receptors. Locations that may contain a high concentration of these sensitive population groups include residential areas, hospitals, daycare facilities, elder care facilities, and elementary schools.

Regulatory Framework
Federal and State
Clean Air Act
At the federal level, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is responsible for overseeing implementation of the Clean Air Act and its subsequent amendments. The federal Clean Air Act requires the EPA to set national ambient air quality standards for the six common criteria pollutants (discussed previously), including PM, O
3, CO, SOx, NOx, and lead.

CARB is the state agency that regulates mobile sources throughout the state and oversees implementation of the state air quality laws and regulations, including the California Clean Air Act.

The EPA and the CARB have adopted ambient air quality standards establishing permissible levels of these pollutants to protect public health and the climate. Violations of ambient air quality standards are based on air pollutant monitoring data and are determined for each air pollutant. Attainment status for a pollutant means that a given air district meets the standard set by the EPA and/or CARB.

Risk Reduction Plan
To address the issue of diesel emissions in the state, CARB developed the Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions from Diesel-Fueled Engines and Vehicles. In addition to requiring more stringent emission standards for new on-road and off-road mobile sources and stationary diesel-fueled engines to reduce particulate matter emissions by 90 percent, the plan involves application of emission control strategies to existing diesel vehicles and equipment to reduce DPM (in additional to other pollutants). Implementation of this plan, in conjunction with stringent federal and CARB-adopted emission limits for diesel fueled vehicles and equipment (including off-road equipment), will significantly reduce emissions of DPM and NO X.

Regional
2017 Clean Air Plan
The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) is the agency primarily responsible for assuring that the federal and state ambient air quality standards are maintained in the San Francisco Bay Area. Regional air quality management districts, such as BAAQMD, must prepare air quality plans specifying how state and federal air quality standards will be met. BAAQMD’s most

5.3.1.2 Memorial Park Specific Plan 34 Initial Study/Addendum City of Cupertino January 2024
recently adopted plan is the Bay Area 2017 Clean Air Plan (2017 CAP). The 2017 CAP focuses on two related BAAQMD goals: protecting public health and protecting the climate. To protect public health, the 2017 CAP describes how BAAQMD will continue its progress toward attaining state and federal air quality standards and eliminating health risk disparities from exposure to air pollution among Bay Area communities. To protect the climate, the 2017 CAP includes control measures designed to reduce emissions of methane and other super-greenhouse gases (GHGs) that are potent climate pollutants in the near-term, and to decrease emissions of carbon dioxide by reducing fossil fuel combustion.
20 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines
The BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines are intended to serve as a guide for those who prepare or evaluate air quality impact analyses for projects and plans in the San Francisco Bay Area.

Jurisdictions in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin utilize the thresholds and methodology for assessing air quality impacts developed by BAAQMD within their CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. The guidelines include information on legal requirements, BAAQMD rules, methods of analyzing impacts, and recommended mitigation measures.

The current BAAQMD Guidelines were adopted in 2022, subsequent to the adoption of the 2019 IS/MND, and included updated screening thresholds and screening criteria for construction and operational criteria air pollutants. These changes are outlined in Chapter 4 of BAAQMD’s 2022 CEQA Guidelines. The current screening size for “City Park” projects is 10 acres for construction screening and 175 acres for operational screening.

Local
Cupertino General Plan: Community Vision 2015-2040
The proposed project is subject to General Plan policies and strategies including, but not limited to, the policies and strategies listed below pertaining to air quality.

Policy/Strategy Description
Policy ES-4.1 Minimize the air quality impacts of new development projects and air quality impacts that affect new development.

Policy M-2.3 Promote pedestrian and bicycle improvements that improve connectivity between planning areas, neighborhoods and services, and foster a sense of community.

Strategy ES-4.1.1 Continue to review projects for potential generation of toxic air contaminants at the time of approval and confer with Bay Area Air Quality Management District on controls needed if impacts are uncertain

20 BAAQMD. Final 2017 Clean Air Plan. April 19, 2017. http://www.baaqmd.gov/plans-and-climate/air-quality- plans/current-plans.

Memorial Park Specific Plan 35 Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024
Policy/Strategy Description
Strategy ES-4.1.2 Continue to require water application to non-polluting dust control measures during demolition and the duration of the construction period.

Strategy LU-13.7.1 Provide active uses along the street frontage, bike lanes, sidewalks that support pedestrian-oriented activity, improved pedestrian crossings at street intersections, and attractive transit facilities (e.g., bus stops, benches, etc.).

Existing Conditions
The Bay Area is considered a non-attainment area for ground-level O3 and PM2.5 under both the federal Clean Air Act and state Clean Air Act. The area is also considered nonattainment for PM10 under the state act, but not the federal act. The area has attained both state and federal ambient air quality standards for CO. As part of an effort to attain and maintain ambient air quality standards for O3 and PM10, BAAQMD has established thresholds of significance for these air pollutants and their precursors. These thresholds are for O3 precursor pollutants (ROG and NOX), PM10, and PM2.5, and apply to both construction period and operational period impacts.

5.3.2 Impact Discussion

b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for which the
project region is non-attainment under an
applicable federal or state ambient air quality
standard?

c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations?

d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading
to odors) adversely affecting a substantial
number of people?

Note: Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the determinations.

a) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?

The 2019 IS/MND determined that implementation of the Master Plan would not conflict with the 2017 Clean Air Plan because the Master Plan would incorporate policies and actions consistent with

5.3.1.3 □
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□

Memorial Park Specific Plan 36 Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024
the 2017 Clean Air Plan control measures and implementation mechanisms, including mitigating urban heat island effects, decreasing energy use, implementing construction BMPs, and reducing water consumption. Because the improvements recommended in the Master Plan would not surpass the BAAQMD screening threshold size for park projects and the improvements would not significantly increase VMT, the 2019 IS/MND concluded that there would be no conflict with the 2017 Clean Air Plan.
21 As described in Section 4.6 Construction, for the purposes of this analysis, it is assumed the project would be constructed over the course of approximately 15 years as funding is made available for individual improvements. It is assumed that these improvements would be divided between three main phases, which would be approximately five years each. Although the project site is approximately 22.5-acres, each of the three main phases of project implementation would cover less than 10-acres of the site. Therefore, each phase of the project would be below the screening level for construction and operational criteria air pollutant emissions. In addition, because the project would not involve the construction of any large structures requiring substantial earthwork, all the required construction activities from all phases would not generate any significant pollutant emissions. Also, Section 17.04.050 of the City’s Municipal Code requires that all projects implement BAAQMD Basic Control Measures to control fugitive dust (i.e., particulate matter PM2.5 and PM10) during demolition, ground disturbing activities, and/or construction. Any projects that disturb more than one acre and have a construction period longer than two months in duration, are required to implement the following measures pursuant to the Municipal Code:

• Utilize off-road diesel-powered construction equipment that is rated by the U.S. EPA as Tier 4 or higher for equipment more than 25 horsepower. Any emissions control device used by the contractor shall achieve emissions reductions that are no less than what could be achieved by a Tier 4 interim emissions standard for a similarly sized engine, as defined by CARB regulations. Applicable construction documents shall clearly show the selected emission reduction strategy for construction equipment over 25 horsepower. • Ensure that the construction contractor shall maintain a list of all operating equipment in use on the project site for verification by the City. The construction equipment list shall state the makes, models, and number of construction equipment on-site. • Ensure that all equipment shall be properly serviced and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations.

Implementation of the measures required under Section 17.04.050 of the City’s Municipal Code would further reduce potential air quality impacts resulting from project implementation by requiring the use of Tier 4 equipment with advanced emission control technologies. Therefore,

21 City of Cupertino. Parks and Recreation System Master Plan – Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. SCH # 2019109066. October 2019. Pages 75 to 80.

Memorial Park Specific Plan 37 Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024
based on the above discussion, the project would not generate emissions that could interfere with attainment of ambient air quality standards.

The 2017 Clean Air Plan includes 85 control measures that are designed to reduce emissions of criteria air pollutants and toxic air contaminants, reduce emissions of GHGs, decrease demand for fossil fuels, and decarbonize the energy system. Consistent with the findings of the 2019 IS/MND, the project would implement measures consistent with applicable control measures by complying with General Plan policies and Master Plan standards/requirements. The project would comply with 2017 Clean Air Plan control measures BL4, NW2, SS38, TR9, and WR2 by planting additional trees on-site to contribute to a reduction in the urban heat island effect, implementing BAAQMD Basic Control Measures to control fugitive dust during construction activities, expanding bicycle infrastructure in the City, utilizing high-efficiency irrigation equipment, and planting drought- tolerant and low-water use landscaping. Based on this discussion, the project would support the primary goals of the 2017 Clean Air Plan by implementing actions consistent with the 2017 Clean Air Plan’s control measures, and would not hinder the implementation of any 2017 Clean Air Plan control measure.

As discussed in Section 5.17 Transportation, the project would be consistent with existing land use patterns and would not conflict with any adopted City transportation or multi-modal planning policies. The project would add enhanced pedestrian and bicycle facilities on-site to improve connectivity and encourage biking and walking which, in turn, would reduce VMT. In addition, local park projects generate local-serving trips, which would limit any significant increases in VMT resulting from the project. In addition, based on the project’s location adjacent to a high-quality transit corridor, the project would not be required to prepare a VMT analysis, pursuant to Section

17.08.030 of the Municipal Code, and would be assumed to have a less than significant VMT impact.

Therefore, the project would not increase VMT or population within the City, and would not conflict with the 2017 Clean Air Plan.

Based on this discussion, the project would not generate emissions that could interfere with attainment of ambient air quality standards, would implement actions consistent with the 2017 Clean Air Plan’s control measures, and would not result in a significant increase of VMT in the City.

Therefore, the project would result in the same impact as the approved project of not conflicting or obstructing implementation of the 2017 Clean Air Plan. (Same Impact as Approved Project)

b) Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?

The 2019 IS/MND determined that future development under the Master Plan would be unlikely to generate significant short- or long-term emissions and the City would reevaluate individual projects once project-level details were available. The 2019 IS/MND concluded that if future projects met BAAQMD’s screening thresholds and implemented the recommended basic construction measures provided by BAAQMD, the Master Plan would result in less than significant air quality impacts at the

Memorial Park Specific Plan 38 Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024
project-level. Since the Master Plan would not conflict with the 2017 Clean Air Plan and future projects would not result in significant construction or operational emissions, the Master Plan would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to regional air quality impacts.22

As discussed under checklist question a) above, the project would result in less than significant criteria air pollutants because the implementation of each phase of improvements would be below the BAAQMD screening level for construction and operational criteria air pollutant emissions. The project would not involve the construction of any large structures requiring substantial earthwork, and construction activities would implement BAAQMD Basic Control Measures to control fugitive dust (i.e., particulate matter PM2.5 and PM10) and would utilize Tier 4 construction equipment to further reduce emissions. In addition, the project would not conflict with the 2017 Clean Air Plan because it would not generate emissions that could interfere with attainment of ambient air quality standards, would implement actions consistent with the 2017 Clean Air Plan’s control measures, and would not significantly increase VMT in the City. For these reasons, the project would result in the same impact disclosed in the 2019 IS/MND. (Same Impact as Approved Project)

c) Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?

The 2019 IS/MND determined that future projects under the Master Plan would not emit substantial levels of diesel particulate matter or other TACs for prolonged periods of time and criteria and hazardous air pollutant emissions resulting from construction would not exceed BAAQMD screening criteria. In addition, future projects would not exceed BAAQMD screening levels and would comply with the City’s construction and design standards which would control and reduce construction dust and exhaust emissions. The 2019 IS/MND, therefore, concluded that implementation of the Master Plan would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.
23 As discussed under checklist questions a) and b) above, the three phases of project implementation would be below BAAQMD screening levels and construction activities would implement BAAQMD Basic Control Measures to control fugitive dust (i.e., particulate matter PM2.5 and PM10) and utilize Tier 4 equipment to reduce TAC emissions. Based on this discussion, the project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, consistent with the findings of the 2019 IS/MND. (Same Impact as Approved Project)

22 Ibid. Pages 80 to 83.
23 Ibid. Page 84.

Memorial Park Specific Plan 39 Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024
d) Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?

The 2019 IS/MND concluded that although construction activities would produce localized, temporary odors, the Master Plan would not result in long-term odors that would adversely affect a substantial number of people.
24 According to BAAQMD’s CEQA Guidelines, an odor source with five or more confirmed complaints per year averaged over three years is considered to have a significant impact. Future project construction activities could result in odorous emissions from diesel exhaust associated with construction equipment. Because of the temporary nature of these emissions and highly diffusive properties of diesel exhaust, odorous exposure of sensitive receptors to these emissions would be limited. The project and temporary construction odors are consistent with the assumptions in the 2019 IS/MND. Therefore, the project would result in the same impact as disclosed in the 2019 IS/MND.

In addition, BAAQMD has identified a variety of land uses and types of operations that would produce emissions that may lead to odors. Land uses identified include wastewater treatment plants, sanitary landfills, food processing facilities, coffee roasters, composting facilities, and confined animal facility/feed lot/dairy facility. The project proposes the continuation of an existing park and public facilities use, which does not fall under any of the land uses identified by BAAQMD to cause objectionable odors. (Same Impact as Approved Project)

24 Ibid. Page 84.

Memorial Park Specific Plan 40 Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024
Biological Resources
The discussion in this section is based in part on a Tree Inventory Report prepared by HortScience | Bartlett Consulting dated November 2022. This report is attached to this Initial Study/Addendum as Appendix B.

5.4.1 Environmental Setting
The regulatory framework and existing conditions have not changed substantially since the adoption of the 2019 IS/MND. Key regulations and project site conditions are described below.

Regulatory Framework
Federal and State
Endangered Species Act
Individual plant and animal species listed as rare, threatened, or endangered under state and federal Endangered Species Acts are considered special-status species. Federal and state endangered species legislation has provided the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) with a mechanism for conserving and protecting plant and animal species of limited distribution and/or low or declining populations.

Permits may be required from both the USFWS and CDFW if activities associated with a proposed project would result in the take of a species listed as threatened or endangered. To “take” a listed species, as defined by the State of California, is “to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill” these species. Take is more broadly defined by the federal Endangered Species Act to include harm of a listed species.

In addition to species listed under state and federal Endangered Species Acts, Sections 15380(b) and (c) of the CEQA Guidelines provide that all potential rare or sensitive species, or habitats capable of supporting rare species, must be considered as part of the environmental review process. These may include plant species listed by the California Native Plant Society and CDFW-listed Species of Special Concern.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act
The federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) prohibits killing, capture, possession, or trade of migratory birds except in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior.

Hunting and poaching are also prohibited. This includes direct and indirect acts, except for harassment and habitat modification, which are not included unless they result in direct loss of birds, nests, or eggs. The CDFW also protects migratory and nesting birds under California Fish and Game Code Sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3800. The CDFW defines taking as causing abandonment and/or loss of reproductive efforts through disturbance.

5.4 5.4.1.1

Memorial Park Specific Plan 41 Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024
Sensitive Habitat Regulations
Wetland and riparian habitats are considered sensitive habitats under CEQA. They are also afforded protection under applicable federal, state, and local regulations, and are generally subject to regulation by the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), CDFW, and/or the USFWS under provisions of the federal Clean Water Act (e.g., Sections 303, 304, 404) and State of California Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act.

Fish and Game Code Section 1602
Streambeds and banks, as well as associated riparian habitat, are regulated by the CDFW per Section 1602 of the Fish and Game Code. Work within the bed or banks of a stream or the adjacent riparian habitat requires a Streambed Alteration Agreement from the CDFW.

Regional and Local
Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan The Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan (SCVHP) covers approximately 520,000 acres, or approximately 62 percent of Santa Clara County. It was developed and adopted through a partnership between Santa Clara County, the cities of San José, Morgan Hill, and Gilroy, Santa Clara Valley Water District (Valley Water), Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), USFWS, and CDFW. The SCVHP is intended to promote the recovery of endangered species and enhance ecological diversity and function, while accommodating planned growth in southern Santa Clara County. The Santa Clara Valley Habitat Agency is responsible for implementing the plan.

Cupertino General Plan: Community Vision 2015-2040
The proposed project is subject to General Plan policies including, but not limited to, the policies and strategies listed below pertaining to biological resources.

Policy/Strategy Description
Policy ES-5.1 Manage the public and private development to ensure the protection and enhancement of its urban ecosystem.

Policy ES-5.2 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 plan approved prior to development.

Policy ES-7.1 In public and private development, use Low Impact Development (LID) principles to manage stormwater by mimicking natural hydrology, minimizing grading and protecting or restoring natural drainage systems.

Strategy ES-5.1.1 Ensure that the City’s tree planting, landscaping and open space policies enhance the urban ecosystem by encouraging medians, pedestrian crossing curb-extensions, planting that is native, drought-tolerant, treats stormwater and enhances urban plant, aquatic and animal resources in both, private and public development.

Memorial Park Specific Plan 42 Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024
Policy/Strategy Description
Strategy ES-5.1.2 Ensure that sustainable landscaping design is incorporated in the development of City facilities, parks and private projects with the inclusion of measures such as tree protection, stormwater treatment and planting of native, drought tolerant landscaping that is beneficial to the environment.

Strategy ES-5.3.1 Continue to emphasize the planting of native, drought tolerant, pest resistant, non- invasive, climate appropriate plants and ground covers, particularly for erosion control and to prevent disturbance of the natural terrain.

Strategy ES-7.1.1 Continue to require topographical information; identification of creeks, streams and drainage areas; and grading plans for both public and private development proposals to ensure protection and efficient use of water resources.

Strategy LU-6.7.1 Establish and periodically revise a heritage tree list that includes trees of importance to the community.

Cupertino 2020 Parks and Recreation System Master Plan
The City’s Master Plan was adopted in February 2020, and outlines the City’s comprehensive plan for parks and recreational facilities in the City through the year 2040. The Master Plan is organized around seven goals, which include conservation, connection, equitable access, enhancement, activity, quality, and sustainability. Each of the seven goals has associated objectives that reflect the City’s desired outcomes and actions that provide ideas or strategies that help achieve the broader goals. The Master Plan has several goals and objectives that aim to protect natural resources and ensure that they are properly maintained and stewarded, including:
• Objective 1.C, which calls for the maintenance of natural areas in parks to control invasive species and preparation of a maintenance management plan to identify the tasks, frequencies, staffing, and resources needed to manage, maintain, and steward natural resources.
• Objective 1.D, which calls for the incorporation and enhancement of existing natural features when renovating parks or building new ones and the preservation of existing native or large canopy trees in parks.
• Objective 7.B, which calls for consideration of adding permeable surfacing to at least 75 percent of new paved trails and 50 percent of new parking lots, installing water-efficient, climate-controlled irrigation systems, water efficient fixtures in all new restrooms and water fountains, and integration of native and/or climate appropriate plants where possible.

City of Cupertino Municipal Code
The City of Cupertino recognizes the substantial economic, environmental, and aesthetic importance of its tree population. The City finds that the preservation of “protected trees” on private and public property, and the protection of all trees during construction, is necessary for the best interests of the City and of the citizens and public (Municipal Code Chapter 14.18).

The City’s Municipal Code calls for protection of “protected” trees and requires a permit prior to their removal. Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 14.18.050, protected trees include:

Memorial Park Specific Plan 43 Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024

• Heritage trees in all zoning districts. Heritage trees are defined by the City any tree or grove of trees which, because of factors including, but not limited to, its historic value, unique quality, girth, height, or species, has been found by the Planning Commission to have a special significance to the community;
• All mature specimen trees of the following species on private property:
(1) 1. Quercus (native oak tree species), including:
(a) Quercus agrifolia (Coast Live Oak);
(b) Quercus lobata (Valley Oak);
(c) Quercus kelloggii (Black Oak);
(d) Quercus douglasii (Blue Oak);
(e) Quercus wislizeni (Interior Live Oak);
(2) Aesculus californica (California Buckeye);
(3) Acer macrophyllum (Big Leaf Maple);
(4) Cedrus deodara (Deodar Cedar);
(5) Cedrus atlantica 'Glauca' (Blue Atlas Cedar);
(6) Umbellularia californica (Bay Laurel or California Bay); and (7) Platanus racemosa (Western Sycamore).
• Any development tree(s); and
• Approved privacy protection planting in R-1 zoning districts.

Any protected tree in any zoning district shall not be removed without first obtaining a tree removal permit. Replacement trees, of a species and size as designated by the approval authority and consistent with the replacement value of each tree to be removed, shall be planted on the subject property on which the tree(s) are to be removed. The City’s replacement tree ratios, as identified in Municipal Code Section 14.18.190, are listed below.

Table 5.4-1: City Tree Replacement Ratios
Trunk Size of Removed Tree Corresponding Replacement Tree Up to 12 inches One 24-inch box tree
Over 12 inches and up to 18 inches Two 24-inch box trees or one 36-inch box tree Over 18 inches and up to 36 inches Two 24-inch box trees or one 36-inch box tree Over 36 inches One 36-inch box tree
Heritage Tree of any size One 48-inch box tree

If a replacement tree for the removal of a non-heritage tree or tree with trunk size equal to or less than 36-inches cannot be reasonably planted on the subject property, an in-lieu tree replacement fee shall be paid to the City’s tree fund to add or replace trees on public property in the vicinity of

Memorial Park Specific Plan 44 Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024
the subject property or add trees or landscaping on City property (Municipal Code Section

14.18.160).

Existing Conditions
The project site is within an urban area and currently developed with an operational park, senior center, and community center. The site provides habitat and foraging opportunities for urban- adapted birds. Habitats primarily associated with Bay Area special-status species, such as riparian, wetland, salt marsh, freshwater marsh, and serpentine grassland habitats, are not present on or adjacent to the site. The nearest waterway is Stevens Creek, which is located approximately 0.8- mile to the west of the project site. Although these habitats are not located on-site, there are several special status species that have been recorded in the region, including, the California Clapper Rail, California Condor, California Least Tern, Marbled Murrelet, California Red-legged Frog, California Tiger Salamander, Foothill Yellow-legged Frog, and Monarch Butterfly. 25 The primary biological resources on-site are trees. The project site currently contains approximately 500 on-site trees, none of which are designated as Heritage trees under Section 14.18.090 of the City Code. Although there are no officially designated Heritage trees, all of the trees within the park have a protected status as public trees (pursuant to Chapter 14.12 of the City Code).

A tree inventory report evaluated the health of the trees on-site and found approximately 64 percent of the trees were in good condition, 26 percent were in fair condition, nine percent were in poor condition, and less than one percent were dead. The predominant tree species on-site are coast redwoods and callery pears, which comprise approximately 34 percent and 10 percent of the trees within the project site, respectively. The largest tree identified is a coast redwood tree located adjacent to the southwest corner of the softball field, which has a trunk diameter of approximately 60 inches and is in excellent health.

The tree inventory report also evaluated the suitability for preservation for each tree on-site. Of the approximately 500 trees on-site, 52 percent had high suitability for preservation, 31 percent had moderate suitability for preservation, and 17 percent had low suitability for preservation. For additional information regarding the trees on-site, see Appendix B.

25 United Stated Fish and Wildlife Service. “Information for Planning and Consultation.” Accessed October 24, 2023. https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/KZATYFQTTRG3DAC6FSNN2QSDOI/resources.

5.4.1.2 Memorial Park Specific Plan 45 Initial Study/Addendum City of Cupertino January 2024

5.4.2 Impact Discussion

New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
New Less than
Significant
Impact
Same Impact
as Approved
Project
Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly
or through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special
status species in local or regional plans, policies,
or regulations, or by the California Department
of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) or United States Fish
and Wildlife Service (USFWS)?

b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans, policies,
regulations, or by the CDFW or USFWS?

c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or
federally protected wetlands (including, but not
limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?

d) Interfere substantially with the movement of
any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife
species or with established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites?

e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?

f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat conservation plan?

a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the CDFW or USFWS?

The 2019 IS/MND determined that some Master Plan projects could impact special-status species, sensitive natural communities, wetlands, wildlife corridors, and/or wildlife nursery sites. To mitigate □
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□

Memorial Park Specific Plan 46 Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024
that potential impact to a less than significant level, the 2019 IS/MND identified 2019 IS/MND Mitigation Measure BIO-1, which is described below.26

2019 IS/MND Mitigation Measure

Mitigation Measure BIO-1: The Capital Improvement Program (“CIP”) for Parks and Recreation improvements shall be reviewed annually by staff to identify projects that could potentially affect special-status species, sensitive natural communities, wetlands, wildlife corridors, and/or native wildlife nursery sites. Any such projects shall be reviewed by a professional in field biology. The biological professional shall:
a) Research the potential occurrence of special-status species and sensitive communities in the areas affected by CIP projects by reviewing the California Natural Diversity Database, California Native Plant Society Inventory, IPaC, or other appropriate databases, by contacting resource agencies such as the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, U.S. Fish and Wildlife, and/or NOAA Fisheries Service, or other appropriate methods.
b) For each CIP project approved for funding that could impact special-status species, sensitive natural communities, wetlands, wildlife corridors, and/or nursery sites during construction or as a result of the proposed use, including maintenance, prior to the start of construction identify all resource agency permits required for the project and ensure that the project is modified as necessary to minimize effects on biological resources and avoid impacts.
c) For each CIP project that could have a significant impact on special-status species, sensitive natural communities, wetlands, wildlife corridors, and/or native wildlife nursery sites, specify measures to avoid impacts or to reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level that will be implemented as part of the project. Indicate the timing of when the measures would be implemented (e.g., prior to construction activities, during construction, post- construction etc.). These measures may include actions such as the following currently accepted measures:

1. Pre-construction surveys for special-status plant and animal species, nesting birds, and roosting bats in the correct season and using CNPS, CDFW and/or other accepted protocols, as appropriate, to identify if the species are present and would be impacted by the project;

2. Wildlife exclusion fencing to prevent species, such as protected amphibians and reptiles, from entering the work site. Regular fence

26 City of Cupertino. Parks and Recreation System Master Plan – Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. SCH # 2019109066. October 2019. Pages 104 to 105.

Memorial Park Specific Plan 47 Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024
inspections, to assure that species are not trapped and to maintain the integrity of the fence.

3. Clear delineation of the work area and/or protected areas in the field to prevent construction activities from extending beyond required work areas and into nearby natural areas that contain sensitive species habitat or sensitive natural communities or wetlands.

Environmentally sensitive areas may also be delineated on construction drawings for certain projects.

4. Silt fencing or other erosion control measures to protect water quality downstream of the project and the biological resources that rely on suitable water quality.

5. Worker environmental awareness training provided by a qualified professional (typically a biologist) prior to the start of any project activities that affect the physical environment to educate workers about the presence of environmentally sensitive areas, what species may be present, what laws protect the species, and what to do if a special-status species is encountered.

6. Construction site sanitation to dispose of food and beverage waste and associated wrappers or containers to minimize site
attractiveness to wildlife during construction.

7. Wildlife protection measures, such as minimizing the use of monofilament netting which can ensnare reptiles and amphibians, covering trenches near suitable habitat so that species are not trapped and unable to hide from a predator, and/or daily pre- construction sweeps to verify special-status species are not present in the work area.

8. Actions to take if special-status species are discovered, such as establishment of buffer zones or other measures acceptable to resource agencies to protect the individual species.

As discussed in Section 5.4.1.2 Existing Conditions, the project site is within an urban area and is currently developed. The site provides habitat and foraging opportunities for urban-adapted birds and does not contain sensitive habitat that supports special-status species. Of the approximately 500 on-site trees, a total of approximately 140 trees would be removed under the project. These trees could provide nesting habitat for birds, including migratory birds and raptors. Nesting birds are protected under provisions of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Fish and Game Code Sections 3503, 3503.5, and 2800.

Construction of the project during the breeding season could result in the incidental loss of fertile eggs or nestlings, or otherwise lead to nest abandonment. Disturbance that causes abandonment and/or loss of reproductive effort is considered a taking by the CDFW. Any loss of fertile eggs, nesting raptors, or any activities resulting in nest abandonment would constitute an impact.

Construction activities such as tree removal and site grading that disturb a nesting bird or raptor on- site or immediately adjacent to the construction zone would also constitute an impact.

Memorial Park Specific Plan 48 Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024

In compliance with the MBTA, CDFW code, and 2019 IS/MND measure C1 in Mitigation Measure BIO-1, the project would conduct pre-construction surveys for nesting birds if construction activities occur during the bird nesting season (between February 1 and August 31) to reduce impacts to nesting birds to a less than significant level by completing preconstruction surveys to ensure no nesting birds or nests are located on-site during construction, and if they are, establishing buffer zones around nests during construction. (Same Impact as Approved Project)

b) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the CDFW or USFWS?

The 2019 IS/MND concluded that implementation of 2019 IS/MND Mitigation Measure BIO-1 would reduce any potential impacts to riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities from projects proposed under the Master Plan a less than significant level.27

As discussed in Section 5.4.1.2 Existing Conditions, there are no sensitive habitats on-site. The nearest waterway is Stevens Creek, which is located approximately 0.8-mile west of the project site and is separated from the site by existing development and SR 85. Although construction activities on-site would not present a direct risk to riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities, the project would still implement measure C4 from 2019 IS/MND Mitigation Measure BIO-1, which requires installation of silt fencing or other erosion control measures to prevent polluted runoff.

This would reduce the risk of indirect impacts to riparian habitats.

Therefore, the project would not have an impact on state or federally protected riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans and policies, consistent with the findings of the 2019 IS/MND. (Same Impact as Approved Project)

c) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?

The 2019 IS/MND concluded that implementation of 2019 IS/MND Mitigation Measure BIO-1 would reduce any potential impacts to state or federally protected wetlands from projects proposed under the Master Plan a less than significant level.28

As discussed in Section 5.4.1.2 Existing Conditions, there are no state or federally protected wetlands on or adjacent to the site. The nearest waterway is Stevens Creek, which is located

27 City of Cupertino. Parks and Recreation System Master Plan – Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. SCH # 2019109066. October 2019. Pages 104 to 105.
28 Ibid. Pages 104 to 105.

Memorial Park Specific Plan 49 Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024
approximately 0.8-mile west of the project site and is separated from the site by existing development and SR 85. Although construction activities on-site would not present a direct risk to any wetlands, the project would still implement measure C4 from 2019 IS/MND Mitigation Measure BIO-1 which requires installation of silt fencing or other erosion control measures to prevent polluted runoff thereby reducing the risk of indirect impacts.

Therefore, the project would not have an impact on state or federally protected wetlands, consistent with the findings of the 2019 IS/MND. (Same Impact as Approved Project)

d) Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?

The 2019 IS/MND concluded that implementation of 2019 IS/MND Mitigation Measure BIO-1 would reduce any potential impacts to native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species and established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors from projects under the Master Plan a less than significant level.29

Because the project site is surrounded by urban development, the site provides minimal dispersal habitat for native wildlife and does not function as a wildlife movement corridor. As discussed above, there are no riparian or wetland habitats on or adjacent to the site. The project would implement measures C1 and C4 from 2019 IS/MND Mitigation Measure BIO-1 to protect nesting birds, if present during construction, and reduce the risk of polluted stormwater runoff from the site. The project would, therefore, not substantially interfere with the movement of fish or wildlife species, nor interfere with established corridors or wildlife nursery sites, consistent with the findings of the 2019 IS/MND. (Same Impact as Approved Project)

e) Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?

The 2019 IS/MND determined that future projects would be consistent with the City’s General Plan policies, Municipal Code Chapter 14.18, and the biology-related Master Plan goals, objectives, and actions.
30 General Plan Policies
The General Plan contains policies and strategies (Policies ES-5.1 and ES-7.1, Strategies ES-5.1.2 and ES-5.2.1) that protect the urban ecosystem, enhance natural vegetation and sustainable

29 Ibid. Pages 104 to 105.
30 Ibid. Page 106.

Memorial Park Specific Plan 50 Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024
landscaping, preserve natural hydrology, and protect riparian corridors. The project would be consistent with these policies and strategies by:
• As discussed under checklist question a), the project would comply with 2019 IS/MND Mitigation Measure BIO-1 by conducting a pre-construction nesting bird survey if construction activities would take place during nesting season. This would protect any potential nesting birds by establishing a protective buffer around the nests. The project would install new, climate appropriate landscaping throughout the project site, including a variety of California native plant species and drought-tolerant species that are low-water use.
• The project would result in the removal of approximately 140 trees. The proposed project would replace the removed trees by planting approximately 150 climate appropriate replacement trees throughout the project area. In addition, construction activities would implement appropriate measures to prevent polluted runoff, consistent with the requirements of 2019 IS/MND Mitigation Measure BIO-1.

For these reasons, the project would be consistent with General Plan policies related to protecting biological resources. (Same Impact as Approved Project)

Municipal Code Chapter 14.18
Chapter 14.18 of the Municipal Code includes regulations regarding the City’s Protected Tree Ordinance, Standards for the Protection of Trees during Grading and Construction, and Replacement Tree Guidelines. As discussed in Section 5.4.1.2 Existing Conditions, none of the trees on-site are designated Heritage Trees, but they are classified as Protected Trees because they are in a City park. Replacement tree ratios for Protected Trees are not explicitly stated in the Municipal Code and the City has determined that a 1:1 replacement ratio is appropriate for this project. The project would remove approximately 140 trees and plant approximately 150 replacement trees, which exceeds the 1:1 replacement ratio. In addition, the project would comply with Section

14.18.200 of the Municipal Code which outlines requirements for protecting trees during demolition, grading, and construction operations. Based on this discussion, the project would be consistent with Municipal Code regulations related to protecting biological resources. (Same Impact as Approved Project)

Parks and Recreation System Master Plan
The Master Plan has several goals and objectives that aim to protect natural resources and ensure that they are properly maintained and stewarded (Objectives 1C, 1D, and 7B). Consistent with these objectives, the project would prioritize native plants in the area and maintain the park to limit the proliferation of invasive species, preserve existing native canopy trees, and incorporate green infrastructure elements such as bioswales and permeable pavers throughout the site. In addition, the new passive garden walk in the southern portion of the site would replace under-used areas of lawn with native plant species, consistent with Objective 7B. Based on this discussion, the project would be consistent with Master Plan goals and objectives related to protecting biological resources. (Same Impact as Approved Project)

Memorial Park Specific Plan 51 Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024
f) Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?

The 2019 IS/MND concluded that implementation of the Master Plan would not conflict with an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan because the City is not a participating local partner in the SCVHP and the SCVHP does not include any locations within the City boundary.31 Therefore, there would be no impact to Habitat Conservation Plans or Natural Community Conservation Plans. (Same Impact as Approved Project)

31 Ibid. Page 106.

Memorial Park Specific Plan 52 Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024
Cultural Resources
The discussion in this section is based in part on a Phase I Cultural Resource Inventory prepared by Albion Environmental, Inc., dated October 2022 and revised in October 2023. A copy of the Phase I Cultural Resource Inventory, which contains confidential information related to archaeological resources, is on file at the City.

5.5.1 Environmental Setting
The regulatory framework and existing conditions have not changed substantially since the adoption of the 2019 IS/MND. Key regulations and project site conditions are described below.

Regulatory Framework
Federal and State
National Historic Preservation Act
Federal protection is legislated by the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) and the Archaeological Resource Protection Act of 1979. These laws maintain processes for determination of the effects on historical properties eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Section 106 of the NHPA and related regulations (36 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Part 800) constitute the primary federal regulatory framework guiding cultural resources investigations and require consideration of effects on properties that are listed or eligible for listing in the NRHP.

Impacts to properties listed in the NRHP must be evaluated under CEQA.

California Register of Historical Resources
The California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) is administered by the State Office of Historic Preservation and encourages protection of resources of architectural, historical, archeological, and cultural significance. The CRHR identifies historic resources for state and local planning purposes and affords protections under CEQA. Under Public Resources Code Section 5024.1(c), a resource may be eligible for listing in the CRHR if it meets any of the NRHP criteria.

Historical resources eligible for listing in the CRHR must meet the significance criteria described previously and retain enough of their historic character or appearance to be recognizable as historical resources and to convey the reasons for their significance. A resource that has lost its historic character or appearance may still have sufficient integrity for the CRHR if it maintains the potential to yield significant scientific or historical information or specific data.

The concept of integrity is essential to identifying the important physical characteristics of historical resources and, therefore, in evaluating adverse changes to them. Integrity is defined as “the authenticity of a historical resource’s physical identity evidenced by the survival of characteristics that existed during the resource's period of significance.” The processes of determining integrity are similar for both the CRHR and NRHP and use the same seven variables or aspects to define integrity

5.5 5.5.1.1

Memorial Park Specific Plan 53 Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024
that are used to evaluate a resource's eligibility for listing. These seven characteristics include 1) location, 2) design, 3) setting, 4) materials, 5) workmanship, 6) feeling, and 7) association.

California Native American Historical, Cultural, and Sacred Sites Act The California Native American Historical, Cultural, and Sacred Sites Act applies to both state and private lands. The act requires that upon discovery of human remains, construction or excavation activity must cease and the county coroner be notified.

Public Resources Code Sections 5097 and 5097.98
Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines specifies procedures to be used in the event of an unexpected discovery of Native American human remains on non-federal land. These procedures are outlined in Public Resources Code Sections 5097 and 5097.98. These codes 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 resolve disputes regarding disposition of such remains.

Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, in the event of human remains discovery, no further disturbance is allowed until the county coroner has made the necessary findings regarding the origin and disposition of the remains. If the remains are of a Native American, the county coroner must notify the NAHC. The NAHC then notifies those persons most likely to be related to the Native American remains. The code section also stipulates the procedures that the descendants may follow for treating or disposing of the remains and associated grave goods.

Cupertino General Plan: Community Vision 2015-2040
Memorial Park, the Community Center, and the Sports Complex adjacent to the project site are all considered Community Landmarks in the City’s General Plan. The Gazebo Trim within Memorial Park is identified as a Historic Site in the City’s General Plan and the Community Center Sports Complex adjacent to the site is a designated Community Landmark. The proposed project is subject to General Plan policies including, but not limited to, the policies listed below pertaining to cultural resources.

Policy/Strategy Description
Policy LU-6.2 Projects on Historic Sites shall meet the Secretary of Interior Standards for Treatment of Historic Properties.

Policy LU-6.3 Projects on Historic Sites, Commemorative Sites and Community Landmarks 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. The plaque shall be placed in a location where the public can view the information.

Policy LU-6.8 Promote education related to the city’s history through public art in public and private development.

Memorial Park Specific Plan 54 Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024
Policy/Strategy Description
Policy RPC-6.3 Utilize parks as locations of art and culture and to educate the community about the City’s history, and explore the potential to use art in facilities and utilities when located in parks.

City of Cupertino Municipal Code
Section 17.04.050 of the City’s Municipal Code outlines standard environmental protection permit submittal requirements that apply to development projects within the City. Projects in areas with known cultural resources, as identified in the 2015 General Plan EIR prepared by the City, are required to implement additional measures prior to ground disturbing activities. These include conducting a subsurface investigation of the project site to determine the potential extent of any buried archaeological materials, evaluating the materials (if discovered), and identifying ways to minimize negative impacts from development on the discovered materials.

Cupertino General Conditions
The City of Cupertino maintains a list of general conditions that contractors must implement or comply with while working on municipal projects. The following General Condition relates to cultural resources.

General Condition 7.18: Historic or Archeological Items. (A) Contractor’s Obligations. Contractor must ensure that all persons performing Work at the Project site are required to immediately notify the Project Manager, upon discovery of any potential historic or archeological items, including historic or prehistoric ruins, a burial ground, archaeological or vertebrate paleontological site, including fossilized footprints or other archeological, paleontological or historical feature on the Project site (collectively, “Historic or Archeological Items”).

(B) Discovery; Cessation of Work. Upon discovery of any potential Historic or Archeological Items, Work must be stopped within an 85-foot radius of the find and may not resume until authorized in writing by the City. If required by City, Contractor must assist in protecting or recovering the Historic or Archeological Items, with any such assistance to be compensated as Extra Work on a time and materials basis under Article 6, Contract Modification. At the City’s discretion, a suspension of Work required due to discovery of Historic or Archeological Items may be treated as Excusable Delay pursuant to Article 5, or as a suspension for convenience under Article 13.

Existing Conditions
Historic Resources
The City of Cupertino was historically known for fruit agriculture and was dominated by prune, plum, apricot, and cherry orchards. Up until the late 1800s, Cupertino also had a variety of grape vineyards and wineries. In the early- to mid- 1900s, Cupertino began to develop more housing, and by the mid- to late-1900s more commercial and industrial uses were constructed in the City.

5.5.1.2 Memorial Park Specific Plan 55 Initial Study/Addendum City of Cupertino January 2024

The project site contained orchards during the 1800s and early- to mid-1900s, and up until approximately 1965, a farmstead was located in the southernmost portion of the site. In addition, a second farmstead was located adjacent to the eastern boundary of the site. Given the historic agricultural use of the property and the historic farmsteads that were located on and adjacent to the site, a pedestrian survey of the project site was completed in September 2022. The survey located two historic-era resource clusters, which consisted of three historical ceramic fragments per cluster. One cluster was observed inside the central area of the site, and the other was on the east perimeter of the park parallel to Anton Way. Although ceramic materials were found on-site, these materials were located in areas that were consistently disturbed by construction activity and do not represent intact archaeological deposits. No other cultural resources were noted on-site. Based on this discussion, the central and southern portion of the project site where the historic farmsteads were located have a moderate potential to contain historic-era archaeological deposits.

To be considered a historic resource, a site must meet certain sets of criteria including relevance to local and regional history, its association with historic figures, and the distinctiveness of its architecture. Memorial Park contains one of the City’s Historic Sites, which is the trim of the gazebo located in the central portion of the park adjacent to Anton Way. The Community Center Sports Complex, which is adjacent to the eastern park boundary, is also designated as a Community Landmark.32 There are no resources on-site that are listed on or eligible for listing on the NRHP or CRHP.

Prehistoric Resources
A records search at the Northwest Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) was conducted to identify all recorded archaeological sites on and within one-quarter mile of the project site. The record search found a single Native American resource within one-quarter mile of the project site and no known resources on-site.

The soils mapped at the project site are from the Holocene era, which typically have a moderate sensitivity for buried archaeological sites. Sites with prehistoric resources are typically located in relatively flat areas in proximity to sources of fresh water. The nearest freshwater source is Stevens Creek, located approximately 0.8-mile west of the site. Based on soil composition under the site and these geographic factors, the project site has a moderate sensitivity to contain buried prehistoric resources.

32 City of Cupertino. Cupertino General Plan Community Vision 2040. October 15, 2015. Figure LU-3.

Memorial Park Specific Plan 56 Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024

5.5.2 Impact Discussion

b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource as
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5?

c) Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of dedicated cemeteries?

a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5?

The 2019 IS/MND determined that although most existing City parks do not contain historic resources, there are several historic resources in or adjacent to parks and recreational facilities (including within and adjacent to Memorial Park) that could be affected by implementation of the Master Plan. The 2019 IS/MND concluded that, since future projects would be designed and developed consistent with adopted City policies regarding protection of cultural/historic resources and would be analyzed in separate CEQA documents once project plans are developed, implementation of the Master Plan would have a less than significant impact on historic resources.33

The site and adjacent sites do not contain any resources listed on or eligible for listing on the NRHP or the CRHP. As discussed in Section 5.5.1.2 Existing Conditions, Memorial Park contains a designated Historic Site, which is the trim of the gazebo. The Community Center Sports Complex adjacent to the eastern park boundary is designated as a Community Landmark. None of the proposed improvements would cause a substantial adverse change to the Community Center Sports Complex because the improvements would only occur on the project site, no physical changes would be made to the Community Center Sports Complex.

The gazebo was previously located on an artificial island in the pond that was located within the park. During the recent construction to remove the concrete lining and install new landscaping, the gazebo was fenced off and protected from demolition activities. The project would not include any

33 City of Cupertino. Parks and Recreation System Master Plan – Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. SCH # 2019109066. October 2019. Pages 113 to 114.
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□

Memorial Park Specific Plan 57 Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024
changes to the gazebo or its location, and it would continue to be protected during any future construction activities under the project. With implementation of the project, the gazebo would be surrounded by lawn area and a new pedestrian walkway would provide access to the gazebo for pedestrians. Because there would be no changes to the gazebo on-site or the Community Center Sports Complex on the adjacent property, impacts to these historic resources would be less than significant, consistent with the findings of the 2019 IS/MND. (Same Impact as Approved Project)

b) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5?

The 2019 IS/MND determined that although many of the improvements proposed by the Master Plan would be projects with minimal ground disturbing components, any ground disturbing work would have the potential to disturb unknown archaeological resources. To mitigate these potential impacts to a less than significant level, future projects would be required to implement standard City General Conditions related to historic or archaeological items and 2019 IS/MND Mitigation Measure CULT-1, which is described below.34

2019 IS/MND Mitigation Measure
Mitigation Measure CULT-1: Upon discovery of possible buried prehistoric or historic cultural materials, work within 25 feet of the find must be halted and the City must be notified. The City shall retain a qualified archaeologist who meets the U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications and Standards to review and evaluate the find. Construction work shall not begin again until the archaeological or cultural resources consultant has been allowed to examine the cultural materials, assess their significance, and offer proposals for any additional exploratory measures deemed necessary for the further evaluation of, and/or mitigation of adverse impacts to, any potential prehistorical or historical resources or unique archaeological resources that have been exposed.

If the discovery is determined to be a unique archaeological or historical resource, and if avoidance of the resource is not possible, the archaeologist shall inform the City of the necessary plans for treatment of the find(s) and mitigation of impacts.

The City shall insure that the treatment program is completed. The work shall be performed by the archaeologist and shall result in a detailed technical report that must be filed with the Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University.

Construction in the immediate vicinity of the find must not recommence until treatment has been completed.

34 Ibid. 114 to 116.

Memorial Park Specific Plan 58 Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024
Pursuant to Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code, and Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code of the State of California, in the event of the discovery of human remains during construction, there will be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains. The County Medical Examiner/Coroner will be notified and will determine whether the remains are Native American. If the Coroner determines the remains are Native American and are not subject to his or her authority, he or she will notify the California Native American Heritage Commission, which will attempt to identify descendants of the deceased Native American(s).

In anticipation of additional discoveries during construction, Archaeological Sensitivity Training shall be carried out by a qualified archaeologist for all personnel who will engage in ground moving activities on the site prior to resuming construction.

If a newly discovered resource is, or is suspected to be, Native American in origin, the resource shall be treated as a significant Tribal Cultural Resource, pursuant to Public Resource Code 21074, until the County has determined otherwise with the consultation of a qualified archaeologist.

The City shall coordinate with the archaeologist to develop an appropriate treatment plan for any resources that are discovered. The plan may include implementation of archaeological data recovery excavations to address treatment of the resource along with subsequent laboratory processing and analysis. If appropriate, the archaeologist may introduce archaeological monitoring on all or part of the site. An archaeological report shall be written detailing all archaeological finds and submitted to the City and the Northwest Information Center.

The City shall ensure that appropriate construction conditions are included in any contract that has the potential for ground disturbing operations. All excavation contracts for the project shall contain provisions for stopping work in the vicinity of a find exposing archaeological resources during subsurface construction.

The 2019 IS/MND concluded that implementation of 2019 IS/MND Mitigation Measure CULT-1 and City General Conditions related to historic or archaeological items would mitigate impacts to archaeological resources to a less than significant level.

During a survey of the project site, historic-era resource clusters consisting of historical ceramic fragments were found in the central area of the site. Although these ceramic materials were found on-site, they were located in areas that were consistently disturbed by construction activity and do not represent intact archaeological deposits. As discussed in Section 5.5.1.2 Existing Conditions, the site has a moderate sensitivity for pre-historic archaeological resources based on the soil profile and topography and a moderate sensitivity for historic-era archaeological resources based on the historic presence of farmsteads on and adjacent to the site. The sensitivity for historic-era

Memorial Park Specific Plan 59 Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024
archaeological resources on-site is concentrated in the southern and central areas of the site.

Implementation of the project would involve ground-disturbing activities during construction in these sensitive areas that could potentially uncover historic-era archaeological resources.

Consistent with Municipal Code Section 17.04.050, the project shall conduct a subsurface investigation (Extended Phase I Study) prior to the start of ground disturbing activities. Specifically, once design-level plans are available for the proposed improvements in the areas of the park with historic-era sensitivity and the extent of required ground disturbance is determined, an Extended Phase I Study shall be performed to confirm the presence/absence of unknown historical archaeological resources. Depending on the depth of ground disturbance required for individual improvements, the Extended Phase I Study could include either hand excavation or mechanical trenching in the park to test for historical archaeological resources. If any improvements under the project require ground-disturbing activities that reach a depth below four feet, an Extended Phase I Study shall be performed in the vicinity of those improvements to confirm the presence/absence of pre-colonial archaeological resources.

Should any archaeological resources be discovered during the subsurface testing, the project would comply with the requirements of 2019 IS/MND Mitigation Measure CULT-1 and City General Condition 7.18 to ensure that appropriate treatment plans are prepared under consultation with a qualified archaeologist. Based on this discussion, impacts to archaeological resources would be less than significant, consistent with the findings of the 2019 IS/MND. (Same Impact as Approved Project)

c) Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries?

The 2019 IS/MND concluded that adherence to Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code and Section 5097.9 of the Public Resources Code (as required by 2019 IS/MND Mitigation Measure CULT-1) would reduce the risk of disturbing human remains to a less than significant level.35

As discussed above in checklist question b), the project site has moderate sensitivity for pre-historic resources and ground-disturbing activities during project construction could impact unknown underground resources, including human remains. With implementation of the City General Condition 7.18 and 2019 IS/MND Mitigation Measure CULT-1 and compliance with Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and PRC Section 5097.9, the project would reduce impacts to human remains to a less than significant level by pausing work and contacting the Santa Clara County Coroner to determine if the remains are Native American. Based on this discussion, the project would result in the same impact as disclosed in the 2019 IS/MND. (Same Impact as Approved Project)

35 Ibid. Page 116.

Memorial Park Specific Plan 60 Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024
Energy

5.6.1 Environmental Setting
The regulatory framework and existing conditions have not changed substantially since the adoption of the 2019 IS/MND, with the exception of the adoption of the City’s Climate Action Plan

2.0 in 2022. Key regulations and project site conditions are described below.

Regulatory Framework
Federal and State
Energy Star and Fuel Efficiency
At the federal level, energy standards set by the EPA apply to numerous consumer products and appliances (e.g., the EnergyStar™ program). The EPA also sets fuel efficiency standards for automobiles and other modes of transportation.

Renewables Portfolio Standard Program
In 2002, California established its Renewables Portfolio Standard Program, with the goal of increasing the percentage of renewable energy in the state's electricity mix to 20 percent of retail sales by 2010. Governor Schwarzenegger issued Executive Order (EO) S-3-05, requiring statewide emissions reductions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. In 2008, EO S-14-08 was signed into law, requiring retail sellers of electricity serve 33 percent of their load with renewable energy by 2020. In October 2015, Governor Brown signed SB 350 to codify California’s climate and clean energy goals. A key provision of SB 350 requires retail sellers and publicly owned utilities to procure 50 percent of their electricity from renewable sources by 2030. SB 100, passed in 2018, requires 100 percent of electricity in California to be provided by 100 percent renewable and carbon-free sources by 2045.

Executive Order B-55
-18 To Achieve Carbon Neutrality
In September 2018, Governor Brown issued an executive order, EO-B-55-18 To Achieve Carbon Neutrality, setting a statewide goal “to achieve carbon neutrality as soon as possible, and no later than 2045, and achieve and maintain net negative emissions thereafter.” The executive order requires CARB to “ensure future Scoping Plans identify and recommend measures to achieve the carbon neutrality goal.” EO-B-55-18 supplements EO S-3-05 by requiring not only emissions reductions, but also that, by no later than 2045, the remaining emissions be offset by equivalent net removals of CO2 from the atmosphere through sequestration.

California Building Standards Code
The Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings, as specified in Title 24, Part 6 of the California Code of Regulations (Title 24), was established in 1978 in response to a

5.6 5.6.1.1

Memorial Park Specific Plan 61 Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024
legislative mandate to reduce California’s energy consumption. Title 24 is updated approximately every three years.36 Compliance with Title 24 is mandatory at the time new building permits are issued by city and county governments.37

California Green Building Standards Code
CALGreen establishes mandatory green building standards for buildings in California. CALGreen was developed to reduce GHG emissions from buildings, promote environmentally responsible and healthier places to live and work, reduce energy and water consumption, and respond to state environmental directives. CALGreen covers five categories: planning and design, energy efficiency, water efficiency and conservation, material and resource efficiency, and indoor environmental quality.

Advanced Clean Cars Program
CARB adopted the Advanced Clean Cars II program in 2022 in coordination with the EPA and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. The program combines the control of smog-causing pollutants and GHG emissions into a single coordinated set of requirements for vehicle model years 2026 through 2035. The program promotes development of environmentally superior passenger cars and other vehicles, as well as saving the consumer money through fuel savings. 38 Regional and Local
Cupertino General Plan: Community Vision 2015-2040
The proposed project is subject to General Plan policies and strategies including, but not limited to, the policies and strategies listed below pertaining to energy resources.

Policy/Strategy Description
Policy ES-2.1 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.

Strategy ES-2.1.2 Prepare and implement a comprehensive energy management plan for all applicable municipal facilities and equipment to achieve the energy goals established in the City’s Climate Action Plan. Track the City’s energy use and report findings as part of the Climate Action Plan reporting schedule. Embed this plan into the City’s Environmentally Preferable

36 California Building Standards Commission. “California Building Standards Code.” Accessed August 16, 2023. https://www.dgs.ca.gov/BSC/Codes#@ViewBag.JumpTo.
37 California Energy Commission (CEC). “2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards.” Accessed August 16, 2023. https://www.energy.ca.gov/programs-and-topics/programs/building-energy-efficiency-standards/2019-building- energy-efficiency.
38 California Air Resources Board. “Advanced Clean Cars II.” Accessed August 16, 2023. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/advanced-clean-cars-program/advanced-clean-cars-ii

Memorial Park Specific Plan 62 Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024
Policy/Strategy Description
Procurement Policy to ensure measures are achieved through all future procurement and construction practices.

Strategy ES-2.1.5 Encourage the inclusion of additional shade trees, vegetated stormwater treatment and landscaping to reduce the “heat island effect” in development projects.

Strategy ES-2.1.9 Continue to encourage fuel-efficient transportation modes such as alternative fuel vehicles, driverless vehicles, public transit, car and vanpooling, community and regional shuttle systems, car and bike sharing programs, safe routes to schools, commuter benefits, and pedestrian and bicycle paths through infrastructure investment, development incentives, and community education.

City of Cupertino Climate Action Plan 2.0
Cupertino’s Climate Action Plan 2.0 was adopted by City Council on August 16, 2022, and contains a series of measures and actions meant to reduce GHG emissions and meet established community goals. The Climate Action Plan 2.0 includes actions in Measure TR-1 that encourage the City to develop facilities to support active modes of transportation, actions under Measure TR-5 that encourage the decarbonization of off-road equipment, including landscaping equipment, and actions under Measure CS-1 that would increase carbon sequestration through tree planting.

City of Cupertino Municipal Code
Chapter 16.58 of the City’s Municipal Code outlines the Green Building Standards applicable to development within the City. The provisions of this chapter apply to the planning, design, operation, construction, use, and occupancy of every newly constructed building or structure, unless otherwise indicated. This chapter also requires that development comply with the City’s local water-efficient landscape ordinance, which is further detailed in Chapter 14.15 of the Municipal Code. Chapter 17.04 outlines the standard environmental protection requirements that projects in the City must follow. These include requirements for air quality permits, GHG emissions, and energy consumption.

General Condition 7.19 Recycling and Waste Disposal
(C) Recyclable Materials. Contractor must recycle at least 65 percent of all materials at an approved recycling facility.

Memorial Park Specific Plan 63 Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024
Existing Conditions
Total energy usage in California was approximately 6,278.7 trillion British thermal units (Btu) in the year 2021, the most recent year for which this data was available.39 Out of the 50 states, California is ranked second in total energy consumption and 49th in energy consumption per capita. The breakdown by sector was approximately 20 percent (14,732.2 trillion Btu) for residential uses, 19 percent (1,396.7 trillion Btu) for commercial uses, 23.2 percent (1,704.4 trillion Btu) for industrial uses, and 37.8 percent (2,785 trillion Btu) for transportation.40 This energy is primarily supplied in the form of natural gas, petroleum, nuclear electric power, and hydroelectric power.

Electricity
Electricity in Santa Clara County in 2021 was consumed primarily by the non-residential sector (74 percent), followed by the residential sector consuming 23 percent. In 2021, a total of approximately 16,904 gigawatt hours (GWh) of electricity was consumed in Santa Clara County.41

The community-owned Silicon Valley Clean Energy (SVCE) is the electricity provider for the City of Cupertino.
42 SVCE sources the electricity, and the Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) delivers it to customers over their existing utility lines. Customers are automatically enrolled in the GreenStart plan and can upgrade to the GreenPrime plan. Both options are considered 100 percent GHG-emission free.

Demand for electricity on-site is generated by the senior center, community center, lighting, sound equipment, and irrigation equipment.

Natural Gas
PG&E provides natural gas services within the City of Cupertino. In 2022, California’s natural gas supply came from a combination of in-state production and imported supplies from other western states and Canada.
43 In 2021 residential and commercial customers in California used 33 percent of the state’s natural gas, power plants used 0.01 percent, the industrial sector used 33 percent.44 In

39 United States Energy Information Administration. “State Profile and Energy Estimates, 2020.” Accessed August 4, 2023. https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=CA#tabs-2.
40 United States Energy Information Administration. “State Profile and Energy Estimates, 2020.” Accessed August 4, 2023. https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=CA#tabs-2.
41 California Energy Commission. Energy Consumption Data Management System. “Electricity Consumption by County.” Accessed August 16, 2023. http://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbycounty.aspx. 42 Silicon Valley Clean Energy. “Frequently Asked Questions.” Accessed August 16, 2023. https://www.svcleanenergy.org/faqs.
43 California Gas and Electric Utilities. 2022 California Gas Report. Accessed August 16, 2023. https://www.socalgas.com/sites/default/files/Joint_Utility_Biennial_Comprehensive_California_Gas_Report_2022 .pdf.
44 United States Energy Information Administration. “Natural Gas Consumption by End Use. 2021.” Accessed August 16, 2023. https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=CA#tabs-2.

5.6.1.2 Memorial Park Specific Plan 64 Initial Study/Addendum City of Cupertino January 2024
2021, Santa Clara County used less than one percent of the state’s total consumption of natural gas.45 There is no natural gas use with the park, but the community center and senior center both contain appliances that utilize natural gas.

Fuel for Motor Vehicles
In 2022, California produced 124 million barrels of crude oil and in 2019, 15.4 billion gallons of gasoline were sold in California.46, 47 The average fuel economy for light-duty vehicles (autos, pickups, vans, and sport utility vehicles) in the United States has steadily increased from about 13.1 miles per gallon (mpg) in the mid-1970s to 25.4 mpg in 2021. 48 Federal fuel economy standards
have changed substantially since the Energy Independence and Security Act was passed in 2007.

That standard, which originally mandated a national fuel economy standard of 35 miles per gallon by the year 2020, was updated in April 2022 to require all cars and light duty trucks achieve an overall industry average fuel economy of 49 mpg by model year 2026. 49, 50

Visitors to the park and staff on-site use fuel for transportation to and from the site. Fuel is also used in landscaping and maintenance equipment on-site.

5.6.2 Impact Discussion

New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
New Less than
Significant
Impact
Same Impact
as Approved
Project
Would the project:
a) Result in a potentially significant environmental
impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or
unnecessary consumption of energy resources,
during project construction or operation?

b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for
renewable energy or energy efficiency?

45 California Energy Commission. “Natural Gas Consumption by County.” Accessed August 16, 2023. http://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/gasbycounty.aspx.
46 U.S. Energy Information Administration. “Petroleum & Other Liquids, California Field Production of Crude Oil.” February 28, 2023. https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=pet&s=mcrfpca1&f=a 47 California Department of Tax and Fee Administration. “Net Taxable Gasoline Gallons.” Accessed August 16, 2023. https://www.cdtfa.ca.gov/dataportal/dataset.htm?url=VehicleTaxableFuelDist. 48 United States Environmental Protection Agency. “The 2022 EPA Automotive Trends Report: Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Fuel Economy, and Technology since 1975.” December 2022. https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=P1010U68.pdf 49 United States Department of Energy. Energy Independence & Security Act of 2007. Accessed August 16, 2023. http://www.afdc.energy.gov/laws/eisa.
50 United States Department of Transportation. USDOT Announces New Vehicle Fuel Economy Standards for Model Year 2024-2026.” Accessed August 16, 2023. https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-re leases/usdot-announces-new- vehicle-fuel-economy-standards-model-year-2024-2026
□ □ □
□ □ □

Memorial Park Specific Plan 65 Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024
a) Would the project result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?

The 2019 IS/MND determined that projects implemented under the Master Plan would utilize green building design techniques, water efficient systems, and climate appropriate landscaping. Future projects would also be subject to the City’s General Plan and Climate Action Plan policies pertaining to the efficient use of energy, and would support non-vehicular travel within the City by providing facilities that encourage biking and walking to City park and recreation facilities. Based on those factors, implementation of the Master Plan was concluded to reduce fuel use in the City long-term and result in less than significant impacts due to inefficient or unnecessary consumption of energy resources.
51 Construction
Construction of the project would require energy for the manufacture and transportation of materials, preparation of the project site (e.g., demolition and grading), and the construction of the various structures proposed under the project. Construction processes are generally designed to be efficient in order to avoid excess monetary costs. As required in Section 17.04.050 of the Municipal Code, the project would implement BAAQMD basic control measures, which include restricting equipment idling times and require contractors to post signs on the project site reminding workers to shut off idle equipment, thus reducing energy waste. The project would also comply with CALGreen and City General Condition 7.19 to divert a minimum of 65 percent of nonhazardous construction and demolition waste from landfills for recycling, thus minimizing energy impacts from the creation of excessive waste.

For these reasons, the project would not use fuel or energy in a wasteful manner during construction activities, consistent with the findings of the 2019 IS/MND. (Same Impact as Approved Project)

Operation
Operation of the project site would be similar to existing conditions. Energy is consumed for multiple purposes, including the lighting and irrigation operating on-site and fuel consumption from vehicles traveling to and from the project site. The new lighting installed on-site would comply with CBC regulations for energy efficient lighting. In addition, the project would install new drought tolerant landscaping and high-efficiency irrigation which would also reduce energy consumption during project operation. The project would construct new bicycle parking infrastructure, a new dedicated bicycle lane, and pedestrian walkways which would promote alternative modes of

51 City of Cupertino. Parks and Recreation System Master Plan – Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. SCH # 2019109066. October 2019. Pages 120 to 121.

Memorial Park Specific Plan 66 Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024
transportation and reduce the use of gasoline. Based on the project’s adherence to current building codes and promotion of alternative modes of transportation, the proposed project would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy during project operation, consistent with the findings of the 2019 IS/MND. (Same Impact as Approved Project)

b) Would the project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?

The 2019 IS/MND concluded that implementation of the Master Plan would not conflict with or obstruct any state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency because future projects would comply with the City’s General Plan and Climate Action Plan, and the proposed facilities would not interfere with the installation of any renewable energy system.52

The project site would continue to obtain electricity from SVCE, which is 100 percent GHG-emission free energy from renewable and hydroelectric sources, consistent with the state’s Renewables Portfolio Standard program and SB 350. The project would be consistent with General Plan Strategies ES-2.1.5 and ES-2.1.9 and Climate Action Plan 2.0 Measures TR-1 and CS-1 by replacing trees to be removed and planting additional trees to provide shade within the park, constructing vegetated bioswales to capture stormwater on-site, and constructing bicycle and pedestrian paths to promote alternative modes of transportation. Based on this discussion, the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency, consistent with the findings of the 2019 IS/MND. (Same Impact as Approved Project)

52 Ibid. Page 121.

Memorial Park Specific Plan 67 Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024
Geology and Soils
The following discussion is based on a Geotechnical Evaluation prepared by Ninyo & Moore Geotechnical & Environmental Sciences Consultants, dated November 3, 2022. A copy of this report is included in Appendix C of this Initial Study/Addendum.

5.7.1 Environmental Setting
The regulatory framework and existing conditions have not changed substantially since the adoption of the 2019 IS/MND. Key regulations and project site conditions are described below.

Regulatory Framework
State
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act
The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act was passed following the 1971 San Fernando earthquake. The act regulates development in California near known active faults due to hazards associated with surface fault ruptures. Alquist-Priolo maps are distributed to affected cities, counties, and state agencies for their use in planning and controlling new construction. Areas within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone require special studies to evaluate the potential for surface rupture to ensure that no structures intended for human occupancy are constructed across an active fault.

Seismic Hazards Mapping Act
The Seismic Hazards Mapping Act (SHMA) was passed in 1990 following the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake. The SHMA directs the California Geological Survey (CGS) to identify and map areas prone to liquefaction, earthquake-induced landslides, and amplified ground shaking. CGS has completed seismic hazard mapping for the portions of California most susceptible to liquefaction, landslides, and ground shaking, including the central San Francisco Bay Area. The SHMA requires that agencies only approve projects in seismic hazard zones following site-specific geotechnical investigations to determine if the seismic hazard is present and identify measures to reduce earthquake-related hazards.

California Building Standards Code
The CBC prescribes standards for constructing safe buildings. The CBC contains provisions for earthquake safety based on factors including occupancy type, soil and rock profile, ground strength, and distance to seismic sources. The CBC requires that a site-specific geotechnical investigation report be prepared for most development projects to evaluate seismic and geologic conditions such as surface fault ruptures, ground shaking, liquefaction, differential settlement, lateral spreading, expansive soils, and slope stability. The CBC is updated every three years.

5.7 5.7.1.1

Memorial Park Specific Plan 68 Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024
California Division of Occupational Safety and Health Regulations Excavation, shoring, and trenching activities during construction are subject to occupational safety standards for stabilization by the California Department of Industrial Relations, Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA) under Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations and Excavation Rules. These regulations minimize the potential for instability and collapse that could injure construction workers on the site.

Public Resources Code Section 5097.5
Paleontological resources are the fossilized remains of organisms from prehistoric environments found in geologic strata. They range from mammoth and dinosaur bones to impressions of ancient animals and plants, trace remains, and microfossils. These materials are valued for the information they yield about the history of the earth and its past ecological settings. California Public Resources Code Section 5097.5 specifies that unauthorized removal of a paleontological resource is a misdemeanor. Under the CEQA Guidelines, a project would have a significant impact on paleontological resources if it would disturb or destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature.

Cupertino General Plan: Community Vision 2015-2040
The proposed project is subject to General Plan policies and strategies including, but not limited to, the policies and strategies listed below pertaining to geology and soils.

Policy/Strategy Description
Policy HS-5.1 Evaluate new development proposals within mapped potential hazard zones using a formal seismic/geologic review process.

Strategy HS-5.1.3 Continue to implement and update geologic review procedures for Geologic Reports required by the Municipal Code through the development review process.

City of Cupertino Municipal Code
Section 16.08.120 of the City’s Municipal Code outlines the requirements for development projects to conduct engineering geological investigations prior to receiving grading permits. Section

16.08.130 provides the City’s requirements for soils engineering investigations, which would include data regarding the nature, distribution, erodibility of existing soil, strength of existing soils on a project site.

Memorial Park Specific Plan 69 Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024
General Condition 7.18: Historic or Archeological Items. (A) Contractor’s Obligations. Contractor must ensure that all persons performing Work at the Project site are required to immediately notify the Project Manager, upon discovery of any potential historic or archeological items, including historic or prehistoric ruins, a burial ground, archaeological or vertebrate paleontological site, including fossilized footprints or other archeological, paleontological or historical feature on the Project site (collectively, “Historic or Archeological Items”).

Existing Conditions
Regional Geology
The project site is located in the Santa Clara Valley, an alluvial basin bounded by the Santa Cruz Mountains to the west, the Diablo Range to the east, and the San Francisco Bay to the north. The Valley was formed when sediments derived from both mountain ranges were exposed by tectonic uplift and regression of the inland sea which previously inundated the area. The Upper Quaternary sediments that comprise most of this basin consist of up to 1,000 feet of poorly sorted gravel, sand, and clay which were deposited in alluvial fan and deltaic depositional environments.

On-Site Geology
Soils
The site is underlain by Holocene age surficial sediments. The mapped soil profiles for the site indicate the underlying soil as being comprised of alluvial sand, silt, and gravel deposited in the upper part of the alluvial fans formed along the foothills of the Santa Cruz Mountains. Near-surface soil sampling conducted on-site found that the alluvium encountered in the soil borings generally consists of loose to very dense, poorly graded gravel, well-graded gravel with clay and sand, clayey gravel, clayey sand; and very stiff to hard, lean clay and silty clay.

Expansive soils shrink and swell as a result of moisture changes. These changes can cause heaving and cracking of slabs-on-grade, pavements, and structures founded on shallow foundations. The soils collected in the borings on-site had plasticity index scores ranging from six to 25, indicating a very low to low expansion potential that varies depending on the depth of the soil.

5.7.1.2 Memorial Park Specific Plan 70 Initial Study/Addendum City of Cupertino January 2024
Site Topography
The project site is relatively flat with some areas graded slightly for draining and landscaping, as a result, the risk of erosion or landslide is low. There are no hillsides or steep embankments on-site and the elevation throughout the site ranges from 286 to 296 feet above mean sea level (amsl). No unique geologic features, such as serpentine rock outcrops and boulders, pinnacles, or sandstone are located on-site.

Soil borings were performed at depths of approximately 15 feet below ground surface (bgs) throughout the project site. No groundwater was encountered during the subsurface investigation, but it is estimated that historic high groundwater under the site is approximately 50 feet bgs. Water levels on-site may vary depending on seasonal precipitation, irrigation practices, and other climate conditions.

Seismic and Seismic-Related Hazards
Earthquake Faults
As the San Francisco Bay Area contains numerous active and potentially active faults, there is a high potential for seismic events such as fault surface ruptures and ground shaking, which can cause ground failure (landslides), settlement, erosion, liquefaction, lateral spreading, and soil expansion.

Faults in the region are capable of generating earthquakes of magnitude 6.7 or higher.

During a major earthquake on a segment of one of the nearby faults, strong ground shaking is expected to occur at the project site. The ground shaking intensity felt at the project site would depend on the size of the earthquake (magnitude), the distance from the site to the fault source, the directivity (focusing of earthquake energy along the fault in the direction of the rupture), and the site-specific soil conditions. While no faults cross the project site, there are several major faults nearby including the Monte Vista-Shannon fault, San Andreas Fault, Hayward Fault, and Calaveras Fault. The project site is not located within a designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone or a Santa Clara County Fault Hazard Zone.
53, 54

53 CA Department of Conservation. California Earthquake Hazards Zone. Webmap. Accessed August 15, 2023. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/EQZApp/app/.
54 Santa Clara County. Geologic Hazards Zones. Maps 2 and 10. Map. October 2012.

Memorial Park Specific Plan 71 Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024
Liquefaction
Soil liquefaction can be defined as a complete loss of strength that causes otherwise solid soil to take on the characteristics of a liquid. The types of soil most susceptible to this hazard are loose, saturated, uniformly graded, fine-grain sands that comprise the soil layer within approximately 45 to 50 feet of the ground surface. Liquefaction mostly frequently occurs under vibratory conditions, such as those created by seismic events. The project site is not located within a State of California liquefaction hazard zone or a County Liquefaction Hazard Zone.55 Based on this, the site has a low potential of liquefaction during moderate to large magnitude earthquakes on a nearby faults.

Lateral spreading typically occurs as a form of horizontal displacement of relatively flat-lying soil toward an open or “free” face such as an open body of water, channel, or excavation. This movement is often associated with liquefaction and commonly occurs on gentle slopes in seismically active regions. Lateral spread presents a significant hazard to the integrity of buildings and other structures. There are no adjacent bodies of water, channels, or excavations in the vicinity of the site; therefore, there is a very low potential for lateral spreading on-site.

Other Geologic Hazards
The project site is not located within a Santa Clara County Geologic Hazard Zone for compressible soil, landslides, or fault rupture.56

Paleontological Resources
Most of Cupertino, including the project site, is located within a Holocene-age landform. Geologic units of Holocene age are generally not considered sensitive for paleontological resources, because biological remains younger than 10,000 years are not usually considered fossils. These sediments have low potential to yield fossil resources or to contain significant nonrenewable paleontological resources.
57 No paleontological resources have been identified within the project site.58

55 Ninyo & Moore Geotechnical & Environmental Sciences Consultants. Geotechnical Evaluation. November 3, 2022. Page 5.
56 Santa Clara County. Geologic Hazards Zones. Maps 2 and 10. Map. October 2012. 57 United States Department of the Interior. Potential Fossil Yield Classification System. July 2016. Accessed August 15, 2023. https://www.blm.gov/sites/blm.gov/files/uploads/IM2016-124_att1.pdf 58 City of Cupertino. Parks and Recreation System Master Plan – Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. SCH # 2019109066. October 2019. Page 131.

Memorial Park Specific Plan 72 Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024

5.7.2 Impact Discussion

- Rupture of a known earthquake fault,
as delineated on the most recent
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning
Map issued by the State Geologist for
the area or based on other substantial
evidence of a known fault (refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42)?

- Strong seismic ground shaking?
- Seismic-related ground failure,
including liquefaction?

- Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil?

c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that will become unstable as a
result of the project, and potentially result in
on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?

d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in the
current California Building Code, creating
substantial direct or indirect risks to life or
property?

e) 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?

f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
geological feature?

□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□

Memorial Park Specific Plan 73 Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024
a) Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault; strong seismic ground shaking; seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction; or landslides?

The 2019 IS/MND determined that implementation of the Master Plan would not directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects from the rupture of a known earthquake fault, strong seismic ground shaking, liquefaction, or landslides because future projects would not be located on active faults, would adhere to recommendations in site-specific geotechnical reports, and would comply with the CBC.
59 Fault Rupture
The project site is not located in an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone and no known faults cross the site. While existing faults that are currently considered active are located within 20 miles of the site (i.e., the Monte Vista-Shannon fault, San Andreas Fault, Hayward Fault, and Calaveras Fault), the proposed project is located outside of their fault rupture zones. For these reasons, the project would not directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects from rupture of a known earthquake fault, consistent with the findings of the 2019 IS/MND. (Same Impact as Approved Project)

Seismic Ground Shaking
There are several major fault lines within approximately 20 miles of the project site that have the potential to produce a major earthquake during the lifespan of this project. During a major earthquake, this site is expected to experience strong ground shaking. The level of intensity of this ground shaking at the project site would depend on a variety of factors such as the magnitude, distance from the site to the fault source, and the site-specific soil conditions. The ground shaking could potentially damage structures and threaten the safety of occupants.

The project would construct all structures according to the standards listed in the current CBC and would implement the recommendations in the site-specific geotechnical report prepared for the project (as required in Municipal Code Sections 16.08.120 and Section 16.08.130) to reduce seismic and seismic-related hazards (including ground shaking, liquefaction, and expansive soils) to a less than significant level. Because the project would be properly designed, engineered, and constructed, the existing seismic hazards on-site would not be exacerbated by the project in a manner that would impact (or worsen) off-site conditions. Therefore, the project would result in a

59 City of Cupertino. Parks and Recreation System Master Plan – Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. SCH # 2019109066. October 2019. Pages 128 to 129.

Memorial Park Specific Plan 74 Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024
less than significant impact, consistent with the findings of the 2019 IS/MND. (Same Impact as Approved Project)

Liquefaction and Lateral Spreading
As discussed in Section 5.7.1.2 Existing Conditions, the project site is not located within a state- or county-designated liquefaction hazard zone and the site has a low potential of liquefaction during moderate to large magnitude earthquakes. In addition, there is a very low potential for lateral spreading on-site due to the lack of adjacent bodies of water, channels, or excavations in the vicinity of the site. The project would construct all structures according to the standards listed in the current CBC and would implement the recommendations in the site-specific geotechnical report prepared for the project, therefore, the project would not cause potential substantial adverse effects related to liquefaction and lateral spreading consistent with the findings of the 2019 IS/MND. (Same Impact as Approved Project)

Landslides
As discussed in Section 5.7.1.2 Existing Conditions, the project site is not located in a designated landslide hazard zone. The project site is relatively flat and is not located in the vicinity of steep embankments that could increase the risk of landslides affecting the site. Construction of the project would not include substantial earthwork that would create unstable slopes that would exacerbate any existing landslide risks. Therefore, the project would result in a less than significant impact, consistent with the findings of the 2019 IS/MND. (Same Impact as Approved Project)

b) Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?

The 2019 IS/MND concluded that although future projects under the Master Plan would include grading or create new impervious surface area that could result in soil disturbance, alter drainage patterns, and/or cause erosion, these impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level because the project would be subject to Waste Discharge Requirements, Municipal Code Sections

16.08.120 and Section 16.08.130, and would implement BMPs to protect water quality during specific project construction activities.60

Ground disturbance related to the demolition of the improvements on-site, removal of landscaping, and construction of the proposed improvements would occur on-site. Transportation of construction materials and equipment to and from the project site could also result in disturbance of the soils. These activities would increase exposure of soil to wind and water erosion and increase sedimentation.

60 Ibid. Pages 129 to 130.

Memorial Park Specific Plan 75 Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024
As discussed further in Section 5.10 Hydrology and Water Quality, the project would comply with current CBC regulations regarding erosion control and would implement BMPs to reduce runoff from the project site. In addition, the project would prepare an interim erosion and sediment control plan consistent with the requirements of Municipal Code Section 16.08.110 that would detail the location of erosion control measures and erosion control planting. By implementing best management practices and the recommendations of the site-specific geotechnical report, erosion and sedimentation impacts would be less than significant, consistent with the findings of the 2019 IS/MND. (Same Impact as Approved Project)

c) Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?

The 2019 IS/MND concluded that future projects would reduce impacts to unstable soils to a less than significant level through compliance with current CBC regulations, Municipal Code Sections

16.08.120 and 16.08.130, and recommended mitigation or avoidance measures from site-specific geotechnical reports.
61 As discussed under checklist question a), the project site location, topography, and adherence to the current CBC and recommendations in the site-specific geotechnical report (as required in Municipal Code Sections 16.08.120 and Section 16.08.130) regarding ground improvements and construction methods would reduce the risk of liquefaction at the project site to a less than significant level.

Valley Water actively monitors for land subsidence through surveying, groundwater elevation monitoring, and data from compaction wells. Valley Water reduces the potential for land subsidence throughout the Santa Clara Valley by recharging groundwater basins with local and imported surface water. The project would be connected to the City’s water system and would not require permanent groundwater extraction wells on-site. No construction dewatering would be required; therefore, the project would not contribute to significant subsidence risks.

Based on this discussion, the project would result in the same less than significant impact as disclosed in the 2019 IS/MND. (Same Impact as Approved Project)

61 Ibid. Page 130.

Memorial Park Specific Plan 76 Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024
d) Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in the current California Building Code, creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property?

The 2019 IS/MND was unable to describe soil conditions at every park facility in the City, but the 2019 IS/MND concluded that compliance with current CBC regulations, Municipal Code Sections

16.08.120 and 16.08.130, and recommended mitigation or avoidance measures from site-specific geotechnical reports, would reduce potential impacts related to expansive soils to a less than significant level.
62 Expansive soils possess a “shrink-swell” characteristic. Shrink-swell is the cyclic change in volume (expansion and contraction) that occurs in fine-grained clay sediments from the process of wetting and drying. Structural damage may result over a long period of time, usually the result of inadequate soil and foundation engineering or the placement of structures directly on expansive soils. Based on the site-specific geotechnical report prepared for the project, the soils on-site have a very low to low expansion potential that varies depending on the depth of the soil.

The project would adhere to the standard engineering and building practices and techniques specified in the CBC and implement the design recommendations in the site-specific geotechnical report, which would further reduce potential impacts from expansive soils on-site. Based on this discussion, the project would not create substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property due to expansive soils, consistent with the findings of the 2019 IS/MND. (Same Impact as Approved Project)

e) Would the project 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?

The 2019 IS/MND concluded that there would be no impact because there would not be any alternative wastewater disposal or septic tank systems installed during implementation of the Master Plan.63

The project would connect to the City’s existing sanitary sewer system. Therefore, the project would not need to support septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems on-site, consistent with the findings of the 2019 IS/MND. (Same Impact as Approved Project)

62 Ibid. Page 130.
63 Ibid. Page 130.

Memorial Park Specific Plan 77 Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024
f) Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geological feature?

The 2019 IS/MND determined that implementation of the Master Plan would be unlikely to result in impacts to unique paleontological resources or geological features given the age of the soil throughout most of the City and the absence of known paleontological resources in Cupertino.

However, the 2019 IS/MND concluded that future projects would be further evaluated when design-level plans are available to determine whether the project would have the potential to encounter bedrock and unknown paleontological resources. This evaluation and implementation of any potential mitigation measures identified as necessary would reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level.
64 As discussed in Section 5.7.1.2 Existing Conditions and the 2019 IS/MND, most of the City, including the project site, is located within a Holocene-age landform which has low potential to yield fossil resources or significant nonrenewable paleontological resources due to the age of the soil. The project would implement City General Condition 7.18 to reduce impacts to unknown paleontological resources. by halting work if paleontological resources are discovered, and protecting and recovering the resource if feasible. This is consistent with the findings of the 2019 IS/MND. (Same Impact as Approved Project)

64 Ibid. Pages 130 to 131.

Memorial Park Specific Plan 78 Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024
Greenhouse Gas Emissions

5.8.1 Environmental Setting
The regulatory framework and existing conditions have not changed substantially since the adoption of the 2019 IS/MND, with the exception of BAAQMD updating their CEQA Guidelines and the City adopting their Climate Action Plan 2.0 in 2022. Key regulations and project site conditions are described below.

Background Information
Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere, GHGs, regulate the earth’s temperature. This phenomenon, known as the greenhouse effect, is responsible for maintaining a habitable climate.

In GHG emission inventories, the weight of each gas is multiplied by its global warming potential (GWP) and is measured in units of CO
2 equivalents (CO2e). The most common GHGs are carbon
dioxide (CO2) and water vapor but there are also several others, most importantly methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). These are released into the earth’s atmosphere through a variety of natural processes and human activities. Sources of GHGs are generally as follows:

• CO2 and N2O are byproducts of fossil fuel combustion. • N2O is associated with agricultural operations such as fertilization of crops. • CH4 is commonly created by off-gassing from agricultural practices (e.g., keeping livestock) and landfill operations.
• Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) were widely used as refrigerants, propellants, and cleaning solvents, but their production has been stopped by international treaty. • HFCs are now used as a substitute for CFCs in refrigeration and cooling. • PFCs and SF6 emissions are commonly created by industries such as aluminum production and semiconductor manufacturing.

An expanding body of scientific research supports the theory that global climate change is currently causing changes in weather patterns, average sea level, ocean acidification, chemical reaction rates, and precipitation rates, and that it will increasingly do so in the future. The climate and several naturally occurring resources within California are adversely affected by the global warming trend.

Increased precipitation and sea level rise will increase coastal flooding, saltwater intrusion, and degradation of wetlands. Mass migration and/or loss of plant and animal species could also occur.

Potential effects of global climate change that could adversely affect human health include more extreme heat waves and heat-related stress; an increase in climate-sensitive diseases; more frequent and intense natural disasters such as flooding, hurricanes, and drought; and increased levels of air pollution.

5.8 5.8.1.1

Memorial Park Specific Plan 79 Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024
Regulatory Framework
State
Assembly Bill 32
Under the California Global Warming Solutions Act, also known as AB 32, CARB established a statewide GHG emissions cap for 2020, adopted mandatory reporting rules for significant sources of GHGs, and adopted a comprehensive plan, known as the Climate Change Scoping Plan, identifying how emission reductions would be achieved from significant GHG sources.

In 2016, SB 32 was signed into law, amending the California Global Warming Solution Act. SB 32, and accompanying Executive Order B-30-15, require CARB to ensure that statewide GHG emissions are reduced to 40 percent below the 1990 level by 2030. CARB updated its Climate Change Scoping Plan in December of 2017 to express the 2030 statewide target in terms of million metric tons of CO
2e (MMTCO2e). Based on the emissions reductions directed by SB 32, the annual 2030 statewide target emissions level for California is 260 MMTCO2e.

Senate Bill 375
SB 375, known as the Sustainable Communities Strategy and Climate Protection Act, was signed into law in September 2008. SB 375 builds upon AB 32 by requiring CARB to develop regional GHG reduction targets for automobile and light truck sectors for 2020 and 2035. The per capita GHG emissions reduction targets for passenger vehicles in the San Francisco Bay Area include a seven percent reduction by 2020 and a 15 percent reduction by 2035.

Consistent with the requirements of SB 375, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) partnered with the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), BAAQMD, and the Bay Conservation and Development Commission to prepare the region’s Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) as part of the Regional Transportation Plan process. The SCS is referred to as Plan Bay Area 2050. Plan Bay Area 2050 establishes a course for reducing per capita GHG emissions through the promotion of compact, high-density, mixed-use neighborhoods near transit, particularly within identified Priority Development Areas (PDAs).

CARB Scoping Plan
CARB adopted the 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality (2022 Scoping Plan) in December 2022 to outline goals and actions for various sectors to help California achieve carbon neutrality by 2045 or earlier. The 2022 Scoping Plan outlines cost-effective solutions that consider equity and affordability in addition to larger scale solutions that will transform the state’s energy infrastructure to generate less GHG emissions.

5.8.1.2 Memorial Park Specific Plan 80 Initial Study/Addendum City of Cupertino January 2024
Regional and Local
2017 Clean Air Plan
To protect the climate, the 2017 CAP (prepared by BAAQMD) includes control measures designed to reduce emissions of methane and other super-GHGs that are potent climate pollutants in the near- term, and to decrease emissions of carbon dioxide by reducing fossil fuel combustion.

CEQA Air Quality Guidelines
The BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines are intended to serve as a guide for those who prepare or evaluate air quality impact analyses for projects and plans in the San Francisco Bay Area. The jurisdictions in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin utilize the thresholds and methodology for assessing GHG impacts developed by BAAQMD within the CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. The guidelines include information on legal requirements, BAAQMD rules, methods of analyzing impacts, and recommended mitigation measures.

Policy/Strategy Description
Policy ES-1.1 Incorporate the principles of sustainability into Cupertino’s planning, infrastructure, and development process in order to achieve improvement, reduce GHG emissions, and meet the needs of the community without compromising the needs of future generations.

Policy ES-2.1 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.

Strategy ES-1.1.1 Adopt, implement, and maintain a Climate Action Plan to attain greenhouse gas emission targets consistent with state law and regional requirements.

City of Cupertino Climate Action Plan 2.0
Cupertino's Climate Action Plan 2.0 was adopted by City Council on August 16, 2022, and contains a series of measures and actions meant to reduce GHG emissions and meet established community goals. The Climate Action Plan 2.0 includes actions in Measure TR-1 that encourage the City to develop facilities to support active modes of transportation, actions under Measure TR-5 that encourage the decarbonization of off-road equipment, including landscaping equipment, and actions under Measure CS-1 that would increase carbon sequestration through tree planting.

City of Cupertino Municipal Code
The following parts of the Municipal Code contain directives pertaining to building green and conserving water and energy.

Memorial Park Specific Plan 81 Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024
• Chapter 14.15, Landscape Ordinance, the intent of this chapter is to reduce water waste in landscaping by promoting the use of region-appropriate plants that require minimal supplemental irrigation and by establishing standards for irrigation efficiency. New development projects that include landscape areas of 500 square feet or more are subject to the Ordinance.

• Chapter 16.58, Green Building Standards, the provisions of this chapter apply to the planning, design, operation, construction, use, and occupancy of every newly constructed building or structure, unless otherwise indicated.

Existing Conditions
Unlike emissions of criteria and toxic air pollutants, which have regional and local impacts, emissions of GHGs have a broader, global impact. Global warming is a process whereby GHGs accumulating in the upper atmosphere contribute to an increase in the temperature of the earth and changes in weather patterns.

GHG emissions associated with the project site are primarily generated by visitors and staff vehicle trips to the site and operation of landscaping and maintenance equipment. The community center and senior center also utilize natural gas appliances that generate GHG emissions.

5.8.2 Impact Discussion

b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing
the emissions of GHGs?

a) Would the project generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?

The 2019 IS/MND determined that future projects would be relatively small in scale and would screen out of BAAQMD’s GHG screening size for City park land uses. In addition, the 2019 IS/MND concluded that future projects would be likely to reduce overall visitor and maintenance VMT GHG- emissions by providing a connected and accessible network of parks, improving access including for those with disabilities, and creating additional parks and recreational spaces in areas that are

5.8.1.3 □
□
□
□
□
□

Memorial Park Specific Plan 82 Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024
currently underserved. Therefore, implementation of the Master Plan would result in less than significant GHG emissions.65

The project size (22.5-acres) is below the GHG screening size identified by BAAQMD of 600 acres that was in place at the time 2019 IS/MND was adopted. In addition, the project includes improvements to the existing park and enhancements to bicycle and pedestrian access to the park.

The project, therefore, would result in the same impact as disclosed in the 2019 IS/MND. (Same Impact as Approved Project)

Since the certification of the IS/MND, BAAQMD has updated its CEQA Air Quality Guidelines with new GHG thresholds. Pursuant to the current BAAQMD Air Quality Guidelines, for land use projects to result in a less than significant GHG emissions impact, the land use project would need to comply with threshold A or B below.

A. Projects must include, at a minimum, the following project design elements:

1. Buildings
a. The project will not include natural gas appliances or natural gas plumbing (in both residential and nonresidential development).
b. The project will not result in any wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary energy usage as determined by the analysis required under CEQA Section 21100(b)(3) and Section 15126.2(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines.

2. Transportation
a. Achieve a reduction in project-generated vehicle miles traveled (VMT) below the regional average consistent with the current version of the California Climate Change Scoping Plan (currently 15 percent) or meet a locally adopted Senate Bill 743 VMT target, reflecting the recommendations provided in the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research's Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA:
i. Residential projects: 15 percent below the existing VMT per capita ii. Office projects: 15 percent below the existing VMT per employee iii. Retail projects: no net increase in existing VMT
a. Achieve compliance with off-street electric vehicle requirements in the most recently adopted version of CALGreen Tier 2.

B. Be consistent with a local GHG reduction strategy that meets the criteria under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5(b).

The City’s 2022 Climate Action Plan 2.0 is considered a qualified GHG reduction plan, and consistency with this plan can be demonstrated in a two-part process. The first part of the process is to determine whether the project is consistent with the established General Plan land use and

65 City of Cupertino. Parks and Recreation System Master Plan – Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. SCH # 2019109066. October 2019. Pages 136 to 137.

Memorial Park Specific Plan 83 Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024
zoning designation, and the second part is illustrating the project’s compliance with applicable measures from the City’s CEQA GHG Emissions Analysis Compliance Checklist.66

As discussed in Section 5.11 Land Use and Planning, the project is consistent with the existing General Plan land use and zoning designations, and does not propose any changes in the allowed land uses on-site. The project would be consistent with the City’s CEQA GHG Emissions Analysis Compliance Checklist by complying with all minimum requirements of CALGreen Code and the City Reach Code during design and construction, not using natural gas appliances or infrastructure, installing energy efficient lighting, sourcing energy from SVCE, expanding bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure to increase connectivity and encourage alternative modes of transportation, installing native and drought-tolerant species as part of the landscaping, installing low-flow fixtures, planting climate-adaptive trees, and installing bioswales and permeable pavement on-site.

In addition, the project would comply with Measure TR-1 and Measure CS-1 of the 2022 Climate Action Plan 2.0 by implementing the development of bicycle and pedestrian facilities to support active modes of transportation and planting additional trees to increase carbon sequestration and reduce the urban heat island effect.

b) Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs?

The 2019 IS/MND determined that implementation of the Master Plan would not result in any impacts due to conflicts with applicable plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs because future projects would comply with the CARB Scoping Plan, 2017 CAP, and the City’s Climate Action Plan.67

CARB Scoping Plan
As discussed in the 2019 IS/MND, the CARB Scoping Plan is primarily meant to recommend programs at the state-level to help California achieve carbon neutrality by 2045 or earlier. The City’s 2022 Climate Action Plan 2.0 is designed to help the City achieve their goal of carbon neutrality by the year 2040, which exceeds the goals set in the CARB Scoping Plan. Therefore, because the project is consistent with the City’s 2022 Climate Action Plan 2.0 as discussed in checklist question a) above and later on in this discussion, it would not conflict with the CARB Scoping Plan. (Same Impact as Approved Project)

66 City of Cupertino. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions Thresholds and Guidance. April 29, 2022. Page 19.
67 City of Cupertino. Parks and Recreation System Master Plan – Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. SCH # 2019109066. October 2019. Pages 137 to 138.

Memorial Park Specific Plan 84 Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024
2017 Clean Air Plan
The BAAQMD 2017 CAP focuses on two goals: protecting public health and protecting the climate.

The 2017 CAP includes air quality standards and control measures designed to reduce emissions of methane, carbon dioxide, and other super-GHGs. As discussed in Section 5.3 Air Quality under checklist question a), the project is consistent with the 2017 Clean Air Plan because it would not generate emissions that could interfere with attainment of ambient air quality standards, would implement actions consistent with the 2017 Clean Air Plan’s control measures, and would not significantly increase VMT in the City. (Same Impact as Approved Project)

General Plan
The proposed project would be consistent with General Plan Policies ES-1.1 and ES-3.1, and Strategy ES-1.1.1 by minimizing energy use and waste disposed of at a landfill during construction activities, installing high-efficiency lighting and irrigation equipment, promoting alternative modes of transportation by constructing bicycle parking infrastructure, new bicycle lanes, and pedestrian walkways, and implementing design features consistent with the City’s 2022 Climate Action Plan

2.0. (Same Impact as Approved Project)

2022 Climate Action Plan 2.0
As discussed under checklist question a) above, the project would comply with Measure TR-1 and Measure CS-1 from the 2022 Climate Action Plan 2.0. In addition, because the project is consistent with the existing General Plan land use and zoning designations, would not propose any changes in the allowed land uses on-site, and complies with the applicable measures from the City’s CEQA GHG Emissions Analysis Compliance Checklist, it would be considered consistent with the City’s 2022 Climate Action Plan 2.0. (Same Impact as Approved Project)

Memorial Park Specific Plan 85 Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
The following discussion is based on the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) completed by Cornerstone Earth Group, Inc. dated October 13, 2022. A copy of the report is included in Appendix D of this Initial Study/Addendum.

5.9.1 Environmental Setting
The regulatory framework and existing conditions have not changed substantially since the adoption of the 2019 IS/MND. Key regulations and project site conditions are described below.

Regulatory Framework
The storage, use, generation, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials and waste are highly regulated under federal and state laws. In California, the EPA has granted most enforcement authority over federal hazardous materials regulations to the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA). In turn, local agencies have been granted responsibility for implementation and enforcement of many hazardous materials regulations under the Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) program.

Worker health and safety and public safety are key issues when dealing with hazardous materials.

Proper handling and disposal of hazardous material is vital if it is disturbed during project construction. Cal/OSHA enforces state worker health and safety regulations related to construction activities. Regulations include exposure limits, requirements for protective clothing, and training requirements to prevent exposure to hazardous materials. Cal/OSHA also enforces occupational health and safety regulations specific to lead and asbestos investigations and abatement.

Federal and State
Federal Aviation Regulations Part 77
Federal Aviation Regulations, Part 77 Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace (FAR Part 77) sets forth standards and review requirements for protecting the airspace for safe aircraft operation, particularly by restricting the height of potential structures and minimizing other potential hazards (such as reflective surfaces, flashing lights, and electronic interference) to aircraft in flight. These regulations require that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) be notified of certain proposed construction projects located within an extended zone defined by an imaginary slope radiating outward for several miles from an airport’s runways, or which would otherwise stand at least 200 feet in height above the ground.

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), commonly known as Superfund, was enacted by Congress on December 11, 1980. This law created a tax on the chemical and petroleum industries and provided broad federal authority to respond directly to

5.9 5.9.1.1

Memorial Park Specific Plan 86 Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024
releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances that may endanger public health or the environment. Over five years, $1.6 billion was collected and the tax went to a trust fund for cleaning up abandoned or uncontrolled hazardous waste sites. CERCLA accomplished the following objectives:

• Established prohibitions and requirements concerning closed and abandoned hazardous waste sites;
• Provided for liability of persons responsible for releases of hazardous waste at these sites; and
• Established a trust fund to provide for cleanup when no responsible party could be identified.

The law authorizes two kinds of response actions:

• Short-term removals, where actions may be taken to address releases or threatened releases requiring prompt response; and
• Long-term remedial response actions that permanently and significantly reduce the dangers associated with releases or threats of releases of hazardous substances that are serious, but not immediately life-threatening. These actions can be completed only at sites listed on the EPA’s National Priorities List.

CERCLA also enabled the revision of the National Contingency Plan (NCP). The NCP provided the guidelines and procedures needed to respond to releases and threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants. The NCP also established the National Priorities List.

CERCLA was amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act on October 17, 1986.
68 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), enacted in 1976, is the principal federal law in the United States governing the disposal of solid waste and hazardous waste. RCRA gives the EPA the authority to control hazardous waste from the “cradle to the grave.” This includes the generation, transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste. RCRA also sets forth a framework for the management of non-hazardous solid wastes.

The Federal Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) are the 1984 amendments to RCRA that focused on waste minimization, phasing out land disposal of hazardous waste, and corrective action for releases. Some of the other mandates of this law include increased enforcement

68 United States Environmental Protection Agency. “Superfund: CERCLA Overview.” Accessed May 11, 2020. https://www.epa.gov/superfund/superfund-cercla-overview.

Memorial Park Specific Plan 87 Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024
authority for the EPA, more stringent hazardous waste management standards, and a comprehensive underground storage tank program.69

Government Code Section 65962.5
Section 65962.5 of the Government Code requires CalEPA to develop and update a list of hazardous waste and substances sites, known as the Cortese List. The Cortese List is used by state and local agencies and developers to comply with CEQA requirements. The Cortese List includes hazardous substance release sites identified by the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) and State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB).
70 Toxic Substances Control Act
The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) of 1976 provides the EPA with authority to require reporting, record-keeping and testing requirements, and restrictions relating to chemical substances and/or mixtures. Certain substances are generally excluded from TSCA, including, among others, food, drugs, cosmetics, and pesticides. The TSCA addresses the production, importation, use, and disposal of specific chemicals including polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), asbestos, radon, and lead-based paint.

California Accidental Release Prevention Program
The California Accidental Release Prevention (CalARP) Program aims to prevent accidental releases of regulated hazardous materials that represent a potential hazard beyond the boundaries of a property. Facilities that are required to participate in the CalARP Program use or store specified quantities of toxic and flammable substances (hazardous materials) that can have off-site consequences if accidentally released. The Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health reviews CalARP risk management plans as the CUPA.

Asbestos-Containing Materials
Friable asbestos is any asbestos-containing material (ACM) that, when dry, can easily be crumbled or pulverized to a powder by hand, allowing the asbestos particles to become airborne. Common examples of products that have been found to contain friable asbestos include acoustical ceilings, plaster, wallboard, and thermal insulation for water heaters and pipes. Common examples of non- friable ACMs are asphalt roofing shingles, vinyl floor tiles, and transite siding made with cement.

The EPA began phasing out use of friable asbestos products in 1973 and issued a ban in 1978 on manufacture, import, processing, and distribution of some asbestos-containing products and new

69 United States Environmental Protection Agency. “Summary of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.” Accessed October 16, 2023. https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-resource-conservation-and- recovery-act.
70 California Environmental Protection Agency. “Cortese List Data Resources.” Accessed October 16, 2023. https://calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/.

Memorial Park Specific Plan 88 Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024
uses of asbestos products.71 The EPA is currently considering a proposed ban on on-going use of asbestos.72 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) guidelines require that potentially friable ACMs be removed prior to building demolition or remodeling that may disturb the ACMs.

CCR Title 8, Section 1532.1
The United States Consumer Product Safety Commission banned the use of lead-based paint in 1978. Removal of older structures with lead-based paint is subject to requirements outlined by the Cal/OSHA Lead in Construction Standard, CCR Title 8, Section 1532.1 during demolition activities.

Requirements include employee training, employee air monitoring, and dust control. If lead-based paint is peeling, flaking, or blistered, it is required to be removed prior to demolition.

Regional and Local
Municipal Regional Permit Provision C.12.f
PCBs were produced in the United States between 1955 and 1978 and used in hundreds of industrial and commercial applications, including building and structure materials such as plasticizers, paints, sealants, caulk, and wood floor finishes. In 1979, the EPA banned the production and use of PCBs due to their potential harmful health effects and persistence in the environment.

PCBs can still be released to the environment today during demolition of buildings that contain legacy caulks, sealants, or other PCB-containing materials.

With the adoption of the San Francisco Bay Region Municipal Regional Stormwater National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit (MRP) by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board on November 19, 2015, Provision C.12.f requires that permittees develop an assessment methodology for applicable structures planned for demolition to ensure PCBs do not enter municipal storm drain systems.
73 Municipalities throughout the Bay Area are
currently modifying demolition permit processes and implementing PCB screening protocols to comply with Provision C.12.f. Buildings constructed between 1950 and 1980 that are proposed for demolition must be screened for the presence of PCBs prior to the issuance of a demolition permit.

Single family homes and wood-frame structures are exempt from these requirements.

Santa Clara County Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
Santa Clara County’s 2017 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) performs a full risk assessment on the nine hazards that present the greatest concern in Santa Clara County. The nine hazards focused

71 United States Environmental Protection Agency. “EPA Actions to Protect the Public from Exposure to Asbestos.” Accessed April 19, 2022. https://www.epa.gov/asbestos/epa-actions-protect-public-exposure-asbestos 72Ibid.
73 California Regional Water Quality Control Board. San Francisco Bay Region Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit. November 2015.

Memorial Park Specific Plan 89 Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024
on for this mitigation plan are climate change/sea-level rise, dam and levee failure, drought, earthquakes, floods, landslides, severe weather, tsunamis, and wildfires.

The City’s annex, Chapter 3 of the document, provides a detailed overview of the City’s response capabilities, the organizational structure of local authorities, risk rating scores that determine which hazards present the greatest risk to Cupertino, and a priority schedule for mitigation actions planned by local and regional agencies. These mitigation actions include requiring all new construction, including public facilities, to be built in accordance with the most recent Building and Fire Code standards, integrating the LHMP into other plans, ordinances and programs that dictate land use decisions within the community, maintaining good standing and compliance under the National Flood Insurance Program, and maintaining a storm drain master plan in order to develop and prioritize capital projects.

Policy/Strategy Description
Policy HS-1.1 Coordinate with Santa Clara County and local agencies to implement the Multi- Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) for Santa Clara County.

Policy HS-3.2 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 HS-6.1 Require the proper storage and disposal of hazardous materials to prevent leakage, potential explosions, fire, or the release of harmful fumes. 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.

Strategy HS-1.1.2 Ensure that mitigation actions identified in the LHMP are being incorporated into upcoming City sponsored projects, where appropriate.

City of Cupertino Municipal Code
Chapter 9.12 of the City’s Municipal Code 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 16.40 of the Municipal Code contains regulations based on the 2022 California Fire Code, which govern conditions hazardous to life and property from fire or explosion. Section 17.04.050 of the City’s Municipal Code outlines standard environmental protection permit submittal requirements that apply to development projects within the City. Pursuant to this section, development projects are required to prepare a Phase I ESA to evaluate site history, existing observable conditions, current site use, and current and former uses of surrounding properties to

Memorial Park Specific Plan 90 Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024
identify the potential presence of Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs). If the Phase I ESA identifies RECs, then a Phase II ESA is required for the site.

Cupertino Emergency Operations Plan
The Cupertino Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) establishes policy direction for emergency planning, mitigation, response, and recovery activities within the City. 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.

Existing Conditions
Site History
The project site has historically been used as agricultural land. As late as 1968, the site and adjacent parcels were developed with orchards and small structures typical of residences and associated outbuildings. The park was gradually built during the 1970s and 1980s, and the Quinlan Community Center was constructed on-site by 1991. There was a previous Senior Center building constructed on the southwest corner of the site by 1982; however, that was demolished and replaced by the current Senior Center in 2000.

On-Site Contamination
Based on the historic agricultural use of the site prior to development of the park and structures on- site, there is potential for residual agricultural chemicals in the soil (i.e., pesticides and fertilizers).

The Cupertino Senior Center and Quinlan Community Center have maintenance rooms that contain paints and other common building maintenance supplies. There are several maintenance sheds within Memorial Park that contain materials such as fuel and pesticides. These materials are stored properly and there is no evidence of significant chemical spills. Based on the age of the existing Cupertino Senior Center and Quinlan Community Center buildings, it is unlikely that either building contains lead-based paint and/or ACMs. However, there are several structures within Memorial Park (i.e., restrooms, maintenance sheds, and storage sheds) that were constructed during the 1970s. These structures have a greater potential to contain lead-based paint and/or ACMs. The project site is not on the Cortese List
74 and there are no recorded hazardous materials releases on the project site.

74 California Environmental Protection Agency. “Cortese List Data Resources.” Accessed August 14, 2023. https://calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist.

5.9.1.2 Memorial Park Specific Plan 91 Initial Study/Addendum City of Cupertino January 2024
Off-Site Sources of Contamination
Land uses surrounding the site include residential, recreational, and educational facility uses. There are no reported hazardous material spill incidents within the site vicinity that would be likely to significantly impact the site.75

Airport Safety
The nearest airport to the project site is Moffett Federal Airfield, which is located approximately 5.3 miles north of the project site. The site is not located within the airfield’s Airport Influence Area, 65 dBA noise contour area, FAR Part 77 horizontal surface zone, or airport safety zones.

Wildland Fire Hazards
According to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE), the project site is not located in a very high, high, or moderate fire hazard zone. 76 5.9.2 Impact Discussion

b) 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?

c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous
or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or
waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?

d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a
result, will it create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment?

75 Cornerstone Earth Group, Inc. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment - Cupertino Memorial Park, 10185 North Stelling Road, and 21251 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Cupertino. October 13, 2022. Page 14. 76 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. “FHSZ Viewer.” Webmap. Accessed August 15, 2023. https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/.
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□

Memorial Park Specific Plan 92 Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024

New Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
New Less than
Significant
Impact
Same Impact
as Approved
Project
Would the project:
e) For a project located within an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport or
public use airport, result in a safety hazard or
excessive noise for people residing or working in
the project area?

f) Impair implementation of, or physically interfere
with, an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?

g) Expose people or structures, either directly or
indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving wildland fires?

a) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?

The 2019 IS/MND determined that future projects constructed under the Master Plan would not involve the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, and would only include small amounts of fuels, oils, lubricants, pesticides, paints, and cleaning agents are currently used within City facilities for routine maintenance. The 2019 IS/MND concluded that because future projects would be subject to state and local regulations regarding the proper handling and storage of hazardous materials and would be reviewed by the City once project-level plans were available, implementation of the Master Plan would result in a less than significant impact. 77 The project does not propose any land uses that would result in hazardous materials being routinely transported, used, or disposed of in quantities that would pose a significant health hazard to the public. After construction is completed, the project site would continue to use and store small amounts of standard fuels, oils, lubricants, pesticides, paints, and cleaning agents for routine maintenance. These small quantities of common hazardous materials would not pose a risk to site users or adjacent land uses as they would be properly stored and disposed of, consistent with the findings of the 2019 IS/MND. (Same Impact as Approved Project)

77 City of Cupertino. Parks and Recreation System Master Plan – Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. SCH # 2019109066. October 2019. Pages 147 to 148.
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□

Memorial Park Specific Plan 93 Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024
b) Would the project 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 2019 IS/MND concluded that because future projects would be subject to state and local regulations regarding the proper handling and storage of hazardous materials and would be reviewed by the City once project-level plans were available, implementation of the Master Plan would not involve the use of hazardous materials in amounts that would pose a significant hazard to the environment through foreseeable upset and release conditions.78

Historic Pesticide Use On-Site
Given the historic agricultural use in the project area, soils on-site may contain levels of pesticides exceeding applicable screening thresholds. The Phase I ESA prepared for the project identified this as a REC that should be evaluated further. The project would comply with Municipal Code Section

17.04.040 by preparing a Phase II ESA that would sample and analyze soil on-site to determine whether there are any elevated levels of soil contamination and identify proper remediation of that contamination (if found) under regulatory agency oversight.

Asbestos-Containing Materials and Lead-Based Paint
The Phase I ESA prepared for the project identified several structures within Memorial Park (i.e., restrooms, maintenance sheds, and storage sheds) that were likely constructed during the 1970s.

Based on the construction date, it is possible that these structures contain lead-based paint and/or ACMs. In addition, it is possible that the soil near these wood-framed structures could be impacted by pesticides historically used to control termites. There is a potential that residual lead and pesticide concentrations could remain in soil on-site, which was identified as a REC in the Phase I ESA. Consistent with local and state regulations, an asbestos survey would be completed for existing buildings on-site prior to demolition in accordance with the NESHAP guidelines. Soil sampling and analysis for residual lead and pesticide concentrations would be completed as part of the previously mentioned Phase II ESA, consistent with the requirements of Municipal Code Section

17.04.040.

The proposed project would reduce impacts from historic agricultural use on-site, ACMs, and LBP to a less than significant level by requiring a survey for asbestos and its removal in accordance with NESHAP guidelines to control asbestos emissions, soil sampling to determine whether elevated levels of lead or pesticides are present in the soils, and removal and disposal of LBP in accordance with OSHA regulations to protect worker health and safety. (Same Impact as Approved Project)

78 Ibid. Pages 147 to 148.

Memorial Park Specific Plan 94 Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024
c) Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?

The 2019 IS/MND determined that although several parks and recreational facilities are near or immediately adjacent to schools, the small quantities and types of chemicals used in the parks for routine maintenance would not pose a hazard to the school populations. Compliance with applicable federal, state, and local regulation and the City’s policies and regulations contained in the General Plan and Municipal Code would reduce potential impacts from hazardous materials to schools would to a less than significant level.79

There are two schools within one-quarter mile of the project site: William Faria Elementary School at 10155 Barbara Lane 0.20-mile southeast of the site and Village Little Preschool Center at 10100 North Stelling Road 0.10-mile southeast of the site. As discussed under checklist question a) above, the project would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous (or acutely hazardous) materials, substances, or waste. During project construction, the project would comply with CalARP, NESHAP guidelines, and MRP Provision C.12.f to properly screen, handle, transport, and dispose hazardous materials. In addition, as discussed in Section 5.3 Air Quality, the project would implement BAAQMD best management practices and using efficient construction equipment to reduce emissions of air pollutants.

The project site would continue to use and store small amounts of standard fuels, oils, lubricants, pesticides, paints, and cleaning agents for routine maintenance. These materials would continue to be stored consistent with City regulations, and would not create a hazard for on-site visitors or neighboring properties. Therefore, the project would not significantly emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. (Same Impact as Approved Project)

d) Would the project 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, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?

The 2019 IS/MND concluded that none of the existing City parks or facilities in the Master Plan are listed on the Cortese List pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5, therefore, there would be no impact.80

The project site continues not to be included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5; therefore, it would result in the same impact as disclosed in the 2019 IS/MND. (Same Impact as Approved Project)

79 Ibid. Page 148.
80 Ibid. Page 148.

Memorial Park Specific Plan 95 Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024
e) If located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area?

The 2019 IS/MND concluded that since Cupertino is not within two miles of a public airport or within any airport land use plan defined by the Santa Clara County ALUC, implementation of the Master Plan would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area.

Therefore, there would be no impact.81

Moffett Federal Airfield, which is located approximately 5.3 miles north of the project site, is the nearest airport to the project site. The site is not located within the airfield’s Airport Influence Area, 65 dBA noise contour area, FAR Part 77 horizontal surface zone, or airport safety zones. Therefore, the project would not result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area, consistent with the findings of the 2019 IS/MND. (Same Impact as Approved Project)

f) Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?

The 2019 IS/MND concluded that future projects under the Master Plan would be reviewed in advance by the Santa Clara County Fire Department (SCCFD) and would be designed to be consistent with all applicable General Plan and Master Plan policies. Therefore, implementation of the Master Plan would not result in any impacts to an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.
82 Consistent with General Plan Policy HS-3.2, the SCCFD would review the proposed project during the design review process for each phase to ensure fire protection design features are incorporated and adequate emergency access is provided, and that none of the proposed improvements interfere with the City’s EOP. The project would be designed in compliance with all City regulations pertaining to emergency access, and would comply with the County’s LHMP by being built in accordance with the most recent Building and Fire Code, consistent with General Plan Strategy HS-

1.1.2. Based on this discussion, the proposed project would not impair or physically interfere with the implementation of any adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan, consistent with the findings of the 2019 IS/MND. (Same Impact as Approved Project)

81 Ibid. Page 148.
82 Ibid. Pages 148 and 149.

Memorial Park Specific Plan 96 Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024
g) Would the project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires?

The 2019 IS/MND disclosed that Memorial Park is not located in a Very High Fire Severity Zone (VHFSZ) or a High Fire Severity Zone (HFSZ).83 This condition has not changed since the adoption of the 2019 IS/MND.

The project site is in a developed, urban area and is not located near wildland areas that would be susceptible to wildland fires. For these reasons, implementation of the proposed project would not expose people or structures to wildland fires, consistent with the findings of the 2019 IS/MND. (Same Impact as Approved Project)

83 Ibid. Page 149.

Memorial Park Specific Plan 97 Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024
Hydrology and Water Quality

5.10.1 Environmental Setting
The regulatory framework and existing conditions have not changed substantially since the adoption of the 2019 IS/MND. Key regulations and project site conditions are described below.

Regulatory Framework
Federal and State
The federal Clean Water Act and California’s Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act are the primary laws related to water quality in California. Regulations set forth by the EPA and the SWRCB have been developed to fulfill the requirements of this legislation. EPA regulations include the NPDES permit program, which controls sources that discharge pollutants into the waters of the United States (e.g., streams, lakes, bays, etc.). These regulations are implemented at the regional level by the RWQCBs. The project site is within the jurisdiction of the San Francisco Bay RWQCB.

Under Section 303(d) of the federal Clean Water Act, the SWRCB and RWQCBs are required to identify impaired surface water bodies that do not meet water quality standards and develop total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) for contaminants of concern. The list of the state’s identified impaired surface water bodies, known as the “303(d) list” can be found on the on the SWRCB’s website.
84 National Flood Insurance Program
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) established the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) to reduce impacts of flooding on private and public properties. The program provides subsidized flood insurance to communities that comply with FEMA regulations protecting development in floodplains. As part of the program, FEMA publishes Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) that identify Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs). An SFHA is an area that would be inundated by the one-percent annual chance flood, which is also referred to as the base flood or 100-year flood.

Statewide Construction General Permit
The SWRCB has implemented an NPDES General Construction Permit for the State of California (Construction General Permit). For projects disturbing one acre or more of soil, a Notice of Intent (NOI) must be filed with the RWQCB by the project sponsor, and a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) must be prepared by a qualified professional prior to commencement of

84 California State Water Resources Control Board. 2020-2022 California Integrated Report (Clean Water Act Section 303(d) List and 305(b) Report). May 11, 2022.

5.10 5.10.1.1

Memorial Park Specific Plan 98 Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024
construction and filed with the RWQCB by the project sponsor. The Construction General Permit includes requirements for training, inspections, record keeping, and, for projects of certain risk levels, monitoring. The general purpose of the requirements is to minimize the discharge of pollutants and to protect beneficial uses and receiving waters from the adverse effects of construction-related storm water discharges.

Regional and Local
San Francisco Bay Basin Plan
The San Francisco Bay RWQCB regulates water quality in accordance with the Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay Basin (Basin Plan). The Basin Plan lists the beneficial uses that the San Francisco Bay RWQCB has identified for local aquifers, streams, marshes, rivers, and the San Francisco Bay, as well as the water quality objectives and criteria that must be met to protect these uses. The San Francisco Bay RWQCB implements the Basin Plan by issuing and enforcing waste discharge requirements, including permits for nonpoint sources such as the urban runoff discharged by a City’s stormwater drainage system. The Basin Plan also describes watershed management programs and water quality attainment strategies.

Municipal Regional Permit Provision C.3
The San Francisco Bay RWQCB re-issued the MRP in May 2022 to regulate stormwater discharges from municipalities and local agencies (co-permittees) in Alameda, Contra Costa, San Mateo, and Santa Clara Counties, and the cities of Fairfield, Suisun City, and Vallejo.85 Under Provision C.3 of the MRP, new and redevelopment projects that create or replace 5,000 square feet or more of impervious surface area are required to implement site design, source control, and LID-based stormwater treatment controls to treat post-construction stormwater runoff. LID-based treatment controls are intended to maintain or restore the site’s natural hydrologic functions, maximizing opportunities for infiltration and evapotranspiration, and using stormwater as a resource (e.g., rainwater harvesting for non-potable uses). The MRP also requires that stormwater treatment measures are properly installed, operated, and maintained.

In addition to water quality controls, the MRP requires new development and redevelopment projects that create or replace one acre or more of impervious surface to manage development- related increases in peak runoff flow, volume, and duration, where such hydromodification is likely to cause increased erosion, silt pollutant generation, or other impacts to local rivers, streams, and creeks. Projects may be deemed exempt from these requirements if: (1) the post-project impervious surface area is less than, or the same as, the pre-project impervious surface area; (2) the project is located in a catchment that drains to a hardened (e.g., continuously lined with concrete) engineered channel or channels or enclosed pipes, which extend continuously to the Bay, Delta, or

85 California Regional Water Quality Control Board San Francisco Region. Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit, Order No. R2-2022-0018, NPDES Permit No. CAS612008. May 11, 2022

Memorial Park Specific Plan 99 Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024
flow controlled reservoir, or, in a catchment that drains to channels that are tidally influenced; or (3) the project is located in a catchment or subwatershed that is highly developed (i.e., that is 70 percent or more impervious).86

Municipal Regional Permit Provision C.12.f
Provision C.12.f of the MRP requires co-permittee agencies to implement a control program for PCBs that reduces PCB loads by a specified amount during the term of the permit, thereby making substantial progress toward achieving the urban runoff PCBs wasteload allocation in the Basin Plan by March 2030.87 Programs must include focused implementation of PCB control measures, such as source control, treatment control, and pollution prevention strategies. Municipalities throughout the Bay Area are updating their demolition permit processes to incorporate the management of PCBs in demolition building materials to ensure PCBs are not discharged to storm drains during demolition. Buildings constructed between 1950 and 1980 that are proposed for demolition must be screened for the presence of PCBs prior to the issuance of a demolition permit. Single-family residential and wood frame structures are exempt.

Water Resources Protection Ordinance and District Well Ordinance Valley Water operates as the flood control agency for Santa Clara County. Valley Water also provides stream stewardship and is the wholesale water supplier throughout the county, which includes the groundwater recharge program. Well construction and deconstruction permits, including borings 45 feet or deeper, are required under Valley Water’s Well Ordinance 90-1. Under Valley Water’s Water Resources Protection Ordinance, projects within Valley Water property or easements are required to obtain encroachment permits.

2021 Groundwater Management Plan
The 2021 Groundwater Management Plan (GWMP) describes Valley Water’s comprehensive groundwater management framework, including existing and potential actions to achieve basin sustainability goals and ensure continued sustainable groundwater management. The GWMP covers the Santa Clara and Llagas subbasins, which are located entirely in Santa Clara County. Valley Water manages a diverse water supply portfolio, with sources including groundwater, local surface water, imported water, and recycled water. About half of the county’s water supply comes from local sources and the other half comes from imported sources. Imported water includes the District’s State Water Project and Central Valley contract supplies and supplies delivered by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) to cities in northern Santa Clara County. Local sources

86 The Hydromodification Applicability Maps developed the permittees under Order No. R2-2009-0074 were prepared using this standard, adjusted to 65 percent imperviousness to account for the presence of vegetation on the photographic references used to determine imperviousness. Thus, the maps for Order No. R2-2009-0074 are accepted as meeting the 70 percent requirement.
87 California Regional Water Quality Control Board San Francisco Region. Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit, Order No. R2-2022-0018, NPDES Permit No. CAS612008. May 11, 2022

Memorial Park Specific Plan 100 Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024
include natural groundwater recharge and surface water supplies. A small portion of the county’s water supply is recycled water.

L
ocal groundwater resources make up the foundation of the county’s water supply, but they need to be augmented by the District’s comprehensive water supply management activities to reliably meet the county’s needs. These include the managed recharge of imported and local surface water and in-li
eu groundwater recharge through the provision of treated surface water and raw water, acquisition of supplemental water supplies, and water conservation and recycling.88

Policy/Strategy Description
Policy ES-7.1 In public and private development, use low impact development (LID) principles to mimic natural hydrology, minimize grading and protect or restore natural drainage systems.

Policy ES-7.2 Minimize stormwater runoff and erosion impacts resulting from development and use LID designs to treat stormwater or recharge groundwater.

Policy ES-7.3 Ensure that surface and groundwater quality impacts are reduced through development review and volunteer efforts.

Policy ES-7.11 Water Conservation and Demand Reduction Measures. Promote efficient use of water throughout the City in order to meet State and regional water use reduction targets.

Strategy INF-4.1.1 Reduce the demand on storm drain capacity through implementation of programs that meet and even exceed on-site drainage requirements.

Strategy ES-7.1.1 Continue to require topographical information; identification of creeks, streams, and drainage areas; and grading plans for both public and private development proposals to ensure protection and efficient use of water resources.

Strategy ES-7.2.3 Minimize impervious surface areas, and maximize on-site filtration and the use of on-site retention facilities.

Strategy ES-7.3.1 Require LID designs such as vegetated stormwater treatment systems and green infrastructure to mitigate pollutant loads and flows.

Strategy ES-7.4.3 Review development plans to ensure that projects are examined in the context of impacts on the entire watershed, in order to comply with the City’s non-point source Municipal Regional Permit.

88 Valley Water. 2021 Groundwater Management Plan, Santa Clara and Llagas Subbasins .November 2021.

Memorial Park Specific Plan 101 Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024
Cupertino 2020 Parks and Recreation System Master Plan
The City’s Master Plan was adopted in February 2020, and outlines the City’s comprehensive plan for parks and recreational facilities in the City through the year 2040. The Master Plan is organized around seven goals, which include conservation, connection, equitable access, enhancement, activity, quality, and sustainability. Each of the seven goals has associated objectives that reflect the City’s desired outcomes and actions that provide ideas or strategies that help achieve the broader goals. The primary goal and objective in the Master Plan regarding hydrology is:
• Objective 1.D, which encourages projects to embrace storm water management by incorporating green infrastructure elements such as rain gardens, bioswales, permeable pavers and detention ponds to help reduce flooding, filter pollutants, and replenish groundwater during storm events.

City of Cupertino Municipal Code
In addition to the General Plan, the City’s Municipal Code guides development in the City. Chapter

9.18, Stormwater Pollution Prevention and Watershed Protection, outlines the City’s minimum requirements designed to control the discharge of pollutants into the City of Cupertino’s storm drain system and to assure that discharges from the City’s storm drain system comply with applicable provisions of the federal Clean Water Act and NPDES Permit. Section 16.08.110, Interim Erosion and Sediment Control Plan, requires preparation of an Interim Erosion and Sediment Control Plan. Consistent with this section of the Municipal Code, the plan shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works, calculate the maximum runoff from the site for a 10-year storm event, describe measures to be undertaken to retain sediment on the site, provide a brief description of the surface runoff and erosion control measures to be implemented, and detail vegetative measures to be undertaken.

Cupertino General Conditions
The City of Cupertino maintains a list of general conditions that contractors must implement or comply with while working on municipal projects. General Condition 7.20 – Storm Water Pollution control outlines a variety of requirements that projects must comply with. These include requirements to implement stormwater BMPs during construction, obtain all necessary permits, prepare a SWPPP is necessary, and prevent contaminated runoff from construction equipment.

Existing Conditions
Water Quality
The water quality of streams, creeks, ponds, and other surface water bodies can be greatly affected by pollution carried in contaminated surface runoff. Pollutants from unidentified sources, known as nonpoint source pollutants, are washed from streets, construction sites, parking lots, and other exposed surfaces into storm drains. Urban stormwater runoff often contains contaminants such as oil and grease, plant and animal debris (e.g., leaves, dust, animal feces, etc.), pesticides, litter, and

5.10.1.2 Memorial Park Specific Plan 102 Initial Study/Addendum City of Cupertino January 2024
heavy metals. In sufficient concentration, these pollutants have been found to adversely affect the aquatic habitats to which they drain.

While there are no streams, creeks, ponds, or other surface water bodies located within the project site, Stevens Creek is located approximately 0.8-mile west of the project site. Stevens Creek is on the 2006 Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list due to diazinon pollution, total toxicity levels, the water temperature in the creek, and solid waste pollution.

Groundwater
The City of Cupertino overlies the Santa Clara Subbasin (DWR Basin 2-9.02), a groundwater subbasin that is 297 square miles in area. Valley Water is responsible for managing groundwater in Santa Clara County, which includes conducting an artificial groundwater recharge program that involves releasing locally conserved or imported water to in-stream and off-stream facilities to augment groundwater supplies in the Santa Clara groundwater basin. Most of Cupertino, including the project site, is located within the recharge area of the Santa Clara Subbasin.89 Valley Water owns and manages the only recharge facility within Cupertino, which is the McClellan Road Ponds recharge facility located 0.55-mile southwest of the project site.90

As discussed in Section 5.7.1.2 Existing Conditions, no groundwater was encountered during the subsurface investigation on-site, and it is estimated that historic high groundwater under the site is approximately 50 feet bgs. Water levels on-site may vary depending on seasonal precipitation, irrigation practices, and other climate conditions.

Stormwater Drainage
The project site is developed with two existing buildings, large, landscaped areas, surface parking lots, walking paths, sports courts, and a softball field. The project site consists of eight acres (or approximately 35 percent) of percent impervious surfaces and 14.5 acres (or approximately 65 percent) of pervious surfaces. Stormwater runoff from the project site enters the City’s main storm drain system and eventually flows to the San Francisco Bay.

Flooding
The project site is not located within a 100-year flood hazard area. According to the FEMA, the project site is in Zone X with 0.2 percent annual chance of flood.91

89 Santa Clara Valley Water District. 2021 Groundwater Management Plan. Accessed August 16, 2023. https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/assets.valleywater.org/2021_GWMP_web_version.pdf. 90 City of Cupertino. Parks and Recreation System Master Plan – Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. SCH # 2019109066. October 2019. Page 151.
91 Federal Emergency Management Agency. Flood Insurance Rate Map, Community Panel No. 06085C0208H.

Effective Date May 17, 2009.

Memorial Park Specific Plan 103 Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024
Other Inundation Hazards
A seiche is a standing wave oscillating in a body of water that can produce flooding along the shoreline under certain natural conditions.92 There are no bodies of water such as lakes, harbors, or reservoirs near the project site that would affect the site in the event of a seiche. The project site is not close enough to San Francisco Bay to be affected in the event of a tsunami. 93 5.10.2 Impact Discussion

New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
New Less than
Significant
Impact
Same Impact
as Approved
Project
Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements or otherwise
substantially degrade surface or ground water
quality?

b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge such that the project may impede
sustainable groundwater management of the
basin?

c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern
of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river or
through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a
manner which would:

- result in substantial erosion or siltation
on- or off-site;

- substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a manner
which would result in flooding on- or
off-site;

- create or contribute runoff water which
would exceed the capacity of existing
or planned stormwater drainage
systems or provide substantial
additional sources of polluted runoff;
or

- impede or redirect flood flows?

92 National Ocean Service. What is a Seiche? Accessed August 16, 2023. https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/seiche.html.
93 Association of Bay Area Governments. Tsunami & Additional Hazards. Accessed August 16, 2023. https://abag.ca.gov/our-work/resilience/data-research/tsunami-additional-hazards. □
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□

Memorial Park Specific Plan 104 Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024

e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a
water quality control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan?

a) Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?

The 2019 IS/MND determined that future projects under the Master Plan would result in minor site disturbances that could potentially increase the amount of sediment runoff into the City’s storm drains or natural drainage channels, which could impact runoff water quality. Consistent with the vision of the Master Plan, future projects would incorporate green infrastructure to capture runoff and would comply with applicable state and local ordinances such as the SWRCB Construction General Permit and Municipal Code Chapters 9.18, 9.19, and 16.08. The 2019 IS/MND found that, in combination with implementation of City General Conditions, adherence to these regulations would reduce impacts to water quality standards or waste discharge requirements to a less than significant level.
94 Construction
Implementation of the proposed project would require demolition, excavation, grading, and paving of the project site, which could result in temporary impacts to surface water quality. These construction activities could increase erosion and sedimentation once the disturbed soil is exposed to water and wind. This would increase the potential for soil, sediment, and pollutants to be carried by runoff into local waterways and the San Francisco Bay.

Since the proposed project would disturb more than one acre, it is required to comply with the State of California General Construction Permit and submit a SWPPP and NOI to the SWRCB.

Compliance with the General Construction Permit would ensure that all BMPs related to stormwater pollution prevention for construction projects are implemented. In addition, the project would comply with City General Condition 7.20 which outlines specific measures and practices that are required to control stormwater pollution during construction activities. The project would also comply with Municipal Code Chapters 9.18, 9.19, and 16.18 which outline requirements for

94 City of Cupertino. Parks and Recreation System Master Plan – Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. SCH # 2019109066. October 2019. Pages 157 to 158.
□
□
□
□
□
□

Memorial Park Specific Plan 105 Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024
stormwater pollution prevention and watershed protection, water resource protection, and Interim Erosion and Sediment Control Plans, respectively. For these reasons, project construction would not result in significant water quality impacts, consistent with the findings of the 2019 IS/MND. (Same Impact as Approved Project)

Post-Construction
The project would replace more than 5,000 square feet of impervious surface at the project site; therefore, it is required to comply with Provision C.3 of the MRP which requires implementation of site design, source control, and LID-based stormwater treatment controls to reduce the pollutant loads of runoff from the project. The project would reduce and treat surface runoff on-site by constructing landscaped bioretention areas and installing pervious paving materials in select areas throughout the site to promote on-site infiltration. Development of the proposed project, in compliance with existing regulations and best management practices (including the MRP), would not result in significant water quality impacts, consistent with the findings of the 2019 IS/MND. (Same Impact as Approved Project)

b) Would the project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?

The 2019 IS/MND determined that future projects under the Master Plan would be consistent with the design requirements in the Master Plan which encourage installation of permeable surfaces. In addition, projects would comply with state and local requirements, such as incorporating LID treatment measures consistent with NPDES permit requirements. Based on these factors, the 2019 IS/MND concluded that implementation of the Master Plan would not substantially decrease water supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge, and the impact would be considered less than significant.
95 Groundwater recharge occurs when surface water percolates through the soil to recharge groundwater aquifers. As discussed in Section 5.10.1.2 Existing Conditions, the project site is located within the recharge area of the Santa Clara Subbasin. The proposed project would increase on-site impervious surfaces by approximately 1.6 acres (or seven percent) compared to existing conditions. However, the project would construct landscaped bioretention areas and install pervious paving materials on-site to promote on-site infiltration, in compliance with Provision C.3 of the MRP. In addition, the project would plant drought-tolerant landscaping and install high- efficiency irrigation equipment, which would reduce the amount of water use on-site, consistent with Master Plan Objective 7B, the City’s Landscape Ordinance, and the Green Building Code.

Implementation of the project would not require pumping of groundwater underneath the project

95 Ibid. Page 158.

Memorial Park Specific Plan 106 Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024
site, nor would it interfere with the operation of the nearby McClellan Road Ponds recharge facility, which is located 0.55-mile southwest of the project site.

Based on this discussion, the project would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge, consistent with the findings of the 2019 IS/MND. (Same Impact as Approved Project)

c) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site; create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or impede or redirect flood flows?

The 2019 IS/MND determined that improvements identified in the Master Plan would not result in the alteration of the course of a stream or river, and compliance with existing regulations such as NPDES permit requirements, Municipal Code Chapters 9.18 and 16.08, and City General Conditions would prevent substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site. In addition, projects implemented under the Master Plan would incorporate LID treatment measures consistent with NPDES permit requirements and comply with Master Plan Objective 1.D which is meant to reduce flooding, filter pollutants, and replenish groundwater. Projects under the Master Plan would not significantly change the amount of impervious surfaces within parks, and compliance with existing regulations in the City and the MRP would prevent the exceedance of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems.96

There are no streams or rivers on-site, therefore, the proposed project would not affect the existing drainage pattern of any streams or rivers. As discussed under checklist question a) and checklist question b) above, although the proposed project would increase the amount of impervious surfaces on-site, it would also construct landscaped bioretention areas and install pervious paving materials on-site and comply with NPDES permit requirements, MRP, and Municipal Code Chapters

9.18 and 16.08. This would reduce the amount of stormwater runoff from the site and prevent the exceedance of capacity in the adjacent stormwater drainage systems serving the site.

Based on this discussion, the proposed project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or create or contribute runoff which would exceed existing stormwater drainage capacity or result in flooding on- or off-site, consistent with the findings of the 2019 IS/MND. (Same Impact as Approved Project)

96 Ibid. Pages 158 to 160.

Memorial Park Specific Plan 107 Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024
d) Would the project risk release of pollutants due to project inundation in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones?

The 2019 IS/MND determined that Memorial Park was not at risk of inundation from seiches or tsunamis, and future projects would not involve use of hazardous materials in large amounts. Based on this discussion, the 2019 IS/MND concluded that the risk of release of pollutants due to project inundation would be considered less than significant.97

Consistent with the assumptions in the 2019 IS/MND, the project would not use or store substantial quantities of hazardous materials on-site. As discussed in Section 5.10.1.2 Existing Conditions, the project site is not located within a 100-year flood hazard area. The project site is in Zone X with a

0.2 percent annual chance of flooding.

San Francisco Bay presents an inundation risk to sections of the coastline during a tsunami. The project site is not located near enough to San Francisco Bay to be affected in the event of a tsunami. As discussed previously, there are no bodies of water such as lakes, harbors, or reservoirs near the project site that would affect the site in the event of a seiche.

Based on the above discussion, implementation of the proposed project would not risk release of pollutants due to inundation in flood hazard, tsunami or seiche zones, consistent with the findings of the 2019 IS/MND. (Same Impact as Approved Project)

e) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?

The 2019 IS/MND determined that future projects under the Master Plan would not conflict or obstruct the Basin Plan or Valley Water GWMP because future ground disturbing activities would implement BMPs and LID treatment measures. Therefore, the 2019 IS/MND concluded that implementation of the Master Plan would result in less than significant impacts to water quality control plans and sustainable groundwater management plans.98

The San Francisco Basin Plan provides a framework for state and local governments to meet water quality objectives and criteria to protect the beneficial uses of local aquifers, streams, marshes, and San Francisco Bay. Consistent with the San Francisco Basin Plan, the proposed project would comply with the MRP requirement to install LID treatment controls to treat stormwater runoff. In addition, the project would not require any dewatering during excavation, would be designed to promote on- site water infiltration, and would include drought-tolerant landscaping and high-efficiency irrigation

97 Ibid. Page 160.
98 Ibid. Page 160.

Memorial Park Specific Plan 108 Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024
to limit water use. Therefore, the project would not interfere with implementation of the 2021 Groundwater Management Plan.

For these reasons, the project would not conflict with water quality control plans or sustainable groundwater management plans, consistent with the findings of the 2019 IS/MND. (Same Impact as Approved Project)

Memorial Park Specific Plan 109 Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024
Land Use and Planning

5.11.1 Environmental Setting
The regulatory framework and existing conditions have not changed substantially since the adoption of the 2019 IS/MND. Key regulations and project site conditions are described below.

Regulatory Framework
Local
Cupertino General Plan: Community Vision 2015-2040
The proposed project is subject to General Plan policies including, but not limited to, the policies and strategies listed below pertaining to land use.

Policy/Strategy Description
Policy LU-27.8 Protect residential neighborhoods from noise, traffic, light, glare, odors and visually intrusive effects from more intense development with landscape buffers, site and building design, setbacks and other appropriate measures.

Policy RPC-2.5 Provide parks and recreational facilities for a variety of recreational activities.

Policy RPC-4.1 Design parks appropriately to address the facility and recreational programming required by each special area and neighborhood based on current and future plans for the areas.

Heart of the City Specific Plan
The Heart of the City Specific Plan (Specific Plan) provides specific development guidance for the Stevens Creek Boulevard commercial corridor and is meant to guide the future development and redevelopment of the corridor. The Specific Plan provides standards and design guidelines for the properties within the Specific Plan area and outlines the appropriate development process for necessary improvements.

Cupertino 2020 Parks and Recreation System Master Plan
The City’s 2020 Master Plan was adopted in February 2020, and outlines the City’s comprehensive plan for parks and recreational facilities in the City through the year 2040. The Master Plan is organized around seven goals, which include conservation, connection, equitable access, enhancement, activity, quality, and sustainability. Each of the seven goals has associated objectives that reflect the City’s desired outcomes and actions that provide ideas or strategies that help achieve the broader goals.

City of Cupertino Municipal Code
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

5.11 5.11.1.1

Memorial Park Specific Plan 110 Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024
General Plan and proposed development projects. Title 19 of the Municipal Code establishes the City’s Zoning Ordinance. The Zoning Ordinance describes the zoning designations and contains the zoning map and development standards for each zoning designation. Zoning Ordinance Chapters

19.88 and 19.92 regulate Open Space and Parks and Recreation zones, respectively.

Existing Conditions
The project site is within the boundaries of the Heart of the City Special Area of the General Plan and has General Plan designations of Transportation, Parks and Open Space, and Public Facilities.

The project site is within the West Stevens Creek Boulevard subarea of the Special Area and is in the Community Recreation Node which consists of Memorial Park, the Senior Center, Sports Center, and Quinlan Community Center. The site is within the Heart of the City Specific Plan Area zoning district, and has a zoning designation of Open Space/Public Park/Recreational Zone.

The project site is currently developed with an operational park which includes an amphitheater and various recreational facilities, the Cupertino Senior Center, and the Quinlan Community Center.

The site is surrounded primarily by residential uses, and De Anza College is located south of the project site (south of Stevens Creek Boulevard).

5.11.2 Impact Discussion

New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
New Less than
Significant
Impact
Same Impact
as Approved
Project
Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to
a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or
regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding
or mitigating an environmental effect?

a) Would the project physically divide an established community?

The 2019 IS/MND concluded that the Master Plan would not include any recommended projects that would physically divide an established community; therefore, there would be no impact.99

The proposed project would implement various improvements to an existing City park and does not include improvements outside the existing park boundaries. This project would not involve the construction of substantial infrastructure, such as highways, freeways, or major arterial streets that

99 City of Cupertino. Parks and Recreation System Master Plan – Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. SCH # 2019109066. October 2019. Page 165.

5.11.1.2 □
□
□
□
□
□

Memorial Park Specific Plan 111 Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024
would physically divide the existing community surrounding the project site. The bicycle and pedestrian improvements included in the project would improve access to the park; therefore, the project would have no impact, consistent with the findings of the 2019 IS/MND. (Same Impact as Approved Project)

b) Would the project cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?

The 2019 IS/MND determined that future projects under the Master Plan would occur at existing park and recreation facilities designated as park or public facilities and would comply with the City’s adopted plans and policies and be designed to be consistent with Cupertino land use and zoning designations. Therefore, the 2019 IS/MND concluded that implementation of the Master Plan would result in less than significant impacts to land use plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. 100

General Plan
The project site has General Plan designations of Transportation, Parks and Open Space, and Public Facilities, and is within the boundaries of the Heart of the City Special Area. The Transportation designation applies to streets, highways, and rail corridors and covers a small portion of the site east of the Senior Center which includes a segment of the Mary Avenue driveway entrance and the associated right-of-way. The Parks and Open Space designation applies to land that is owned by the public and used for recreation, and covers the central portion of the Park which currently includes the tennis courts, softball field, amphitheater, Veterans Memorial, and Senior Center. The Public Facilities designation applies to land used by a governmental entity for a public purpose, and covers the Quinlan Community Center and the main reservable picnic area on-site. The proposed project would include a series of improvements within the park that would provide upgraded recreational facilities to the public, which is consistent with the intent of the General Plan designations. (Same Impact as Approved Project)

Heart of the City Specific Plan
The project site is within the Heart of the City Specific Plan Area zoning district and has a zoning designation of Open Space/Public Park/Recreational Zone. Within the Specific Plan, the park is meant to be an area focused on commerce and community that supports walking, biking, and transit through the provision of pedestrian and bicycle links such as bikeways and pedestrian pathways. The project would be consistent with the zoning designation of the site by maintaining the current land uses and constructing improvements consistent with the Specific Plan’s vision for the area. (Same Impact as Approved Project)

100 Ibid. Page 165.

Memorial Park Specific Plan 112 Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024

Cupertino 2020 Parks and Recreation System Master Plan
The Master Plan is organized around seven goals and their related objectives, which include conservation, connection, equitable access, enhancement, activity, quality, and sustainability. The project would be consistent with the assumptions in the 2019 IS/MND by maintaining the existing use on-site and implementing small-scale improvements to on-site amenities. (Same Impact as Approved Project)

Memorial Park Specific Plan 113 Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024
Mineral Resources

5.12.1 Environmental Setting
The regulatory framework and existing conditions have not changed substantially since the adoption of the 2019 IS/MND. Key regulations and project site conditions are described below.

Regulatory Framework
State
Surface Mining and Reclamation Act
The Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA) was enacted by the California legislature in 1975 to address the need for a continuing supply of mineral resources, and to prevent or minimize the negative impacts of surface mining to public health, property, and the environment. As mandated under SMARA, the State Geologist has designated mineral land classifications in order to help identify and protect mineral resources in areas within the state subject to urban expansion or other irreversible land uses which would preclude mineral extraction. SMARA also allowed the State Mining and Geology Board (SMGB), after receiving classification information from the State Geologist, to designate lands containing mineral deposits of regional or statewide significance.

Existing Conditions
The project site is not identified as a natural resource area containing mineral resources in the City’s General Plan, the land type of the site is classified as Urban/Suburban Developed – Unsuitable for Extraction.101 The project site is currently developed as a park and there are no known mineral resources on-site.

101 City of Cupertino. Cupertino General Plan Community Vision 2040. October 15, 2015. Page ES-10.

5.12 5.12.1.1

5.12 .1.2

Memorial Park Specific Plan 114 Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024

5.12.2 Impact Discussion

b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally
important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan, specific plan
or other land use plan?

a) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and residents of the state?

The 2019 IS/MND determined the implementation of the Master Plan would not create any loss of availability of a known mineral resource of value to the region and residents of the State, as no parks other than Linda Vista Park include known mineral resources.102 This condition has not changed, therefore, implementation of the project would result in the same impact as disclosed in the 2019 IS/MND. (Same Impact as Approved Project)

b) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan?

As discussed in Section 5.12.1.2 Existing Conditions, the project site is not identified as a natural resource area containing mineral resources in the City’s General Plan. 103 Therefore, implementation
of the project would not result in an impact to mineral resources delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan, consistent with the findings of the 2019 IS/MND. (Same Impact as Approved Project)

102 City of Cupertino. Parks and Recreation System Master Plan – Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. SCH # 2019109066. October 2019. Page 167.
103 Ibid. Page 167.
□
□
□
□
□
□

Memorial Park Specific Plan 115 Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024
Noise
The following discussion is based on the Noise and Vibration Assessment completed by Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. dated December 2023. A copy of the report is included in Appendix E of this Initial Study/Addendum.

5.13.1 Environmental Setting
The regulatory framework and existing conditions have not changed substantially since the adoption of the 2019 IS/MND. Key regulations and project site conditions are described below.

Background Information
Noise
Factors that influence sound as it is perceived by the human ear, include the actual level of sound, period of exposure, frequencies involved, and fluctuation in the noise level during exposure. Noise is measured on a decibel scale, which serves as an index of loudness. The zero on the decibel scale is based on the lowest sound level that the healthy, unimpaired human ear can detect. Each 10 decibel increase in sound level is perceived as approximately a doubling of loudness. Because the human ear cannot hear all pitches or frequencies, sound levels are frequently adjusted or weighted to correspond to human hearing. This adjusted unit is known as the A-weighted decibel, or dBA.

Since excessive noise levels can adversely affect human activities and human health, federal, state, and local governmental agencies have set forth criteria or planning goals to minimize or avoid these effects. Noise guidelines are generally expressed using one of several noise averaging methods, including L
eq, DNL, or CNEL.104 These descriptors are used to measure a location’s overall noise exposure, given that there are times when noise levels are higher (e.g., when a jet is taking off from an airport or when a leaf blower is operating) and times when noise levels are lower (e.g., during lulls in traffic flows on freeways or in the middle of the night). Lmax is the maximum A-weighted noise level during a measurement period.

Vibration
Ground vibration consists of rapidly fluctuating motions or waves with an average motion of zero.

Vibration amplitude can be quantified using Peak Particle Velocity (PPV), which is defined as the maximum instantaneous positive or negative peak of the vibration wave. PPV has been routinely

104 Leq is a measurement of average energy level intensity of noise over a given period of time. Day-Night Level (DNL) is a 24-hour average of noise levels, with a 10 dB penalty applied to noise occurring between 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM. Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) includes an additional five dB applied to noise occurring between 7:00 PM and 10:00 PM. Where traffic noise predominates, the CNEL and DNL are typically within two dBA of the peak-hour Leq.

5.13 5.13.1.1

Memorial Park Specific Plan 116 Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024
used to measure and assess ground-borne construction vibration. Studies have shown that the threshold of perception for average persons is in the range of 0.008 to 0.012 inches/second (in/sec) PPV.

Regulatory Framework
Federal
Federal Transit Administration Vibration Limits
The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has developed vibration impact assessment criteria for evaluating vibration impacts associated with transit projects. The FTA has proposed vibration impact criteria based on maximum overall levels for a single event. The impact criteria for groundborne vibration are shown in Table 5.13-1 below. These criteria can be applied to development projects in jurisdictions that lack vibration impact standards.

Table 5.13-1: Groundborne Vibration Impact Criteria

Land Use Category
Groundborne Vibration Impact Levels (VdB inch/sec)
Frequent Event Occasional Events Infrequent Events
Category 1: Buildings where vibration
would interfere with interior operations 65 65 65
Category 2: Residences and buildings
where people normally sleep 72 75 80
Category 3: Institutional land uses with
primarily daytime use 75 78 83
Source: Federal Transit Administration. Transit Noise and Vibration Assessment Manual. September 2018.

State and Local
California Green Building Standards Code
For commercial uses, CalGreen (Section 5.507.4.1 and 5.507.4.2) requires that wall and roof-ceiling assemblies exposed to the adjacent roadways have a composite STC rating of at least 50 or a composite OITC rating of no less than 40, with exterior windows of a minimum STC of 40 or OITC of 30 when the commercial property falls within the 65 dBA DNL or greater noise contour for a freeway or expressway, railroad, or industrial or stationary noise source. The state requires interior noise levels to be maintained at 50 dBA Leq(1-hr) or less during hours of operation at a proposed commercial use.

5.13.1.2 Memorial Park Specific Plan 117 Initial Study/Addendum City of Cupertino January 2024
Policy/Strategy Description
Policy HS-8.1 Use the General Plan Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments chart, the Future Noise Contour Map and the City Municipal Code to evaluate land use decisions.

Policy HS-8.2 Minimize noise impacts through appropriate building and site design.

Policy HS-8.3 Regulate construction and maintenance activities. Establish and enforce reasonable allowable periods of the day, during 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.

Strategy HS-8.2.3 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 designed and landscaped to fit into the environment.

City of Cupertino Municipal Code
The City of Cupertino Municipal Code contains a Zoning Ordinance that limits noise levels at adjacent properties. Municipal Code Section 10.48.010 defines daytime as the period from 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM weekdays, and the period from 9:00 AM to 6:00 PM on weekends. Nighttime is defined as periods of weekdays from 8:00 PM to 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. The following sections establish the applicable limits:

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, unless specifically provided in another section of this chapter in the Municipal Code:

Land Use at Point of Origin
Maximum Noise Level at Complaint Site of Receiving Property Nighttime Daytime
Residential 50 dBA 60 dBA
Nonresidential 55 dBA 65 dBA

• 10.48.050 Brief Daytime Incidents.
o During the daytime period only, brief noise incidents exceeding limits in other sections of this chapter are allowed; providing the sum of the noise duration in minutes plus the excess noise level does not exceed twenty in a two-hour period.

Noise Increment Above
Normal Standard
Noise Duration in
Two-Hour Period
5 dBA 15 minutes
10 dBA 10 minutes

Memorial Park Specific Plan 118 Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024

o For multifamily 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 10 in any two-hour period, measured at the receiving location.
o Section 10.48.050A does not apply to Section 10.48.055 (Motor Vehicle Idling). • Section 10.48.051 Landscape Maintenance Activities
o This section states that the use of motorized equipment for landscape maintenance activities for public schools, public and private golf courses, and public facilities is limited to the hours of 7 AM to 8 PM on weekdays and 7 AM to 6 PM on weekends and holidays. The section also states that the use of motorized equipment for landscape maintenance activities is exempt from the noise limits set forth in Section

10.48.040 provided reasonable efforts are made by the user to minimize 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. • 10.48.052 Outdoor Public Events
o A: 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:
 1. The event shall not produce noise levels above seventy dBA on any residential property for a period longer than three hours during daytime.  2. The event shall not produce noise levels above sixty dBA on any residential property during the period from eight p.m. to eleven p.m., and above fifty-five dBA for any other nighttime period.
 3. Continuous or repeated peak noise levels above ninety-five dBA shall not be produced at any location where persons may be continuously exposed. o B: 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.

Noise Increment Above
Normal Standard
Noise Duration in
Two-Hour Period
15 dBA 5 minutes
19 dBA 1 minutes

Memorial Park Specific Plan 119 Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024
• 10.48.053 Grading, Construction and Demolition
o Grading, construction, and demolition activities shall be allowed to exceed the noise limits of Section 10.48.040 during daytime hours; provided, that the equipment utilized has high-quality noise muffler and abatement devices installed and in good condition, and the activity meets one of the following two criteria:
 No individual device produces a noise level more than 87 dBA at a distance of 25 feet; or
 The noise level on any nearby property does not exceed 80 dBA. o Notwithstanding Section 10.48.053A, it is a violation of this chapter to engage in any grading, street construction, demolition, or underground utility work within 750 feet of a residential area on Saturdays, Sundays and holidays, and during the nighttime period, except as provided in Section 10.48.030.
o Construction, other than street construction, is prohibited on holidays, except as provided in Sections 10.48.029 and 10.48.030.
o Construction, other than street construction, is prohibited during nighttime periods unless it meets the nighttime standards of Section 10.48.040. o The use of helicopters as a part of a construction and/or demolition activity shall be restricted to between the hours of 9:00 AM and 6:30 PM 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 notice period may be waived.
• 13.04 Parks
o Section 13.04.190, Closing Hours – Prohibitions, states that no person shall remain, stay, or loiter in any public park between the hours of 10 PM and 6 AM, unless otherwise posted at the public park.

Existing Conditions
The existing noise environment on-site is dominated by traffic noise from Stevens Creek Boulevard, Stelling Road, Mary Avenue, Anton Way, Christensen Drive, and Alves Drive. In addition to the local traffic noise, noise is generated on-site by park visitors utilizing the softball field, tennis courts (including one court that is dual-lined to provide four pickleball courts), amphitheater, Cupertino Veterans Memorial, two playground areas, BBQ and picnic areas, Cupertino Senior Center, Quinlan Community Center, and parking lots. Visitors also use the softball field as an unsanctioned DOLA when the softball field is not in use. There are also events hosted in the park throughout the year, as detailed in Section 4.2 Park Programming, which draw up to 5,000 attendees for major events like the annual Cherry Blossom Festival. The average ambient noise at the park is 56 to 58 dBA CNEL. A summary of the long- and short-term noise levels measured on-site are included in Table

5.13-2 and Table 5.13-3 below. The noise measurement locations are shown on Figure 5.13-1 below.

5.13.1.3 Memorial Park Specific Plan 120 Initial Study/Addendum City of Cupertino January 2024
Table 5.13-2: Summary of Long-Term Noise Measurement Data (dBA) Noise Measurement Location Daytime Leq
Range
Nighttime Leq
Range
Average Noise Level
(CNEL)
LT-1: Memorial Park - West of Anton Way 49 to 60 34 to 55 58 LT-2: Memorial Park – Western Parking Lot 47 to 65 37 to 53 56 to 57 Source: Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. Memorial Park Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Assessment. October 16, 2023.

Table 5.13-3: Summary of Short-Term Noise Measurement Data (dBA) Noise Measurement Location Lmax L(1) L(10) L(50) L(90) Leq ST-1: Memorial Park - Picnic Area 64 62 58 53 48 55
ST-2: Memorial Park - Event Lawn and Tennis Courts 60 53 49 46 45 47 ST-3: Memorial Park - Playground 68 62 59 56 55 57
ST-4: Memorial Park - Softball Field 71 69 68 65 54 65
ST-5 Memorial Park - Pickleball Courts 68 65 61 56 53 58 ST-6 Memorial Park - Tennis Courts 70 64 59 57 56 58
Source: Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. Memorial Park Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Assessment. October 16, 2023.

North Stelling RoadNorth Stelling Road
Alves Drive
Stevens Creek Boulevard
Campus Drive
Mary Avenue
Anton Way
Christensen Drive
Glen Place
Parkwood Drive
Parkwood Drive
Parkwood Drive
Alves Drive
Stevens Creek Boulevard
Campus Drive
Mary Avenue
Anton Way
Christensen Drive
Glen Place
ParkwoodDrive
Parkwood Drive
ParkwoodDrive
85 ST-5 ST-6 ST-2
LT-2
LT-1
ST-1
ST-3
ST-4
Aerial Source: Google Earth Pro, Sep. 6, 2023. Photo Date: Mar. 2022 Project Boundary
Long-Term Noise Measurement Loca ƟonLT-#
Short-Term Noise Measurement Loca ƟonST-#
0 50 400 500 800 Feet
NOISE MEASUREMENT LOCATIONS FIGURE 5.13-1
-------- ------

Memorial Park Specific Plan 122 Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024

5.13.2 Impact Discussion

New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
New Less than
Significant
Impact
Same Impact
as Approved
Project
Would the project result in:
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or
permanent increase in ambient noise levels in
the vicinity of the project in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable standards of other
agencies?

b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration
or groundborne noise levels?

c) For a project located within the vicinity of a
private airstrip or an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within
two miles of a public airport or public use
airport, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?

The CEQA Guidelines state that a project would normally be considered to have a significant impact if noise levels conflict with adopted environmental standards or plans, or if noise levels generated by the project will substantially increase existing noise levels at noise-sensitive receivers on a permanent or temporary basis. CEQA does not define what noise level increase would be substantial. As discussed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(b), the determination of whether a project may have a significant effect on the environment calls for judgment on the part of the lead agency and must be based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data.

a) Would the project result in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?

Construction Noise
The 2019 IS/MND determined that future projects under the Master Plan could require the use of heavy-duty construction equipment that could temporarily increase noise levels at adjacent property lines near construction areas. However, the 2019 IS/MND concluded that these projects would be subject to City General Conditions and the noise regulations within the Municipal Code, which would reduce temporary construction noise impacts to a less than significant level.105

105 City of Cupertino. Parks and Recreation System Master Plan – Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. SCH # 2019109066. October 2019. Pages 176 to 180.
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
[8J
[8J

Memorial Park Specific Plan 123 Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024

As discussed in Section 4.6 Construction, for the purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that construction of the project would be completed over a period of approximately 15 years as funding is made available for individual improvements, and would be split into three main construction phases. Section 10.48.053 of the City’s Municipal Code exempts construction noise from the noise limits defined in Section 10.48.040 if activities occur on weekdays during daytime hours, provided that the equipment utilized has high-quality noise muffler and abatement devices installed and are in good condition. The construction activities also need to meet the following two criteria: 1) no individual device shall produce noise levels exceeding 87 dBA at a distance of 25 feet; and 2) the noise level measured at any nearby property shall not exceed 80 dBA. Construction activities are prohibited on weekends, holidays, or during nighttime hours at sites within 750 feet of residential land uses.

As described in additional detail in Appendix E, there are existing residences surrounding the project site that would be exposed to varying levels of construction noise over the buildout of the project.
106 The project-specific analysis determined that construction noise levels would potentially reach 75 dBA Leq on occasion at the nearest residential land use during the first five year phase, 74 dBA Leq during the second five-year phase, and 75 dBA Leq during the third five-year phase, as calculated from the center of the project site phases. The potential highest noise levels for the nearest residences during each phase would occur in the demolition and grading and excavation phases of construction. These construction noise levels would not exceed the exterior threshold of 80 dBA Leq at the nearby land uses. While specific construction activities would at times exceed these thresholds when work is conducted near shared property lines, construction would move throughout the project site during the planned period and would not constitute a significant temporary increase.

Consistent with the requirements in Section 17.04.050 of the Municipal Code, residents in the surrounding area would be notified prior to the beginning of construction activities and a sign would be posted with information regarding how to file a complaint for excessive noise generation during project construction. In addition, the project would prepare a Construction Noise Control Plan that would be reviewed by the City prior to the issuance of permits. This plan would outline the appropriate noise reduction measures to be implemented during construction activities, designate haul routes that would be designed to avoid sensitive receptors to the extent feasible, and detail the steps that contractors would take to limit unnecessary engine idling. With implementation of these measures and adherence to the City’s noise standards, the project would result in less than significant construction noise impacts, consistent with the findings of the 2019 IS/MND. (Same Impact as Approved Project)

106 Similar to the air quality analysis, the noise assessment conservatively assumed that the former residential building east of the project site, currently occupied by a roofing company, is the closest residence.

Memorial Park Specific Plan 124 Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024
Operational Noise
The 2019 IS/MND determined that future projects under the Master Plan could generate noise from expanded, modified, or new recreational activities and operations. However, the 2019 IS/MND concluded that these projects would not be likely to result in a significant permanent increase in ambient noise as the City would review the proposed project designs to be consistent with General Plan Goal HS-8 and Policy HS-8.2, as well as Municipal Code Section 10.40.010. Therefore, operational noise impacts would be less than significant. 107

Park Operations
The improvements under the project would include relocated playground areas, new/renovated picnic areas, upgraded amphitheater seating and infrastructure, a new basketball court, and eight new pickleball courts. As part of the project, the City would also officially allow limited use of the softball field as a DOLA. The park hours would not change under the project, and operating hours would continue to be from sunrise to 10:00 PM, seven days a week. The project would not include any changes to the type or scale of events hosted at the park. The primary noise generating improvements under the project would be the new/relocated playground areas, basketball court, and pickleball courts. The other improvements listed above would not generate substantial noise above existing conditions.

As described in additional detail in Appendix E, the hourly average noise levels are not expected to exceed the Municipal Code Section 10.48.040 65 dBA threshold at the property lines of any adjacent residential land uses while each of the individual improvements are in use. The Municipal Code Section 10.48.050 maximum noise level threshold of 84 dBA is not expected to be exceeded at any of the receptors, even in the combined worst hour scenario where it is assumed that the basketball court, all eight pickleball courts, the All-Abilities playground, and the Nature playground are being used simultaneously. Maximum noise levels could reach 71 dBA L max at the adjacent
residential land uses, which does not exceed the established maximum noise level threshold of 84 dBA.

Based on a review of the future roadway noise contours identified in the City’s General Plan, future noise levels at the surrounding residences would range from 58 dBA CNEL to 61 dBA CNEL. Because future exterior noise levels are expected to be greater than 60 dBA CNEL, a three dBA CNEL increase as a result of the project would be considered significant. Assuming worst-case conditions where the basketball court and pickleball courts are in use from 7:00 AM to 10:00 PM and the playgrounds are assumed in use from 9:00 AM until 7:00 PM, the permanent noise level increases were estimated to range from zero to two dBA CNEL. Therefore, the proposed improvements within the park would not result in a significant increase in ambient noise level.

107 City of Cupertino. Parks and Recreation System Master Plan – Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. SCH # 2019109066. October 2019. Pages 176 to 180.

Memorial Park Specific Plan 125 Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024
Parking Activities and Project Traffic
The project would add approximately nine new parallel parking stalls along Anton Way adjacent to the pickleball courts. The noise associated with these parking stalls would primarily be generated by engines, door slams, and human voices. The ambient noise level at the nearest residential receptor would not be expected to increase due to the addition of these stalls because the noise levels generated would be similar to the existing conditions. These stalls would generate additional vehicle trips along Anton Way; however, the number of trips generated by each stall (1.7 trips per parking space on weekdays and 1.16 trips per parking space on weekends)108 would not be significant compared to the existing number of trips along Anton Way and Stevens Creek (hourly traffic volumes of 32 and 1,492, respectively).109 Because the project would not generate a significant number of additional trips, there would be a zero dBA CNEL increase associated with the improvements.

As discussed above, the project would not result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the City’s General Plan or noise ordinance, consistent with the findings of the 2019 IS/MND. (Same Impact as Approved Project)

b) Would the project result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?

The 2019 IS/MND determined that implementation of the Master Plan would not result in the operation of equipment or activities that would generate substantial groundborne vibration levels once operational. However, the 2019 IS/MND disclosed that groundborne vibration could be perceptible for surrounding residential properties during construction of proposed projects.

Although the short-term, intermittent construction equipment vibration would be perceptible, it was concluded that it would not be at excessive levels that could cause structural damage and would result in a less than significant impact.110

The construction of the project may generate vibration when heavy equipment or impact tools (e.g., hoe rams) are used in close proximity to existing buildings. Construction activities would include demolition, site preparation, grading, and excavation, building exterior, building interior, and paving. Pile driving, which can cause excessive vibration, is not expected to be required.

Table 5.13-4 shows the estimated vibration levels at nearby structures resulting from operation of construction equipment at the project site.

108 TJKM. Trip Generation for New Parking Lot at Cupertino Memorial Park in Cupertino, CA. August 2, 2023. Page 2. 109 Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. Memorial Park Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Assessment. October 16, 2023. Page

30. 110 City of Cupertino. Parks and Recreation System Master Plan – Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. SCH # 2019109066. October 2019. Pages 180 to 181.

Memorial Park Specific Plan 126 Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024

Table 5.13-4: Vibration Levels for Construction Equipment Equipment
PPV at
25 ft.
(in/sec)
Vibration Levels at Nearest Buildings (in/sec PPV)
Multi-Family
Residential West
(30 ft)
Single-Family
Residential East
(55 ft)
Single-Family
Residential North
(60 ft)
Future Mix-Use
West
(250 feet)
Clam shovel drop 0.202 0.165 0.085 0.077 0.016
Hydromill
(slurry
wall)
In soil 0.007 0.010 0.003 0.003 0.001
In rock 0.014 0.022 0.007 0.006 0.001
Vibratory Roller 0.21 0.172 0.088 0.080 0.017
Hoe Ram 0.089 0.073 0.037 0.034 0.007
Large bulldozer 0.089 0.073 0.037 0.034 0.007
Caisson drilling 0.089 0.073 0.037 0.034 0.007
Loaded trucks 0.076 0.062 0.032 0.029 0.006
Jackhammer 0.035 0.029 0.015 0.013 0.003
Small bulldozer 0.003 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.0002
Source: Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. Memorial Park Specific Plan Noise and Vibration Assessment. October 16, 2023.

As shown in Table 5.13-4, the project-generated vibration levels would fall below the recommended threshold of 0.3 in/sec PPV at surrounding buildings; therefore, vibration from construction activities would not be expected to cause structural damage at these locations. However, vibration levels may still be perceptible to adjacent residents. Given the temporary nature and short duration of the construction phases that would have the highest potential to produce perceptible vibration, this would not be considered significant, consistent with the findings of the 2019 IS/MND. Based on this discussion, the project would not result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels, consistent with the findings of the 2019 IS/MND. (Same Impact as Approved Project)

Memorial Park Specific Plan 127 Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?

The 2019 IS/MND concluded that since the City is not located in a noise-impacted area for any airport, no impacts would occur as a result of Master Plan implementation.111

The nearest airport to the project site is Moffett Federal Airfield, which is approximately 5.3 miles north of the site. According to the CLUP, the project site is not located within its AIA, nor is it located within the 65 dB noise contour of Moffett Federal Airfield.112 These conditions have not changed; therefore, implementation of the project would result in the same impact as disclosed in the 2019 IS/MND. (Same Impact as Approved Project)

111 Ibid. Page 181.
112 Santa Clara County Airport Land Use Commission. Moffett Federal Airfield Comprehensive Land Use Plan.

December 2018.

Memorial Park Specific Plan 128 Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024
Population and Housing

5.14.1 Environmental Setting
The regulatory framework and existing conditions have not changed substantially since the adoption of the 2019 IS/MND. Project site conditions are described below.

Existing Conditions
As of January 2023, the City of Cupertino had an approximate population of 59,154 with an average of 2.7 persons per household.113 The project site is currently developed with Memorial Park, the Cupertino Senior Center, and the Quinlan Community Center. There are no housing units on-site.

5.14.2 Impact Discussion

New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
New Less than
Significant
Impact
Same Impact
as Approved
Project
Would the project:
a) Induce substantial unplanned 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)?

b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people
or housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?

a) Would the project induce substantial unplanned 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 2019 IS/MND concluded that implementation of the Master Plan would not induce substantial population growth either directly or indirectly since no residential development would be proposed under the Master Plan.
114

113 California Department of Finance. “Estimate E-1: Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State — January 1, 2022 and 2023.” May 2023. Accessed August 16, 2023. https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates-e1/. 114 City of Cupertino. Parks and Recreation System Master Plan – Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. SCH # 2019109066. October 2019. Page 182.

5.14 5.14.1.1
□ □ □
□ □ □

Memorial Park Specific Plan 129 Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024
The proposed project would implement various improvements to an existing City park consistent with the assumptions in the 2019 IS/MND. No housing or commercial space would be constructed as a part of the project. In addition, the project would not involve the extension of infrastructure that could induce unplanned population growth. The project would construct pedestrian pathways and new bicycle lanes on-site to improve on-site movement of park users and improve access from the existing residential neighborhoods surrounding the project site. Based on this discussion, the project would not induce substantial unplanned population growth, consistent with the findings of the 2019 IS/MND. (Same Impact as Approved Project)

b) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?

The 2019 IS/MND concluded that implementation of the Master Plan would not displace existing people or housing such that the construction of replacement housing would be necessary since future projects would be limited to improvements within existing park facilities. 115 This condition
has not changed. There are no existing housing units or residents on-site; therefore, the project would result in the same impact disclosed in the 2019 IS/MND. (Same Impact as Approved Project)

115 Ibid. Page 182.

Memorial Park Specific Plan 130 Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024
Public Services

5.15.1 Environmental Setting
The regulatory framework and existing conditions have not changed substantially since the adoption of the 2019 IS/MND. Key regulations and project site conditions are described below.

Regulatory Framework
Local
Cupertino General Plan: Community Vision 2015-2040
The proposed project is subject to General Plan policies and strategies including, but not limited to, the policies and strategies listed below pertaining to public services.

Policy/Strategy Description
Policy HS-3.2 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 HS-4.2 Consider appropriate design techniques to reduce crime and vandalism when designing public spaces and reviewing development proposals.

Policy RPC-4.1 Design parks appropriately to address the facility and recreational programming required by each special area and neighborhood based on current and future plans for the areas.

Policy RPC-4.2 Design parks to enhance public safety by providing visibility to the street and access for public safety responders.

Policy RPC-6.1 Ensure that the City continues to offer a wide range of programs to serve diverse populations of all ages and abilities.

City of Cupertino Municipal Code
The City of Cupertino Municipal Code contains directives pertaining to public services. Title 13 of the Municipal Code provides regulations and standards for parks and recreation buildings in the City. Title 13 also regulates any activities that may occur at parks and recreation building, including sanitation requirements, vehicle requirements, picnic area requirements, advertising and sale restrictions, administrative and enforcement authority, and violation penalties.

5.15 5.15.1.1

Memorial Park Specific Plan 131 Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024
Existing Conditions
Fire Protection Services
Fire protection for the project site is provided by the SCCFD, which currently operates 15 fire stations, three of which are in the City of Cupertino. Cupertino Fire Station 1 is closest to the project site at 20215 Stevens Creek Boulevard, approximately 0.9-mile east of the project site. There are five divisions within the SCCFD. The Fire Prevention Division is responsible for building plan review, construction inspections, hazardous materials regulation, and fire safety inspections of commercial businesses, multi-family residential buildings and schools. 116 The fire suppression (emergency
response) force is contained within the Operations Division.

Police Protection Services
Police protection in Cupertino is provided by the Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Office, West Valley Division (SCCSO).
117 The SCCSO West Valley Division headquarters are located at 1601 South De Anza Boulevard, which is approximately two miles southeast of the project site.

Schools
The project site is within the district boundaries for Cupertino Union School District (CUSD) and Fremont Union High School District (FUHSD).118

Parks
The City of Cupertino has approximately 224 acres of park, trails, and sports fields.119 The project site contains Memorial Park, which is the largest park in the City, and contains tennis courts, a softball field, an amphitheater, the Cupertino Veterans Memorial, playground areas, picnic areas, and the Memorial Park Gazebo. The Cupertino Sports Center, which includes tennis courts, basketball courts, and other recreational facilities, is located adjacent to the eastern boundary of the site.

116 City of Cupertino. “Fire Department.” Accessed August 16, 2023. https://www.cupertino.org/our- city/departments/public-safety-programs/fire-department. 117 City of Cupertino. “Sheriff’s Office.” Accessed August 16, 2023. https://www.cupertino.org/our-ci ty/public- safety-programs/sheriff-s-office.
118 City of Cupertino. “Schools.” Accessed August 16, 2023. https://www.cupertino.org/our-city/schools. 119 City of Cupertino. Parks and Recreation System Master Plan – Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. SCH # 2019109066. October 2019. Page 184.

5.15.1.2 Memorial Park Specific Plan 132 Initial Study/Addendum City of Cupertino January 2024

5.15.2 Impact Discussion

New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
New Less than
Significant
Impact
Same Impact
as Approved
Project
Would the project result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the provision of
new or physically altered governmental facilities, the
need for new or physically altered governmental
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times
or other performance objectives for any of the public
services:

a) Fire Protection?
b) Police Protection?
c) Schools?
d) Parks?
e) Other Public Facilities?

a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for fire protection services?

The 2019 IS/MND concluded that the Master Plan would primarily involve minor projects that would not substantially alter the accessibility or response time of emergency personnel to park facilities; therefore, the Master Plan would have no impact on police services. 120

The project proposes improvements to an existing park consistent with the assumptions in the 2019 IS/MND. The improvements would not substantially change or increase the use of the park. The park would continue to host the same or similar events at the park as it does under current conditions. The project would not result in the any additional programming, nor is it meant to accommodate larger crowds for the events that are currently held in the park. Therefore, these improvements would not substantially alter the accessibility or response time for fire protection services compared to existing conditions.

120 City of Cupertino. Parks and Recreation System Master Plan – Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. SCH # 2019109066. October 2019. Page 188.
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□

Memorial Park Specific Plan 133 Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024
In addition, the Fire Prevention Division of the SCCFD would continue to conduct their building plan reviews, construction inspections, hazardous materials reviews, and fire safety inspections as individual projects are implemented on-site. For those reasons, development of the proposed project would not result in a significant impact to fire protection services in the City or require the construction of new or expanded fire protection facilities, consistent with the findings of the 2019 IS/MND. (Same Impact as Approved Project)

b) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for police protection services?

As discussed under checklist question a) above, the project would implement improvements consistent with the assumptions in the 2019 IS/MND. The improvements would not result in any additional event programming, nor would it allow for larger crowds for the events that are currently held in the park. Therefore, these improvements would not substantially alter the accessibility or response time for police protection services compared to existing conditions. In addition, each phase implemented under the project would be reviewed to ensure that appropriate design techniques to reduce crime and vandalism are incorporated, consistent with General Plan Policy HS-

4.2. Therefore, development of the proposed project would not result in a significant impact to police protection services in the City or require the construction of new or expanded police protection facilities, consistent with the findings of the 2019 IS/MND. (Same Impact as Approved Project)

c) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for schools?

The 2019 IS/MND concluded that none of the recommended projects in the Master Plan would require the provision of new or physically altered school facilities, and that future projects on joint-

121 Ibid. Page 188.

Memorial Park Specific Plan 134 Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024
use fields with school campuses would be reviewed by the City and school districts at the time project-level details were available. 122

The proposed project does not include any residential units; therefore, it would not generate any new students that could increase demand on public schools in the project area. In addition, Memorial Park is not a joint-use facility. Therefore, the project would not impact existing school services or result in the need for new schools in the project area, consistent with the findings of the 2019 IS/MND. (Same Impact as Approved Project)

d) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for parks?

The 2019 IS/MND determined that future projects under the Master Plan would be reviewed again once project-level information become available for specific projects, and that programmatic mitigation measures in the IS/MND would mitigate potentially significant impacts to less than significant levels.
123

The project would implement improvements within an existing park facility, and the potential environmental impacts associated with the construction and operation of those improvements are discussed throughout this Initial Study/Addendum. As documented in this Initial Study/Addendum, the project would implement all programmatic mitigation measures identified in the 2019 IS/MND (including, 2019 IS/MND Mitigation Measures AES-1, BIO-1, CULT-1), consistent with the findings of the 2019 IS/MND. (Same Impact as Approved Project)

e) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for other public facilities?

The 2019 IS/MND concluded that the Master Plan would primarily involve minor projects within park facilities; therefore, the Master Plan would have no impact on other governmental facilities, such as libraries.
124

122 Ibid. Page 188.
123 Ibid. Pages 188 to 189.
124 Ibid. Page 189.

Memorial Park Specific Plan 135 Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024
As discussed in checklist questions a) through d) above, the project would implement improvements consistent with the 2019 IS/MND, and would not include any residential development that would increase the number of residents and their associated demand on public facilities in the area. Therefore, the proposed project would not increase demand on other public facilities such as libraries, consistent with the findings of the 2019 IS/MND. (Same Impact as Approved Project)

Memorial Park Specific Plan 136 Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024
Recreation

5.16.1 Environmental Setting
The regulatory framework and existing conditions have not changed substantially since the adoption of the 2019 IS/MND. Key regulations and project site conditions are described below.

Policy/Strategy Description
Policy RPC-3.1 Design parks to utilize natural features and the topography of the site in order to protect natural features and keep maintenance costs low.

Policy RPC-4.1 Design parks appropriately to address the facility and recreational programming required by each special area and neighborhood based on current and future plans for the areas.

Policy RPC-6.1 Ensure that the City continues to offer a wide range of programs to serve diverse populations of all ages and abilities.

Policy RPC-7.2 Design facilities to be flexible to address changing community needs.

Policy RPC-7.3 Design facilities to reduce maintenance, and ensure that facilities are maintained and upgraded adequately.

City of Cupertino Municipal Code
The City of Cupertino Municipal Code contains directives pertaining to public services. Title 13 of the Municipal Code sets regulations and standards for parks and recreation buildings in the City. In addition, Title 13 regulates any activities that may occur at parks and recreation buildings, including sanitation requirements, vehicle requirements, picnic area requirements, advertising and sale restrictions, administrative and enforcement authority, and violation penalties.

Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan
The City’s Bicycle Transportation Plan was adopted in June 2016 and includes an assessment of the bicycle environment in Cupertino by mapping existing bicycle facilities, bicycle-related collisions between 2009 and 2014, and bicycle network stress assessments. It also includes recommended improvements, including a loop trail.

5.16 5.16.1.1

Memorial Park Specific Plan 137 Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024
Cupertino Pedestrian Transportation Plan
The City of Cupertino Pedestrian Transportation Plan was adopted in February 2018 and is the blueprint for the City to achieve its vision of an inviting, safe, and connected pedestrian network that enhances the quality of life for all community members and visitors.

Cupertino 2020 Parks and Recreation System Master Plan
The City’s Master Plan was adopted in February 2020, and outlines the City’s comprehensive plan for parks and recreational facilities in the City through the year 2040. The Master Plan is organized around seven goals, which include conservation, connection, equitable access, enhancement, activity, quality, and sustainability. Each of the seven goals has associated objectives that reflect the City’s desired outcomes and actions that provide ideas or strategies that help achieve the broader goals. The Master Plan has several goals and objectives regarding recreation, including:
• Objective 1.C, which calls for the maintenance of natural areas in parks to control invasive species and preparation of a maintenance management plan to identify the tasks, frequencies, staffing, and resources needed to manage, maintain, and steward natural resources.
• Objective 7.C, which calls for the stewardship of resources and maintenance of assets to ensure high quality park facilities through the provision of funding, training, and additional maintenance activities where needed.

Existing Conditions
The City of Cupertino has approximately 224 acres of park, trails, and sports fields.125 The project site includes Memorial Park, which contains recreational facilities such as tennis courts, a softball field, and playground areas. The Cupertino Sports Center, which includes tennis courts, basketball courts, and other recreational facilities, is located adjacent to the eastern boundary of the site.

125 City of Cupertino. Parks and Recreation System Master Plan – Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. SCH # 2019109066. October 2019. Page 184.

5.16 .1.2

Memorial Park Specific Plan 138 Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024

5.16.2 Impact Discussion

New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
New Less than
Significant
Impact
Same Impact
as Approved
Project
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial
physical deterioration of the facility will occur or
be accelerated?

b) Does the project include recreational facilities or
require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which might have an
adverse physical effect on the environment?

a) Would the project 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 2019 IS/MND determined that implementation of the Master Plan would likely increase the number of visitors to City parks by increasing capacity of the parks and recreational facilities and attracting additional users with improved facilities. The 2019 IS/MND concluded that future project would be reviewed individually once design-level details were available, and that they would follow Master Plan goals to ensuring that appropriate level of maintenance occurs, consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies in the City’s General Plan. This would reduce impacts to parks to a less than significant level.
126

As discussed in Section 5.15 Public Services, the project would construct various improvements on site consistent with the assumptions in the 2019 IS/MND. The improvements would not substantially change or increase the use of the park. The park would continue to host the same or similar events at the park as it does under current conditions. The project would not result in the any additional programming, nor is it meant to accommodate larger crowds for the events that are currently held in the park.

Consistent with General Plan Policies RPC-3.1, and RPC-7.3, the project would be designed to maintain existing, established natural features where possible to reduce the need for additional maintenance on new planted areas. In addition, the project is consistent with the Master Plan and would comply with Master Plan Objectives 1.C and 7.C by maintaining the established natural resources in the park where possible and evaluating maintenance needs on an ongoing basis to ensure adequate park maintenance in the future.

126 City of Cupertino. Parks and Recreation System Master Plan – Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. SCH # 2019109066. October 2019. Pages 193 to 194.
□ □ □
□ □ □

Memorial Park Specific Plan 139 Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024

Adherence to these General Plan Policies and Master Plan Objectives would reduce the risk of substantial occurrence or acceleration of the physical deterioration of the facilities on-site, consistent with the findings of the 2019 IS/MND. (Same Impact as Approved Project)

b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?

The 2019 IS/MND determined that implementation of the Master Plan could include projects that would create new park and recreational facilities, as well as enhance existing park and recreation facilities. The 2019 IS/MND concluded that future projects under the Master Plan would be reviewed at the project-level, comply with City regulations and General Conditions, and implement the 2019 IS/MND programmatic mitigation measures. This would mitigate potentially significant impacts of future projects to less than significant levels. 127

The improvements included in the project are consistent with the Master Plan, and would be designed to comply with all applicable regulations (including those in the General Plan, Specific Plan, Municipal Code, City General Conditions, and regional storm water runoff management requirements) and implement all programmatic mitigation measures identified in the 2019 IS/MND (including 2019 IS/MND Mitigation Measures AES-1, BIO-1, CULT-1) to reduce impacts to a less than significant level.

Based on this discussion, the project would result in the same impact as disclosed in the 2019 IS/MND. (Same Impact as Approved Project)

127 Ibid. Page 194.

Memorial Park Specific Plan 140 Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024
Transportation
The following discussion is based on the Trip Generation Technical Memorandum completed by TJKM dated August 2023. A copy of the memorandum is included in Appendix F of this Initial Study/Addendum.

5.17.1 Environmental Setting
The regulatory framework and existing conditions have not changed substantially since the adoption of the 2019 IS/MND. Key regulations and project site conditions are described below.

Regulatory Framework
State
Senate Bill 743
SB 743 establishes criteria for determining the significance of transportation impacts using a VMT metric intended to promote the reduction of GHG emissions, the development of multimodal transportation networks, and a diversity of land uses. Specifically, SB 743 requires analysis of VMT in determining the significance of transportation impacts. Local jurisdictions were required by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to implement a VMT policy by July 1, 2020.

SB 743 did not authorize OPR to set specific VMT impact thresholds, but it did direct OPR to develop guidelines for jurisdictions to utilize. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b)(1) describes factors that might indicate whether a development project’s VMT may be significant. Notably, projects located within 0.50 mile of transit should be considered to have a less than significant transportation impact based on OPR guidance.

Regional and Local
Cupertino General Plan: Community Vision 2015-2040
The proposed project is subject to General Plan policies including, but not limited to, the policies and strategies listed below pertaining to transportation.

Policy/Strategy Description
Policy LU-3.1 Ensure that project sites are planned appropriately to create a network of connected internal streets that improve pedestrian and bicycle access, provide public open space and building layouts that support city goals related to streetscape character for various Planning Areas and corridors.

Policy LU-27.4 Support pedestrian and bicycling improvements that improve access with neighborhoods to parks, schools and local retail, and between neighborhoods. Support traffic calming measures rather than blocking the street to reduce traffic impacts on neighborhoods.

5.17 5.17.1.1

Memorial Park Specific Plan 141 Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024
Policy/Strategy Description
Policy RPC-5.2 Develop a citywide network of pedestrian and bicycle pathways to connect employment centers, shopping areas and neighborhoods to services including parks, schools, libraries and neighborhood centers.

Strategy RPC-5.1.1 Implement recommendations in the Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan that link trails and open space to neighborhoods and special areas.

Policy M-1.2 Participate in the development of new multi-modal analysis methods and impact thresholds as required by Senate Bill 743. However, until such impact thresholds are developed, continue to optimize mobility for all modes of transportation while striving to maintain the following intersection Levels of Service (LOS) at AM and PM peak traffic hours:
• Major intersections: LOS D;
• Stevens Creek Boulevard and De Anza Boulevard: LOS E+; • Stevens Creek Boulevard and Stelling Road: LOS E+; and • De Anza Boulevard and Bollinger Road: LOS E+
Policy M-2.3 Promote pedestrian and bicycle improvements that improve connectivity between planning areas, neighborhoods and services, and foster a sense of community.

Policy M-3.1 Adopt and maintain a Bicycle and Pedestrian master plan, which outlines policies and improvements to streets, extension of trails, and pathways to create a safe way for people of all ages to bike and walk on a daily basis, and as shown in Figure M-1 of the General Plan.

Policy M-3.6 Require parking lots to include clearly defined paths for pedestrians to provide a safe path to building entrances.

Policy M-3.7 Plan for improvements to pedestrian and bicycle facilities and eliminate gaps along the pedestrian and bicycle network as part of the City’s Capital Improvement Program.

Policy M-8.2 Support development and transportation improvements that help reduce greenhouse gas emissions by reducing per capita VMT, reducing impacts on the City’s transportation network and maintaining the desired levels of service for all modes of transportation.

Heart of the City Specific Plan
The Heart of the City Specific Plan guides development and redevelopment of the Stevens Creek Boulevard corridor to implement the vision of “pedestrian-in clusive gathering places” to support a
sense of place for Cupertino residents and visitors. The Specific Plan also includes streetscape design guidelines that emphasize improving the pedestrian environment.

Memorial Park Specific Plan 142 Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024
Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan
The City’s Bicycle Transportation Plan was adopted in June 2016 and includes an assessment of the bicycle environment in Cupertino by mapping existing bicycle facilities, bicycle-related collisions between 2009 and 2014, and bicycle network stress assessments. It also includes recommended improvements, including a loop trail. The Bicycle Transportation Plan also recommends constructing Class IV Separated Bike Lanes on Steven Creek Boulevard and Stelling Road, Class II Buffered Bike Lanes on Mary Avenue, and Class III Bike Routes within Memorial Park that would connect Christensen Drive with Mary Avenue and Alves Drive.

Cupertino Pedestrian Transportation Plan
The City of Cupertino Pedestrian Transportation Plan was adopted in February 2018 and is the blueprint for the City to achieve its vision of an inviting, safe, and connected pedestrian network that enhances the quality of life for all community members and visitors.

Cupertino ADA Transition Plan (2015)
The City adopted an ADA Self-Ev aluation and Transition Plan in 2015 to review the programs, activities, and services provided by the City and identify and prioritize the removal of current barriers to accessibility in public facilities, including parks and recreational facilities.

City of Cupertino Municipal Code
The City outlines numerous policies relating to vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, parking, and traffic in Title 11 of the Municipal Code. Chapter 11.08 discusses bicycle use, Chapter 11.09 discusses pedestrians, Chapters 11.24 to 11.28 discusses parking regulations, Chapter 11.32 discusses truck traffic routes, and Chapter 11.34 discusses roadway design features.

Existing Conditions
Roadway Access
Regional access to the project site is provided by SR 85, Interstate 280 (I-280), De Anza Boulevard, and Stevens Creek Boulevard. Local roadway access to the project site is provided by Mary Avenue, Stelling Road, Alves Drive, and Anton Way.

5.17.1.2 Memorial Park Specific Plan 143 Initial Study/Addendum City of Cupertino January 2024
Existing Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Transit Facilities
Bicycle Facilities
Bicycle facilities within the vicinity of the project site consist of Class II bike lanes, enhanced bike lanes, and Class III bike routes.128, 129 Stevens Creek Boulevard, which is adjacent to the southern border of the project site, is classified as an enhanced bike lane along the project frontage that is oriented in an east-west direction. Stelling Road is classified as a Class II bike lane, and it has additional enhancements south of the Stevens Creek Boulevard intersection. Stelling Road is oriented in a north-south direction. Mary Avenue, which is west of the project site, also provides Class II bike lanes in a general north-south direction. Greenleaf Drive, which is north of the project site, is a Class III bike route that intersects with both Mary Avenue and Stelling Road. Bicycle parking is provided on-site adjacent to the Senior Center and Quinlan Community Center.

Pedestrian Facilities
The site has sidewalks on the project frontages along Stevens Creek Boulevard, Alves Drive, Stelling Road, and Mary Avenue. There are designated pedestrian walkway entrances to the site on Stevens Creek Boulevard, Anton Way, Alves Drive, Stelling Road, Christensen Drive, and Mary Avenue. The site has pedestrian paths throughout the whole park that connect to the different on-site recreational facilities and features such as the amphitheater and Veterans Memorial.

The primary intersection, Mary Avenue/Stevens Creek Boulevard, is a signalized intersection that has striped crosswalks on three out of the four sides of the intersection. The Stelling Road/Alves Drive intersection has striped crosswalks on all four sides of the intersection and, and the two crosswalks that cross Stelling Road have pedestrian activated flashing lights to alert vehicles.

128 City of Cupertino. Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan. June 2016. Page 1-8. 129 Class II bike lanes are characterized as on-street bike lanes with a striped lane, pavement markings, and signage for one way bicycle traffic. Enhanced bike lanes are typically Class II bike lanes that have been enhanced with green paint and/or buffer striping to increase visibility or lateral separation from vehicular traffic. Class III bike routes are typically characterized as streets where the lanes are wide enough, and the number of vehicles is low enough for both bicycles and vehicles to share the road.

Memorial Park Specific Plan 144 Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024
Transit Facilities
The existing bus transit services in the vicinity of the project site are provided by VTA. There are two bus stops located along the project frontages, one is located on the northeast corner of the site in front of the Quinlan Community Center on Stelling Road and the second is located on the southwest corner of the site adjacent to the Senior Center on Stevens Creek Boulevard. The VTA services operating in the vicinity of the project area are listed below with information regarding their headways, or the frequency at which transit vehicles arrive at the transit stop during peak travel hours.

• Local Route 51 runs from West Valley College to the Ames Research Center via the Stevens Creek Boulevard/Stelling Road intersection with peak headways of 30 minutes. • Local Route 55 runs from the Old Ironsides Station to De Anza College with peak headways of 30 minutes.
• Frequent Route 23 runs from De Anza College to the Alum Rock Station with peak headways between 13 to 15 minutes.
• Frequent Route 25 runs from the Stevens Creek Boulevard/Stelling Road intersection to the Alum Roack Station with peak headways of 23 minutes.
• Rapid Route 523 runs from San José State University to Lockheed Martin via De Anza College with peak headways of 15 minutes.

5.17.2 Impact Discussion

New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
New Less than
Significant
Impact
Same Impact
as Approved
Project
Would the project:
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or
policy addressing the circulation system,
including transit, roadways, bicycle lanes, and
pedestrian facilities?

b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines
Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?

c) Substantially increase hazards due to a
geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible land
uses (e.g., farm equipment)?

d) Result in inadequate emergency access?

a) Would the project conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadways, bicycle lanes, and pedestrian facilities?

The 2019 IS/MND determined that the Master Plan included recommended projects that were consistent with recommendations in the City’s Bicycle Transportation Plan, Pedestrian □
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□

Memorial Park Specific Plan 145 Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024
Transportation Plan, General Plan, and Countywide Trails Master Plan. It was concluded that since the Master Plan was consistent with these plans and future projects would be reviewed at the project-level to determine if potential impacts were covered by the programmatic 2019 IS/MND, there would be no impacts.130

Roadway System
Section 17.08.030 of the Municipal Code provides screening guidelines for evaluating the transportation impacts of land use projects. As discussed further below, the project is consistent with General Plan Policies LU-3.1, LU-27.4, RPC-5.2, and M-2.3 because it would provide additional bicycle and pedestrian facilities that would improve local circulation and park accessibility. In addition, the project site is located within one-quarter mile of a High-Quality Transit Corridor or transit stop as defined by CEQA due to its location adjacent to Stevens Creek Boulevard and its proximity to nearby bus stops served by VTA. Therefore, the project would not be required to prepare a VMT analysis, consistent with Section 17.08.030 of the Municipal Code. In addition, parks (including the project site) are government/public facilities which are generally assumed to be local serving and are typically screened out of VMT requirements.

No changes are proposed to the surrounding streets as part of the project. The improvements to on-site parking would be consistent with the requirements listed in Chapters 11.24 to 11.28 of the Municipal Code, which outline the spacing, marking, and accessibility requirements for public parking areas. Based on this discussion, the project would not conflict with any program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the roadway system, consistent with the findings of the 2019 IS/MND. (Same Impact as Approved Project)

Bicycle Facilities
The proposed Class I Bike Paths within the park would be consistent with what was recommended in the 2016 Bicycle Transportation Plan. These Class I Bike Paths would link the existing bicycle facilities on Alves Drive, Stelling Road, Christensen Way, and Mary Avenue by providing dedicated bicycle paths on-site. In addition, the project would install short- and long-term bicycle parking throughout the site and at key entry points to the park. This would be consistent with the vision of the Special Area and General Plan Policies LU-3.1, LU-27.4, RPC-5.2, and M-2.3. None of the proposed improvements would interfere with the improvements recommended in the 2016 Bicycle Plan for Mary Avenue and Stevens Creek Boulevard. In addition, these improvements would be consistent with General Plan Policies M-2.3, M-3.1, and M-8.2 by improving connectivity between neighborhoods, implementing recommendations from the 2016 Bicycle Transportation Plan, and constructing improvements that help reduce per capita VMT. Based on this discussion, the project would not conflict with any program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the bicycle circulation system, consistent with the findings of the 2019 IS/MND. (Same Impact as Approved Project)

130 City of Cupertino. Parks and Recreation System Master Plan – Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. SCH # 2019109066. October 2019. Pages 201 to 202.

Memorial Park Specific Plan 146 Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024
Pedestrian Facilities
Pedestrian facilities in the project area consist of sidewalks, crosswalks, pedestrian signals, and pedestrian pathways within Memorial Park. The project would maintain and realign existing pedestrian pathway entrances on each side of the park. All pedestrian pathways in the park would be resurfaced to ensure ADA compliance, and access points at the parking lots on-site would be updated with ADA compliant curb ramps. This would be consistent with the recommendations made in the City’s 2015 ADA Transition Plan. The project would also be consistent with General Plan Policies LU-3.1, LU-27.4, RPC-5.2, and M-2.3 because it would provide additional pedestrian facilities that would improve local circulation and park accessibility. Based on this discussion, the project would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the pedestrian circulation system, consistent with the findings of the 2019 IS/MND. (Same Impact as Approved
Project)

Transit Facilities
The project area is served by five VTA bus routes with stops within walking distance of the project site. The proposed project would result in the construction of various improvements within Memorial Park, but it is not expected to result in a substantial increase in use compared to existing conditions. Based on this discussion, the existing transit services in the area would continue to function adequately and the project would not obstruct the operation of the existing transit facilities, or conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the transit circulation system, consistent with the findings of the 2019 IS/MND. (Same Impact as Approved Project)

b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?

The 2019 IS/MND determined that while individual park improvements may increase usage of that park (resulting in increased vehicle trips and VMT), this increase would not be significant because most of those trips were assumed to be generated within Cupertino and the distances to neighborhood and local parks would be relatively short. The 2019 IS/MND concluded that since future projects under the Master Plan would not alter existing land use patterns and would be consistent with adopted City transportation and multi-modal planning policies, implementation of the Master Plan would result in less than significant VMT impacts.131

The project would maintain the existing park land use on-site and include bicycle and pedestrian improvements consistent with the assumptions in the 2019 IS/MND. Furthermore, parks (including the project site), are government/public facilities which are generally assumed to be local serving and are typically screened out of VMT requirements. In addition, as discussed briefly in checklist question a) above, the project is consistent with applicable General Plan policies and is located

131 Ibid. Pages 202 to 203.

Memorial Park Specific Plan 147 Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024
within one-quarter mile of a High-Quality Transit Corridor. Therefore, the project would not be required to prepare a VMT analysis, consistent with Section 17.08.030 of the Municipal Code, and is assumed to have a less than significant VMT impact.

Based on this discussion, the project would not conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b), consistent with the findings of the 2019 IS/MND. (Same Impact as Approved Project)

c) Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?

The 2019 IS/MND concluded that future projects would be designed according to design and circulation policies for vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians which would reduce hazards and traffic conflicts from incompatible uses to a less than significant level. 132

The project would consist of constructing minor improvements within Memorial Park, and would not introduce any incompatible land uses on-site. No physical changes are proposed to off-site public-right-of-way. The design of pedestrian pathways and bike lanes on-site would be consistent with City requirements as outlined in Chapter 11.08 of the Municipal Code. Changes to the existing parking lots on-site would be made consistent with requirements in the Municipal Code regarding driveway widths, site triangles, and drive aisle widths. The final site design of these improvements would be reviewed by the City to ensure that no hazards are created through project implementation. Therefore the project would have a less than significant impact related to geometric design hazards, consistent with the findings of the 2019 IS/MND. (Same Impact as Approved Project)

d) Would the project result in inadequate emergency access?

The 2019 IS/MND concluded that implementation of the Master Plan would not include improvements that would alter the roadway system in a manner that would affect emergency access and future projects would be designed according to adopted City policies to ensure all standards for emergency access were met. Therefore, there would be no impact to emergency access.
133

Consistent with the assumptions in the 2019 IS/MND, the project would not include development of structures within the public rights-of-way and no alteration to the geometry of adjacent roadways would occur. The project would maintain existing emergency access to the site and the proposed improvements would be reviewed for consistency with applicable California Building Code

132 Ibid. Page 203.
133 Ibid. Page 203.

Memorial Park Specific Plan 148 Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024
and Fire Code requirements for access and safety at the time they are designed. As such, the proposed project would not have a significant emergency access impact, consistent with the findings of the 2019 IS/MND. (Same Impact as Approved Project).

Memorial Park Specific Plan 149 Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024
Tribal Cultural Resources

5.18.1 Environmental Setting
The regulatory framework and existing conditions have not changed substantially since the adoption of the 2019 IS/MND. Key regulations and project site conditions are described below.

Regulatory Framework
State
Assembly Bill 52
AB 52, effective July 2015, established a new category of resources for consideration by public agencies called Tribal Cultural Resources (TCRs). AB 52 requires lead agencies to provide notice of projects to tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area if they have requested to be notified. Where a project may have a significant impact on a TCR, consultation is required until the parties agree to measures to mitigate or avoid a significant effect on a TCR or until it is concluded that mutual agreement cannot be reached.

Under AB 52, TCRs are defined as follows:
• Sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are also either:
o Included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historic Resources, or
o Included in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k).
• A resource determined by the lead agency to be a TCR.

Local
City of Cupertino Municipal Code
Section 17.04.050 of the City’s Municipal Code outlines standard environmental protection permit submittal requirements. Among other requirements, this section includes specific measures for development projects to protect archaeological resources and tribal cultural resources. These measures include providing contractors with basic archaeological site indicators, ceasing work activities if resources are discovered, and consulting with tribal representatives.

5.18 5.18.1.1

Memorial Park Specific Plan 150 Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024
General Condition 7.18: Historic or Archeological Items. (A) Contractor’s Obligations. Contractor must ensure that all persons performing Work at the Project site are required to immediately notify the Project Manager, upon discovery of any potential historic or archeological items, including historic or prehistoric ruins, a burial ground, archaeological or vertebrate paleontological site, including fossilized footprints or other archeological, paleontological or historical feature on the Project site (collectively, “Historic or Archeological Items”).

Existing Conditions
There are no known TCRs on-site. As discussed in Section 5.5 Cultural Resources, the site has a moderate sensitivity for pre-historic resources and a moderate sensitivity for historic-era archaeological resources.

5.18 .1.2

Memorial Park Specific Plan 151 Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024

5.18.2 Impact Discussion
New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
New Less than
Significant
Impact
Same Impact
as Approved
Project
Would the project cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of a tribal cultural
resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section
21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural
landscape that is geographically defined in terms of
the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or
object with cultural value to a California Native
American tribe, and that is:

a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California
Register of Historical Resources, or in a local
register of historical resources as defined in
Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k)?

b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its
discretion and supported by substantial
evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria
set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources
Code Section 5024.1? In applying the criteria set
forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code
Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider
the significance of the resource to a California
Native American tribe.

a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource that is listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k)?

The 2019 IS/MND determined that future projects under the Master Plan could have the potential to encounter native soils and uncover historic or prehistoric tribal cultural artifacts. The 2019 IS/MND concluded that compliance with federal, state, General Plan, and Municipal Code policies in addition to implementation of 2019 IS/MND Mitigation Measure CULT-1 would reduce impacts to a less than significant level.
134

The project site does not contain any known TCRs. As discussed in Section 5.5 Cultural Resources, the project shall conduct a subsurface investigation (Extended Phase I Study) prior to the start of ground disturbing activities on-site, consistent with the requirements of Municipal Code Section

134 City of Cupertino. Parks and Recreation System Master Plan – Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. SCH # 2019109066. October 2019. Pages 207 to 208.
□ □ □
□ □ □

Memorial Park Specific Plan 152 Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024

17.04.050. If any improvements on-site require ground-disturbing activities that reach a depth below four feet, an Extended Phase I Study shall be performed in the vicinity of those improvements to confirm the presence/absence of pre-colonial archaeological resources and/or TCRs.

Should any pre-colonial archaeological resources and/or TCRs be discovered during the subsurface testing, the project would comply with the requirements of 2019 IS/MND Mitigation Measure CULT- 1 and City General Condition 7.18 to ensure that appropriate treatment plans are prepared under consultation with a qualified archaeologist and the California Native American Heritage Commission. Based on this discussion, impacts to TCRs would be less than significant, consistent with the findings of the 2019 IS/MND. (Same Impact as Approved Project)

b) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource that is determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1?

As discussed under checklist question a), no TCRs were identified on the project site and compliance with Municipal Code Section 17.04.050 and implementation of 2019 IS/MND Mitigation Measure CULT-1 and City General Condition 7.18 would reduce impacts unknown, buried TCRs (if present on- site) to a less than significant level. As such, the project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a TCR, consistent with the findings of the 2019 IS/MND. (Same Impact as Approved Project)

Memorial Park Specific Plan 153 Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024
Utilities and Service Systems

5.19.1 Environmental Setting
The regulatory framework and existing conditions have not changed substantially since the adoption of the 2019 IS/MND, with the exception of the Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) prepared by San José Water in 2020. Key regulations and project site conditions are described below.

Regulatory Framework
State
State Water Code
Pursuant to the State Water Code, water suppliers providing water for municipal purposes to more than 3,000 customers or supplying more than 3,000 acre-feet (approximately 980 million gallons) of water annually must prepare and adopt a UWMP and update it every five years. As part of a UWMP, water agencies are required to evaluate and describe their water resource supplies and projected needs over a 20-year planning horizon, water conservation, water service reliability, water recycling, opportunities for water transfers, and contingency plans for drought events. The City of Cupertino adopted its most recent UWMP prepared by San José Water in 2020.

Senate Bill 1383
SB 1383 establishes targets to achieve a 50 percent reduction in the level of the statewide disposal of organic waste from the 2014 level by 2020 and a 75 percent reduction by 2025. The bill grants CalRecycle the regulatory authority required to achieve the organic waste disposal reduction targets and establishes an additional target that at least 20 percent of currently disposed edible food is recovered for human consumption by 2025. CalRecycle released an analysis titled “Analysis of the Progress Toward the SB 1383 Organic Wase Reduction Goals” in August of 2020, which recommended maintaining the disposal reduction targets set forth in SB 1383. 135

California Green Building Standards Code
In January 2010, the State of California adopted the California Green Building Standards Code, establishing mandatory green building standards for all buildings in California. The code covers five categories: planning and design, energy efficiency, water efficiency and conservation, material conservation and resources efficiency, and indoor environmental quality. These standards include

135 California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery. Analysis of the Progress Toward the SB 1383 Organic Wase Reduction Goals. August 18, 2020.

5.19 5.19.1.1

Memorial Park Specific Plan 154 Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024
the following mandatory set of measures, as well as more rigorous voluntary guidelines, for new construction projects to achieve specific green building performance levels:
• Reducing indoor water use by 20 percent;
• Reducing wastewater by 20 percent; and
• Recycling and/or salvaging 50 percent of nonhazardous construction and demolition debris.

Local
Cupertino General Plan: Community Vision 2015-2040
The proposed project is subject to General Plan policies including, but not limited to, the policies and strategies listed below pertaining to utilities and service systems.

Policy/Strategy Description
Policy INF-3.1 Coordinate with water providers and agencies in their planning and infrastructure process to ensure that the City continues to have adequate supply for current needs and future growth.

Policy INF-5.2 Look for ways to reduce demand on the City’s wastewater system through implementation of water conservation measures.

Policy INF-7.2 Ensure that public and private developments build new and on-site facilities and/or retrofit existing on-site facilities to meet the City’s waste diversion requirements.

Strategy INF-2.4.2 Require undergrounding of all utility lines in new developments and highly encourage undergrounding in remodels or redevelopment of major projects.

Strategy INF-7.3.2 Encourage recycling and reuse of building materials during demolition and construction of City, agency and private projects.

Strategy RPC-3.1.1 Maximize the use of native plants and drought-tolerant planting.

Cupertino Zero Waste Plan
The City included a Zero Waste Plan within the Climate Action Plan 2.0 that was adopted on August 16, 2022. This portion of the plan includes three zero waste measures and a series of corresponding actions that can be implemented to reduce solid waste in the City. • Measure W-1: Implement SB 1383 requirements and reduce communitywide landfilled organics 75 percent by 2025 and inorganic landfilled waste 35 percent by 2030. Reduce all landfilled waste 90 percent by 2040.
• Measure W-2: Reduce overall waste disposed to garbage, recycling, and compost per capita by 15 percent by 2035.
• Measure W-3: Meet or exceed the SB 1383 recycled organics products procurement requirements and sequester or avoid at least 0.018 MT CO2e per person by 2045.

Memorial Park Specific Plan 155 Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024
Cupertino Municipal Code
The Municipal Code includes the following provisions regarding utilities and service systems:

• 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. • Chapter 15.20, Sewage Disposal Systems, establishes standards for the approval, installation, and operation of individual on-site sewage disposal systems consistent with the RWQCB standards. The chapter sets regulation for connecting to public sanitary sewer system.
• 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. Section 16.58.220 includes Table 101.10 that identifies the green building requirements by type of building. 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 16.72, Recycling and Diversion of Construction and Demolition Waste, requires all projects within the City that involve construction, demolition, or renovation of 3,000 square feet or more to comply 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
Water Supply Sources
Potable water in Cupertino is provided by the California Water Service Company (Cal Water) and the San José Water Company (SJWC), who both purchase their water from Valley Water.136 SJWC operates, maintains, and improves the Cupertino Municipal Water System (CMWS), which covers

136 City of Cupertino. Parks and Recreation System Master Plan – Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. SCH # 2019109066. October 2019. Page 209.

5.19 .1.2

Memorial Park Specific Plan 156 Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024
the western portion of the City (including the project site). In 2020, the CMWS supplied 860 million gallon (MG) of potable water within its service area.137 Currently, the project site utilizes potable water for drinking fountains, restrooms, interior plumbing, and landscape irrigation on-site.

Wastewater
Wastewater collection and treatment are provided to most of the City, including the project site, by the Cupertino Sanitary District (CSD).138 The limited amount of wastewater generated on-site flows to existing eight-inch main lines in Christensen Drive, Alves Drive, Stelling Road, and the parking lot north of the Senior Center.139 The wastewater collected by CSD is routed to the San José/Santa Clara Water Pollution Control Plant (WPCP) for treatment, which has a capacity to treat 167 million gallons per day (mgd) of wastewater. In 2022, the WPCP’s average influent flow was 84.1 mgd. 140

Stormwater Drainage
Stormwater in the City is captured by Cupertino’s storm drain system. Stormwater runoff from the project site is collected in storm drain inlets and routed to a 15-inch main line in Christensen Drive, a 45-inch main line in Stelling Road, a 12-inch main line in Alves Drive, a 22-inch to 27-inch line parallel to the western boundary of the site, an 18-inch main line in Mary Avenue, and a 24-inch main line in Stevens Creek Boulevard.

Solid Waste
Non-hazardous solid waste in Cupertino is sorted and disposed of at Newby Island Sanitary Landfill (NISL). As of January 2023, NISL had approximately 12.4 million cubic yards of capacity remaining and an estimated closure date of 2035.
141 The project site currently generates limited amounts of waste (compared to other land uses like residential and commercial land uses).

Electric, Gas and Telecommunications Services
SVCE sources the electricity for properties in Cupertino and PG&E is responsible for delivering it through their existing utility lines. Electricity lines on-site are undergrounded. Electricity is used on- site for nighttime security lighting, operation of the community center and senior center buildings, and operation of the landscaping equipment.

137 San José Water Company. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. June 2021. Page 2-1. 138 Cupertino Sanitary District. “District Boundaries Map.” Accessed August 18, 2023. https://www.cupertinosanitarydistrict.org/services___service_area. 139 Cupertino Sanitary District. “Maps: Sheet 7.” Accessed August 18, 2023. https://www.cupertinosanitarydistrict.org/maps.
140 San José-Santa Clara Regional Wastewater Facility. 2022 Self-Monitoring Annual Report. Page 5. Accessed September 27, 2023. Available at:
https://www.sanjoseca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/94789/638124181781530000. 141 Boccaleoni, Anthony. Division Manager, Republic Services. Personal Communication. May 12, 2023.

Memorial Park Specific Plan 157 Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024

5.19.2 Impact Discussion

New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
New Less than
Significant
Impact
Same Impact
as Approved
Project
Would the project:
a) Require or result in the relocation or
construction of new or expanded water,
wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage,
electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the construction
or relocation of which could cause significant
environmental effects?

b) Have insufficient water supplies available to
serve the project and reasonably foreseeable
future development during normal, dry and
multiple dry years?

c) 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?

d) Generate solid waste in excess of state or local
standards, or in excess of the capacity of local
infrastructure, or otherwise impair the
attainment of solid waste reduction goals?

e) Be noncompliant with federal, state, and local
management and reduction statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?

a) Would the project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?

The 2019 IS/MND determined that future projects under the Master Plan could require the installation of new water, stormwater drainage, and electric power facilities. However, these improvements would be done according to City policy and would include the implementation of □ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □

Memorial Park Specific Plan 158 Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024
construction BMPs and General Conditions that would reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level.142

The project would require the construction of new water, sanitary sewer, stormwater, and electric lines on-site and lateral connections to existing utility lines in surrounding streets to serve the relocated restrooms, power new lighting fixtures, and connect the new landscape irrigation equipment. The project would comply with the existing regulations, mitigation measures from the 2019 IS/MND, and City General Conditions identified throughout this Initial Study/Addendum to reduce potential environmental impacts during construction activities to a less than significant level, consistent with the findings of the 2019 IS/MND. (Same Impact as Approved Project)

b) Would the project have insufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years?

Based on the 2015 UWMP prepared by Valley Water, the 2019 IS/MND concluded that the Cupertino service area would maintain adequate supplies of water in future Normal Year, Single Dry Year, and Multiple Dry Year conditions. In addition, as future projects are proposed, project-level information would be reviewed by the City in accordance with CEQA which would reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level.143

The 2020 UWMP that was prepared by SJWC subsequent to the adoption of the 2019 IS/MND discussed water supply reliability and drought risks within their service area, but since Valley Water supplies most of SJWC’s water supply, they also utilized the findings and analysis included in Valley Water’s 2020 UWMP.144 As part of Valley Water’s 2020 UWMP, a Drought Risk Assessment was conducted and found that Valley Water would have sufficient supplies to meet SJWC’s demand through 2045 under normal year, single dry year, and five consecutive dry year conditions.145 To ensure that adequate water supply is maintained during dry and multiple dry years where there may be shortfalls in supply, SJWC prepared a Water Shortage Contingency Plan that would institute mandatory conservation measures, with escalating levels of conservation requirements as the shortages in water supply increase. These measures include limiting outdoor water use, installing flow restrictor devices, and prohibiting non-essential uses of water.146

The project would prioritize the planting of drought tolerant landscaping and would install high- efficiency irrigation equipment to limit water demand. The project would be required to comply with any conservation measures mandated by SJWC during future drought years. Compliance with

142 City of Cupertino. Parks and Recreation System Master Plan – Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. SCH # 2019109066. October 2019. Page 215.
143 Ibid. Page 215.
144 San José Water Company. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. June 2021. Page 7-1. 145 San José Water Company. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. June 2021. Page 7-13. 146 San José Water Company. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. June 2021. Table 8-1.

Memorial Park Specific Plan 159 Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024
these mandatory conservation measures and the limiting of water demand on-site through the use of drought tolerant landscaping and high-efficiency irrigation equipment would ensure that sufficient water supply is maintained in normal, dry, and multiple dry years, consistent with the findings of the 2019 IS/MND. (Same Impact as Approved Project)

c) Would the project 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?

The 2019 IS/MND determined that most of the projects recommended under the Master Plan would be smaller projects related to improving park amenities, infrastructure, or landscaping and would not result in an increase in the generation of wastewater. Although some projects such as renovation of existing park buildings and adding restrooms could result in a small increase in wastewater generation, it was found that this would not result in the exceedance of wastewater treatment capacity in the system. Any larger projects in the Master Plan would be reviewed at the time that project-level plans become available to ensure that impacts to the wastewater treatment system are reduced to a less than significant level.147

The project would improve existing park amenities, upgrade two of the existing restrooms on-site, and would construct one new restroom south of the softball field. The proposed improvements would not substantially change or increase the use of the park. For this reason, the project would result in similar wastewater generation as under existing conditions. Given the existing, available treatment capacity at the WPCP (82.9 mgd) and the fact that the project would not result in substantially different wastewater treatment demand than under existing conditions, there would continue to be sufficient capacity at the WPCP to serve the project and future treatment demand, consistent with the findings of the 2019 IS/MND. (Same Impact as Approved Project)

d) Would the project generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?

The 2019 IS/MND determined that although future projects under the Master Plan could potentially increase solid waste generation due to increased uses of recreational facilities, it would not result in substantial amounts that would be in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local landfills such as Newby Island Sanitary Landfill (NISL). Therefore, implementation of the Master Plan would result in less than significant impacts.148

147 City of Cupertino. Parks and Recreation System Master Plan – Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. SCH # 2019109066. October 2019. Pages 215 to 216.
148 Ibid. Page 216.

Memorial Park Specific Plan 160 Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024
In compliance with CALGreen requirements and consistent with General Plan Strategy INF-7.3.2, the project would be required to recycle and/or salvage for reuse a minimum of 65 percent of the nonhazardous construction and demolition debris resulting from construction activities. In addition, contractors implementing the project would be required to prepare Waste Management Plans, consistent with Chapter 16.72 of the Municipal Code.

The proposed improvements would not substantially change or increase the use of the park; therefore, the project would result in similar solid waste generation as under existing conditions. In addition, as discussed further in checklist question e) below, the project would be designed in compliance with the City’s recycling requirements and Zero Waste Plan which would limit the amount of operational waste disposed of on-site. As of January 2023, NISL had approximately 12.4 million cubic yards of capacity remaining and an estimated closure date of 2035.149 Based on the remaining capacity at NISL and the fact that the project would not result in substantially different solid waste generation than under existing conditions, NISL would have sufficient capacity to serve the project.

Because the project can be served by a landfill with capacity and would be required to comply with existing local and state programs and regulations, the project’s impacts related to solid waste and landfill capacity and attainment of solid reduction goals would be less than significant, consistent with the findings of the 2019 IS/MND. (Same Impact as Approved Project)

e) Would the project be noncompliant with federal, state, or local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?

The 2019 IS/MND concluded that since future projects would comply with the City’s Zero Waste Policy and divert at least 65 percent of the construction waste from future projects, implementation of the Master Plan would not be noncompliant with any federal, state, or local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste. 150

As discussed under checklist question d) above, the proposed project would comply with state and local regulations related to solid waste reduction. The project would be consistent with Municipal Code requirements and comply with CALGreen standards for construction waste recycling and divert at least 65 percent of construction waste resulting from construction activities on-site. In addition, contractors hired to construct these improvements would be required to prepare a Waste Management Plan consistent with Municipal Code requirements. Consistent with SB 1383 and the City’s Zero Waste Plan, organic waste collected on-site would continue to be diverted from landfills.

The project, therefore, would result in the same impact as disclosed in the 2019 IS/MND. (Same Impact as Approved Project)

149 Boccaleoni, Anthony. Division Manager, Republic Services. Personal Communication. May 12, 2023. 150 City of Cupertino. Parks and Recreation System Master Plan – Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. SCH # 2019109066. October 2019. Page 216.

Memorial Park Specific Plan 161 Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024
Wildfire

5.20.1 Environmental Setting
The regulatory framework and existing conditions have not changed substantially since the adoption of the 2019 IS/MND. Key regulations and project site conditions are described below.

Regulatory Framework
State
Fire Hazard Severity Zones
CAL FIRE is required by law to map areas of significant fire hazards based on fuels, terrain, weather, and other relevant factors. Referred to as Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZs), these maps influence how people construct buildings and protect property to reduce risk associated with wildland fires.

FHSZs are divided into areas where the state has financial responsibility for wildland fire protection, known as state responsibility areas (SRAs), and areas where local governments have financial responsibility for wildland fire protection, known as local responsibility areas (LRAs). Homeowners living in an SRA are responsible for ensuring that their property is in compliance with California’s building and fire codes. Only lands zoned for very high fire hazard are identified within LRAs.

Existing Conditions
The project site is not classified as a very high fire hazard severity zone.151

5.20.2 Impact Discussion

New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
New Less than
Significant
Impact
Same Impact
as Approved
Project
If located in or near state responsibility areas or
lands classified as very high fire hazard severity
zones, would the project:

a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?

b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other
factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby
expose project occupants to pollutant
concentrations from a wildfire or the
uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?

151 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. FHSZ Viewer. Accessed October 1, 2023. https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/.

5.20 5.20.1.1

5.20 .1.2
□
□
□
□
□
□

Memorial Park Specific Plan 162 Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024

c) Require the installation or maintenance of
associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel
breaks, emergency water sources, power lines
or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk
or that may result in temporary or ongoing
impacts to the environment?

d) Expose people or structures to significant risks,
including downslope or downstream flooding or
landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope
instability, or drainage changes?

The 2019 IS/MND determined that implementation of the project would not exacerbate wildfire risks, and would not expose people or structures to significant risk from wildfire.152 The project site is not located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones; therefore, the project would not result in wildfire impacts. (Same Impact as Approved Project)

152 City of Cupertino. Parks and Recreation System Master Plan – Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. SCH # 2019109066. October 2019. Pages 220 to 221.
□ □ □
□ □ □

Memorial Park Specific Plan 163 Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024
Section 6.0 References
The analysis in this Initial Study/Addendum is based on the professional judgement and expertise of the environmental specialists preparing this document, based upon review of the site, surrounding conditions, site plans, and the following references:

Association of Bay Area Governments and Metropolitan Transportation Commission. Plan Bay Area 2050. October 21, 2021.

---. Tsunami & Additional Hazards. Accessed August 16, 2023. https://abag.ca.gov/our-work/resilience/data-research/tsunami-additional-hazards.

Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Final 2017 Clean Air Plan. April 19, 2017. http://www.baaqmd.gov/plans-and-climate/air-quality-plans/current-plans.

California Air Resources Board. “Advanced Clean Cars II.” Accessed August 16, 2023. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/advanced-clean-cars-program/advanced-clean- cars-ii

---. “Overview: Diesel Exhaust and Health.” Accessed August 16, 2023. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/overview-diesel-exhaust-and-health.

California Building Standards Commission. “California Building Standards Code.” Accessed August 16, 2023. https://www.dgs.ca.gov/BSC/Codes#@ViewBag.JumpTo .

California Department of Conservation. California Earthquake Hazards Zone. Webmap. Accessed August 15, 2023. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/EQZApp/app/ .

---. “California Important Farmland Finder.” Accessed March 6, 2023. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/

----. “Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program.” Accessed February 17, 2023. http://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp/Pages/Index.aspx .

---. “Williamson Act.” http://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/lca .

California Department of Finance. “Estimate E-1: Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State — January 1, 2022 and 2023.” May 2023. Accessed August 16, 2023. https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates-e1/.

California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. “FHSZ Viewer.” Webmap. Accessed August 15, 2023. https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/
.

Memorial Park Specific Plan 164 Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024
---. “Fire and Resource Assessment Program.” Accessed February 17, 2023. http://frap.fire.ca.gov/.

California Department of Housing and Community Development. “Regional Housing Needs Allocation” Accessed August 16, 2023. https://www.hcd.ca.gov/planning-and-community- development/regional-housing-needs-allocation.

California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery. Analysis of the Progress Toward the SB 1383 Organic Wase Reduction Goals. August 18, 2020.
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/Publications/Details/1693#:~:text=Analysis%20of%20the% 20Progress%20Toward,(DRRR%2D2020%2D1693)&text=SB%201383%20establishes%20targ ets%20to,75%20percent%20reduction%20by%202025.

California Department of Tax and Fee Administration. “Net Taxable Gasoline Gallons.” Accessed August 16, 2023.
https://www.cdtfa.ca.gov/dataportal/dataset.htm?url=VehicleTaxableFuelDist .

California Department of Transportation. ”Scenic Highways.” Accessed February 17, 2023. https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/lap-landscape-architecture-and-community- livability/lap-liv-i-scenic-highways

California Energy Commission. “2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards.” Accessed August 16, 2023. https://www.energy.ca.gov/programs-and-topics/programs/building-energy- efficiency-standards/2019-building-energy-efficiency.

---. “Natural Gas Consumption by County.” Accessed August 16, 2023. http://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/gasbycounty.aspx.

---. Energy Consumption Data Management System. “Electricity Consumption by County.” Accessed August 16, 2023. http://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbycounty.aspx .

California Environmental Protection Agency. “Cortese List Data Resources.” Accessed October 16, 2023. https://calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/.

California Gas and Electric Utilities. 2022 California Gas Report. Accessed August 16, 2023. https://www.socalgas.com/sites/default/files/Joint_Utility_Biennial_Comprehensive_Califor nia_Gas_Report_2022.pdf.

California Legislative Information. “Chapter 2.7. Modernization of Transportation Analysis for Transit-Oriented Infill Projects [21099- 21099.].” Accessed February 17, 2023. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=21099.&la wCode=PRC.

Memorial Park Specific Plan 165 Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024
California Regional Water Quality Control Board San Francisco Region. Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit, Order No. R2-2022-0018, NPDES Permit No. CAS612008. May 11, 2022

---. San Francisco Bay Region Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit. November 2015.

---. “2020-2022 California Integrated Report (Clean Water Act Section 303(d) List and 305(b) Report).” May 11, 2022. Accessed September 2, 2022.
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/water_quality_assessment/2020 _2022_integrated_report.html.

City of Cupertino. Cupertino General Plan Community Vision 2040. October 15, 2015.

--- “Fire Department.” Accessed August 16, 2023.
https://www.cupertino.org/our-city/departments/public-safety-programs/fire-department .

---. “Schools.” Accessed August 16, 2023. https://www.cupertino.org/our-city/schools .

---. “Sheriff’s Office.” Accessed August 16, 2023.
https://www.cupertino.org/our-city/public-safety-programs/sheriff-s-office .

----. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions Thresholds and Guidance. April 29, 2022.

---. Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan. June 2016. .

---. Final Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan Amendment, Housing Element Update, and Associated Rezoning Project (SCH# 2014032007). December 4, 2014.

---. Parks and Recreation System Master Plan – Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. SCH # 2019109066. October 2019.

Cornerstone Earth Group, Inc. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment - Cupertino Memorial Park, 10185 North Stelling Road, and 21251 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Cupertino. October 13, 2022.

County of Santa Clara. Geologic Hazards Zones. Maps 2 and 10. Map. October 2012.

---. “Williamson Act and Open Space Easement.” September 17, 2018. Accessed March 6, 2023. https://www.sccgov.org/sites/dpd/programs/wa/pages/wa.aspx .

Cupertino Sanitary District. “District Boundaries Map.” Accessed August 18, 2023. https://www.cupertinosanitarydistrict.org/services___service_area .

Memorial Park Specific Plan 166 Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024
---. “Maps: Sheet 7.” Accessed August 18, 2023. https://www.cupertinosanitarydistrict.org/maps.

Federal Emergency Management Agency. Flood Insurance Rate Map, Community Panel No. 06085C0208H.

National Ocean Service. What is a Seiche? Accessed August 16, 2023. https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/seiche.html
.

Ninyo & Moore Geotechnical & Environmental Sciences Consultants. Geotechnical Evaluation.

November 3, 2022

San José Water Company. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. June 2021.

San José-Santa Clara Regional Wastewater Facility. 2022 Self-Monitoring Annual Report. Accessed September 27, 2023. Available at:
https://www.sanjoseca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/94789/638124181781530000 .

Santa Clara County Airport Land Use Commission. Moffett Federal Airfield Comprehensive Land Use Plan. December 2018.

Santa Clara County Fire Department. 2022 Annual Report. April 26, 2023. Page 4. Accessed August 16, 2023. https://www.sccfd.org/about-sccfd/key-reports-and-documents/ .

Santa Clara Valley Water District. 2021 Groundwater Management Plan. Accessed August 16, 2023. https://s3.us-west-

2.amazonaws.com/assets.valleywater.org/2021_GWMP_web_version.pdf.

Silicon Valley Clean Energy. “Frequently Asked Questions.” Accessed August 16, 2023. https://www.svcleanenergy.org/faqs.

United States Department of Energy. Energy Independence & Security Act of 2007. Accessed August 16, 2023. http://www.afdc.energy.gov/laws/eisa.

United States Department of the Interior. Potential Fossil Yield Classification System. July 2016.

Accessed August 15, 2023.
https://www.blm.gov/sites/blm.gov/files/uploads/IM2016- 124_att1.pdf

United States Department of Transportation. USDOT Announces New Vehicle Fuel Economy Standards for Model Year 2024-2026.” Accessed August 16, 2023. https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/usdot-announces-new-vehicle-fuel-economy- standards-model-year-2024-2026

United States Energy Information Administration. “Natural Gas Consumption by End Use. 2021.” Accessed August 16, 2023. https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=CA#tabs-2.

Memorial Park Specific Plan 167 Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024

---. “Petroleum & Other Liquids, California Field Production of Crude Oil.” February 28, 2023. https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=pet&s=mcrfpca1&f=a.

---. “State Profile and Energy Estimates, 2020.” Accessed August 4, 2023. https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=CA#tabs-2.

United States Environmental Protection Agency. “EPA Actions to Protect the Public from Exposure to Asbestos.” Accessed April 19, 2022. https://www.epa.gov/asbestos/epa-actions-protect- public-exposure-asbestos

---. “Summary of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.” Accessed October 16, 2023. https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-resource-conservation-and-recovery-act.

---. “Superfund: CERCLA Overview.” Accessed May 11, 2020. https://www.epa.gov/superfund/superfund-cercla-overview .

---. “The 2022 EPA Automotive Trends Report: Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Fuel Economy, and Technology since 1975.” December 2022.
https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=P1010U68.pdf

Personal Communication
• Boccaleoni, Anthony. Division Manager, Republic Services.

Memorial Park Specific Plan 168 Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024
Section 7.0 Lead Agency and Consultants
Lead Agency
City of Cupertino
Public Works Department
Susan Michael, CIP Manager

Consultants
David J. Powers & Associates, Inc.

Environmental Consultants and Planners
Kristy Weis, Vice President/Principal Project Manager
Nick Towstopiat, Project Manager

Albion Environmental, Inc.

Archaeological Consultants
Jennifer M. Farquhar, Principal
Stella D’Oro, Senior Archaeologist, GIS Specialist

Cornerstone Earth Group, Inc.

Hazardous Materials Consultant
Ron L. Helm, Senior Principal Geologist
Stason Foster, Senior Project Engineer

HortScience | Bartlett Consulting
Biological Resources Consultant
Brenda Wong, Consulting Arborist and Urban Forester

Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc.

Acoustic & Air Quality Consultants
Michael Thill, Principal
Heather Bruce, Senior Consultant

Ninyo & Moore
Geotechnical & Environmental Sciences Consultants
Ransom H. Hennefer, Principal Engineer

TJKM
Transportation Consultants
Mark Doty, Senior Planner
Renee Reavis, Transportation Engineer

7.1 7.2

Memorial Park Specific Plan 169 Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024
Section 8.0 Acronyms and Abbreviations
AB Assembly Bill
ABAG Association of Bay Area Governments
ACM Asbestos-Containing Material
ADA Americans with Disabilities Act
ALUC Airport Land Use Commission
AMSL Above Mean Sea Level
APN Assessor’s Parcel Number
ATCM Asbestos Airborne Toxic Control Measure
BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District
Bay Area San Francisco Bay Area
Basin Plan Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay Basin bgs Below Ground Surface
Btu British Thermal Unit
CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standard
CAL FIRE California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Cal/OSHA California Department of Industrial Relations, Division of Occupational Safety and Health
CalARP California Accidental Release Prevention
CalEPA California Environmental Protection Agency
CALGreen California Green Building Standards
Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CARB California Air Resources Board
CBC California Building Standards Code
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act CFC Chlorofluorocarbon
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CGS California Geological Survey
CH4 Methane

Memorial Park Specific Plan 170 Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024
CHRIS California Historical Resources Information System CLUP Comprehensive Land Use Plan
CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level
CO Carbon Monoxide
CO2 Carbon Dioxide
CO2e Carbon Dioxide Equivalents
CRHR California Register of Historical Resources
CUPA Certified Unified Program Agency
dBA A-weighted decibel
DNL Day/Night Average Sound Level
DOLA Dog Off Leash Area
DPM Diesel Particulate Matter
DTSC Department of Toxic Substances Control
EIR Environmental Impact Report
EO Executive Order
EOP Emergency Operations Plan
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ESA Environmental Site Assessment
FAA Federal Aviation Administration
FAR Federal Aviation Regulations
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FHSZ Fire Hazard Severity Zone
FIRMs Flood Insurance Rate Maps
FMMP Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program
FTA Federal Transit Administration
FUHSD Fremont Union High School District
GHG Greenhouse Gases
GHGRS Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy
GWh Gigawatt Hour
GWMP Groundwater Management Plan
GWP Global Warming Potential

Memorial Park Specific Plan 171 Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024
HFCs Hydrofluorocarbons
HSWA Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments
Leq Energy-Equivalent Sound/Noise Descriptor
LHMP Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
LID Low Impact Development
Lmax Maximum A-weighted noise level during a measurement period LOS Level of Service
LRA Local Responsibility Area
MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act
MG million gallons
MMTCO2e Million Metric Tons of Carbon Dioxide Equivalent MND Mitigated Negative Declaration
mpg Miles per Gallon
MRP Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit
MSL Mean Sea Level
MTC Metropolitan Transportation Commission
N2O Nitrous Oxide
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standard
NAHC Native American Heritage Commission
NCP National Contingency Plan
NESHAP National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants NHPA National Historic Preservation Act of 1966
NISL Newby Island Sanitary Landfill
NO2 Nitrogen Dioxide
NOA Naturally Occurring Asbestos
NOD Notice of Determination
NOI Notice of Intent
NOx Nitrogen Oxides
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NRHP National Register of Historic Places
O3 Ozone

Memorial Park Specific Plan 172 Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024
PCB Polychlorinated Biphenyls
PCF Perfluorocarbon
PDA Priority Development Areas
PFCs Perfluorocarbons
PG&E Pacific Gas and Electric Company
PM Particulate Matter
PM10 Particulate matter with a diameter of 10 microns or less PM2.5 Particulate matter with a diameter of 2.5 microns or less PPV Peak Particle Velocity
R&D Research and Development
RAP Removal Action Plan
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RECs Recognized Environmental Conditions
ROG Reactive Organic Gases
RTP Regional Transportation Plan
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
SB State Bill
SCCFD Santa Clara County Fire Department
SCCSO Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Office
SCS Sustainable Communities Strategy
SCVHP Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan
SF6 Sulfur Hexafluoride
SFHA Special Flood Hazard Areas
SFPUC San Francisco Public Utilities Commission
SHMA Seismic Hazards Mapping Act
SMARA Surface Mining and Reclamation Act
SMGB State Mining and Geology Board
SMP Site Management Plan
SOx Sulfur Oxides
SR State Route
SRA State Responsibility Area

Memorial Park Specific Plan 173 Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024
SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
TAC Toxic Air Contaminants
TCR Tribal Cultural Resources
Title 24 Title 24, Part 6 of the California Code of Regulations TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act
USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers
USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service
UWMP Urban Water Management Plan
Valley Water Santa Clara Valley Water District
VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled
VTA Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
Williamson Act California Land Conservation Act
WPCP San José/Santa Clara Water Pollution Control Plant WUI Wildland-Urban Interface
ZNE Zero Net Carbon Emission

Cupertino City CouncilApril 3, 2024

Cupertino City Council
April 3, 2024