Environmental Checklist Ascent
City of Sunnyvale
3-70 1170 Sonora Court Environmental Checklist
3.15.1 Discussion
No significant changes in the environmental setting regarding public services have occurred since release of the LSAP Update Final SEIR that would alter the LUTE EIR and LUTE Update SEIR impact analysis. a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
Fire protection?
As identified in Impact 3.11.1.1 and 3.11.1.2 of the LSAP EIR, additional residents and retail, commercial, and office/research and development (R&D) uses in the LSAP would increase the need for fire protection services, including equipment, additional inspectors, permit issuance staff, etc., to serve the City under 2035 conditions.
However, it is currently expected that implementation of the LSAP would not necessitate construction of a fire station or emergency medical facility. The Fire Bureau does not maintain a staffing ratio goal based directly on population or employment; staffing levels are instead identified based on service demand and other factors. There are two City of Sunnyvale Fire Department stations within approximately half a mile west and southwest of the plan area boundary, and the City of Santa Clara has a fire station on Corvin Drive, just north of the plan area boundary along Kifer Road.
The LSAP recognizes that a variety of public facilities would be needed to serve the area as development proceeds.
Some of these would be provided through mandatory fees and assessments consistent with existing City of Sunnyvale policy. Sunnyvale’s Fire Code, Section 16.52 of the City’s Municipal Code, prescribes regulations governing conditions hazardous to life and property from fire or explosion through adoption of the 2022 California Fire Code.
The LSAP does not contain any policies regarding the provision of fire protection services, but public uses such as a fire station or emergency medical facility would be a permitted use in all land use classifications, subject to review and City approval. The LSAP EIR programmatically evaluated the construction impacts of such a potential facility in regard to air quality, noise, and water quality (see Sections 3.5, 3.6, and 3.8, of the LSAP Draft EIR, respectively). As subsequent development projects are proposed in the LSAP area, the City would ensure that equipment and facilities (e.g., fire trucks and new or modified fire stations) are provided and maintained to meet reasonable standards of safety, dependability, and compatibility with fire service operations and that rapid emergency response times are met.
Therefore, fire protection and emergency medical services impacts would be less than significant for the LSAP under project and cumulative conditions.
A Comprehensive Risk Assessment of the City’s fire response services found that the City’s average response times were consistent with or exceeded national best practices and recommended test response times of 7 minutes and 30 seconds (Citygate 2018: 86) for four out of five stations serving the City and the Plan Area. The project would be served by existing fire protection facilities and would not require construction of additional facilities. City of Santa Clara Fire Department Station 9 is located approximately 0.9 miles from the project site, at 3011 Corvin Drive. The City’s Station 2 is located at 795 Arques Avenue, approximately 2.0 miles from the project site. The project would be required to meet all City requirements regarding fire protection, including fire access (see project design plans – sheet G.B.003 and G.B.004), and provision of City services through mandatory applicable fees and assessments. The project would not result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe impacts than wer e identified in the LSAP EIR or LSAP Update SEIR, nor would there be new feasible mitigation measures or alternatives that reduce impacts but that City declines to adopt. The findings of the LSAP EIR and LSAP Update SEIR remain valid.
Police protection?
Additional residents and retail, commercial, and office/R&D uses in the LSAP would increase the need for law enforcement protection services (Impact 3.11.2.1 and 3.11.2.2). The LSAP recognizes that a variety of public facilities such as law enforcement would be needed to serve the area as development proceeds. Some of these would be Attachment 13
Ascent Environmental Checklist
City of Sunnyvale
1170 Sonora Court Environmental Checklist 3-71
provided through mandatory fees and assessments consistent with existing City policy. Sunnyvale General Plan Policy SN-3.1 directs that rapid and timely response to all emergencies be provided, and Policy SN -5.1 requires that equipment and facilities are provided and maintained to meet reasonable standards for law enforcement. It is currently not expected that the LSAP itself would necessitate the need to construct a law enforcement facility. The LSAP does not contain any policies regarding the provision of law enforcement services, but public uses such as a police station would be a permitted use in all land use designations, subject to review and City approval. Therefore, law enforcement services impacts would be less than significant under project and cumulative conditions.
The project is required to meet all City site design requirements regarding public safety. The LSAP ’s adopted buildout, as updated in 2021, is 5,935 new residential units and 1,200,000 new net square feet of Office/R&D uses. As of March 2023, the approved and/or constructed development that has occurred since the LSAP adoption include 1,437 residential units, leaving a remaining 4,498 units for buildout. The proposed project would build 107 units, which is within the remaining LSAP buildout capacity. The project would not result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe impacts than were identified in the LSAP EIR or LSAP Update SEIR, nor would there be new feasible mitigation measures or alternatives that reduce impacts but that City declines to adopt . The findings of the LSAP EIR and LSAP Update SEIR remain valid.
Schools?
The LSAP EIR stated that projected growth under the LSAP would increase student enrollment in the Sunnyvale, Santa Clara Unified, and Fremont Union High school districts (see Impact 3.11.3.1 and 3.11.3.2). Buildout of the 2016 LSAP’s 2,323 housing units would result in 114 elementary and middle school students attending Ellis Elementary School and/or Sunnyvale Middle School and 52 high school students attending Fremont High School. The 2021 LSAP Update SEIR determined that allowance of 3,612 additional dwelling units within the adopted LSAP boundaries could result in approximately 795 elementary and middle school students and 371 high school students beyond the number anticipated in Impact 3.11.3.1 of the LSAP EIR. The LSAP EIR discussed the potential for enrollment capacity at these schools to be exceeded and concluded that exceeding school capacity is not considered a physical impact under CEQA. The EIR stated that subsequent projects developed under the LSAP would be required to pay applicable school impact fees in accordance with state law. The school districts would address the need for expansion of school facilities or development of new school facilities, and such development would be subject to the appropriate CEQA environmental review. The LSAP impacts were determined to be less than significant.
The project would not result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe impacts than were identified in the LSAP EIR or LSAP Update SEIR, nor would there be new feasible mitigation measures or alternatives that reduce impacts but that City declines to adopt. The findings of the LSAP EIR and LSAP Update SEIR remain valid.
Parks?
See the discussion, below, under checklist item in Section 3.15, “Recreation.” Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures were required for the certified LSAP EIR regarding public services. No additional mitigation measures are required for the project.
Conclusion
The conclusions of the LSAP EIR and the LSAP Update SEIR remain valid, and approval of the project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts to public services.
Attachment 13
Environmental Checklist Ascent
City of Sunnyvale
3-72 1170 Sonora Court Environmental Checklist
3.16 RECREATION
Environmental Issue Area
Where Impact Was
Analyzed in the LSAP
Draft and Final EIR or
the LSAP Update
Draft and Final SEIR.
Any New
Circumstances Involving
New Significant Impacts
or Substantially More
Severe Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Do Prior
Environmental
Documents
Mitigations
Address/Resolve
Impacts?
16. Recreation
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?
Draft EIR Setting pp.
3.0-2 and 3.11-11 to
3.11-12
Impacts 3.11.4.1 and
3.11.4.2 Draft and Final SEIR
identified no change
in impact conclusion
(Draft SEIR Impact
3.13-3)
No No NA, impact would be
less than significant
b. Include recreational facilities or require the
construction or expansion of recreational
facilities that might have an adverse physical
effect on the environment?
Draft EIR Setting pp.
3.11-11 to 3.11-12
Impacts 3.11.4.1 and
3.11.4.2 Draft and Final SEIR
identified no change
in impact conclusion
(Draft SEIR Impact
3.13-3)
No No NA, impact would be
less than significant
3.16.1 Discussion
No substantial change in the regulatory settings related to recreation, described in the LSAP Draft EIR Section 3.11.4, Parks and Community Services, has occurred since certification of the LSAP EIR and the LSAP Update SEIR. a) 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?
See item b) below
b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? As addressed in Impact 3.11.4.1 and 3.11.4.2, the additional population associated with the 2016 LSAP (5,622) would generate a demand for approximately 28 acres of park and recreation facilities. With the proposed LUTE the city -wide demand for parkland would be approximately 698 acres in year 2035. This demand would not occur immediately, but over time as subsequent projects are developed. As required under the City’s Municipal Code Chapter 19.74, subsequent projects, such as the proposed project at Sonora Court, would be required to dedicate land, pay a fee in lieu thereof, or both, for park and recreational purposes at a ratio of 5 acres per 1,000 residents. The LSAP has identified measures that could be used to meet the need generated by future development projects and proposes an open space framework illustrating key elements of a parks and open space system for the plan area at a conceptual level (LSAP Draft EIR Figure 2.0-4; see Section 2.0, Project Description). Under the LSAP, approximately 32.5 to 39 .0 acres of new open spaces and plazas open to the public throughout the plan area could be established. Per the City’s Attachment 13
Ascent Environmental Checklist
City of Sunnyvale
1170 Sonora Court Environmental Checklist 3-73
Municipal Code, subsequent projects would also be required to dedicate land, pay a fee in lieu thereof, or both, for park and recreational purposes at a ratio of 5 acres per 1,000 residents.
The project is a mixed-use residential and commercial project and would generate direct demand for recreation facilities. The project would construct 107 units. The LSAP assumes 2.42 people per unit of housing (City of Sunnyvale 2016: 3.15). This would result in an approximate addition of 254 people to the Plan Area from the proposed project and a demand for 0.95 acres of park and recreational space per City requirements. The project would comply with requirements and pay the fees required to meet the required ratio of 5 acres of park or recreational space per 1,000 residents.
Typical environmental effects regarding improvements to and use of parks and recreational facilities may involve issues with noise (during construction and with use of playfields and playgrounds), air quality (during the construction of the facility), biological resources (depending on location), historic/cultural resources (depending on location), public services and utilities (demand for police and fire protection, electric, water, and wastewater service), and traffic on a local neighborhood level. The environmental effects of construction and operation of such facilities in the plan area have been considered programmatically in the technical analyses of the LSAP Draft EIR as part of overall development of projects anticipated under the LSAP. Impacts on existing facilities and the development of new facilities within the LSAP area would be less than significant under project and cumulative conditions. The project would not result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe impacts than were iden tified in the LSAP EIR or LSAP Update SEIR, nor would there be new feasible mitigation measures or alternatives that reduce impacts but that City declines to adopt. The findings of the LSAP EIR and LSAP Update SEIR remain valid.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures were identified in for the certified LSAP EIR and the LSAP Update SEIR regarding recreation, nor are any additional mitigation measures required the project.
Conclusion
No new circumstances or project changes have occurred nor has any new information been identified requiring new analysis or verification. Therefore, the conclusions of the LSAP EIR and the LSAP Update SEIR remain valid, and approval of project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts to recreation.
Attachment 13
Environmental Checklist Ascent
City of Sunnyvale
3-74 1170 Sonora Court Environmental Checklist
3.17 TRANSPORTATION
Environmental Issue Area
Where Impact Was Analyzed
in the LSAP Draft and Final
EIR or the LSAP Update Draft
and Final SEIR.
Any New Circumstances
Involving New
Significant Impacts or
Substantially More
Severe Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Do Prior
Environmental
Documents
Mitigations
Address/Resolve
Impacts?
17. Transportation. Would the project:
a. Conflict with a program, plan,
ordinance or policy addressing the
circulation system, including transit,
roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian
facilities?
Draft SEIR pp. 3.14-28
through 3.14-32
Impact 3.14-2, 3.14-3, 3.14-4
No No NA, impact would be
less than significant
b. Conflict or be inconsistent with
CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3,
subdivision (b)?
Draft SEIR pp. 3.14-22
through 3.14-27
Impact 3.14-1
No No NA, impact would be
less than significant
c. Substantially increase hazards due
to a geometric design feature (e.g.,
sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g., farm equipment)?
Draft EIR Setting pp. 3.4-1 to
3.4-23
Impact 3.4.4
Draft and Final SEIR identified
no change in impact
conclusion (Draft SEIR Impact
3.14-5)
No No NA, impact would be
less than significant
d. Result in inadequate emergency
access?
Draft EIR Setting pp. 3.4-1 to
3.4-23
Impact 3.4.5
Draft and Final SEIR identified
no change in impact
conclusion (Draft SEIR Impact
3.14-6)
No No NA, impact would be
less than significant
3.17.1 Regulatory Setting
The Federal and State regulatory setting for transportation provided on pages 3.4 -18 through 3.4-21 of the certified LSAP EIR remain applicable to this analysis. However, an updated description of the adopted changes to the State CEQA Guidelines pursuant to SB 743 that have occurred subsequent to the approval of the LSAP EIR are described below. Additionally, since certification of the LSAP EIR, changes to the City of Sunnyvale and Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) regulatory setting have occurred. These changes are described in detail below. The LSAP Update SEIR evaluated VMT impacts consistent with the 2018 update of the State CEQA Guidelines and City policies regarding VMT.
SENATE BILL 743
SB 743, passed in 2013, required OPR to develop new State CEQA guidelines that address traffic metrics under CEQA.
As stated in the legislation, upon adoption of the new guidelines, “automobile delay, as described solely by level of service (LOS) or similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion shall not be considered a significant impact on the environment pursuant to this division, except in locations specifically identified in the guidelines, if any.” The change in the focus of transportation analysis is intended to shift the emphasis from congestion to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, promoting a diversity of land uses, and developing multimodal transportation networks.
Attachment 13
Ascent Environmental Checklist
City of Sunnyvale
1170 Sonora Court Environmental Checklist 3-75
In December of 2018, OPR published the most recent version of the Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (OPR 2018) which provides guidance for VMT analysis. The Office of Administrative Law approved the updated State CEQA Guidelines and lead agencies had an opt-in period until July 1, 2020 to implement the updated guidelines regarding VMT. As of July 1, 2020, implementation of Section 15064.3 of the updated CEQA Guidelines apply statewide.
CITY OF SUNNYVALE COUNCIL POLICY MANUAL
Sunnyvale City Council adopted Council Policy 1.2.8, “Transportation Analysis Policy,” on June 30, 2020; thus, establishing VMT as the primary threshold of significance for analysis of transportation impacts under CEQA. This policy is designed to provide guidance in the preparation of transportation analysis for land use and transportation projects as part of the environmental review process to comply with CEQA (City of Sunnyvale 2020).
Council Policy 1.2.8 requires that all projects evaluate and disclose transportation-related environmental impacts using VMT as the primary metric, as required by CEQA. Additionally, the policy establishes LOS as an operational measurement of intersection efficiency that is also required to be addressed for all projects. However, because a project’s effect on automobile delay no longer constitutes a significant impact under CEQA, LOS is not analyzed here-in.
The following policy requirements related to VMT are applicable to the project:
1. Land Use Projects. For residential and employment projects, projects will use the Countywide Average VMT as the baseline with a VMT reduction threshold set at 15 percent below the baseline to identify potential transportation impacts and propose mitigations.
2. Exemptions. The requirement to prepare a detailed VMT analysis applies to all projects except the following types as these projects will further the City’s goals and policies and will not result in significant transportation impacts.
A. Small Infill Projects (110 daily trips or less).
B. Neighborhood-Serving Retail/Service Development uses (maximum 100,000 square feet total for entire commercial development), similar to uses permitted by right or with a Miscellaneous Planning Permit (MPP) in the C-1 (Neighborhood Business Zoning District) subject to evaluation by the Director of Community Development. Such uses not considered neighborhood-serving include auto dealerships, car wash/repair facilities, drive-thru restaurants/services, restaurants with banquet halls, hotels, and similar uses that have a regional draw.
C. City Facilities such as fire stations, parks, community centers, branch libraries.
D. Restricted Affordable Housing Projects that meet the following:
(I) For rental developments: At least 25 percent of the proposed residential units dedicated as affordable to households up to 80 percent area median income (AMI). The developer shall meet the requirements for the City’s Rental Inclusionary (SMC Ch. 19.77), and then may provide the remainder of the required units at low income.
(II) For ownership developments: At least 25 percent of the proposed residential units dedicated as affordable to households up to 120 percent AMI. The developer shall meet the requirements for the City’s Below Market Rate Ownership Inclusionary (SMC Ch. 19.67). (III) For either type of development: The development may utilize the State Density Bonus, however 25 percent of the total constructed units on site must be deed restricted. Prior to the issuance of any building permit for the project, an Affordable Housing Regulatory Agreement shall be recorded against the parcel(s) which sets rent and occupancy restrictions for fifty-five years and shall run with the land through any change of ownership.
E. Transportation Projects that reduce or do not increase VMT including, but not limited to:
(I) Roadway maintenance, rehabilitation, and safety improvements; Attachment 13
Environmental Checklist Ascent
City of Sunnyvale
3-76 1170 Sonora Court Environmental Checklist
(II) Installation or reconfigured traffic lanes to provide left-turns, right-turns, etc.; (III) Conversion of existing lanes to managed or transit lanes; (IV) Multimodal improvements that promote walking, bicycling and transit; (V) Technology projects that optimize intersection operations, and traffic metering systems, detection, cameras, and other electronics designed to optimize traffic flow; (VII) Installation of traffic control devices and roundabouts; (VIII) Relocation or removal of parking; and
(IX) Installation of publicly available alternative fuel/charging infrastructure.
F. Transit Supportive Projects (office/R&D projects with a floor area ratio of more than 75 percent or a residential project of at least 35 dwelling units/acre) within ½ mile of an existing major bus stop or existing stop along a high quality transit corridor that meet all of the following requirements:
(I) Support the multimodal transportation network by facilitating access to multimodal transportation with improved pedestrian facilities, bike lanes, transit stops; does not harm or hinder access to multimodal transportation;
(II) Does not exceed maximum parking requirements or propose higher than what is allowed per the development standards;
(III) Is transit oriented in design:
a. Has a walkable design that prioritizes pedestrians; b. Is sustainable, and compact;
c. Facilitates ease of bicycle use;
d. Is focused or centered around transit; and
(IV) Redevelopment of a site which provides at least as many affordable units as previously existed.
3. Transportation Projects. Project types that would likely lead to a measurable and substantial increase in vehicle travel generally include addition of through lanes on existing or new highways, including general purpose lanes, high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes, peak period lanes, auxiliary lanes, or lanes through grade- separated interchanges Transportation projects that add vehicle capacity to the roadway network will be required to analyze:
A. Direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the transportation project B. Near term and long term induced vehicle travel in total VMT C. Consistency with state and local greenhouse gas reduction goals D. Impacts on the development of multimodal transportation networks E. Impacts on the development of diversity of land uses
4. Regional Projects. For projects such as regional retail, hospitals, stadium, sports complexes, or schools that are not regulated by a Public School District or that require permits from a local jurisdiction, a net increase in total VMT may indicate a significant transportation impact.
In October of 2021, the City of Sunnyvale Department of Public Works adopted the City of Sunnyvale Transportation Analysis Guideline for Vehicle Miles Traveled and Local Transportation Analysis . This document provides the significance criteria, exemption screening criteria, thresholds of significance, and methodologies of the analysis for VMT; along with the operation analyses required and methodologies in a Local Transportation Analysis for development projects. This document incorporates Council Policy 1.2.8 by reference; and thus, the policy Attachment 13
Ascent Environmental Checklist
City of Sunnyvale
1170 Sonora Court Environmental Checklist 3-77
requirements associated with Council Policy 1.2.8 detailed above are consistent the guidance and direction provided in the City of Sunnyvale Transportation Analysis Guideline for Vehicle Miles Traveled and Local Transportation Analysis.
CITY OF SUNNYVALE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
The purpose of the 2020 Sunnyvale Active Transportation Plan is to create a safe, connected, and efficient citywide active transportation network. This plan updates Sunnyvale’s 2006 Bicycle Plan, 2007 Pedestrian Safety and Opportunities Study, and 2012 Comprehensive School Traffic Study. The Plan lays out policies, infrastructure projects, and supporting programs, as well as identifies funding sources and implementation priorities; and includes various proposed bicycle and pedestrian improvements that may be used to reduce VMT.
PEDESTRIAN ACCESS TO TRANSIT PLAN
VTA adopted the Pedestrian Access to Transit Plan in fall 2017, which “is the first-ever look at pedestrian conditions for VTA’s customers in Santa Clara County and is one component of a larger effort to strengthen and expand VTA's pedestrian program.” The Pedestrian Access to Transit Plan identifies Focus Areas with high bus ridership and the opportunity for pedestrian facility improvements. It also identifies 165 potential capital projects that would improve safety and the quality of the walk to transit, which could potentially increase ridership. VTA staff updated the geographic analysis done for the Pedestrian Access to Transit Pan using 2018 data, which can be used by member agencies, developers, and others to determine the need for pedestrian improvements across Santa Clara County.
3.17.2 Discussion
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities? Public Transit
Diversifying land uses and increasing densities envisioned under the LSAP would support the long- term viability of the Lawrence Caltrain station. This could increase the demand for transit services and related facilities. Caltrain is in the process of implementing the Caltrain Modernization Program (CalMod) which includes electrification and other projects that will upgrade the performance, efficiency, capacity, safety, and reliability of Caltrain’s service. The LSAP Update includes the Lawrence Station Sense of Place Plan. The Lawrence Station Sense of Place Plan requires new development in the area to implement a variety of transit and automobile circulation improvements and develop associated design standards and guidelines. It will result in improving transit connections and circulation to and from the Lawrence Caltrain Station.
The project would likely increase the demand for transit in the area, primarily on Caltrain. However, consistent with guidance provided in the Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA , when evaluating impacts to multimodal transportation networks, lead agencies generally should not treat the addition of new transit users as an adverse impact. An infill development (such as the project in question) may add riders to transit systems and the additional boarding and alighting may slow transit vehicles, but it also adds destinations, improving proximity and accessibility (OPR 2018). Additionally, the project design would comply with LSAP policies regarding site design and would not conflict with any transit service in the area and all existing transit services have sufficient capacity to serve the project. Finally, the project would provide the benefit of direct pedestrian access to the Lawrence Caltrain Station via the proposed sliding gate and crossing. The project would not result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe impacts than were identified in the LSAP EIR or LSAP Update SEIR, nor would there be new feasible mitigation measures or alternatives that reduce impacts but that City declines to adopt . The findings of the LSAP EIR and LSAP Update SEIR remain valid.
Attachment 13
Environmental Checklist Ascent
City of Sunnyvale
3-78 1170 Sonora Court Environmental Checklist
Pedestrian and Bicycle
As identified in Impacts 3.4.2 and 3.4.3 of the LSAP EIR, the LSAP identifies various bicycle and pedestrian facility improvements to close the gaps in the existing and planned network. The planned bicycle network would provide a continuous system of Class I and Class II facilities that would allow improved and safe connections throughout the plan area. The LSAP and the 2020 Sunnyvale Active Transportation Plan identifies two new bicycle/pedestrian crossings at the Caltrain tracks, one in the vicinity of Calabazas Creek on the east and one in the west side of the plan area connecting Sonora Court to Aster Avenue southwest of the project site. These grade-separated crossings would increase north-south connectivity for bicyclists, as well as pedestrians, and would provide increased safety. The LSAP Update includes the Lawrence Station Sense of Place Plan. The Lawrence Station Sense of Place Plan requires new development in the area to implement a variety of pedestrian, bicycle, and automobile circulation improvements and develop associated design standards and guidelines. It will result in improving bicycle, and pedestrian connections and circulation to and from the Lawrence Caltrain Station.
The project would comply with LSAP policies regarding site design, which require development under the LSAP to be compatible with their surroundings. The LSAP also includes policies regarding street design to create safe and comfortable movement on foot, including streetscape amenities like street trees, and street furniture. As detailed in Chapter 2 “Project Description,” new sidewalks would be built along the east perimeter of the project site and would extend south to provide direct access to the Lawrence Caltrain Station, and north to provide access to Sonora Court.
Street trees, precast planters, and seating areas would be constructed in select locations around the perimeter of the site as well. The new sidewalks and streetscape amenities are part of pedestrian improvements on the site. Future bicycle lanes would be constructed along Sonora Court as a separate project. The project would pay the LSAP sense of place fee toward these future bicycle facility improvements along Sonora Court, and 52 class I and II bicycle parking spaces would be installed.
Thus, due to the proposed and planned pedestrian and bicycle improvements and project consistency with LSAP design policies, no new significant impacts or substantially more severe impacts would occur. The project would not result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe impacts than were identified in the LSAP EIR or LSAP Update SEIR, nor would there be new feasible mitigation measures or alternatives that reduce impacts but that City declines to adopt. The findings of the LSAP EIR and LSAP Update SEIR remain valid. b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? Introduction
The LSAP Draft EIR concluded that impacts related to traffic operational impacts would be significant and unavoidable with implementation of all feasible mitigation measures. However, pursuant to SB 743, PRC Section 21099, and California Code of Regulations Section 15064.3(a), generally, VMT is the most appropriate measure of transportation impacts and a project’s effect on automobile delay shall no longer constitute a significant impact under CEQA. Additionally, on June 30, 2020, Sunnyvale City Council adopted a resolution and Council Policy (Policy
1.2.8, “Transportation Analysis Policy”) establishing VMT as the primary threshold of significance for analysis of transportation impacts under CEQA. Policy 1.2.8, “Transportation Analysis Policy” notes that the City of Sunnyvale will retain LOS as an operational measurement of intersection efficiency but reiterates that a project’s effect on LOS (i.e., automobile delay) is no longer considered an environmental impact under CEQA. Therefore, the transportation analysis here-in evaluates impacts using VMT and does not include LOS analysis. The LSAP Update SEIR addressed VMT impacts under Impact 3.14-1 and concluded that the LSAP Update would result in no new significant effect to VMT, and the impact is not more severe than what the impact in the 2016 LSAP EIR would have been, if analyzed.
VMT Methodology
The City of Sunnyvale has developed and adopted VMT guidelines and thresholds (i.e., Council Policy 1.2.8 and City of Sunnyvale Transportation Analysis Guideline for Vehicle Miles Traveled and Local Transportation Analysis ) to meet the State requirements set by SB 743 and address CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3. Therefore, the VMT analysis here- in primarily relies on the guidance provided in Council Policy 1.2.8, City of Sunnyvale Transportation Analysis Guideline for Vehicle Miles Traveled and Local Transportation Analysis, and CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3.
Attachment 13
Ascent Environmental Checklist
City of Sunnyvale
1170 Sonora Court Environmental Checklist 3-79
State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b) identifies four criteria for analyzing the transportation impacts of a project.
To determine how the project should be considered, a discussion of the applicable criteria is provided below.
Section 15064.3(b)(1) addresses land use projects. The LSAP is a land use plan that was prepared to guide future development of the area surrounding the Lawrence Caltrain Station. The project would be considered a land use project. Section 15064.3(b)(1) describes that projects with specified proximity to “major” or “high quality” transit should be presumed to cause a less than significant transportation impact. As defined in PRC Section 21064.3, a “major transit stop” means a site containing an existing rail transit station, a ferry terminal served by either a bus or rail transit service, or the intersection of two or more major bus routes with a frequency of service interval of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods. PRC Section 21155(b) defines a high- quality transit corridor as a corridor with fixed route bus service with service intervals no longer than 15 minutes during peak commute hours. Additionally, Section 15064.3(b)(1) also describes that projects resulting in a decrease VMT in the project area as compared to existing conditions should also be presumed to have a less than significant effect. Section 15064.3(b)(4), Methodology, explains that the lead agency, (in this case, City of Sunnyvale) has discretion to choose the most appropriate methodology to evaluate VMT subject to other applicable standards, such as CEQA Guidelines Section 15151 (standards of adequacy for EIR analyses).
Sunnyvale Council Policy 1.2.8 defines the requirements for VMT analysis by project type, the criteria under which projects are presumed to result in a less than significant VMT impact and are not required to analyze it, and the thresholds of significance for determining VMT-based transportation impacts under CEQA. As detailed in Council Policy 1.2.8, the VMT analysis for residential and employment projects shall use the Countywide Average VMT as the baseline, and the VMT significance threshold shall be set at 15 percent below the baseline to identify potential transportation impacts and any resulting mitigation.
Additionally, Council Policy 1.2.8 includes a set of criteria under which conforming projects are assumed to be exempt from preparing a detailed VMT analysis. By virtue of conforming to the exemption criteria, a project would further the City of Sunnyvale’s goals and policies and would be presumed to result in a less-than-significant impact to VMT.
As detailed in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b)(1) and Section 2, “Exemptions,” of Council Policy 1.2.8, “Transportation Analysis Policy,” projects within one-half mile of either an existing major transit stop or a stop along an existing high-quality transit corridor should generally be presumed to cause a less than significant transportation impact.
Additionally, this exemption criterion is generally consistent with the guidance in the OPR Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts which states that projects within one-half mile of either an existing major transit stop or a stop along an existing high-quality transit corridor should generally be presumed to cause a less than significant transportation impact.
Analysis
The 2016 LSAP EIR did not include an impact analysis or significance determination related to VMT as it was not required under CEQA at the time. However, the LSAP EIR did disclose the results of a VMT assessment which determined that implementation of the LSAP would result in a net increase in total VMT as compared to existing conditions, but a lower citywide VMT per capita as compared to the citywide existing and 2035 no-project scenarios .
As detailed above, the stated intent of SB 743 is to promote the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, the development of multimodal transportation networks, and a diversity of land uses. The stated purpose of the LSAP is to promote greater use of the existing major transit stop of Lawrence Caltrain Station and guide the development of a diverse neighborhood of employment, residential, retail, other support services and open space. The area covered by the adopted LSAP is generally defined by a one-half-mile radius from the Lawrence Caltrain Station. Therefore, by virtue of being part of, and adhering to the LSAP and its associated policies, the project would be consistent the intent of the SB 743. Additionally, the LSAP area analyzed in the LSAP EIR would c onform to the criteria set forth in Council Policy 1.2.8, “Transportation Analysis Policy,” for the presumption of a less-than-significant VMT impact due to a project’s transit supportive nature and its proximity to a high-quality transit corridor and/or major transit stop.
The project would be located directly north of, and adjacent to the Lawrence Caltrain Station; and thus, is within one- half mile of a major transit stop. Additionally, Council Policy 1.2.8 requires that a project meet the following criteria to Attachment 13
Environmental Checklist Ascent
City of Sunnyvale
3-80 1170 Sonora Court Environmental Checklist
presume a less-than-significant VMT impact for a project based on proximity to a major transit stop or high -quality transit corridor:
Transit Supportive Projects (office/R&D projects with a floor area ratio of more than 75 percent or a residential project of at least 35 dwelling units/acre) within ½ mile of an existing major bus stop or existing stop along a high-quality transit corridor that meet all of the following requirements:
I. Support the multimodal transportation network by facilitating access to multimodal transportation with improved pedestrian facilities, bike lanes, transit stops; does not harm or hinder access to multimodal transportation.
II. Does not exceed maximum parking requirements or propose higher than what is allowed per the development standards.
III. Is transit oriented in design:
a. has a walkable design that prioritizes pedestrians;
b. is sustainable, and compact;
c. facilitates ease of bicycle use;
d. is focused or centered around transit; and
IV. Redevelopment of a site which provides at least as many affordable units as previously existed.
The LSAP allows a base maximum residential density for the site of 54 dwelling units/acre (du/ac), which can be increased through voluntary participation in the LSAP Development Incentives Program and California Density Bonus Law (Gov. Code Section 65915) The project’s proposed density of 98 du/ac is achieved through 11 density points in the LSAP Development Incentives Program and a 50 percent state density bonus due to the provision of 24 percent low-income units (18 units total). Additionally, as detailed in Appendix E: VMT Mitigation Strategies of the City of Sunnyvale Transportation Analysis Guideline for Vehicle Miles Traveled and Local Transportation Analysis , City approved tier 1 mitigation strategies include the following:
PC01 Increase Residential Density: Where allowed (by zoning and GP) design the project with increased residential densities compared to existing conditions.
As detailed in Chapter 2, “Project Description,” the project would increase residential density compared to existing and the maximum density limit currently included in the LSAP. However, the increased residential density associated with the project meets the City-approved tier 1 mitigation strategy detailed above; and thus, would likely result in a decrease in VMT.
The project would include multimodal frontage improvements along both the north and east project site. The project would also provide new sidewalks along the east boundary of the project site which would extended south providing direct access to the Lawrence Caltrain Station. Additionally, the project would include 52 Class I and II bicycle parking spaces. Therefore, the project would support the multimodal transportation network by facilitating access to multimodal transportation with improved pedestrian facilities; and would not harm or hinder access to multimodal transportation.
The LSAP allows for reduced parking requirements as compared to the off-street parking requirements in the City of Sunnyvale Municipal Code Chapter 19.46. The parking study prepared for the project indicates that a total of 266 parking spaces are required for the site. The project would construct a parking garage that would accommodate 207 vehicle parking spaces, which would not exceed the parking standard as a Density Bonus project . These spaces
include electric vehicle charging stations (EVCS) and Americans with Disability Act compliant spaces .
The increase in density associated with implementation of the project would serve to further enhance the transit - oriented nature of the LSAP plan area by locating a greater number of residents in a multimodal environment, and in close proximity to the Lawrence Caltrain Station. Additionally, as detailed above, the project would enhance the Attachment 13
Ascent Environmental Checklist
City of Sunnyvale
1170 Sonora Court Environmental Checklist 3-81
bicycle and pedestrian facilities in the area and connect to the Lawrence Caltrain Station. Therefore, the project is transit-oriented in nature.
Additionally, of the 107 residential units, 18 would be dedicated for low-income tenants; and thus, would assist in implementing the vision of affordable urban living in the Lawrence Station Area and is consistent with the LSAP land use designations and zoning, including the recent LSAP Update and the VMT impact conclusions in the SEIR.
For the reasons detailed above, the project would conform to the criteria set forth in Council Policy 1.2.8 for the presumption of a less-than-significant VMT impact because of a project’s proximity to a high-quality transit corridor or major transit stop. The project would not result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe impacts than were identified in the LSAP EIR or LSAP Update SEIR, nor would there be new feasible mitigation measures or alternatives that reduce impacts but that City declines to adopt. The findings of the LSAP EIR and LSAP Update SEIR remain valid.
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? As identified in Impact 3.4.4, the LSAP incorporates a “complete streets” approach for circulation planning that accommodates all travel modes. Complete streets are designed and operated to enable safe and convenient access for all users, including pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists. The LSAP includes several circulation network improvements to provide improved access through the plan area. In addition to providing new streets in the LSAP, improvements to existing streets would be implemented to ensure safety for all street users. Extensive bicycle and pedestrian facility enhancements would be implemented, including additional crosswalks, changes in signal timing, and two grade-separated pedestrian/bicycle crossings at the Caltrain tracks. All of the proposed improvements would help reduce the potential for pedestrian/bicycle and vehicle conflicts. All roadway and pedestrian/bicycle facilities would be designed in accordance with City of Sunnyvale standards.
Access to the project would be provided via one full-access driveway along Sonora Court. New sidewalks would be built around the north and east perimeter of the project site extending south to provide direct access to the Lawrence Caltrain Station and north to provide access to Sonora Court. The new sidewalks and streetscape amenities are part of pedestrian improvements on the site. Bicycle parking would be provided. Future bicycle lanes would be constructed along Sonora Court as a separate project. The proposed project would contribute LSAP sense of place fees toward this future improvement. The project would comply with LSAP policies regarding site design, which require development under the LSAP to be compatible with their surroundings. Additionally, in accordance with City of Sunnyvale standards, the project would provide adequate sight distance at all access points. The project would not result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe impacts than were identified in the LSAP EIR or LSAP Update SEIR, nor would there be new feasible mitigation measures or alternatives that reduce impacts but that City declines to adopt. The findings of the LSAP EIR and LSAP Update SEIR remain valid.
Caltrain Tracks
As identified in Impact 3.4.4, results of the traffic modeling show that intersection conditions near roadway crossings of the tracks would not worsen as a result of the LSAP, indicating the LSAP- generated traffic volumes at the at-grade crossing would not substantially increase. As such, no substantial increased risk of vehicle/train conflicts is anticipated due to LSAP traffic. The LSAP proposes two new grade-separated crossings at the Caltrain tracks, one on the east side of the plan area and one on the west side. These crossings would be for non- vehicular travel only and would provide two new options for pedestrians and bicyclists traveling between the north and south sides of the plan area to safely cross the tracks. Design and construction of the track crossings would need to be coordinated with Caltrain.
Thus, this impact would be less than significant under project and cumulative conditions.
The project would provide direct pedestrian access to the adjacent Caltrain station through the construction of new sidewalks along the eastern boundary and extending south of the project site. Vehicular access to the Caltrain Station is provided from Sonora Court via San Zeno Way east of the project site. The project would not result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe impacts than were identified in the LSAP EIR or LSAP Update SEIR, Attachment 13
Environmental Checklist Ascent
City of Sunnyvale
3-82 1170 Sonora Court Environmental Checklist
nor would there be new feasible mitigation measures or alternatives that reduce impacts but that City declines to adopt. The findings of the LSAP EIR and LSAP Update SEIR remain valid. d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
As identified in Impact 3.4.5, the LSAP includes several circulation network improvements to provide improved access through the LSAP area. The loop road would provide an additional full access point to Central Expressway west of Lawrence Expressway, which could reduce traffic volumes on Lawrence Expressway. Extending the connectivity of Sonora Court to both Kifer Road and the east side of the Lawrence Expressway overcrossing could reduce traffic volumes on Kifer Road. These improvements would provide additional access through and around the LSAP. All improvements would be required to meet City of Sunnyvale roadway design standards. Because the LSAP would provide adequate access for emergency vehicles, impacts would be less than significant for the LSAP.
The project is required to meet all City of Sunnyvale requirements regarding emergency access, including fire access.
The project is required to attain the minimum 20-foot width requirement for emergency vehicle access and circulation. The project would not result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe impacts than were identified in the LSAP EIR or LSAP Update SEIR, nor would there be new feasible mitigation measures or alternatives that reduce impacts but that City declines to adopt. The findings of the LSAP EIR and LSAP Update SEIR remain valid.
Mitigation Measures
No additional mitigation measures are required for the project.
Conclusion
No new circumstances or project changes have occurred nor has any new information been identified requiring new analysis or verification. Therefore, the conclusions of the LSAP EIR and the LSAP Update SEIR remain valid, and approval of project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts to transportation.
Attachment 13
Ascent Environmental Checklist
City of Sunnyvale
1170 Sonora Court Environmental Checklist 3-83
3.18 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Where Impact Was
Analyzed in the LSAP
Draft and Final EIR or
the LSAP Update
Draft and Final SEIR.
Any New Circumstances
Involving New
Significant Impacts or
Substantially More
Severe Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Do Prior
Environmental
Documents
Mitigations
Address/Resolve
Impacts?
18. Tribal Cultural Resources.
Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Res ources 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)?
Draft SEIR pp. 3.3-3
through 3.3-5
No No NA, there would be
no impact
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 Resource Code
Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall
consider the significance of the resource to
a California Native American tribe?
Draft SEIR pp. 3.3-3
through 3.3-5
No No NA, there would be
not impact.
3.18.1 Discussion
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)? The LSAP was not subject to AB 52 when the 2016 LSAP EIR was published. Because no potential tribal cultural resources were identified, the 2016 LSAP EIR did not evaluate impacts related to tribal cultural resources.
Amendments to the LSAP evaluated in the SEIR were subject to AB 52 and SB 18. Letters were mailed to 12 tribes on January 11, 2019, inviting them to request consultation under SB 18 or AB 52. Two responses were received, but the responding tribes declined consultation and did not have any comme nts. The LSAP SEIR concluded that because the LSAP Plan Area is already developed, it is unlikely that tribal cultural resources are present. Adopted LSAP Mitigation Measure 3.10.2 requires text to be included on project plans regarding the steps to be taken should construction crews discover archaeological resources or human remains during project. construction. These steps would also protect previously undiscovered tribal cultural resources during construction, though the presence of tribal cultural resources in the area is unlikely.
The project would occur within the area as analyzed in the LSAP. The project site contains no recorded archaeological resources and would be subject to adopted LSAP Mitigation Measure MM 3.10.2 The project would not result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe impacts than were identified in the LSAP EIR or LSAP Update SEIR, Attachment 13
Environmental Checklist Ascent
City of Sunnyvale
3-84 1170 Sonora Court Environmental Checklist
nor would there be new feasible mitigation measures or alternatives that reduce impacts but that City declines to adopt. The findings of the LSAP EIR and LSAP Update SEIR remain valid. 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 Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe?
See analysis under item a) above.
Mitigation Measures
The following adopted mitigation measure was adopted with the LSAP and would continue to remain applicable if the project was approved.
Mitigation Measure MM 3.10.2
All subsequent projects within the LSAP plan area shall be required to include information on the improvement plans that if, during the course of grading or construction cultural resources (i.e., prehistoric or historic sites) are discovered , work will stop in that area and within 100 feet of the find until a qualified archaeologist can access the significance of the find and, if necessary, develop appropriate treatment measures as part of a treatment plan in consultation with the City and all other appropriate agencies. The treatment plan shall include measures to document and protect the discovered resource. Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4 (b)(3), preservation in place will be the preferred method of mitigating impacts to the discovered resource. Pursuant to Government Code Section 6254.10, information on the discovered resource shall be confidential.
Conclusion
No new circumstances or project changes have occurred nor has any new information been found that would result in new significant or substantially more severe impacts than those identified in the LSAP EIR and LSAP Update SEIR.
Therefore, the conclusions of the LSAP EIR and the LSAP Update SEIR remain valid, and approval of the project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts to tribal cultural resources.
Attachment 13
Ascent Environmental Checklist
City of Sunnyvale
1170 Sonora Court Environmental Checklist 3-85
3.19 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Environmental Issue Area
Where Impact Was
Analyzed in the LSAP
Draft and Final EIR or the
LSAP Update Draft and
Final SEIR.
Any New
Circumstances Involving
New Significant Impacts
or Substantially More
Severe Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Do Prior
Environmental
Documents
Mitigations
Address/Resolve
Impacts?
19. Utilities and Service Systems. Would the project:
a) Require or result in the relocation or
construction of construction of new or
expanded water, wastewater treatment
or stormwater drainage, electric power,
natural gas, or telecommunication
facilities, the construction or relocation of
which could cause significant
environmental effects?
Draft EIR Setting pp.
3.11-14 to 3.11-34, and
pp. 3.11-44 to 3.11-47.
Impact 3.11.5.2, 3.11.5.4,
3.11.6.1, 3.11.6.2, 3.11.6.3,
and 3.11.8.1
Draft and Final SEIR
identified no change in
impact conclusion (Draft
SEIR Impacts 3.15-2,
3.15-4, 3.15-5, and 3.15-
7)
No No NA, impact would be
less than significant
b) Have insufficient water supplies available
to serve the project and reasonably
foreseeable future development during
normal, dry and multiple dry years?
Draft EIR Setting pp.
3.11-14 to 3.11-24
Impact 3.11.5.1 and
3.11.5.3 Draft and Final SEIR
identified no change in
impact conclusion (Draft
SEIR Impact 3.15-1)
No No NA, impact would be
less than significant
c) Result in a determination by the
wastewater treatment provider that
serves or may serve the project that it
has inadequate capacity to serve the
project’s projected demand, in addition
to the provider’s existing commitments?
Draft EIR Setting pp.
3.11-30 to 3.11-34
Impact 3.11.6.1, 3.11.6.2,
and 3.11.6.3
Draft and Final SEIR
identified no change in
impact conclusion (Draft
SEIR Impact 3.15-3 and
3.15-4)
No No NA, impact would be
less than significant
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?
Draft EIR Setting pp.
3.11-37 to 3.11-41
Impact 3.11.7.1 and
3.11.7.3 Draft and Final SEIR
identified no change in
impact conclusion (Draft
SEIR Impact 3.15-6)
No No NA, impact would be
less than significant
e) Fail to comply with federal, state, and
local management and reduction
statutes and regulations related to solid
waste?
Draft EIR Setting pp.
3.11-37 to 3.11-41
Impact 3.11.7.2
Draft and Final SEIR
identified no change in
impact conclusion (Draft
SEIR Impact 3.15-6)
No No NA, impact would be
less than significant
Attachment 13
Environmental Checklist Ascent
City of Sunnyvale
3-86 1170 Sonora Court Environmental Checklist
3.19.1 Discussion
Since completion of the LSAP Draft EIR, the City of Sunnyvale has adopted a 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP). The LSAP Water Supply Assessment (WSA) was based in part on information from the City’s 2010 UWMP.
While there is some variation between the WSA and 2020 UWMP in the estimates of water supply and demand for build out of the City, both the WSA and 2020 UWMP conclude that there is adequate water supply available to meet normal, single-dry, and multiple-dry year conditions. Thus, the 2020 UWMP does not substantially change the water supply impact analysis provided in the LSAP EIR. The LSAP Update SEIR included an update to the WSA that concluded there would be adequate water supply available to meet normal, single- dry, and multiple-dry year conditions.
The City’s NDPES permit was updated in February 2020; effluent amount and requirements are regulated by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board under Order No. R2-2020-0002 (NPDES permit number CA0037621). The permitted values contained in the new permit are similar to those in the prior permit which expired in 2019.
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunication facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
Wastewater and Water Treatment Facilities
As addressed in Impacts 3.11.5.2, 3.11.5.4, 3.11.6.1, 3.11.6.2, and 3.11.6.3 in the LSAP EIR and in the LSAP Update and its SEIR, LSAP contributions to water demand and wastewater are anticipated to be accommodated with existing infrastructure facilities. The LSAP Draft EIR acknowledges that there may be some future need to upgrade infrastructure within the LSAP area. The LSAP EIR programmatically evaluates the potential environmental impacts of such improvements, including potential impacts ranging from traffic control and emergency access (Section 3.4- Transportation and Circulation), air quality ((Section 3.5 - Air Quality), noise (Section 3.6), biological resources (3.9 Biological Resources), hazardous materials (Section 3.3 Hazards and Human Health), and cultural impacts (Section
3.10 Cultural Resources) that may result from construction of future subsequent facilities within the LSAP Area.
Mitigation measures discussed in these sections would apply to any potential significant impacts from subsequent infrastructure improvements that occur within the LSAP planning area.
The LSAP Update identified the following wastewater facility improvements as part of a sewer impact fee for the area:
upsizing of the existing 10-inch vitrified clay pipe (VCP) sewer main in San Zeno Way to a 12-inch PVC sewer main;
upsizing of the existing 10-inch VCP sewer main at the intersection of Willow Avenue and Aster Avenue to an 18 - inch PVC sewer main; and
upsizing of the existing 27-inch VCP sewer main in Lawrence Expressway to a 30-inch PVC sewer main.
The LSAP Update SEIR evaluated the environmental impacts of these improvements.
The project would construct a seven-story mixed-use building containing 107 apartment units and other supporting facilities such as on-site parking, a courtyard and landscaping, and space for solid waste disposal and collections. On site facilities improvements for connections to existing utilities such as water, sewage, gas, electricity, solid waste, telecommunication, and driveway improvements would be constructed (See Planning Application sheet C .B.6.00).
New storm drainage would be constructed parallel along the base of the north face of the building and along the southeast corner, and then connected to existing storm drain lines to be diverted through bioretention landscaping before flowing into off-site stormwater conveyance. Bioretention landscaping would be constructed along all sides of the building except the south facing portion.
The project would result in an increase in water demand and wastewater generation relative to existing conditions on the project site. Refer to the discussion under item a) above for analyses on wastewater generation impacts resulting Attachment 13
Ascent Environmental Checklist
City of Sunnyvale
1170 Sonora Court Environmental Checklist 3-87
from the proposed project. Water demand for the LSAP Update is estimated to be 1,501 acre-feet per year and would be able to be accommodated by existing water supplies and facilities per the analysis provided in LSAP Update WSA.
The project consists of 107 residential units, 79,211 sf of office space, and 377 sf of station-serving retail. Because water demand rates would be the same for the proposed project as assumed in the LSAP Update, water demand and associated facilities would be consistent with the analysis in the LSAP Update SEIR. Refer to the discussion under item a) above for analyses on wastewater generation impacts resulting from the proposed project. On -site improvements would consist of utility connections to existing water and wastewater conveyance facilities. No new wastewat er treatment or conveyance facilities would need to be constructed or expanded off site. Potable water demand would be met with existing water supplies. On-site improvements would consist of utility connections to existing water and wastewater conveyance facilities. No new wastewater treatment or conveyance facilities would need to be constructed or expanded off site.
The demand generated by the project would fall within the development estimates analyzed by the LSAP EIR and the LSAP Update SEIR. The project would not result in a significant new demand for water or wastewater treatment facilities beyond existing City capacity. Additionally, the project is required to pay impact fees to contribute towards the wastewater facility improvements identified in the LSAP Update SEIR. The project would not result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe impacts than were identified in the LSAP EIR or LSAP Update SEIR, nor would there be new feasible mitigation measures or alternatives that reduce impacts but that City declines to adopt. The findings of the LSAP EIR and LSAP Update SEIR remain valid.
Electrical and Natural Gas Facilities
Impact 3.11.8.1 in the LSAP EIR identifies that PG&E currently provides electrical and natural gas services to Sunnyvale and would continue to provide these services to future development resulting from projects developed in the LSAP.
PG&E is required by the California Public Utilities Commission to update the existing systems to meet any additional demand. PG&E builds new infrastructure on an as-needed basis. Any electrical and natural gas distribution lines, substations, transmission lines, delivery facilities, and easements required to serve buildout of the Lawrence Station Area Plan would be subject to CEQA review by PG&E. However, it is expected that much of the distribution infrastructure would be collocated with other utilities underground within roadway rights -of-way to minimize the extent of environmental effects. The LSAP EIR and the LSAP Update SEIR determined that buildout of the LSAP would not specifically trigger the need for off-site energy facility improvements, and no large-scale plan area improvements are anticipated.
The project would demolish an existing office building on the 1.1-acre project site and would construct a seven-story story residential building containing 107 apartment units, 79,211 square feet (sf) of office space, 377 sf of station- serving retail, and a two-level subterranean parking facility. Other supporting facilities would also be constructed such as an on-site plaza, landscaping and bioretention, and space for solid waste disposal and collections. Onsite facilities improvements for connections to existing utilities such as water, sewage, electricity, solid waste, and driveway improvements would be constructed (See Planning Application Submittal sheet C.B.5.00). Existing telecommunications lines would be used. As noted in the project description, the proposed building would be developed as an all-electric energy structure with no natural gas connection. Connections to municipal storm drains would be located along the southeast corner and north face of the building, a new electric line would be installed along the western border of the site to connect to an existing electric line in the northwest, and two sanitary sewer lines would connect to existing municipal facilities along Sonora Court and San Zero Way. Existing gas, communication, and electricity lines are also located just outside of the north ends of the property boundary.
Project operation would increase electricity consumption at the project site relative to existing conditions. The project’s electricity demands would be served by PG&E. The project’s land use and development intensities are consistent with the LSAP and what was assumed in the energy consumption analysis of the LSAP EIR. The project would not result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe impacts than were identified in the LSAP EIR or LSAP Update SEIR, nor would there be new feasible mitigation measures or alternatives that reduce impacts but that City declines to adopt. The findings of the LSAP EIR and LSAP Update SEIR remain valid.
Attachment 13
Environmental Checklist Ascent
City of Sunnyvale
3-88 1170 Sonora Court Environmental Checklist
Stormwater Drainage Facilities
See analysis under 3.9, Hydrology and Water Quality. The project includes on -site drainage improvements. No offsite drainage improvements are proposed for the project. The project would not result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe impacts than were identified in the LSAP EIR or LSAP Update SEIR, nor would there be new feasible mitigation measures or alternatives that reduce impacts but that City declines to adopt . The findings of the LSAP EIR and LSAP Update SEIR remain valid.
b) Have insufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? As described in LSAP EIR Impact 3.11.5.1 and 3.11.5.3, cumulative development in Sunnyvale, including in the LSAP, would result in a net additional water demand of 2,274 acre-feet per year (AFY). The LSAP Update WSA identified that the LSAP Update would increase water demand to 1,501 AFY, an increase of 688 AFY over the 813 AFY assumed in the LSAP EIR. The LSAP Update Draft SEIR tables 3.15-3, 3.15-4, and 3.15-5 identify LSAP Update water demands as well as the proposed Downtown Specific Plan Amendment Project water demands on City water supplies under normal, single dry, multiple dry year conditions between 2020 and 2040. Under all scenarios, the City has adequate water supply to accommodate the increase in demand from the LSAP Update.
Water demand for the LSAP area was estimated to be 1,501 acre-feet per year and would be able to be accommodated by existing water supplies and facilities. The project consists of 107 residential units, 79,211 sf of office space, and 377 sf of station-serving retail. The LSAP Update WSA used a water demand ratio of 170 gallons per day (gpd) per high density residential unit and 270 gallons per day per thousand square feet of industrial, office and R&D, and commercial use. Development of the project would not exceed the number of units or area of office space assumed in the LSAP Update; thus, potable water demand would be met with existing water supplies and is assumed within the demand of the LSAP Update WSA. The project is consistent with LSAP land use designations and population growth that were utilized in the LSAP Update WSA and the City 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. The project would not result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe impacts than were identified in the LSAP EIR or LSAP Update SEIR, nor would there be new feasible mitigation measures or alternatives that reduce impacts but that City declines to adopt. The findings of the LSAP EIR and LSAP Update SEIR remain valid. c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that serves or may serve the project that it has inadequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand, in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? As addressed in Impact 3.11.6.1 (Exceedance of wastewater discharge requirements), 3.11.6.2 (Wastewater conveyance and Treatment) and 3.11.6.3 (Cumulative Wastewater Service Impacts), increased population associated with the LSAP would result in an additional approximately 0.62 million gallons per day (mgd) of wastewater flows. The maximum permitted dry weather flow capacity for the City’s water treatment facility is 29.5 mgd, and 40 mgd for peak wet weather flow capacity, according to the City’s NDPES permit (San Francisco Bay RWQCB under Order No. R2-2020- 0002 [NPDES permit number CA0037621]). A report prepared for the City in 2013 to support the Water Pollution Control Master Plan (WPC Master Plan) estimated that buildout conditions through 2035 would res ult in and average daily water flow (ADWF) of 19.5 mgd. ADWF treated by the Water Pollution Control Plant (WPCP) when the LSAP EIR was certified was approximately 11.4 mgd. Existing land uses within the LSAP plan area boundary are estimated to generate approximately 0.35 mgd of wastewater flows. The increased population anticipated from LSAP overall would result in an additional approximately 0.62 mgd of wastewater flows. With the addition of anticipated flows from the LSAP, total wastewater flows handled by the WPCP would be approximately 12 mgd, which is under the within the
19.5-mgd ADWF design flow capacity assumed under the WPCP Master Plan, and under the 29.5 mgd capacity permitted. The LSAP Update SEIR identified an additional increase of 0.96 mgd from the LSAP Update in daily flows to the WPCP that would still be well below permitted capacity (LSAP Update Draft SEIR page 3.15 -23). Further, compliance with water conservation efforts (e.g., General Plan Policy EM-2.1 and CAP Measure WC-2) would help reduce indoor water use and the amount of wastewater requiring treatment. In the LSAP Draft EIR, the City identified that wastewater flows actually declined from 2006-2015, representing a 10-year trend despite increases in population and an influx of daytime workers.
Attachment 13
Ascent Environmental Checklist
City of Sunnyvale
1170 Sonora Court Environmental Checklist 3-89
No increase in industrial or commercial land uses or other types of land uses typically associated with hazardous pollutant discharges to the sewer system are proposed. Moreover, the LSAP Draft EIR mentions that approximately 10 percent of the WPCP flow is treated to a higher level than required for discharge to meet the requirements for disinfected tertiary recycled water as specified in Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations and then delivered to customers for non-potable uses, primarily irrigation. The project would not violate RWQB standards permitted in volume, or in pollutant type of concentration.
The project consists of office, residential, retail uses and associated landscaping and is not expected to generate constituents for wastewater services and additional wastewater beyond what is produced at the site compared to existing conditions. The 2013 report from the WPC Master Plan estimated a factor of 148 gallons per day per unit (gpd/unit) of waste water flow generation for each residential unit constructed. The project would construct 107 residential units, 79,211 sf of office space, and 377 sf of station-serving retail, which is within the development potential contemplated in the LSAP Update EIR. Because the wastewater generation rates associated with the land use types included in the project would be the same as under the LSAP Update EIR, wastewater flow would not exceed estimates assumed in the LSAP Update under project conditions. Therefore, the project would not conflict with Regional Water Quality Control Board Standards.
The project would not result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe impacts than were identified in the LSAP EIR or LSAP Update SEIR, nor would there be new feasible mitigation measures or alternatives that reduce impacts but that City declines to adopt. The findings of the LSAP EIR and LSAP Update SEIR remain valid. 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?
As identified in Impact 3.11.7.1 and 3.11.7.3, the LSAP would generate approximately 19.6 tons per day of solid waste, which would represent approximately 2 percent of the SMaRT Station throughput (or 1.3 percent of maximum permitted throughput) and less than 1 percent of the permitted daily throughput for the Kirby Canyon Landfill. The LSAP EIR stated that, on an annual basis, the LSAP would generate approximately 7,154 tons of solid waste that would be disposed of at the Kirby Canyon Landfill or at the Monterey Peninsula Landfill. Additional growth in surrounding communities, such as Mountain View, Santa Clara, and Cupertino, would also generate solid waste. New development estimated to occur under the proposed LUTE update and the LSAP would increase the generation of solid waste in Sunnyvale. By 2035, approximately 412,979 pounds (206.49 tons) of solid waste would be generated per day in Sunnyvale (including the contribution from the LSAP). This amount of waste represents approximately 12.6 percent of the permitted daily throughput of the Kirby Canyon Landfill or 5.9 percent of the throughput at the Monterey Peninsula Landfill. Therefore, regional landfill facilities would be able to serve the growth expected to occur in the region as well as under the LSAP. The LSAP Update Draft SEIR identified that the additional residential units under LSAP Update would generate approximately 14 tons of solid waste per day beyond what was identified in the LSAP EIR (LSAP Update Draft SEIR page 3.15-28). While the LSAP Update would increase solid waste generation in the City, the LSAP Update Draft SEIR identified that there is adequate capacity at the SM aRT Station, Kirby Canyon Landfill, and Monterey Peninsula Landfill to accommodate the total generated (LSAP Update Draft SEIR page 3.15 -29).
Project demolition would require a demolition permit. As explained in the LSAP EIR, as part of the demolition permitting process, applicants are required to follow a list of general requirements based on the California Green Building Code and the Sunnyvale Municipal Code. A portion of the requirements includes consideration of deconstructing and/or salvage of reusable building materials to minimize the amount of demolition materials disposed of at landfills. The project is consistent with LSAP land use designations and population growth estimates that were utilized in the LSAP EIR and the LSAP Update SEIR solid waste analysis The project would not result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe impacts than were identified in the LSAP EIR or LSAP Update SEIR, nor would there be new feasible mitigation measures or alternatives that reduce impacts but that City declines to adopt. The findings of the LSAP EIR and LSAP Update SEIR remain valid.
Attachment 13
Environmental Checklist Ascent
City of Sunnyvale
3-90 1170 Sonora Court Environmental Checklist
e) Fail to comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
As discussed in Impact 3.11.7.2, Sunnyvale had a waste diversion rate of 66 percent as of 2011, and under current methods for tracking progress with AB 939, the per capita disposal rates are less than the targets. The City has developed its Zero Waste Strategic Plan, intended to identify the new policies, programs, and infrastructure that are intended to move the City toward its Zero Waste goals of 75 percent diversion by 2020 and 90 percent diversion by 2030. According to the latest Sunnyvale Materials Recovery and Transfer Station (SMaRT Station) report from 2018 - 2019, approximately 67,734 pounds (lbs) out of 149,245 lbs of solid waste from Sunnyvale residents was diverted from landfills, which represents a diversion rate of approximately 60 percent (City of Sunnyvale, et al. 2020).
Additionally, the City of Sunnyvale committed to the waste reduction programs, plans, and policies that would apply to new development in the LSAP. Construction of subsequent projects under the LSAP that would result in demolition or renovation of existing structures would generate solid waste, and the City requires the recycling and reuse of materials to reduce landfill disposal. Therefore, the LSAP would not conflict with a federal, state, or local statute or regulation related to solid waste disposal.
The project would not generate solid waste more than what was evaluated in the LSAP EIR and LSAP Update SEIR and is required to comply with solid waste reduction standards The project would not result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe impacts than were identified in the LSAP EIR or LSAP Update SEIR, nor would there be new feasible mitigation measures or alternatives that reduce impacts but that City declines to adopt . The findings of the LSAP EIR and LSAP Update SEIR remain valid.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures were identified in the certified LSAP EIR and LSAP Update SEIR regarding utilities or energy, nor are any additional mitigation measures required for the project.
Conclusion
No new circumstances or project changes have occurred nor has any new information been identified requiring new analysis or verification. Therefore, the conclusions of the LSAP EIR and LSAP Update SEIR remain valid, and approval of project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts to utilities or energy.
Attachment 13
Ascent Environmental Checklist
City of Sunnyvale
1170 Sonora Court Environmental Checklist 3-91
3.20 WILDFIRE
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Where Impact Was
Analyzed in the
LSAP Draft and
Final EIR or the
LSAP Update Draft
and Final SEIR.
Any New
Circumstances
Involving New
Significant Impacts or
Substantially More
Severe Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Do Prior
Environmental
Documents
Mitigations
Address/Resolve
Impacts?
20. Wildfire.
Is the project located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as high fire hazard severity zones? If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the proje ct:
a) Substantially impair an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
Draft SEIR Section
1.3.3 No No NA, no impact
would occur.
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?
Draft SEIR Section
1.3.3 No No NA, no impact
would occur.
c) Require the installation 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?
Draft SEIR Section
1.3.3 No No NA, no impact
would occur.
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?
Draft SEIR Section
1.3.3 No No NA, no impact
would occur.
3.20.1 Discussion
The LSAP SEIR analyzed wildfire impacts in Section 1.3, “Effects Found Not to be Significant.” As described on page 1- 3 of the Draft SEIR, No Fire Hazard Severity Zones, state responsibility areas, Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones, or local responsibility areas are located in or adjacent to Sunnyvale. Given that the city is urbanized and not adjacent to large areas of open space or agricultural lands that are subject to wildland fire hazards, no impacts associated with exposure to wildland fire would occur.
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
See Section 3.9, “Hazards and Hazardous Materials”, item f). 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?
As described on page 1-3 of the LSAP Draft SEIR, No Fire Hazard Severity Zones, state responsibility areas, Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones, or local responsibility areas are located in or adjacent to Sunnyvale. Given that the city is urbanized and not adjacent to large areas of open space or agricultural lands that are subject to wildland fire hazards, no impacts associated with exposure to wildland fire would occur.
Attachment 13
Environmental Checklist Ascent
City of Sunnyvale
3-92 1170 Sonora Court Environmental Checklist
The project site is surrounded by urbanized uses and would not be subject to wildland fire risks. No impact would occur. No changes to the location of the project have occurred and no changes to the risks from wildfires have occurred since approval of the LUTE. Therefore, no impact would occur. c) Require the installation 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? See analysis for item b) above.
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?
See Section 3.9, “Hazards and Hazardous Materials”, item g).
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures were identified in the certified LSAP EIR and LSAP Update SEIR regarding wildfire, nor are any additional mitigation measures required for the project.
Conclusion
No new circumstances or project changes have occurred nor has any new information been found requiring new analysis or verification. Therefore, the conclusions of the LSAP EIR and the LSAP Update SEIR remain valid, and approval of the project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant wildfire impacts.
Attachment 13
Ascent Environmental Checklist
City of Sunnyvale
1170 Sonora Court Environmental Checklist 3-93
3.21 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Environmental Issue Area
Where Impact Was
Analyzed in the LSAP
Draft and Final EIR or
the LSAP Update
Draft and Final SEIR.
Any New Circumstances
Involving New
Significant Impacts or
Substantially More
Severe Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Do Prior Environmental
Documents Mitigations
Address/Resolve
Impacts?
20. Mandatory Findings of Significance.
a. Does the project have the potential to
degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, substantially reduce the
number or restrict the range of an
endangered, rare or threatened species or
eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory?
Draft EIR Sections 3.9,
Biological Resources,
and 3.10, Cultural
Resources
Draft and Final SEIR
identified no change
in impact conclusion
No No Yes, impacts would
remain less than
significant with the
application of the
adopted mitigation
measure.
b. Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable”
means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when view in
connection with the effects of past projects,
the effects of other current projects, and
the effects of probable future projects)?
Draft EIR Sections 3.1
through 3.13
Draft SEIR pp. 4-21
and 4-22
Draft SEIR Impact 4-3
and 4-22
No No Yes, impacts would
remain less than
significant with the
application of the
adopted mitigation
measure except for
Impact 4-3 (Cumulative
Air Quality Impacts) and
Impact 4-22 (Cumulative
Wastewater Service
Impacts) that would
remain cumulatively
considerable and
significant and
unavoidable.
c. Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
Draft EIR Sections 3.3,
Hazards and Human
Health; 3.5, Air
Quality; and 3.6,
Noise
Draft and Final SEIR
identified no change
in impact conclusion
No No Yes, impacts would
remain less than
significant with the
application of the
adopted mitigation
measure.
Attachment 13
Environmental Checklist Ascent
City of Sunnyvale
3-94 1170 Sonora Court Environmental Checklist
3.21.1 Discussion
a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare, or threatened species, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?
As discussed in Section 3.4, “Biological Resources,” ground disturbance associated with the project would occur within previously developed land, and as explained in Section 3.4, “Biological Resources,” the project has potential to adversely affect bat roosting bats and nesting birds. Potentially significant impacts would be reduced to a less- than- significant level with implementation of adopted LSAP Mitigation Measures 3.9-2 and 3.9-3 because they require preconstruction surveys and provide standards for avoidance of a roosting bat colony and/or nesting birds, if necessary. Biological resource impacts would remain less than significant with the application of these adopted mitigation measures. The project would not result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe impacts than were identified in the LSAP EIR or LSAP Update SEIR, nor would there be new feasible mitigation measures or alternatives that reduce impacts but that City declines to adopt. The findings of the LSAP EIR and LSAP Update SEIR remain valid.
As discussed in Section 3.5, “Cultural Resources,” no historic or archaeological resources occur on the project site.
However, there is potential for accidental discovery of archaeological materials that could be encountered during construction-related ground disturbing activities. Adopted LSAP Mitigation Measure 3.10-2 would reduce potential impacts to archaeological resources discovered during project construction activities to a less -than-significant level because the measures would require the performance of professionally accepted and legally compliant procedures for the discovery of previously undocumented significant archaeological resources. Cultural resource impacts would remain less than significant with the application of these adopted mitigation measures. The project would not result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe impacts than were identified in the LSAP EIR or LSAP Update SEIR, nor would there be new feasible mitigation measures or alternatives that reduce impacts but that City declines to adopt. The findings of the LSAP EIR and LSAP Update SEIR remain valid. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) Sections 3.1 through 3.13 of the LSAP EIR addressed the potential for the LSAP to result in a cumulatively considerable condition when combined with local and regional adopted plans, proposed projects in the City, and the existing regional conditions. The LSAP EIR identified significant cumulative impacts to criteria air pollutant emissions and transportation operations (note that traffic operational impacts are no longer subject to CEQA analysis). Chapter 4 of the LSAP Update SEIR contains the analysis of cumulative impacts of the LSAP Update and the ISI project. The LSAP Update SEIR identified two new cumulatively considerable and significant and unavoidable impact that was not identified in the LSAP EIR associated with air quality and wastewater services. The City will be updating the WPCP Master Plan in the near future to include sufficient wastewater treatment capacity for existing and planned development and additional growth, including the City’s amended Downtown Specific Plan and the LSAP Update, and subsequent environmental review for the WPCP Master Plan update shall be completed by the City. The specific design and improvements needed are unknown at this time.
As addressed in Sections 4.1 through 4.20 of this document, the project would not result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe impacts than were identified in the LSAP EIR or LSAP Update SEIR, nor would there be new feasible mitigation measures or alternatives that reduce impacts but that City declines to adopt. This would include Attachment 13
Ascent Environmental Checklist
City of Sunnyvale
1170 Sonora Court Environmental Checklist 3-95
cumulative impacts because the project is within the development potential anticipated in the cumulative impact analyses in the LSAP EIR and LSAP Update SEIR. The findings of the LSAP EIR and LSAP Update SEIR remain valid. c) Does the project have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? The project would have potential environmental effects that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings related to air quality, hazards and hazardous materials, and noise. Upon implementation of the adopted mitigation measures identified in this document, these impacts would be reduced to a less- than-significant level, except for cumulative impacts to air quality, which would remain significant and unavoidable. The project would not result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe impacts on human beings than were identified in the LSAP EIR or LSAP Update SEIR, nor would there be new feasible mitigation measures or alternatives that reduce impacts but that City declines to adopt. The findings of the LSAP EIR and LSAP Update SEIR remain valid.
Conclusion
No new circumstances or project changes have occurred nor has any new information been found requiring new analysis or verification. Therefore, the conclusions of the LSAP EIR and the LSAP Update SEIR remain valid, and approval of the project would not result in new or substantially more sever environmental impacts.
Attachment 13
Environmental Checklist Ascent
City of Sunnyvale
3-96 1170 Sonora Court Environmental Checklist
This page intentionally left blank.
Attachment 13
City of Sunnyvale
1170 Sonora Court Environmental Checklist 4-1
4 LIST OF PREPARERS
4.1 LIST OF PREPARERS
City of Sunnyvale Community Development Department
Aastha Vashist ............................................................................................................................................................................... Senior Planner Ascent Environmental
Pat Angell ............................................................................................................................................................................. Principal-in-Charge Marianne Lowenthal .............................................................................................................................................................. Project Manager Eric Cohen ...................................................................................................................................................................... Environmental Planner Matthew Brehmer ............................................................................................................ Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions/Noise Matthew McFalls .......................................................................................................... Air Quality/GHG Emission/Noise Senior Review Jazmin Amini ................................................................................................................................................................................. Transportation Zachary Miller................................................................................................................................................... Transportation Senior Review Carlos Alvarado ................................................................................................................................................................ Biological Resources Roberto Mora ........................................................................................................................................................................ Cultural Resources Alta Cunningham .................................................................................................................................... Cultural Resources Senior Review Gayiety Lane ....................................................................................................................................................................................... Publications Brian Perry .................................................................................................................................................................................................. Graphics
Attachment 13
List of Preparers Ascent
City of Sunnyvale
4-2 1170 Sonora Court Environmental Checklist
This page was intentionally left blank.
Attachment 13
City of Sunnyvale
1170 Sonora Court Environmental Checklist 5-1
5 REFERENCES
BAAQMD. See Bay Area Air Quality Management District.
Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2017a. 2017 Bay Area Clean Air Plan. Available:
http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/plans/2017-clean-air-plan/attachment-a_- proposed-final-cap-vol-1-pdf.pdf?la=en. Accessed: December 6, 2018. ———. 2017b. 2017 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. Available: http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and- research/plans/2017-clean-air-plan/attachment-a_-proposed-final-cap-vol-1-pdf.pdf?la=en. Accessed:
December 6, 2018.
———. 2022a. Stationary Source Screening Map. Available: https://baaqmd.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/ index.html?id=845658c19eae4594b9f4b805fb9d89a3. Accessed: December 29, 2022. ———. 2022b. Health Risk Calculator. Available: https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and- research/ceqa/tools/public-baaqmd-health-risk-calculator-beta-5-0-xlsx-xlsx.xlsx?la=en. Accessed:
December 30, 2022.
California Geological Survey. 2002 (February). Earthquake Required Zones of Investigation San Jose Quadrangle Official Map. Accessed March 15, 2021.
California Air Resources Board. 2005. Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective . Available:
https://www.arb.ca.gov/ch/handbook.pdf Accessed: January 29, 2018. ———. 2016, May 4. Ambient Air Quality Standards. Available: https://www.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/aaqs2.pdf .
Accessed September 15, 2022.
———. 2017. 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan. Available: California's 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan. Accessed:
December 30, 2022.
———. 2022a . Ambient Air Quality Standards. Available at https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020- 07/aaqs2.pdf.
———. 2022b , November 16. Final 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality. Available: 2022 Scoping Plan Update (ca.gov). Accessed: December 28, 2022.
California Energy Commission. 2019. The 2019 California Energy Efficiency Action Plan. Available:
https://www.energy.ca.gov/filebrowser/download/1900. Accessed: October 26, 2022. ———. 2022 (August). 2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards. Publication Number: CEC-400-2022-010-CMF.
Available: 2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards (final version) (ca.gov). Accessed: December 20, 2022.
California Energy Commission and California Air Resources Board. 2003. Reducing California’s Petroleum Dependence.
Available: Reducing California’s Petroleum Dependence (P600-03-005F). Accessed: December 30, 2022.
California Natural Diversity Database. 2023. Rarefind 5. Results of electronic records search. Sacramento: California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Biogeographic Data Branch. Accessed 2022.
California Native Plant Society, Rare Plant Program. 2023. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (online edition, v8-03 0.39). Available: http://www.rareplants.cnps.org. Accessed: 2022.
CARB. See California Air Resources Board.
CEC. See California Energy Commission.
CEC and CARB. See. California Energy Commission and California Air Resources Board.
CityGate Associates, LLC Fire and Emergency Services. 2018 (April). Comprehensive Community Risk Assessment, Standards of Cover Study, and Station Location and Deployment Study. Available online:
Attachment 13
References Ascent
City of Sunnyvale
5-2 1170 Sonora Court Environmental Checklist
https://sunnyvaleca.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3725109&GUID=D9595BC0 -E72B-40AA-8DF2- C6ABF52362B5&Options=ID|Text|Other|&Search=performance+standard. Accessed May 19, 2021.
City of Sunnyvale. 2016 (May). Lawrence Station Area Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report. Prepared by Michael Baker International, Rancho Cordova, CA.
———. 2018 (July). Climate Action Plan 2018 Biennial Progress Report. Available: Sunnyvale Climate Action Plan Biennial Report 2018 (ca.gov). Accessed: December 30, 2022. ———. 2019. Climate Action Playbook. Available: Climate Action Playbook (ca.gov). Accessed: December 29, 2022.
City of Sunnyvale, City of Mountain View, City of Palo Alto. 2020 (April). SMaRT Station Annual Report 2018 -2019.
Available online: https://sunnyvale.ca.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?blobid=25741. Accessed May 19, 2021.
CNDDB. See California Natural Diversity Database.
CNPS. See California Native Plant Society.
CSDA Design Group. 2022. Mixed-Use Project 1554/1170 Sonora Court, Sunnyvale, CA.
EPA. See U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Federal Transit Administration. 2018 (September). Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. FTA Report No. 0123. Available: https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/research -innovation/118131/ transit-noise-and-vibration-impact-assessment-manual-fta-report-no-0123_0.pdf. Assessed November 2022.
FTA. See Federal Transit Administration.
Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. 2017 (November). Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA. Available: https://opr.ca.gov/docs/20171127_Transportation_Analysis_TA_Nov_2017.pdf.
Accessed: December 22, 2022.
———. 2018 (April). Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA. Available:
https://opr.ca.gov/docs/20180416-743_Technical_Advisory_4.16.18.pdf. Accessed: December 22, 2022.
H. T. Harvey & Associates. 2023. 1154 and 1170 Sonora Court. Biological Resources Report.
MTC. See Metropolitan Transportation Commission.
Metropolitan Transportation Commission. 2018. Priority Development Areas. Available: https://mtc.ca.gov/our - work/plans-projects/focused-growth-livable-communities/priority-development-areas. Accessed September 7, 2018.
OPR. See Governor’s Office of Planning and Research.
Panoramic Design Group. 2022. Arborist Report. Project: Sonora Court. 1170 Sonora Court, Sunnyvale, CA.
Ramboll US Consulting, Inc. 2022 (May). Phase I Environmental Site Assessment. Prepared for SKS Partners (1170 Sonora Court, Sunnyvale, CA).
Rockridge Geotechnical. 2022 (May). Geotechnical investigation for Proposed Residential Building 1170 Sonora Court, Sunnyvale, CA. Prepared for SKS Partners, San Francisco, CA.
Santa Clara County ALUC. 2018. Moffett Federal Airfield Comprehensive Land Use Plan.
Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program. 2016 (June). C.3 Stormwater Handbook: Guidance for Implementing Stormwater Requirements for New Development and Redevelopment Projects . Prepared by EOA, Inc., Oakland, CA.
SCVURPPP. See Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program.
Attachment 13
Ascent References
City of Sunnyvale
1170 Sonora Court Environmental Checklist 5-3
Silicone Valley Clean Energy. 2021. Power Mix (Residential). Available: https://svcleanenergy.org/wp- content/uploads/Residential-PCL_2022_English_ADA_digital.pdf. Accessed: December 30, 2022.
SVCE. See Silicone Valley Clean Energy.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2022a. 8-Hour Average Ozone Concentrations. Available:
https://www3.epa.gov/region1/airquality/avg8hr.html#:~:text=In%20July%201997%2C%20EPA%20revised,par ts%20per%20million%20(ppm). Accessed: December 5, 2022. ———. 2022b. NAAQS Table. Available: https://www.epa.gov/criteria- air-pollutants/naaqs-table. Accessed:
December 5, 2022.
———. 2022c . EPA Greenbook. Available: https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/greenbook/ancl.html. Accessed December 5, 2022.
———. 2022d. Corporate Average Fuel Economy. Available: https://www.nhtsa.gov/laws-regulations/corporate- average-fuel-economy. Accessed: December 30, 2022.
Attachment 13
References Ascent
City of Sunnyvale
5-4 1170 Sonora Court Environmental Checklist
This page intentionally left blank.
Attachment 13