Cupertino City Council
May 14, 2024

SITES APPROPRIATE FOR LOWER-INCOME HOUSING
Housing Element law requires jurisdictions to provide an analysis showing that zones identified for lower-income households are sufficient to encourage such development. The law provides two options for preparing the analysis: (1) describe market demand and trends, financial feasibility, and recent development experience; or (2) use default density standards deemed adequate to meet the appropriate zoning test. According to State law (California Government Code Section 65583.2(c)(3)(B)), the default density standard for Cupertino is 30 dwelling units per acre. The City has included several sites, listed in Tables B4-7 and B4-9, that allow for densities up to 80 units per acre, that well exceed the City’s default density.

SITES IDENTIFIED IN PREVIOUS HOUSING ELEMENT
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65583.2(c), a nonvacant site identified in the previous planning period and a vacant site identified in two or more previous consecutive planning periods cannot be used to accommodate the lower-income RHNA unless the site is subject to an action in the Housing Element that requires rezoning within three years of the beginning of the planning period that will allow residential use by right for housing developments with at least 20 percent units affordable to lower-income households. The City is not relying on any sites that were previously used to meet the lower income RHNA.

REALISTIC CAPACITY
In determining the realistic capacity for the City’s inventory of sites, the City considered land use controls and site improvements and assumed an 80 percent adjustment to reflect developable acreage due to on-site improvements, including sidewalks, utility easements, and infrastructure improvements (roadway access, water, sewer, and stormwater). All sites are served by or planned to be served by infrastructure, with no constraints identified that would reduce capacity beyond the 80 percent adjustment. To further determine an appropriate realistic capacity assumption, the City considered and evaluated the implementation of its current multifamily development standards (e.g., setbacks, building height, parking, density requirements, land use controls, water and wastewater access, and 354
CC 05-14-2024
354 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B4‐6
open space requirements) as well as project examples to determine approximate density and unit capacity so as to not over-project unit potential. The city also reviewed both residential and mixeduse project examples to further determine the appropriate realistic capacity for the sites inventory.

Realistic Capacity for Residential Sites
Table B4-3 shows project examples in Cupertino from 2016 to 2023. Overall, projects show a very high realistic capacity, ranging from 80 to more than 100 percent of the site. On example sites where the total exceeded 100 percent of the maximum number of units permitted by the base General Plan and zoning density, a density bonus was used. Proposed projects must achieve 100 percent of the maximum density prior to applying for density bonus units. When determining the realistic capacity that should be applied to the sites listed in Table B4-7, the City looked at both the 80 percent adjustment for land use controls and site improvements, and project examples. To ensure capacity is not over projected, the city assumed a 95 percent realistic capacity on all residentially zoned sites in Table B4-7.

There is one exception. For Site 10, due to an active 100 percent affordable housing proposal, not yet entitled, the City assumed the realistic capacity and affordability based on the tentative plans for this project.
355
CC 05-14-2024
355 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B4‐7
Table B4-3 Realistic Capacity Examples, Residential-Only Project
Name Acres Project Status Unit Affordability General Plan/ Zoning Total Project Units Max. Allowable Units Realistic Capacity Percentage Proposed Use Prior Use Hamptons 12.44 Entitlements granted in 2016
871 AM, 30 M, 41
Lower. Affordable
units from
inclusionary
program
High-Density
Residential
(35+ dwelling
units/acre)
942 942 >100% 100% residential
342 units. The plan
is to demolish all
units and construct
942 new
apartments.

McClellan subdivision 1.25
Entitled in
October 2022.

Demolition
permit issued.

Building permits
in review.
6 AM, 6 ADUs Low-Density Residential 6 6 100% 100% residential One home and a
barn/large storage
shed. The plan is to
demolish existing
uses and redevelop
entire site.

Cleo Small Lot SFR 0.23
Project
Application in
review as of
2023.

BMR in-lieu of fee
Medium
(10-20 du/ac);
P(R3).
4 5 80%
4 residential
units
One single family
home. The plan is to
demolish existing
use and redevelop
entire site.

Source: City of Cupertino, September 2023
356
CC 05-14-2024
356 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B4‐8
Realistic Capacity for Commercial/Residential (Mixed-Use) Sites In Cupertino, Planned Development (P) zoning districts with a residential component (e.g., P(Res)) in the Housing Sites inventory, allow horizontal and vertical mixed-use development by right.

Additionally, Cupertino Zoning Code Section 19.80.030 (2) provides special density rules for what it terms “Priority Housing Sites.” According to the code:
“If a [mixed-use] site is listed as a Priority Housing Site in the City’s adopted Housing Element of the General Plan, then residential development that does not exceed the number of units designated for the site in the Housing Element shall be a permitted use.”
Table B4-4 summarizes three approved mixed-use developments, Marina Plaza, Westport, and Vallco. These projects range in realistic capacity from 83 to 344 percent, with most coming in around 113 percent. This suggests that mixed-use projects in Cupertino develop at greater than 100 percent of the permitted density. For example sites where the total number of units exceeded 100 percent of the maximum number of units permitted by the base General Plan and zoning density, a density bonus was used. Proposed projects must achieve 100 percent of the maximum density prior to applying for density bonus units Since the City still needs to account for the unlikely possibility of nonresidential uses on mixed-use sites in the current market, while the trends over the past decade indicates development on most large sites at close to or over 100 percent of the maximum allowable density, the City conservatively estimates a 75 percent realistic capacity for sites with mixed-use zoning in the sites inventory.

Additionally, out of all development projects over the past three years within a P(Com/Res) zoning, two were 100 percent residential, three included a mix of uses, while none developed with 100 percent commercial uses. This track record further shows the high potential for residential to develop on sites that allow for commercial uses.
357
CC 05-14-2024
357 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B4‐9
Table B4-4 Realistic Capacity Examples, Mixed-Use Zones Project Name Acres Project Status Unit Affordability General Plan/Zoning Total
Project
Units
Max.

Allowable
Units
Realistic
Capacity
Percentage
Proposed Use Prior Use
Marina Plaza 5.12 Entitled 2022 170 AM, 18 M, 18 Median Commercial/Residential; Planned Development with Commercial and Residential Uses (P(CG/Res)). Includes density bonus. 206 179 115% Mixed-use
100% commercial, 45-50k sf retail center and a standalone restaurant building. The structures were constructed in the 1970s.The plan is to demolish existing use and redevelop the entire site. As of 2022, the combined site had an ILV of 0.45, with the two individual parcels having ILVs of 0.11 and 1.26.

Westport 7.76 Entitled 2020. 136 Building Permits Issued as of 2022. 88 AM, 123 AM Senior Assisted Living, 48 Lower senior units Commercial/Residential -Planned Development with Commercial and Residential uses (P(CG/,Res). Includes density bonus and waivers. 259 237 109% Mixed-use (+/- 20ksf, 259 residential) 100% commercial, (72k sf village shopping center). The existing structures, constructed in the 1970s, were demolished to allow and redevelopment of the entire site. Prior to entitlement, some spaces were occupied. Under construction now.

Vallco 50.82
Entitled 2018. Demolition and Foundation permits issued in 2019 and 2020 1,779 AM, 267 VLI, 623 Low
Regional Commercial/ Planned Development with commercial uses (entitled when residential uses were allowed on site). Includes density bonus, concessions and waivers 2,669 1,779 150%
Mixed-use (2mn office, 200k +/- sf comm, 2,669 residential) 100% commercial, (1.27k s.f. regional mall). The plan is to demolish the existing use and redevelop the entire site. There were few existing tenants.

Canyon Crossing 1.38 Entitled 2022. Demolition permits issued in 2022. 1 VLI, 1 LI, 1 M, 1 median, 14 AM Commercial/Residential at 15 du/ac. Planned Development with Commercial and Residential uses (P(CG/Res). No Density Bonus 18 20 90% Mixed-use (4500 s.f. plus 18 units) 100% commercial strip mall and one residential unit. The structures were developed in the 1950s and 1960s. The site is currently vacant, as the prior use was demolished to redevelop the entire site. Prior to demolition, ILV was 0.01. 1655 S. De Anza 1.68 Entitled 2023 1 M, 1 LI, 3 VLI, 29 AM Commercial/Residential at 5-15 du/ac. Planned Development with Commercial and Residential uses (P(CG/Res 5-15)). Includes Density Bonus and waivers. 34 25 136% Mixed-use (7600 s.f. and 34 units)
100% commercial, 11,650 s.f strip mall and adjoining parcel with parking lot improvements constructed in the early 1960s. The plan is to demolish the existing use and redevelop the entire site. There were/are existing tenants. The ILV as of 2022 was 0.28.

Verandas 0.55 Built in 2019 19 lower (SROs) Commercial/Residential; P(CG/Res) Includes Density Bonus and reduced parking standards 19 14 135% 100% residential Vacant Alan Row/Bateh Brothers 0.78 Building Permit Issued 2022 8 AM, 2 M Commercial/Residential; P(CG/Res) No Density Bonus 10 12 83% 100% residential 100% commercial, ~2800 sf standalone liquor store constructed in the 1960s with two adjacent undeveloped properties. The plan is to demolish the existing use and redevelop the entire site. Store was owner-operated.

Bianchi Townhomes 0.34 Project Application in review as of 2023. 1 Median, 6 AM Commercial/Office/Residential, P(CG/Res). No bonus units, but waivers, concession and a reduced parking standard 7 8 88% 100% residential (7 units) Existing four-plex built in the 1950sPlan is to demolish existing use and redevelop the entire site. As of 2023, the site had an ILV of 0.11.

Source: City of Cupertino, 2023
358
CC 05-14-2024
358 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B4‐10
This page intentionally left blank.
359
CC 05-14-2024
359 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B4‐11

UNIT ALLOCATION
For determining capacity, the City assumed a mixed-income approach for each site to not only provide for a more realistic assumption, but to ensure the city is affirmatively furthering fair housing. The City used the percentage of the RHNA category to distribute the units on each site and has distributed accordingly. For most sites, the City assumed that 41 percent of each site will be affordable to lowerincome households, 16 percent will be affordable to moderate-income households, and 43 percent will be affordable to above moderate-income households. For sites that do not allow for at least 16 units per site (Sites 12, 18, 19, 25, 31, 33, 34, 35, and 43) and for sites that were also smaller than 0.5 acres but still met the 16-unit threshold (2, 4, 11, 12, 17, 21, 45, and 54), capacity was allocated towards the moderate- and above moderate-income categories. On Site 10, there is an active 100 percent affordable housing proposal that has not yet been entitled, so all estimated units were assigned to the lower-income category. Similarly, on Sites 36 and 37, the realistic capacity was based on a pending Senate Bill (SB) 330 application. Site 27 is owned by Santa Clara County and in December 2023 released a Request For Offers (RFO) for an affordable housing development on the site. In January 2024, the County selected Eden Housing as the developer for the site, with the objective of having a fully-entitled project prior to the end of the 2024 calendar year. The County included the City in the RFO and developer selection process and Eden Housing has, as of February, begun having regular meetings with the City on its community outreach strategy and refining their plans to develop an all affordable housing project with units affordable to lower and moderate-income households. Based on this the City has allocated the capacity on the site accordingly.

PROPOSED REZONE CAPACITY
All of the sites within the City’s inventory have been identified for either rezoning, a change in General Plan land use designation to allow for increased density, or both. As shown in Table B4-5, the City does not currently have sufficient capacity to meet the RHNA. As part of Strategy HE-1.3.2, the City commits to completing changes to the land use designation and rezoning by January 31, 2024. The rezoning and changes in General Plan land use designation will increase the maximum density on many sites to as much as 80 dwelling units per acre. This will allow the City to cover the shortfall identified and allow for a surplus in all income categories Table B4-6. Additionally, per Government Code Section 65583.2(g)(2), and as shown in Table B4-6, 50 percent of the very low- and low- income shortfall (534 units) is being met on sites that allow for exclusively residential development. Also note, not all residential capacity in the city is identified in the priority housing sites list and therefore, the shortfall is most likely even lower.

Tables B4-7 through B4-10 provide further information and detail on each of the priority housing sites in the City’s inventory list. Please note that the site numbers listed here are added only as an additional way to reference the site and do not indicate any preference or priority. Figures B4-1 – B4-4, maps the housing priority sites potential sites.

Additionally, to comply with Government Code section 65583.2, subd. (c)(4), AB 725, for Metropolitan jurisdictions, Cupertino must accommodate at least 25 percent of the moderate and 25 percent above moderate RHNA on sites that allow at least four units of housing. As shown in Table B4-7 and B4-9, all sites listed are large enough to accommodate at least 5 housing units. Therefore, the City is meeting the requirements of Government Code section 65583.2, subd. (c)(4). 360
CC 05-14-2024
360 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B4‐12
Table B4-5 RHNA Capacity Prior to Rezone
RHNA Category 2023-2031 RHNA Pending Project Capacity Current Residential Site Capacity Current Mixed- Use Sites Capacity Projected Accessory Dwelling Units Total Capacity Shortfall Very Low 1,193 633 151 49 116 813 1,067 Low 687 Moderate 755 49 2972 411 57 1,020 59Above Moderate 1,953 1,770 1733 61 19 1,821 70Total 4,588 2,168 485 520 192 3,654 939 Source: City of Cupertino, 2023 1 Sites allowing 30 du/acre or more 2 Sites allowing 20-29 du/acre 3 Sites allowing less than 20 du/acre Table B4-6 RHNA Capacity with Rezone
RHNA Category 2023-2031 RHNA Pending Projects Capacity Residential Site Capacity with Rezone Mixed Use Site Capacity with Rezone Projected ADUs Total Capacity Surplus Very Low 1,193 633 833 596 116 2,178 298 Low 687 Moderate 755 49 360 436 57 902 147 Above Moderate 1,953 1,770 662 695 19 3,146 1,193 Total 4,588 2,452 1,855 1,727 192 6,226 1,638 Source: City of Cupertino, July 2023 NOTE: While the City assumes that ADUs will provide capacity to meet the RHNA, the City is not relying on ADU capacity to meet the RHNA targets. 361
CC 05-14-2024
361 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B4‐13
Table B4-7 Priority Housing Sites in Residential Zones
Site ID APN Acres Existing
General Plan Designation
Existing Zoning
Designation
Current
Maximum
Allowed
Density
Proposed General Plan
Designation
Proposed
Zoning
Proposed
Minimum
Density
Proposed
Maximum
Density
(du/acre)
Maximum Unit
Capacity (100%)
Realistic Unit
Capacity (95%)
Lower
Income Units
Moderate
Income
Units
Above
Moderate
Income
Units
1 31623027 0.64 Commercial/Office/Residential P(CG, Res) 25 H/VHD - High/Very High Density R4 50.01 65 42 35 14 6 15 2 36903005 0.47 Commercial/Office/Residential P(CG, Res) 25 H/VHD - High/Very High Density R4 50.01 65 31 29 12 5 12 3 32634047 1.09 Commercial/Office/Residential P(CG, Res) 25 H/VHD - High/Very High Density R4 50.01 65 71 67 27 11 29 4 35907006 0.32 Commercial/Office/Residential P(CG, Res) 25 H/VHD - High/Very High Density R4 50.01 65 21 20 8 3 9 5 37506006 1.71 Commercial/Office/Residential P(CG, Res) 25 VHD - Very High Density R4 65.01 80 137 130 53 21 56 6 37506007 0.96 Commercial/Office/Residential P(CG, Res) 25 VHD - Very High Density R4 65.01 80 77 73 30 12 31 7 31621031 1.81 Commercial/Office/Residential P(CG, Res) 25 H/VHD - High/Very High Density R4 50.01 65 118 112 46 18 48 8 31623026 1.78 Commercial/Office/Residential P(CG, Res) 25 H/VHD - High/Very High Density R4 50.01 65 116 110 45 18 47 9 32632050 0.83 Commercial/Office/Residential P(CG, Res) 25 H/VHD - High/Very High Density R4 50.01 65 54 51 21 8 22 10 32627053 0.75 Transportation T 0 H/VHD - High/Very High Density R4 50.01 65 49 40 40 11 32336018 0.42 Commercial / Residential P(CG) 35 H/VHD - High/Very High Density R4 50.01 65 27 26 11 4 11 12 31604064 0.44 Res Low 1-5 A1-43 5 MD - Medium Density R3/TH 10.01 20 9 8 4 4 13 32607022 1.64 Commercial P(CG) 15 VHD - Very High Density R4 65.01 80 131 125 51 20 54 14 32607030 0.92 Commercial BQ 15 VHD - Very High Density R4 65.01 80 74 70 29 11 30 15 32607031 0.24 Commercial P(CG) 15 VHD - Very High Density R4 65.01 80 19 18 7 3 8 16 32607036 1.74 Commercial P(CG) 15 VHD - Very High Density R4 65.01 80 139 132 54 21 57 17 36937022 0.39 Medium (10-20 DU/Ac) R3 20 VHD - Very High Density R4 50.01 65 25 24 10 4 10 18 36937023 0.22 Medium (10-20 DU/Ac) R3 20 MHD - Medium High Density R3/TH 20.01 35 8 7 1 6 19 36937024 0.17 Medium (10-20 DU/Ac) R3 20 MHD - Medium High Density R3/TH 20.01 35 6 6 1 5 20 36934053 0.54 Commercial / Residential P(CG) 15 MHD - Medium High Density R3/TH 20.01 35 19 18 7 3 8 21 35918044 0.26 Commercial / Residential P(CG) 25 H/VHD - High/Very High Density R4 50.01 65 17 16 7 3 6 22 36610121 1.34 Commercial / Residential P(CG, Res 5-15) 15 MHD - Medium High Density R3/TH 20.01 35 47 45 18 7 20 23 36610137 0.92 Commercial / Residential P(CG, Res 5-15) 15 MHD - Medium High Density R3/TH 20.01 35 32 31 13 5 13 24 36619047 2.33 Commercial / Residential P(CG, Res 5-15) 15 H/VHD - High/Very High Density R4 50.01 65 151 144 59 23 62 25 36619078 0.08 Commercial / Residential P(CG, Res 5-15) 15 H/VHD - High/Very High Density R4 50.01 65 5 5 1 4 26 35909017 1.00 Commercial / Residential P(CG, Res) 25 H/VHD - High/Very High Density R4 50.01 65 65 62 25 10 27 27 31620088 5.16 Reg Shopping CG 0 VHD - Very High Density R4 50.01 65 335 319 207 112 0 28 35913019 0.99 Res Low 1-5 R1-10 5 MD - Medium Density R3 10.01 20 20 19 8 3 8 29 35606001 0.73 Res Low 1-5 R1-7.5 5 MHD - Medium High Density R3/TH 20.01 35 26 24 10 4 10 30 35606002 0.69 Res Low 1-5 R1-7.5 5 MHD - Medium High Density R3/TH 20.01 35 24 23 9 4 10 31 35606003 0.25 Res Low 1-5 R1-7.5 5 MHD - Medium High Density R3/TH 20.01 35 9 8 5 3 32 35606004 0.87 Res Low 1-5 R1-7.5 5 MHD - Medium High Density R3/TH 20.01 35 30 29 12 5 12 33 36231001 0.25 Res Medium 10-20 P(R3) 20 MHD - Medium High Density R3/TH 20.01 35 9 8 1 7 34 36231030 0.23 Res Medium 10-20 P(R3) 20 MHD - Medium High Density R3/TH 20.01 35 8 8 1 7 35 32720034 1.34 Res Low 1-5 R1-10 5 LM - Low Medium R3/TH 5.01 10 13 13 2 11 Total 1,963 1,855 833 360 662
Source: City of Cupertino, September 2023.

362
CC 05-14-2024
362 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B4‐14
Table B4-8 Priority Housing Sites in Residential Zones - Additional Site Details Site ID APN Location Existing Use Owner
Interest
Current
Lease
Age of Building/
Condition Discussion
1 316 23 027 20149 Stevens Creek
Blvd
Commercial building and
unpermitted warehouse
(Sun Design Center)
Yes n/a 1957, aged
Site 1 is located in the Heart of the City – Central Special Area, which is predominantly commercial uses located both north and south of Stevens Creek Blvd and approximately 0.75 miles east of De Anza College. Existing uses on the site include two commercial structures. One of the commercial structures, a concrete tilt-up, currently a kitchen and bathroom remodel store, was built in 1957 and is in very aged condition, with no exterior improvement made, but not dilapidated condition, and the other is a wooden warehouse that is unpermitted. The owner has expressed an interest in redeveloping the site. The site would also be eligible for by-right residential development under AB 2011 (2022) prior to the completion of the rezone. The improvement-land value ratio for this site is 0.72 so development on this site is considered feasible.
2 369 03 005 20010 Stevens Creek
Blvd Commercial building Yes n/a 1955. Aged building
Site 2 is located in the Heart of the City – Central Special Area, which is predominantly commercial uses located both north and south of Stevens Creek Blvd. Site 2 is located in the central core area approximately 0.75 miles east of De Anza College. Existing uses on the site include a commercial structure, currently a breakfast restaurant. The building was constructed in 1955 and while not dilapidated, is not in good shape. The owner has expressed an interest in redeveloping the site. Neighboring uses include commercial and multi-family residential buildings. The site would also be eligible for by-right residential development under AB 2011 (2022) prior to the completion of the rezone. The improvement-land value ratio for this site is 0.17 so development on this site is considered feasible. 3 326 34 047 10125 Bandley Dr Restaurant Yes n/a 1979. Aged building Site 3 is a 1.09-acre site located in the Heart of the City – Crossroads Special Center, which is predominantly commercial uses located both north and south of Stevens Creek Blvd and approximately 0.5 mile east of De Anza College. The site currently has a commercial building that was constructed in 1979 that is aged but not dilapidated. The owner has expressed an interest in redeveloping the site. Neighboring uses include commercial and multi-family residential uses. The improvement-land value ratio for this site is 0.41 so development on this site is considered feasible.
4 359 07 006 20950 Stevens Creek
Blvd Single tenant retail Yes n/a
1966, Aged
borderline
dilapidated
Site 4 is a 0.32-acre site located in the Heart of the City – Crossroads Special Center, which is predominantly commercial uses located both north and south of Stevens Creek Blvd. and is approximately 0.5 mile east of De Anza College. Existing uses on the site include a commercial structure. The existing structure was constructed in 1966 and is borderline dilapidated. The owner has expressed an interest in redeveloping the site. Neighboring uses include commercial and multi-family residential uses. The site would also be eligible for by-right residential development under AB 2011 (2022) prior to the completion of the rezone. The improvement-land value ratio for this site is 0.17 so development on this site is considered feasible.
5 375 06 006 19220 Stevens Creek
Blvd Commercial Offices Yes n/a 1970, aged and dated
Sites 5 and 6 are two parcels totaling 2.67 acres located in the Heart of the City – East Special Area, which is predominantly commercial uses located both north and south of Stevens Creek Blvd. Existing uses on the site include two commercial structures. Site 5 includes an office building that was constructed in 1970, currently occupied by a childcare facility. Site 6 is developed with an office building, currently occupied by law offices, that was constructed in 1969. The owner of the two parcels has expressed continued interest in redeveloping the sites. The site would also be eligible for by-right residential development under AB 2011 (2022) prior to the completion of the rezone. The improvement-land value ratio for these parcels are 0.38 (Site 5) and less than 0.01 (Site 6) so development on this site is considered feasible. 6 375 06 007 19300 Stevens Creek
Blvd Commercial Offices Yes n/a 1969, aged and dated
7 316 21 031 19875 Stevens Creek
Blvd
Cort Furniture and
childcare. Yes n/a 1964
Site 7 is a 1.81-acre parcel located in the Heart of the City Special Area – Central Special Center, which is a mix of commercial and residential uses located approximately 1.25 miles east of De Anza College. Existing uses on Site 7 include a commercial building with a furniture rental store and a day care center, and associated parking. The building was constructed in 1964 and is a concrete tilt up with very little improvements on the exterior. Neighboring uses include commercial and single-family uses. Several developers have expressed interest in redeveloping the site and discussed potential with City staff. The site would also be eligible for by-right residential development under AB 2011 (2022) prior to the completion of the rezone. The improvement-land value ratio for this site is 0.43 so development on this site is considered feasible.
363
CC 05-14-2024
363 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B4‐15
Table B4-8 Priority Housing Sites in Residential Zones - Additional Site Details Site ID APN Location Existing Use Owner
Interest
Current
Lease
Age of Building/
Condition Discussion
8 316 23 026 20111 Stevens Creek
Blvd Office building.

Yes, active
conversation
with property
owner,
conversations
with interested
developer in
Fall 2023.
n/a 1982
Site 8 is a 1.78-acre parcel located in the Heart of the City Special Area – Central Special Area, which is a mix of commercial and residential uses. Site 8 is located on the north side of Stevens Creek Boulevard, approximately one mile east of De Anza College. Existing uses on the site include a dentist’s office and associated parking, adjacent to Site 1. The building was constructed in 1982 and has had minimal upgrades.

Neighboring uses include commercial and single-family uses. The property is on the same block 11051 N, Blaney, which has an application on file for a 5-story, 85-unit/acre apartment development. Developers have contacted the City about the possibility of redeveloping this site. The site would also be eligible for by-right residential development under AB 2011 (2022) prior to the completion of the rezone. The improvementland value ratio for this site is 0.80 so development on this site is considered feasible. 9 326 32 050 20883 Stevens Creek
Blvd Office building. No response received n/a 1981
Site 9 is a 0.83-acre parcel located in the Heart of the City – Crossroads Special Area, which is a mix of commercial and residential uses. Site 9 is located approximately 0.25 miles east of De Anza College. Existing uses on the site include an office building. The building is occupied by a tech company and was constructed in 1981. The site is across the street from a pipeline project (Bianchi) and two vacant commercial buildings (former Fontana’s Restaurant and Pizza Hut) that are strong redevelopment candidates. Neighboring uses include commercial uses, with single-family uses and amenities in close proximity. The site would also be eligible for by-right residential development under AB 2011 (2022) prior to the completion of the rezone. The improvement-land value ratio for this site is 19.72 so development on this site may be a challenge; however, due to the nearby presence of a pipeline project and the potential for redevelopment of other nearby parcels in this corridor, it is estimated that this will not be a barrier to redevelopment. Current trends are showing there is a lot of interest in developing near this site. Redevelopment of small, dated buildings is occurring across the street which includes an SB330 preliminary application to redevelop three existing buildings (two restaurants and one larger format commercial building) with associated parking lots and an approved townhome development in the vicinity.
10 326 27 053 Mary Ave site Vacant Yes. City
Owned n/a n/a
Site 10 is located in the Garden Gate neighborhood and is located east of Highway 85. Presently, the site is a new parcel carved out from unused right-of-way, owned by the City of Cupertino, adjacent to Highway 85 that includes some on-street parking. Neighboring uses include multi-family residential uses, a dog park, condominiums and Highway 85.

In response to an October 2022 RFP for projects for this property, the site has an active proposal for a 40-unit, two-story affordable (100% Low and Very Low Income) housing project developed by Cupertino Rotary Housing Corporation, Housing Choices Coalition, and Charities Housing. The project will include 18 units for residents with intellectual or developmental disabilities.

This site does not have a current assessed land or improvement value, so an improvement-land value ratio could not be calculated for this site.
11 323 36 018 11025 N De Anza Blvd Vacant Yes n/a 1960
Site 11 is a 0.42-acre parcel located in the Homestead Road Special Area, which is predominantly multi-family homes and commercial uses.

Site 11 is located north of Interstate 280 at the northwest corner of Homestead Road and Sunnvale-Saratoga Road. The small commercial structure that previously occupied this site was recently demolished and the site is now vacant. The owner has expressed an interest in redeveloping the site. Neighboring uses include multi-family homes and a variety of commercial structures. The property is close to the Apple Campus and close to bus lines on De Anza and Homestead Rd. The site would also be eligible for by-right residential development under AB 2011 (2022) prior to the completion of the rezone. The improvement-land value ratio for this site is 0 due to the lack of improvements on the site, so development is considered feasible.
12 316 04 064 19820 Homestead Rd Single Family Residential Yes n/a 1954, borderline dilapidated
Site 12 is a 0.44-acre site located in the Homestead Road Special Area, which is predominantly multi-family homes and commercial uses located immediately north of Interstate 280. Existing uses on Site 12 include a single-family home that was built in 1954 and is borderline dilapidated. The owner has expressed an interest in redeveloping the site. Neighboring uses include similar single-family homes. The improvement-land value ratio for this site is 0.02 so development is considered feasible. 364
CC 05-14-2024
364 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B4‐16
Table B4-8 Priority Housing Sites in Residential Zones - Additional Site Details Site ID APN Location Existing Use Owner
Interest
Current
Lease
Age of Building/
Condition Discussion
13 326 07 022 [no address] Church - tennis courts Yes n/a Sites 13 and 16 are 1.64 and 1.74-acre parcels, respectively, that are located in the Homestead Road Special Area, as are Sites 14 and 15.

Sites 14 and 15 are two adjacent parcels totaling 1.16 acres. This area is predominantly multi-family homes and commercial uses located immediately north of Interstate 280. Existing uses on the site include tennis courts, parking, and a vacant lot. The parcels have the potential to either develop separately or as a consolidated lot, though it is likely that sites 14 and 15 would develop as a consolidated lot due to their sizes and arrangement. The owner has expressed an interest in redeveloping these four sites together. Neighboring uses include a church sanctuary and parking lot, a new bank building, older office buildings and an electrical power substation. Additionally, a neighborhood center is located across Homestead Road in the City of Sunnyvale. The sites would also be eligible for by-right residential development under AB 2011 (2022) prior to the completion of the rezone. The improvement-land value ratio for all four parcels is 0 as there is no assessed improvement value.
14 326 07 030 [no address] Church parking lot Yes n/a
15 326 07 031 [no address] Church parking lot Yes n/a
16 326 07 036 [no address] Outdoor sand courts on
Church property. Yes n/a
17 369 37 022 20421 Bollinger Rd Vacant lot Yes n/a Vacant lot Sites 53 (see mixed-use zoning inventory), 17, 18 and 19 are adjacent parcels, owned by the same property owner, located on the north side of Bollinger Road just east of South DeAnza Boulevard. The South Blaney Neighborhood includes a mix of single- and multi-family housing and commercial use. Existing uses on the sites include a commercial structure and residential/duplex uses. Neighboring uses include commercial and single-family uses. Site 17 is currently vacant. The owner of sites 18 and 19 has expressed interest in developing townhomes on all or part of Sites 18 and 19. Site 19 currently has a single-family house constructed in 1940 that appears aged but not yet dilapidated.

The current use of Site 18 is a duplex that is aged but not yet dilapidated; the age of this house is unknown. Site 53, which is adjacent to Sites 17, 18, and 19, is a vacant commercial building (former Taco Bell – with no interest in re-leasing this building from the property owner) that was built in 1991 and is in need of repair, though not yet dilapidated and is a site that is generating regular code enforcement inquiries due to its unmaintained appearance. The property owner has expressed consistent and strong interest in developing the properties and has met with City staff to discuss potential and options. The site has excellent access to amenities and bus service on De Anza Blvd and Bollinger Rd. The sites would also be eligible for by-right residential development under AB 2011 (2022) prior to the completion of the rezone. The improvementland value ratio for Site 17 is 0 as there is no assessed improvement value. Sites 18 and 19 have improvement-land value ratios of 2.00 and

2.44, respectively. While this is higher than the default assumption of redevelopment feasibility, the owner’s proactive interest in redevelopment is considered sufficient to overcome this high improvement value ratio. 18 369 37 023 20411 Bollinger Rd Duplex Yes n/a Mid-1950s/ 60s, Aged
19 369 37 024 20431 Bollinger Rd Single Family Home (legal non-conforming) Yes n/a Mid-1950s/ 60s, Aged
20 369 34 053 10891 S Blaney Ave Strip Mall Yes n/a 1961, Aged condition
Site 20 is a 0.54-acre parcel in the South Blaney Neighborhood, which is a mix of single- and multi-family housing and commercial uses located immediately north of Bollinger Road at the intersection of Bollinger Road and S. Blaney Ave. The site is 0.4 miles from De Anza Blvd and 0.6 miles from Miller Ave, both of which have amenities at the intersection. Existing uses on the site include a commercial structure that was built in 1961 and is in fair condition. Neighboring uses include commercial and single-family uses. There have been multiple developer/broker contacts regarding this site since late 2022. This site and Site 52 have the same owner and the two properties will likely be consolidated or redeveloped jointly. The site would also be eligible for by-right residential development under AB 2011 (2022) prior to the completion of the rezone. The improvement-land value ratio for this site is 0.28 so development is considered feasible. 21 359 18 044 10619 South De Anza
Blvd Strip mall Yes n/a 1966, Aged
Site 21 is a 0.26-acre parcel located in the South De Anza Blvd Special Area, which is predominantly commercial uses located along De Anza Blvd. Existing uses on the Site 21 include commercial uses, including a hair salon, small café, and massage store. There is also an associated parking lot. The building was constructed in 1966 and is in aged but not in dilapidated condition. The owner has expressed interest in redeveloping the site. Neighboring uses include commercial uses and De Anza Blvd. The site would also be eligible for by-right residential development under AB 2011 (2022) prior to the completion of the rezone. The improvement-land value ratio for this site is 0.34 so development is considered feasible.
365
CC 05-14-2024
365 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B4‐17
Table B4-8 Priority Housing Sites in Residential Zones - Additional Site Details Site ID APN Location Existing Use Owner
Interest
Current
Lease
Age of Building/
Condition Discussion
22 366 10 121 1505 S De Anza Blvd Commercial, Kelly-Moore Paints No. Yes For sale 1965
Site 22 is a 1.34-acre parcel located in the South De Anza Blvd Special Area, and is very underutilized. The site is developed with a dated industrial building, originally a lumber yard, that has had a succession of short-term commercial tenants and is now vacant. The most recent occupant was a paint store. The property has a large surface parking area with worn paving that has few cars present during business hours (Site 23). The site is located along a stretch of De Anza Blvd. where most sites are redevelopment candidates. The east side of DeAnza Blvd.

Is in the City of San Jose, where strip malls and similar under-performing commercial sites are currently being redeveloped with residential uses. The building was constructed in 1965. However, a recent entitlement for property approximately 750 feet south of this property at 1655 S. De Anza was approved in 2023 by the City, in which a strip mall was redeveloped with a mixed-use residential development. Neighboring uses include commercial uses, multi-family uses, and De Anza Blvd. The site would also be eligible for by-right residential development under AB 2011 (2022) prior to the completion of the rezone. The improvement-land value ratio for this site is 0.25 so development is considered feasible. Site 22 is located adjacent to site 23 which is currently surface parking. City staff attended two meeting with a Long Beach based developer, Linc Housing, in March 2024. The developer expressed interest in doing a 100 percent affordable project and informed staff that the owner is aggressively marketing the site for housing development. Staff has an additional meeting with the prospective developer’s team later in March.
23 366 10 137 [no address] Parking lot behind
KinderCare
Yes. The
property owner
has been
interested in
developing
with residential
in the past 2
years.
n/a n/a
Site 23 is a 0.92-acre parcel located in the South De Anza Blvd Special Area, adjacent to Site 22, which has active interest to develop an affordable housing project. The surrounding area is predominantly low-intensity commercial uses located along De Anza Blvd. The existing use on Site 23 is a parking lot located behind a day care center, the site does not have any structures of its own but provides parking for adjacent low-density uses. Neighboring uses include commercial and residential uses and De Anza Blvd. The owner has been contacted regarding their interest in redeveloping this site, but a response has not yet been received. In the past, however, this property owner has been interested in redeveloping this property with residential uses. However, a recent entitlement for adjacent property at 1655 S. De Anza was approved in 2023 by the City, in which a strip mall was redeveloped with a mixed-use residential development. While the site is not eligible for by-right residential development under AB 2011 (2022) due to frontage requirements of the law, the property is adjacent to other property which are eligible for such development and therefore, contiguous development is anticipated. The improvement-land value ratio for this site is 0 as there is no assessed improvement value.
24 366 19 047 1361 S De Anza Blvd Yamagami's Nursery Yes n/a 1960
Sites 24 and 25 are a 2.33-acre parcel and a 0.08-acre parcel, respectively, located in the South De Anza Blvd Special Area, which is predominantly commercial uses, a dated nursery building, located along De Anza Blvd. Existing uses on Sites 24 and 25 include a nursery and an associated parking lot. The nursery was constructed in 1960 and is a dated building. The owner has expressed a strong interest in redeveloping the site. Neighboring uses include commercial uses, single-family units, townhome units, De Anza Blvd, and new residential development in the City of San Jose. The site has fair access to amenities and bus service along De Anza Blvd. While the site is not eligible for by-right residential development under AB 2011 (2022) due to proximity to freeway limitations of the law, the property owner interest for redevelopment is strong. The improvement-land value ratio for Site 24 is 0.11 and 0 for Site 25 (no assessed improvement value), so development is considered feasible.
25 366 19 078 No address Portion of Yamagami's
site Yes n/a
26 359 09 017 10105 S De Anza Blvd Commercial Offices Yes n/a 1977, older building
with no significant
improvements
Site 26 is a one-acre parcel located in the South De Anza Blvd Special Area, which is predominantly commercial uses located along De Anza Blvd. Existing uses on Site 26 include a commercial building and parking lot. The current commercial building was constructed in 1977 and remains in fair condition. The site is located 0.5 miles from De Anza College and Apple’s Infinite Loop Campus. There are several offices located within walking distance of the site. Neighboring uses include commercial uses, multi-family units, and De Anza Blvd. The owner has expressed an active interest in redeveloping this property. The site has excellent access to amenities and rapid bus service along Stevens Creek Blvd and other bus service along De Anza Blvd. The site would also be eligible for by-right residential development under AB 2011 (2022) prior to the completion of the rezone. The improvement-land value ratio for this site is 0.42 so development is considered feasible. 366
CC 05-14-2024
366 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B4‐18
Table B4-8 Priority Housing Sites in Residential Zones - Additional Site Details Site ID APN Location Existing Use Owner
Interest
Current
Lease
Age of Building/
Condition Discussion
27 316 20 088 [no address] Vacant site with parking
lot, north of Vallco site Yes n/a n/a
Site 27 is a 5.16-acre parcel located in the Vallco Shopping District, which is predominantly commercial uses located south of Interstate 280 along Wolfe Road. The site is presently a vacant lot. The owner has expressed interest in transferring this property to Santa Clara County to allow the redevelopment of this site with affordable housing development, including teacher housing. Neighboring uses include single-family uses, Wolfe Road, and the Interstate 280 corridor. The site has excellent access to planned amenities, is adjacent to a significant pipeline project (Vallco/The Rise), and is in close proximity to rapid bus service along Stevens Creek Blvd and other bus service along Wolfe Road.

While the site is not eligible for by-right residential development under AB 2011 (2022) due to proximity to freeway limitations of the law, the property owner interest for redevelopment is strong. The improvement-land value ratio for this site is 0 due to a lack of assessed improvement value, so development is considered feasible. The site is owned by Santa Clara County and in December 2023 released an Request For Offers (RFO) for an affordable housing development on the site. In January 2024, the County selected Eden Housing as the developer for the site, with the objective of having a fully-entitled project prior to the end of the 2024 calendar year. The County included the City in the RFO and developer selection process and Eden Housing has, as of February, begun having regular meetings with the City on its community outreach strategy and refining their plans to develop an all affordable housing project with units affordable to lower and moderate-income households.

Based on this the City has allocated the capacity on the site accordingly. 28 359 13 019 20865 Mcclellan Rd Single Family Residential Yes n/a 1957, Aged
borderline
dilapidated
Site 28 is a 0.99-acre parcel located in the Jollyman Neighborhood, which is predominantly defined by single-family residential homes and located immediately south of the De Anza College campus and east of the Highway 85 corridor. Site 29 currently includes a single-family home built close to the McClellan Road right-of-way with a large rear yard. Neighboring uses include single-family housing. A developer has made contact with the City regarding the development of townhomes on this property since 2021, with continued interest for development in 2023. The site has good access to amenities within 0.25-0.5 miles of the site and has fair access to bus service at De Anza College. The improvement-land value ratio for this site is 0.02 so development is considered feasible. 29 356 06 001 10857 Linda Vista Dr Single Family Residential Yes n/a 1947- 1954, Aged
Borderline
Dilapidated
Sites 29 through 32 are contiguous parcels located in the Monta Vista North Neighborhood, which is predominantly defined by single-family residential homes and located immediately east of the foothills. The individual parcels range in size from 0.25 acres to 0.87 acres. Existing uses on the site include four occupied single-family homes built between 1947 and 1957. Neighboring uses include tennis courts, a golf course, and single-family homes. The current physical condition of these houses is borderline dilapidated. The four parcels are adjacent to each other and have common ownership, and there has been active developer interest in developing this area into townhomes. The existing cul-de-sac (Evulich Ct.) could also be incorporated into the development and the City could consider selling this right of way to the developer for development purposes to allow a cohesive and contiguous site planning. Property owners have attended almost all housing element meetings to ensure parcels are included on the sites inventory list. The improvement-land value ratio for these sites are 0.84 (Site 29), 1.01 (Site 30), 0.89 (Site 31), and 0.51 (Site 32), for a combined ratio of 0.80, so development is considered feasible. 30 356 06 002 10867 Linda Vista Dr Single Family Residential Yes n/a 1947- 1954, Aged
Borderline
Dilapidated
31 356 06 003 10877 Linda Vista Dr Single Family Residential Yes n/a 1947- 1954, Aged
Borderline
Dilapidated
32 356 06 004 10887 Linda Vista Dr Single Family Residential Yes n/a 1947- 1954, Aged
Borderline
Dilapidated
33 362 31 001 20666 Cleo Ave Single Family Residential Yes n/a 1951, good condition
Site 33 is a 0.25-acre site located in the Monta Vista South Neighborhood, which is predominantly defined by single-family residential homes and located immediately southwest of SR 85. Site 34 is currently developed with an occupied one single-family residence that was constructed in 1951. This lot is similar in size to another lot on this street where a Habitat for Humanity development was developed on a site and another lot where a developer is proposing 4 townhomes. The existing structure on the property is legal non-conforming and any improvements must comply with existing multi-family zoning, which the property owner is unwilling to do. However, the current property owner is interested in redeveloping the site in its entirety and as a result the zoning is being updated to allow townhome development on the site to make the site more attractive for development, similar to the one being considered approximately 200 feet to the east of this site. The improvement-land value ratio for this site is 0.02 so development is considered feasible. 367
CC 05-14-2024
367 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B4‐19
Table B4-8 Priority Housing Sites in Residential Zones - Additional Site Details Site ID APN Location Existing Use Owner
Interest
Current
Lease
Age of Building/
Condition Discussion
34 362 31 030 [no address] Also on
Cleo Vacant Yes. n/a 1950's, good condition
Site 34 is a 0.23-acre parcel located in the Monta Vista South Neighborhood, which is predominantly defined by single-family residential homes and located immediately west of Highway 85. The irregularly-shaped parcel is currently undeveloped and vacant. Neighboring uses include single-family and duplex homes. This lot is similar in size to another lot on this street where a Habitat for Humanity development was developed on a site and another lot where a developer is proposing 4 townhomes. The zoning is being updated to allow townhome development on the site to make the site more attractive for development, similar to the one being considered approximately 60 feet to the south of this site. The improvement-land value ratio for this site is 0 due to a lack of improvements, so development is considered feasible. 35 326 20 034 10231 Adriana Ave Single Family Residential Yes n/a Single Family Residential
Site 35 is a 1.34 acre-parcel currently occupied with a Single-Family Residential unit. The property owner recently inherited the property and is very motivated to redevelop the site with higher density residential. The owner most recently reiterated the intention to develop the property in September 2023. The improvement-land value ratio for this site is 4.44. However, due to the owner’s recent interest, this is not considered a barrier to development.

Source: City of Cupertino, September 2023
Table B4-9 Priority Housing Sites in Mixed-Use Zones
Site
ID APN Acres Existing General Plan Designation
Existing Zoning
Designation
Current
Maximum
Allowed
Density
Proposed General Plan
Designation
Proposed
Zoning
Proposed
Minimum
Density
(du/acre)
Proposed
Maximum
Density
(du/acre)
Maximum
Unit
Capacity
Realistic
Unit
Capacity
(75%)
LowerIncome Units ModerateIncome Units
Above
ModerateIncome Units
36 316 23 093 1.35 Commercial/Office/Residential P(CG, Res) 25 Commercial/Residential - HVH P (CG/R4) 50.01 65 88 132 30 102 37 316 23 036 0.24 Commercial/Office/Residential P(CG, Res) 25 Commercial/Residential - HVH P (CG/R4) 50.01 65 38 369 06 002 0.9 Commercial/Office/Residential P(CG, Res) 25 Commercial/Residential - VH P (CG/R4) 65.01 80 72 54 31 23 39 369 06 003 0.53 Commercial/Office/Residential P(CG, Res) 25 Commercial/Residential - VH P (CG/R4) 65.01 80 42 32 18 14 40 369 06 004 1.29 Commercial/Office/Residential P(CG, Res) 25 Commercial/Residential - VH P (CG/R4) 65.01 80 103 77 44 33 41 359 10 015 1.18 Commercial / Residential P(CG) 25 Commercial/Residential - HVH P (CG/R4) 50.01 65 77 58 24 9 25 42 359 10 060 0.98 Commercial / Residential P(CG) 25 Commercial/Residential - HVH P (CG/R4) 50.01 65 64 48 20 8 20 43 359 10 044 0.18 Commercial / Residential P(CG) 25 Commercial/Residential - HVH P (CG/R4) 50.01 65 12 9 5 4 44 359 08 025 0.83 Commercial/Office/Residential P(CG, Res) 25 Commercial/Residential - HVH P (CG/R4) 50.01 65 54 40 16 6 18 45 359 08 026 0.45 Commercial/Office/Residential P(CG, Res) 25 Commercial/Residential - HVH P (CG/R4) 50.01 65 29 22 9 4 9 46 359 08 027 0.87 Commercial/Office/Residential P(CG, Res) 25 Commercial/Residential - HVH P (CG/R4) 50.01 65 57 42 17 7 18 47 359 08 028 0.85 Commercial/Office/Residential P(CG, Res) 25 Commercial/Residential - HVH P (CG/R4) 50.01 65 55 41 17 7 17 48* 359 08 029 0.92 Commercial/Office/Residential P(CG, Res) 25 Commercial/Residential - HVH P (CG/R4) 50.01 65 60 49 326 09 052 0.74 Commercial P(CG) 35 Commercial/Residential - VH P (CG/R4) 65.01 80 59 44 18 7 19 50 326 09 060 2.75 Commercial P(Rec/Enter) Commercial/Residential - VH P (CG/R4) 65.01 80 220 165 68 26 71 51 326 09 061 1.12 Commercial P(CG) 35 Commercial/Residential - VH P (CG/R4) 65.01 80 90 67 27 11 29 52 369 34 052 2.70 Commercial / Residential P(CG) 15 Commercial/Residential - HVH P (CG/R4) 50.01 65 176 132 54 21 57 53 369 37 028 0.56 Commercial / Residential P(CG) 25 Commercial/Residential - HVH P (CG/R4) 50.01 65 36 27 11 4 12 54 366 19 055 0.40 Commercial / Residential P(CG, Res 5-15) 15 Commercial/Residential - MH P (CG/R3/TH) 20.01 35 14 11 7 4 55 366 19 053 0.56 Commercial / Residential P(CG, Res 5-15) 15 Commercial/Residential - MH P (CG/R3/TH) 20.01 35 20 15 6 2 7 56 366 19 054 1.75 Commercial / Residential P(CG, Res 5-15) 15 Commercial/Residential - MH P (CG/R3/TH) 20.01 35 61 46 19 7 20 368
CC 05-14-2024
368 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B4‐20
Table B4-9 Priority Housing Sites in Mixed-Use Zones
Site
ID APN Acres Existing General Plan Designation
Existing Zoning
Designation
Current
Maximum
Allowed
Density
Proposed General Plan
Designation
Proposed
Zoning
Proposed
Minimum
Density
(du/acre)
Proposed
Maximum
Density
(du/acre)
Maximum
Unit
Capacity
Realistic
Unit
Capacity
(75%)
LowerIncome Units ModerateIncome Units
Above
ModerateIncome Units
57 316 05 050 1.02 Commercial / Residential P(CG, Res) 25 Commercial/Residential - VH P (CG/R4) 65.01 80 82 61 25 10 26 58 316 05 051 0.62 Commercial / Residential P(CG, Res) 25 Commercial/Residential - VH P (CG/R4) 65.01 80 50 37 15 6 16 59 316 05 052 0.73 Commercial / Residential P(CG, Res) 25 Commercial/Residential - VH P (CG/R4) 65.01 80 58 44 18 7 19 60 316 05 053 0.92 Commercial / Residential P(CG, Res) 25 Commercial/Residential - VH P (CG/R4) 65.01 80 74 55 23 9 23 61 316 05 056 6.94 Commercial / Residential P(CG, Res) 25 Commercial/Residential - VH P (CG/R4) 65.01 80 555 416 171 67 178 62 316 05 072 0.54 Commercial / Residential P(CG, Res) 25 Commercial/Residential - VH P (CG/R4) 65.01 80 43 32 8 24 63 359 20 028 0.75 Quasi-Public BQ 0 Commercial/Residential - MH P (CG/R3) 20.01 35 26 20 8 3 9 Total 2,276 1,727 596 436 695
Source: City of Cupertino, September 2023
NOTE: *The City is not relying on site 48 to accommodate the RHNA and capacity is not reflected in Table B4-12.

369
CC 05-14-2024
369 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B4‐21
Table B4-10 Priority Housing Sites in Mixed-Use Zones – Additional Site Details Site ID APN Location Existing Use Owner Interest Current Lease
Age of Building/
Condition Discussion
36 316 23 093 20007 Stevens Creek
Blvd Commercial buildings Yes n/a 1978.

Sites 36 and 37 are two parcels located in the Heart of the City - Central Special Area, which is a mix of commercial and residential uses. These sites are approximately 0.75 miles east of De Anza College and located about halfway between Apple’s Infinite Loop and Apple Park campuses. The parcels are 1.35 and 0.24 acres, respectively. Neighboring uses include commercial uses and multi-family residential. Existing uses on the site include a childcare center in one building and two vacant commercial buildings. The building was constructed in 1978. In May 2023 the property owner expressed an interest in redeveloping the site.

The City is currently reviewing a project application under Builder’s Remedy for a 141 unit rental development. Based on the pending application, it is estimated that 141 units, with 20% lower income units, in a 5-story building, could be developed on this site. The site has excellent access to amenities and rapid bus service along Stevens Creek Blvd. The site would also be eligible for by-right residential development under AB 2011 (2022) prior to the completion of the rezone. The improvement-land value ratio for Site 36 is 0.22 and 0.40 for Site 37, so development is considered feasible. 37 316 23 036 10051 N Blaney Ave Childcare center Yes n/a 1969. Tenant
improvements in
2020.
38 369 06 002 19610 Stevens Creek
Blvd
Strip Mall (House of
Falafel)
Yes n/a
1960, aged. No
improvements made
to structures since
construction.

Sites 38, 39, and 40 are a set of three parcels totaling 2.72 acres located in the Heart of the City – East Special Area, which is a mix of commercial and residential uses. The Sites are located 1.5 miles east of De Anza College and a little under 1 mile south of the Apple Park campus, and range in size from 0.53 acres to 1.29 acres. Existing uses on the site include commercial buildings built in the 1960s and are aged, but not yet dilapidated. The strip mall portion has vacancies. Neighboring uses include a variety of commercial buildings and single-family homes. As of September 2023, the parcels are under contract negotiations with Toll Brothers, an established residential developer with the intent to develop townhomes for a mix of income levels. The site would also be eligible for by-right residential development under AB 2011 (2022) prior to the completion of the rezone. The site has excellent access to amenities and rapid bus service along Stevens Creek Blvd and lends development at densities greater than townhome densities. The improvement-land value ratios for these sites are 0.03 (Site 38), 0.05 (Site 39), and less than 0.01 (Site 40) so development is considered feasible.
39 369 06 003 10071 E Estates Dr Commercial building
(United Furniture)
40 369 06 004 10075 E Estates Dr United Furniture parking lot
41 359 10 015 10133 S De Anza Blvd
Strip mall north of Vardy's
Shopping Center (S&G
Carpet)
Yes n/a
1952, with some
improvements in
1970. No additional
improvements since.

Aged.

Site 41 is a 1.18-acre parcel located in the South De Anza Special Area, which is a mix of commercial and residential uses. The site is located approximately 0.75 miles east of De Anza College and about 1 mile south of the Apple Infinite loop campus.

Existing uses on the site include a bank, restaurant, and assorted commercial uses along with associated parking. The owner has recently expressed an interest in redeveloping the site. Neighboring uses include commercial uses and single-family uses. It is anticipated that the site would be designed with live/work units fronting S. De Anza Blvd to retain the “commercial” look along South De Anza Blvd corridor. The site has excellent access to amenities and is close to rapid bus service along Stevens Creek Blvd and other bus service along De Anza Blvd. The site would also be eligible for by-right residential development under AB 2011 (2022) prior to the completion of the rezone. The improvement-land value ratio for this site is 2.30; however, due to the lack of improvements over the past 50 years it is estimated that this will not be a barrier to redevelopment. 42 359 10 060 10211 S De Anza Blvd Vardy’s shopping center.

No. There has been
interest expressed
from developers and
brokers regarding
developing the site
with housing or a
mixed-use project.
n/a 1960, aged
Site 42 is a 0.98-acre parcel located in the South De Anza Special Area, which is a mix of commercial and residential uses. Site 42 is located approximately 0.65 miles east of De Anza College and about 1 mile south of the Apple Infinite loop campus. The site is developed with an older, partially occupied shopping center, including one vacancy and a sandwich shop and associated parking. Neighboring uses include both commercial and single-family uses. It is anticipated that Live/Work type units would be designed on the site, given its location on the South DeAnza Boulevard corridor. The site would also be eligible for by-right residential development under AB 2011 (2022) prior to the completion of the rezone. There has been interest expressed from developers and brokers regarding in developing the site with housing or a mixed-use project. The site has excellent access to amenities and is close to rapid bus service along Stevens Creek Blvd and other bus service along De Anza Blvd. The improvement-land value ratio for this site is 1.30, but due to the potential for co-development with Site 43, it is not estimated that this will be a barrier to redevelopment. Current trends are showing there is a lot of interest for these types of sites, older shopping centers with a high turnover rate. Neighboring site 41 is for sale and there is a developer interested in a 100 percent affordable project. This site has a similar make up to sites 42 and 43. The owner of sites 42 is elderly and runs a family-owned business.

There is a currently vacant storefront which occupies a big portion of the center. 370
CC 05-14-2024
370 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B4‐22
Table B4-10 Priority Housing Sites in Mixed-Use Zones – Additional Site Details Site ID APN Location Existing Use Owner Interest Current Lease
Age of Building/
Condition Discussion
43 359 10 044 10201 S. De Anza Blvd Acupuncture Clinic
No. There has been
expressed interest
from developers
interested in
developing the site.
n/a 1953, aged
Site 43 is a 0.18-acre parcel located in the South De Anza Blvd Special Area, which is predominantly commercial uses located along De Anza Blvd. Site 43 is located approximately 0.65 miles east of De Anza College and about 1 mile south of the Apple Infinite loop campus. Existing uses on Site 43 include a standalone commercial building occupied by an acupuncture clinic and associated parking lot. Neighboring uses include commercial uses, single-family uses, and De Anza Blvd. Could develop in conjunction with Site 42 and it is anticipated that this could be developed with live/work units. The site would also be eligible for by-right residential development under AB 2011 (2022) prior to the completion of the rezone. There has been expressed interest from developers interested in developing the site. The improvement-land value ratio for this site is 0.21 so development is considered feasible. Current trends are showing there is a lot of interest for these types of sites, older shopping centers with a high turnover rate. Neighboring site 41 is for sale and there is a developer interested in a 100 percent affordable project. This site has a similar make up to sites 42 and 43. Based on the developer interest in this area, there is a high probability of this site developing in conjunction with site 42.
44 359 08 025 20840 Stevens Creek
Blvd
Commercial building
(former Fontana’s
restaurant)
No
n/a 1996
Sites 44 through 48 are a set of five parcels totaling 13.73 acres, of which only the western most 3.92 acres are expected to be redeveloped. In particular, only a portion of site 47 is anticipated to be rezoned to allow residential units. These parcels are located in the Heart of the City – Crossroads Special Center, which consists of predominantly commercial uses located both north and south sides of Stevens Creek Blvd. The sites are located within 0.3 mile of De Anza College to the east and within 0.8 miles of Apple’s Infinite Loop and Bandley campuses to the north. Existing uses on the Sites 44 through 48 include commercial buildings and associated surface parking areas. At least one commercial building (former Pizza Hut) on these sites has been vacant for the past seven years and is in dilapidated condition near the Stevens Creek right-of-way, and another commercial business (Fontana’s Restaurant) in this development closed during the COVID-19 pandemic and has remained unoccupied since that time. The City Council, Planning Commission and many residents have indicated support for the redevelopment of the western portion of this site with housing during the extensive public hearings and community outreach done for the Housing Element update in 2022-23. The extant buildings are of mixed quality, but some are in very poor condition. While site 48 has a newer building, due to the proximity of the site to potential neighboring development, the site could be redeveloped together with the adjacent sites as a mixed-use development. Neighboring uses include commercial uses, with single-family uses in close proximity. The site has excellent access to amenities and is close to rapid bus service along Stevens Creek Blvd. The site would also be eligible for by-right residential development under AB 2011 (2022) prior to the completion of the rezone. Improvementland value ratios for these parcels are 0.65 (Site 44), 0 (Site 45), 4.20 (Site 46), 2.79 (Site 47), and 2.60 (Site 48), for a combined ratio of 2.38. However, because only portions of the more developed sites are expected to redevelop, it is not estimated that the existence of these improvements will be a barrier to redevelopment. As of January 2024, sites 44 through 47 have a preliminary SB 330 application on file, which indicates interest in development, but the project has not yet been finalized or approved. As previously mentioned, the sites are part of a larger property that is owned by the same long term ownership group. There is interest in beginning to divest some of their interests. Additionally, there has been another project in the vicinity already approved for a townhome development within a few hundred yards of Site 48. 45 359 08 026 20830 Stevens Creek
Blvd
Parking lot in front of
Staples n/a n/a
46 359 08 027 No address Staples building n/a 1996
47 359 08 028 20690 Stevens Creek
Blvd
Crossroads Shopping
Center (Former Pizza Hut
building and surrounding
parking lots, and western
parking lot only)
n/a n/a
48* 359 08 029 20750 Stevens Creek
Blvd Dish’n’Dash Restaurant No n/a 2012
49 326 09 052 20916 Homestead Rd Strip Mall
No. Developer
interest as of Dec.
2023.
n/a 1984, Aged not
dilapidated
Sites 49, 50, and 51 are three parcels totaling 4.61 acres, located on the east side of Stelling Road, immediately south of Homestead Road. The parcels range in size from 0.74 to 2.75 acres and are located directly across Stelling Road from Sites 13- 16, establishing a large swath of redevelopment sites at a major intersection and gateway to the City from neighboring Sunnyvale.

The sites are located 1 mile north of De Anza College and within 0.8 miles of Apple’s Infinite Loop and Bandley campuses to the southeast. There has not been any reinvestment in the properties and there is a high turnover rate of the current businesses. There are no long-term establishments. The surrounding area is predominantly single- and multi-family homes, including adjacent 50 326 09 060 20990 Homestead Rd Strip Mall and Bowling Alley
No. Developer
interest as of Dec.
2023.
n/a 1976, Aged not
dilapidated
371
CC 05-14-2024
371 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B4‐23
Table B4-10 Priority Housing Sites in Mixed-Use Zones – Additional Site Details Site ID APN Location Existing Use Owner Interest Current Lease
Age of Building/
Condition Discussion
51 326 09 061 20956 Homestead Rd Strip Mall
No. Developer
interest as of Dec.
2023.
n/a 1979, dated
apartment complexes, along with commercial uses located north of Interstate 280. Current uses include retail buildings constructed in 1984, 1979 and 1976. The buildings are aged but not dilapidated, though it is expected that the commercial uses would be redeveloped along with the parking area. There have been no façade improvements to the structures since the 1980s. Site 50, the largest of the four sites, is owned by a large housing developer and is currently occupied by a bowling alley located on the property which has not had any improvements since the late 1990s. Due to shared parking easements and the fact that the properties are not owned by the same owner, the parcels have the potential to either develop separately or as a consolidated site. The two strip centers are occupied by several ethnic food uses and there is frequent turnover in the tenancy. Neighboring uses include residential and commercial uses. There have been multiple developers interested in these sites as of September 2023. The site has excellent access to most amenities, with only fair access to parks located within the City of Cupertino city limits, and is close to bus service on Homestead Road and De Anza Blvd. Two of the three parcels would be eligible for by-right residential development under AB2011 (2022) prior to the completion of the rezone and due to adjacency of the third parcel, it makes sense to consider this as one site. This site is across the street from Sites 13 and 14 for which there is owner interest. Improvement-land value ratios for these parcels are 0.30 (Site 49), 0.03 (Site 50), and 0.75 (Site 51), so development is considered feasible.

In summary, Sites 49, 50, and 51 are viewed by real estate agents and developers as one site for redevelopment, and although this is made of up three separate parcels, would develop as one. The City will also incentivize lot consolidation through program HE-1.3.7 to assist with the development of affordable housing on this site and make development more financially feasible. Site 51 is 1.12 acres, irregularly-irregularly shaped, landlocked with only a drive aisle out to Stelling Road. Given its configuration and access it cannot redevelop independently. Site 50, presently occupied with a derelict bowling alley and bar, is 60 percent of the total site area and was acquired by Barry Swenson, a major Northern California home developer, in late 2021. In order to redevelop the overall 4.61-acre site access to Homestead Road from Sites 50 and 51 will be needed, which requires the inclusion of Site 49, the smallest of the three parcels. The tenants on Sites 49 and 51 are a mix of underperforming restaurants and a nail salon, typical of the strip commercial centers located along the City’s major transportation corridors that City staff has been receiving inquiries about for redevelopment as higher-density housing. There have been two broker inquiries since December 2023 regarding the potential for housing development on this site, including all of the three parcels (49,50, and 51). 52 369 34 052 10787 S Blaney Ave Strip Mall
No. City staff has
had three
conversations with
developers
regarding this site
over the past 6
months.
n/a 1961, Aged not
dilapidated
Site 52 is a 2.70-acre parcel located adjacent to Site 20. Sites 52 and 20 are under the same ownership. The site is 0.4 miles from De Anza Blvd and 0.6 miles from Miller Ave, both of which have amenities at the intersection. Existing uses on the site include commercial structures. There is a strip mall on the site, but the owner and several developers have expressed an interest in redeveloping the site. The site has access to bus service on Bollinger Road. The site would also be eligible for by-right residential development under AB 2011 (2022) prior to the completion of the rezone. The improvement-land value ratio is 0.36, so development is considered feasible. This site has had numerous ongoing inquiries from developers and brokers about redeveloping. The majority of the strip mall is in poor condition and dated beyond renovation. 53 369 37 028 10710 S De Anza Blvd Vacant Taco Bell building Yes n/a 1991, Aged not dilapidated
Site 53 is a 0.56-acre parcel located adjacent to Sites 17, 18 and 19. Existing uses on the site include a vacant commercial building which was formerly occupied by Taco Bell. The property owner has expressed an interest in 2022 and 2023 in redeveloping the site and has remained committed to not re-leasing the property for commercial uses. The site has excellent access to amenities and bus service on De Anza Blvd and Bollinger Rd. The site would also be eligible for by-right residential development under AB 2011 (2022) prior to the completion of the rezone. The improvement-land value ratio is 0.04, so development is considered feasible.
54 366 19 055 1471 S De Anza Blvd
Commercial Building (red
barn). Same owner as
Summerwinds Nursery
Yes n/a
Sites 54, 55, and 56 are located in the South De Anza Blvd Special Area, which is predominantly commercial uses located along De Anza Blvd. Sites 55 and 56 are 0.56- and 1.75-acre parcels, respectively, and are the site of Summerwinds Nursery. The nursery was built in 1978 and is aged but not yet dilapidated. Other locations (Sunnyvale and the Almaden area of San Jose, both cities neighboring Cupertino) of the Summerwinds chain of nurseries have recently closed and have redeveloped with housing. Site 54 is a 0.40-acre parcel owned by the same owner as the Summerwinds nursery but is operated independently.

Existing uses on Site 54 include a commercial use and parking lot. The current building was constructed in 1968, and, like the nursery, is aged but not yet dilapidated. Due to its proximity to the other sites, it is expected to redevelop at the same time as the 55 366 19 053 1491 S De Anza Blvd Summerwinds Nursery Yes n/a 1978, Aged not dilapidated
372
CC 05-14-2024
372 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B4‐24
Table B4-10 Priority Housing Sites in Mixed-Use Zones – Additional Site Details Site ID APN Location Existing Use Owner Interest Current Lease
Age of Building/
Condition Discussion
56 366 19 054 1491 S De Anza Blvd Summerwinds Nursery Yes n/a 1978, Aged not dilapidated
nursery site. Neighboring uses include commercial uses and De Anza Blvd. The owner of these sites has reached out in recent years. This site has also been of interest to housing developers. Sites 22-25 are adjacent to the south and north of this property.

The site has fair access to amenities and bus service on De Anza Blvd. Two of the three sites (Sites 54 and 56) would also be eligible for by-right residential development under AB 2011 (2022) prior to the completion of the rezone. Improvement-land value ratios for these sites are 0.07 (Site 54), 0 (Site 55, with no assessed improvement value), and 0.06 (Site 56), so development is considered feasible.
57 316 05 050 10989 N Wolfe Rd Cupertino Village
Shopping Center
Yes
n/a 1969, Aged not
dilapidated
Site 57 to 62 are located in the North Vallco Park Special Area, which is predominantly commercial uses located north of Interstate 280 and immediately west of the Apple Park Campus. The six parcels range in size from 0.54 acres to 6.87 acres. All six parcels are owned by the same entity, and the owner has expressed a strong interest in redeveloping a portion of this site to include residential uses while maintaining much of the commercial portions of the development and is planning to pursue entitlements once the site has been rezoned. Existing uses on the site include commercial uses, many of which were constructed in the late 1960s. Neighboring uses include existing apartments, single-family uses, a Church, some commercial buildings in the City of Sunnyvale and the Apple Park Campus. The existing 99 Ranch commercial building and a standalone commercial (bank/Starbucks) building are expected to be demolished and replaced with a new building with the 99 Ranch store on the first floor and apartments above at the northeast corner of the site. In a later phase, the owner intends to demolish an older building adjacent to a parking garage and build an all-residential structure. The owner has indicated an interest in the development of just over 300 units and a minimum of 115,000 s.f. of commercial uses. It is anticipated that a maximum of between 2.75 and 3 acres of the existing property, in two different locations will be rezoned to allow the maximum of 310 residential units that the property owner anticipates constructing on this site. The site has excellent access to amenities but less access to park space and has access to bus service along Homestead Road and Wolfe Road. The site would also be eligible for by-right residential development under AB 2011 (2022) prior to the completion of the rezone. Improvement-land value ratios for these sites are 1.34 (Site 57), 4.57 (Site 58), 3.05 (Site 59), 3.70 (Site 60), 0.57 (Site 61), and 1.61 (Site 62), for a combined ratio of 1.38. However, because only part of the site will be redeveloped and the current owner is managing the planned redevelopment, this is not considered a barrier to development.
58 316 05 051 10961 N Wolfe Rd Cupertino Village
Shopping Center n/a 1968, Aged not dilapidated
59 316 05 052 10871 N Wolfe Rd Cupertino Village
Shopping Center n/a 1968, Aged not dilapidated
60 316 05 053 10883 N Wolfe Rd Cupertino Village
Shopping Center n/a 1968, Aged not dilapidated
61 316 05 056 10805 N Wolfe Rd Cupertino Village
Shopping Center n/a 2016, Good condition
62 316 05 072 11111 N Wolfe Rd Cupertino Village
Shopping Center n/a 1999, Aged not dilapidated
63 359 20 028 20920 Mcclellan Rd St. Jude’s Church parking lot and orchard Yes n/a n/a
Site 63 is located in the Jollyman Neighborhood, which is predominantly defined by single-family residential homes and located east of the Highway 85 corridor. The site is located immediately south of the De Anza College campus and approximately 0.5 miles east of the Apple Results Way/Bubb Campus. The primary current use of the site is a church and associated buildings.

Neighboring uses include townhomes, single-family housing, and De Anza College. The City last spoke to the Church in September 2022, and they expressed an active interest in developing the portion of their property, limited to approximately 0.75 acres with affordable residential uses, the existing Church buildings would remain. However, some of the parking area and open green space on the northwest corner of the lot may be redeveloped. The zoning on the site would be changed to allow residential uses on 0.75 acres of the site. The site is eligible to develop with affordable housing pursuant to new state laws prior to the completion of the rezone. The site has fair access to amenities and is in close proximity to bus service at De Anza College. The improvement-land value ratio is 5.78; however, because only part of the site will be redeveloping and the church building will not be removed from the site, it is not estimated that these improvements will be considered a barrier to development.

Source: City of Cupertino, September 2023
NOTE: *The City is not relying on site 48 to accommodate the RHNA and capacity is not reflected in Table B4-12. 373
CC 05-14-2024
373 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B4‐25

DEVELOPMENT OF NON-VACANT SITES
As shown in Tables B4-3 and B4-4, the city has a track record of developing affordable and marketrate housing on non-vacant sites. Based on this track record, the City believes the priority housing sites are prime candidates for redevelopment. Non-vacant sites were evaluated for suitability based on a combination of their improvement-land value ratio (ILV), age and condition, and owner interest in redevelopment. Sites with an improvement-land value ratio less than 1.0, which is to say sites where the value of current improvements is lower than that of the land on its own, were deemed to be suitable for redevelopment. While land and improvement values prior to redevelopment were not available for some older projects, where this data was available, project examples shown in Table B4- 4 indicate that most recent non-vacant sites that have redeveloped have had improvement-land value ratios of less than 1.0, though one parcel of Marina Plaza had an ILV of 1.26, suggesting that an ILV higher than 1.0 was not inherently a barrier to redevelopment, even with existing tenants. Access to amenities was also considered when identifying potential redevelopment sites. Additionally, buildings in poor condition or without recent improvements, along with buildings older than 40 years, were considered suitable for redevelopment. Recent examples of mixed-use development projects on nonvacant sites shown in Table B4-4 show that buildings that are more than 40 years old (built before 1983) were able to be redeveloped due to building age and condition even where the building had tenants prior to redevelopment, so in these cases existing tenancy or active use is not considered a barrier to redevelopment. Owner interest was also considered an important factor in evaluating suitability, particularly in cases where the owner has taken proactive steps to seek out redevelopment or is directly managing the site’s redevelopment, as was a long-term lack of tenants in the case of Sites 44 and 47. These factors were all considered jointly along with building condition when determining the development potential of sites described in B4-8 and B4-10. The majority of non-vacant sites identified for redevelopment have some combination of factors including having been built more than 40 years ago, lack of ongoing maintenance or poor condition, having an ILV less than 1.0, and having active owner interest in redevelopment. In cases where buildings are not anticipated to be removed as part of redevelopment, building age, existing building conditions and ILV were given lower consideration.

As is shown in Table B4-4, the City’s existing policy of providing development waivers and concessions, along with the density bonus program, have been helpful in facilitating development on non-vacant land. Additionally, to promote the development of non-vacant sites, the City has included Strategy 1.3.4 to establish an outreach and coordination program to connect developers, builders, and owners of non-vacant sites.

DEVELOPMENT OF SMALL SITES AND POTENTIAL LOT CONSOLDIATION Small Site Development
A small site is classified as a site that is smaller than one-half acre in size. The City is relying on 16 sites to meet a portion of the RHNA on sites that are smaller than one-half acre, as shown in Table B4-11. The City is assuming that 84 units would be affordable to moderate-income households and 146 units would be affordable to above moderate-income households. The City has not allocated lower-income units to any of the small sites in the inventory. Additionally, while the City is planning to rezone these parcels to provide for housing opportunities, these small sites are not needed to meet the RHNA. Strategy 1.3.7 has been included to help facilitate lot consolidation to encourage affordable housing development.
374
CC 05-14-2024
374 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B4‐26
Table B4-11 Small Sites Assumed to Meet a Portion of the RHNA Site
Number Acreage Total Capacity
Realistic
Capacity
(95%)
LowerIncome
Capacity
ModerateIncome
Capacity
Above
ModerateIncome
Capacity
2 0.47 31 29 11 18
4 0.32 21 20 7 13
11 0.42 27 26 10 16
12 0.44 9 8 4 4
15 0.24 19 18 7 11
17 0.39 25 24 9 15
18 0.22 11 10 2 8
19 0.17 9 8 1 7
21 0.26 17 16 4 12
25 0.08 5 5 1 4
31 0.25 9 8 5 3
33 0.25 9 8 1 7
34 0.23 8 8 1 7
43 0.18 12 9 5 4
45 0.45 29 22 9 13
54 0.40 14 11 7 4
Total 255 230 0 84 146
Source: City of Cupertino, September 2023.

Lot Consolidation
Due to the large number of smaller sites in the City (90 percent of the sites in the City are less than

0.33 acre in size), the City encourages lot consolidation and has a track record of lot consolidation, as shown in Table B4-11A. Table B4-11A illustrates that there is a precedence of residential projects developing on property that previously had commercial uses, whether as a mixed-use project or as solely residential development. Trends also show that lot consolidation occurs frequently for this type of development. Table B4-11A also reflects that lot consolidations approved by the City vary with regard to the number of parcels included in the project. The City has approved smaller consolidations with two or three parcels merging into one, as well as larger consolidations with 11 parcels being consolidated into two. Due to the size and configuration of parcels in the City, lot consolidation is common for redevelopment of existing commercial converting to mixed use or residential development. While consolidation is not required of any sites, in the sites inventory (Table B4-8 or B4-10), Sites 49, 50 and 51 would benefit from lot consolidation due to the fact that the sites are irregularly shaped and have limited access with only one access point. It is important to note, that the City does not have control over market conditions and can present hypothetical consolidation scenarios, however it is possible that further consolidation could occur or that a developer proposes a dense residential project on a small parcel. As previously mentioned, the City has included Strategy

1.3.7 to help facilitate lot consolidation to encourage affordable housing development. 375
CC 05-14-2024
375 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B4‐27
Table B4-11A Small Sites Assumed to Meet a Portion of the RHNA Project Name/
Address
Year
Approved/
Year Built
Project Type/
Affordability
Original #
of Parcels
Final # of
Parcels After
Consolidation
Common
Owner
(Y/N)
Redevelopment Project
(Y/N)
Additional
Details
Marina Plaza 10145 N. De Anza, 20118 Bandley Dr
Approved 2022. Extended 2023
Mixed Use Project (206 residential units)/Above moderate, moderate income 2 1 N
Yes – Currently a center with grocery store and a standalone restaurant, with associated surface parking lots. Current uses will be demolished.

Developed under existing zoning and density bonus.

Hamptons 19500 Pruneridge Ave
Approved 2016
Residential Project (942 residential units)/Above moderate, moderate, and lower income 3 1 Y
Yes – Currently has 342 residential units. Current uses will be demolished.

General Plan Amendment and Zoning approved as part of 5th Cycle Housing Element
Vallco 10101 and 10330 N Wolfe Road
Approved 2018/Amended 2024
Mixed Use Project (2,669 residential units, 890 lower income, retail and office uses) 11 2 Y
Yes – Site had an existing mall and anchors (Macy’s, JC Penney and Sears). The current property owner acquired property from anchors and the mall from a different entity. Half the site has been demolished and site remediation has been completed. The site will be redeveloped with mixed use development Used SB35 streamlining and Density bonus under existing zoning at time of project application.

Canyon Crossing 10625 S. Foothill Boulevard
Approved 2022. Demolition completed
Mixed Use Project (18 residential units)/Above moderate-, moderate- and lower-income units, commercial uses 2 14 N
Yes – Site had an existing strip center and one home. Uses were demolished.

Built under existing zoning
376
CC 05-14-2024
376 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B4‐28
Table B4-11A Small Sites Assumed to Meet a Portion of the RHNA Project Name/
Address
Year
Approved/
Year Built
Project Type/
Affordability
Original #
of Parcels
Final # of
Parcels After
Consolidation
Common
Owner
(Y/N)
Redevelopment Project
(Y/N)
Additional
Details
Alan Row
Approved 2022. Demolition complete, units under construction Residential Project (9 units)/ Above moderateand moderate-income units 3 8 Y Yes – Site had an existing liquor store and associated parking. Uses were demolished.

Built under existing zoning
1655 S. De Anza Approved 2023
Mixed Use Project (34 units) Above Moderate with moderate- and lowerincome level 2 12 Y Yes – Currently an existing strip center with associated parking. Current uses will be demolished.

Existing zoning and density bonus
Builder’s Remedy (Shan Restaurant etc.)
N/A
Residential (142 units) above moderate-, lowerincome 3 1 Y Yes – Currently two existing strip malls and one standalone commercial building and associated parking. Current uses will be demolished.

Builder’s remedy
Source: City of Cupertino, March 2024
Note: Where the number of final parcels exceeds the number of original parcels, existing lots were consolidated by the developer to make a unified development site and subsequently subdivided. 377
CC 05-14-2024
377 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B4‐29

NO NET LOSS
Per state law, the City is required to maintain “no net loss” of the housing capacity represented by this list of parcels and the sites they comprise. To facilitate this, the inventory presented below has been designed with excess capacity.1
This allows some degree of flexibility in decision making for individual development projects as they come forward for approval by City Council.

With some limited flexibility, the City is committed to permitting housing on each of the parcels listed in Tables B4-7, and B4-9, and in so doing ensuring that the number of units listed for each parcel in the table--“planned capacity”—is achieved. Should the City approve development that is inconsistent with the parcel’s planned capacity, it is then required as part of that approval to:

1. Find, based on quantitative evidence, that the remaining inventory of housing sites is still sufficient to meet the City’s 6th-Cycle RHNA, or

2. Identify one or more available sites with the realistic development capacity to replace the housing that would have otherwise been developed had consistency with planned capacity been achieved.

SITES IDENTIFIED IN PREVIOUS HOUSING ELEMENT
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65583.2(c), a nonvacant site identified in the previous planning period and a vacant site identified in two or more previous consecutive planning periods cannot be used to accommodate the lower-income RHNA unless the site is subject to an action in the Housing Element that requires rezoning within three years of the beginning of the planning period that will allow residential use by right for housing developments with at least 20 percent units affordable to lower-income households. There are no sites included on Tables B4-7 or B4-9 that were previously included to meet the lower income RHNA. However, as a part of the rezoning process, all sites assumed to meet the lower income RHNA will comply with Government Code Sections 65583, (c)(1) and 65583.2(h) and 65583.2(i).

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
None of the sites identified in the sites inventory are within the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 100-year floodplain, though sites near Calabazas Creek are adjacent to the boundary of this floodplain. None of the sites are in a California Office of Emergency Services Dam Inundation Area. Only one site, Site 21, is partially within a California Geological Service (CGS) Seismic Hazards Program liquefaction zone. Because they are adjacent to a more mountainous area of the city, Sites 30 through 33 are partly in an area with class seven landslide susceptibility. This CGS classification is graded on a scale from zero to 10, where 10 signifies areas where landslides have occurred or have the highest level of susceptibility. The remainder of the sites are in class zero areas.

The entirety of Cupertino is within a CalFire Local Responsibility Area, and therefore does not have an assigned Fire Hazard Severity Zone.
1 Excess capacity is primarily comprised of the development potential created by SB9, which allows owners of a single-family property to divide their property into two parcels. Each of these parcels would then have the capacity for three units each—the main residence, plus and ADU and a Junior ADU.
378
CC 05-14-2024
378 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B4‐30

ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS
California Government Code Section 65583.1(a) states that a town, city, or county may identify sites for accessory dwelling units (ADUs) based on the number of ADUs developed in the prior Housing Element planning period, whether the units are permitted by right, the need for ADUs in the community, the resources or incentives available for their development, and any other relevant factors.

Based on recent changes in State law reducing the time to review and approve ADU applications, requiring ADUs that meet requirements to be allowed by right, eliminating discretionary review for most ADUs, and removing other restrictions on ADUs, it is anticipated that the production of ADUs will increase in the 6th Cycle Housing Element planning period.

The City issued the following ADU building permits over the last five years:
 2018 – 15 ADUs received building permits
 2019 – 15 ADUs received building permits
 2020 – 19 ADUs received building permits
 2021 – 41 ADUs received building permits
 2022 – 30 ADUs received building permits
Therefore, based on the most recent five-year period, there are about 24 building permits for ADUs approved each year. This analysis assumes that the annual average of 24 per year will be projected over the next eight years, for a total of 192 ADUs during the planning period. While ADUs provide an affordable housing option, the city does not need this capacity to meet the RHNA. To promote ADUs, the City has included Strategy HE-1.3.8 to promote the construction of affordable ADUs through several actions.

To determine assumptions on ADU affordability in the ABAG region, ABAG conducted a regional analysis of existing ADU rents and prepared a draft report in September 2021. The analysis resulted in affordability assumptions that allocate 30 percent of ADUs to very low-income households, 30 percent to low-income households, 30 percent to moderate-income households, and 10 percent to above moderate-income households. Affordability of ADUs projected to be built in the city during the planning period were based on the ABAG analysis.

B4.4 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Table B4-12, RHNA Summary, summarizes Cupertino’s sites inventory, including the proposed rezone capacity for the 2023-2031 planning period.
379
CC 05-14-2024
379 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B4‐31
Table B4-12 Summary of Residential Capacity Compared to the 6th Cycle RHNA RHNA
Category
2023-
2031
RHNA
Pending
Projects
Capacity
Residential
Site
Capacity
with
Rezone
Mixed
Use Site
Capacity
with
Rezone
Projected
ADUs
Total
Capacity Surplus
Very Low 1,193
633 833 596 116 2,178 298
Low 687
Moderate 755 49 360 436 57 902 147
Above
Moderate 1,953 1,770 662 695 19 3,146 1,193
Total 4,588 2,452 1,855 1,727 192 6,226 1,638
Source: ABAG 2021, City of Cupertino, 2023
380
CC 05-14-2024
380 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B4‐32
Figure B4-1 Priority Housing Sites Map
381
CC 05-14-2024
381 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B4‐33
Figure B4-2 Priority Housing Sites Map, Detail 1
382
CC 05-14-2024
382 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B4‐34
Figure B4-3 Priority Housing Sites Map, Detail 2
383
CC 05-14-2024
383 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B4‐35
Figure B4-4 Priority Housing Sites Map, Detail 3
384
CC 05-14-2024
384 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B4‐36
This page intentionally left blank.
385
CC 05-14-2024
385 of 1197
Housing Constraints B.5

APPENDIX
386
CC 05-14-2024
386 of 1197
387
CC 05-14-2024
387 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B5‐i
Table of Contents
B5 Housing Constraints ........................................................................................... B5-1 B5.1 Governmental Constraints ............................................................................................ B5-1 B5.2 Nongovernmental Constraints .................................................................................... B5-31 B5.3 Opportunities for Energy Conservation ....................................................................... B5-34 Tables
Table B5-1. Residential Land Use Density Classifications .............................................................. B5-1 Table B5-2. Residential Development Standards ............................................................................ B5-3 Table B5-3. Parking Requirements ................................................................................................. B5-4 Table B5-4. Cumulative Impacts Analysis, by Zone ........................................................................ B5-7 Table B5-5. Permitted Uses in Residential Zones ........................................................................... B5-9 Table B5-6. Cupertino Development and Planning Fees (July 2022) ............................................ B5-15 Table B5-7. Comparison of Single-Family Housing Development Fees in Santa Clara County .... B5-17 Table B5-8. Comparison of Small Multifamily (10 units) Housing Development Fees in Santa Clara County ................................................................................................... B5-18 Table B5-9. Comparison of Large Multifamily (100+ Units) Housing Development Fees in Santa Clara County ................................................................................................... B5-19 Table B5-10. Comparison of Permit Processing Times (Months) .................................................... B5-21 Table B5-11. Single-Family Development Process ......................................................................... B5-24 Table B5-12. Multifamily and Planned Development Process ......................................................... B5-25 Table B5-13. PG&E Programs and Incentives for Residential Properties ....................................... B5-36 388
CC 05-14-2024
388 of 1197
389
CC 05-14-2024
389 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B5‐1
B5 HOUSING CONSTRAINTS
State law requires that Housing Elements include an analysis of governmental and nongovernmental constraints on the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels.

Governmental constraints include land use controls, building codes and their enforcement, fees and exactions, and permitting procedures. Nongovernmental constraints include market-driven and land costs, construction costs, and the availability of financing, as well as environmental hazards, such as wildfires, earthquakes, and flooding.

B5.1 GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS

GENERAL PLAN LAND USES
The General Plan provides the policy and program direction necessary to guide land use decisions.

The existing General Plan is current and legally adequate and is not considered an impediment to housing production. Table B5-1, Residential Land Use Density Classifications, lists the General Plan land use classifications that allow residential development.

Table B5-1.Residential Land Use Density Classifications Residential Hillside 1 Hillside Single-Family Housing See Note Low Density Single-Family Housing 1–5 du/ac
Low/Medium Density Single-Family Housing 5.01–10 du/ac
Medium Density Multifamily Housing 10.01–20 du/ac
Medium/High Density Multifamily Housing 20.01–35 du/ac
High Density Multifamily Housing Current–35.01+ du/ac
Planned – 35.01–50 du/ac 2
High/Very High Density Multifamily Housing 50.01–65 du/ac 2 Very High Density Multifamily Housing 65.01 – 80 du/ac 2 Commercial/Residential – MH Commercial/Residential 20.01–35 du/ac 2 Commercial/Residential – H Commercial/Residential 35.01–50 du/ac 2 Commercial/Residential – HVH Commercial/Residential 50.01–65 du/ac 2 Commercial/Residential – VH Commercial/Residential 65.01–80 du/ac 2 Source: City of Cupertino, 2023.

Notes:
1 – Residential Hillside Classification is intended to protect environmentally sensitive areas from extensive development and to protect human life from hazards associated with floods, fires, and unstable terrain. It applies one of four slope-density formulae to determine allowable residential density. 2 – The City is planning to create new and modify existing General Plan Land Use Designations (see Strategy 1.3.3).

Classification Development Category Maximum Density
(dwelling units per acre)
390
CC 05-14-2024
390 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B5‐2

NEW AND REVISED GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATIONS
The City is in the process of creating two new General Plan Land Use designations – High/Very High Density (HVH), which will allow for 50.01 to 65 units per acre and Very High Density (VH), which will allow for 65.01 to 80 units per acre. The City will also modify the Commercial/Residential (C/R) designation to apply different densities to sites with the C/R land use designation. The City will also allow solely residential uses to be permitted if the project is 100 percent affordable. (Strategy HE1.3.3). These new designations will allow for increased housing capacity in Cupertino.

CUPERTINO MUNICIPAL CODE
Title 19, Zoning, of the Cupertino Municipal Code establishes development standards and densities for housing in the city. These regulations include minimum lot sizes, maximum number of dwelling units per acre, lot width, setbacks, lot coverage, maximum building height, and minimum parking requirements. These standards are summarized in Table B5-2, Residential Development Standards.

As required by State law, the City’s Zoning Map is consistent with the General Plan. The development standards for the City’s zoning district that permit residential development are summarized in Table B5-2. All zoning and development standards, as well as list of fees, are available on the City’s website, consistent with transparency requirements pursuant to Government Code Section 65940.1, subsections (a)(1)(A)) and (a)(1)(B)).

Cupertino Zoning Code Section 19.80.030 (E)(2) provides special density rules for what it terms “Priority Housing Sites.” According to the code:
“If a [mixed-use] site is listed as a Priority Housing Site in the City’s adopted Housing Element of the General Plan, then residential development that does not exceed the number of units designated for the site in the Housing Element shall be a permitted use.”

NEW ZONING DISTRICT
The City is in the process of creating a new R4 Zoning District that will align with the two new General Plan Land Use designations, High/Very High Density, and Very High Density allowing 50.1 to 65 units per acre and 65.01 to 80 units per acre, respectively (Strategies HE-1.3.3 and HE-1.3.9). The City will create development standards, looking at height, setbacks, lot coverage, etc., to ensure that maximum densities can be achieved.
391
CC 05-14-2024
391 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B5‐3
Source: City of Cupertino, Municipal Code Tile 19: Zoning Notes: . N/A = Not Applicable/Available Note: Standards in planned development districts are consistent with the applicable residential zone. For example, P(CG, R-3) would indicate a mixed-use planned development for which the commercial use would follow Commercial General development standards and the residential component would be subject to the development standards of the R-3 zone. For residential projects in Planned Development zoning districts, the P zoning allows flexibility in proposing their own standards depending on the types of units being proposed.

Table B5-2.Residential Development Standards
Zoning
Minimum Lot
Area
(square feet)
Setbacks (feet) Maximum
Height (feet)
(stories)
Maximum
Structural Lot
Coverage
Maximum FloorArea Ratio Front --- Interior Side Street Side Rear A 215,000 30 20 -20 25 28 40% - A-1 43,000 - 215,000 30 20 -20 20 28 40% 45% R-1 5,000-20,000 20 Varies, no less than 5
feet on 1st floor
(combined 10 – 15
depending on zoning
district) and no less
than 10 feet on 2nd floor
(combined 25 feet)
12 20 28 (two stories)
45% (plus 5% for
overhangs, patios,
porches, and
similar unenclosed
features)
45%
R-2 8,500 20 20% of lot width, no less than 6 feet 12 - 20 or 20% of the
lot depth,
whichever is
greater.
30 (two stories) 40% -
R-3
9,300 (1st 3 units)
2,000 (each add.)
20 1st Floor – 6
2nd Floor – 9
> 24 feet tall – 18
12 > 24 feet
tall – 18
20 feet or 20% of
the lot depth,
whichever is
greater.
30 (two stories) 40% -
RHS 10,000- 440,000 10-25 1st Floor – 10 2nd Floor – 15 3rd Floor - 20 1st Floor – 15 2nd Floor – 15 3rd Floor - 20 20-25 30 - Lesser of 6,500 sq.
ft. or (4,500 + ((Net
Lot Area -
10000)/1000)
(59.59)) x (Slope
Adjustment Factor)
R-1C No minimum Units adjacent to development boundary - Same setbacks as required in the adjacent zones.
30 N/A N/A
CG No minimum Per General or Special Plans 0-12 0-12 20 30 No minimum N/A 392
CC 05-14-2024
392 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B5‐4

PARKING REQUIREMENTS
In California, providing sufficient parking for vehicles is an essential part of good planning. At the same time, however, excessive parking requirements can detract from the feasibility of developing new housing at a range of densities necessary to facilitate affordable housing. The City’s Zoning Code establishes residential parking standards, as summarized in Table B5-3, Parking Requirements. The City has included Strategy HE-1.3.9 to analyze parking standards in comparison to those of neighboring jurisdictions, reduce parking requirements in response to this analysis, and revise all residential parking standards to ensure parking is not a constraint to the development of housing.

Table B5-3.Parking Requirements
R-1 Single-Family 4 / Dwelling Unit (DU) (2 garage, 2 open) R-2 Duplex 3 / DU (1.5 enclosed, 1.5 open)
R-3 High-Density Multifamily (all size units) 2 / DU (1 covered, 1 open) RHS Single-Family 4 / DU (2 garage, 2 open)
A-1 Single-Family 4 / DU (2 garage, 2 open)
P
Single-Family
High-Density Multifamily
Small Lot Single-Family, Townhouse
4 / DU (2 garage, 2 open)
2 / DU (1 covered, 1 open)

2.8 / DU (2 garage, 0.8 open)
BQ Permanent emergency shelter Minimum of one parking space for each nonresident employee
Source: City of Cupertino, 2023

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS OF DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
State law requires the City to consider the impacts of development standards on the cost of housing, and further to consider the cumulative impacts of development standards on the cost and supply of housing. The City has historically tried to be creative in allowing multiple forms of residential developments in its Planning Development and Cluster zoning, such as row homes, townhomes, condominiums, and small lot single-family etc. Within single-family neighborhoods, the City has required a minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet. This standard is not a constraint on the development of housing since other forms of development and zoning allowed much smaller lot sizes. Further, the passage both of Senate Bill (SB) 9, which allows for lot splits and duplexes by-right, and of new accessory dwelling unit (ADU) legislation, which allows up to two ADUs and one junior accessory dwelling unit (JADU) by-right, in addition to the primary residence on the single-family lot, has lessened the constraints on what are traditionally single-family zoned properties.

Similarly, the primary development standard affecting housing costs for multifamily units is typically the maximum allowable density. The R-3 District permits multifamily residential development. This district requires a minimum lot area of 9,300 square feet for a development with three dwelling units Zoning
Designation Housing Type Parking Requirement
393
CC 05-14-2024
393 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B5‐5
and an additional 2,000 square feet for every additional dwelling unit. The minimum lot width in the R-3 District is 70 feet, and lot coverage may not exceed 40 percent of net lot area. For single-story structures, required setbacks are 20 feet in the front yard, 6 feet in the side yard, and the greater of 20 feet or 20 percent of lot depth in the rear yard; the minimum side yard setback for two-story structures is 9 feet. The maximum height of any building is two stories and may not exceed 30 feet. This height limit is used because many R-3 districts are contiguous to single-family residential neighborhoods.

Basements submerged entirely below grade, except for lightwells required for light, ventilation, and emergency egress, which may have a maximum exterior wall height of two feet between natural grade and ceiling, are permitted and are not counted towards the height requirements. For these reasons, the building height standards in the R-3 District are not considered a constraint to housing production.

Furthermore, the development standards for the R-3 District are on par with standards present in neighboring jurisdictions and do not unreasonably constrain the development of multifamily housing.

Multifamily residential uses are permitted uses in the R-3 District without the need for a Use Permit.

Developments are able to achieve the maximum allowable densities under existing development standards, including the height limit and maximum lot coverage. For example, looking at the number of developable units on a one-acre parcel, the maximum density allowed on a one-acre parcel is 20 units. With a maximum lot coverage of 40 percent and assuming two stories of residential development, approximately 35,000 square feet of residential development can be achieved. Using conservative assumptions of 20 percent common area space and large unit sizes of 1,400 square feet, 20 units can be developed under this scenario. This analysis demonstrates that projects would be able to achieve the maximum allowable density in the R-3 District under the development standards.

Other zoning districts where residential development is allowed include Planned Development Residential or P(Res) zoning districts. These are typically higher-density zoning districts with densities of up to 35 dwelling units per acre. Building heights typically range from two to three stories (higher along transportation corridors such as Stevens Creek Boulevard and De Anza Boulevard). There are no maximum floor-area ratio limits and this zoning district allows a multitude of development types ranging from multifamily apartments, condominium developments to small lot single-family, rowhomes/townhomes to cluster developments. The City has seen great success in developing a variety of housing types with this zoning designation and has been able to meet (and with State density law bonuses, exceed) the maximum density for a site.

In addition, the designation of selected housing sites as Priority Housing Sites (see Policy HE-1.3) ensures that the designated number of units assigned to sites in Tables B4-7 and B4-9 of this 6th Cycle Housing Element can be readily achieved, regardless of the specific development standards of the R-3 and other multifamily-allowing districts.

ANALYSIS OF DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS BY ZONE
The City evaluated the cumulative impact of its land use controls on the cost and supply of housing, including development standards that limit sites’ building envelope (setbacks, private open space, and parking) and lot coverage restrictions. Based on this evaluation, none of the land use controls in conventional residential zoning districts would prevent an applicant from reaching the maximum density allowed for single-family development in single family-zones and multifamily developments in all zones, including Planned Development zoning districts, where multifamily is allowed, or otherwise 394
CC 05-14-2024
394 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B5‐6
constrain housing development. Current development standards for the residential zones that permit multifamily housing were applied to RHNA inventory sites of varying size that are listed in Tables B4-7 or B4-9, or hypothetical sites representing common parcel sizes in each respective zone when an inventory site was not available. The results confirmed the above conclusion, and each scenario achieved the respective zone’s maximum allowable density (Table B5-4).

In the R-2 zone (maximum 20 units per acre), the City analyzed development feasibility on the minimum parcel size, 8,500 square feet, and on an approximately one-half acre parcel. Sites larger than one-half acre were not evaluated, as development standards do not become more restrictive as parcel size increases. In both scenarios, the maximum density can be achieved with a mix of one-, two-, and three-bedroom units served by the required covered/garaged and uncovered (screened) parking.

The R-3 and Planned Development zones (maximum 35 units per acre) are the City’s existing multifamily designation and is intended to allow more conventional stacked residential product types.

Development feasibility on the minimum parcel size, approximately 9,300 square feet for the R-3 zone, was evaluated. To represent development on a larger site, the City combined three adjacent parcels identified in the sites inventory (sites 17, 18, and 19) to create an approximately single threequarter acre lot. In both scenarios, the maximum density can be achieved with a mix of studio, one-, and two-bedroom units served by the required covered/garaged and uncovered (screened) parking.

Similarly, in the Planned Development zoning district, there are no minimum parcel sizes – the only development regulation that dictates number of units allowed is density. These Planned Development zoning districts are located mainly along the City’s arterials and an analysis of the previously approved projects in the 5th Cycle production period indicates that the adopted standards are not barriers to development.

As part of Strategy HE-1.3.3, the City is proposing an R-4 zone (maximum 80 units per acre) to allow even higher density development to occur, in appropriate areas. As presently drafted, the standards are comparable to those applicable to development in the R-3 zone, with the exception of maximum height and lot coverage. The R-4 zone will permit development up to a maximum of 70 feet (5 floors) instead of 30 feet (2 floors) and allows for a lot coverage maximum of 0.55 instead of

0.4. The City evaluated development feasibility on a 1.6-acre parcel identified in the sites inventory (site 13), which represents a lot size commonly found in the R-4 zone, and on a 1-acre lot to represent development at the smaller end of the parcel size spectrum. In both scenarios, the maximum density can be achieved with a mix of studio, one-, and two-bedroom units in a five-floor podium-style product with the first two floors reserved exclusively for parking. As lot size increases, developers may develop wrap-style products to reduce building footprint and increase space for community amenities without sacrificing livable square footage.

The first step in the analysis was to determine the allowable building footprint given the site size and the maximum lot coverage. The next step was to determine the maximum allowed developable envelope given the lot coverage, setback, open space, and parking requirements. Private open space was accommodated within the developable envelope and was not assumed to encroach into setback areas. Covered parking was subtracted from the maximum building footprint to determine the occupiable area on the first floor. Occupiable area on the second floor, and additional floors, was set equal to the first floor building footprint, including parking area, less additional setback/step-back 395
CC 05-14-2024
395 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B5‐7
requirements. Average unit size was calculated by dividing the total occupiable building area by the permitted number of units (site acreage multiplied by density). Density bonus units are not factored into the calculations.

Table B5-4.Cumulative Impacts Analysis, by Zone
Scenario 1 Scenario 2
R-2 Zone
APN: N/A N/A
Square footage: 8,500 22,000
Length (feet): 100 200
Width (feet): 85 110
Lot coverage: 0.4 0.4
Number of stories (30 ft max): 2 2
Maximum building footprint, given lot coverage requirements: 3,400 8,800 Maximum building envelope given setbacks and parking (see below for spaces per unit) 3,060 8,800
Covered parking spaces per unit: 2 2
Area required for covered parking (sqft): 1,760 4,400
Parking type: Garage Garage
Maximum occupiable building square footage: 4,000 12,800 Number of units: 4 10
Average unit square footage: 1,000 1280
Achievable Density (units per acre): 20 20
Permitted Density (units per acre): 20 20
R-3 Zone
Sites 17, 18, 19 Scenario 2
APN: 369-37-022-024 N/A
Square footage: 33,750 9,450
Length (feet): 225 105
Width (feet): 150 90
Lot coverage: 0.4 0.4
Number of stories (30 ft max): 2 2
Maximum building footprint, given lot coverage requirements: 13,500 3,780 Maximum building envelope given setbacks, parking (see below for spaces per unit) and private open spaces (10-20% of unit size): 22,080 4,992 Covered parking spaces per unit: 1 1
Area required for covered parking (sqft): 5,400 1,600
Parking type: Garage / Carport Garage / Carport
Maximum occupiable building square footage: 21,060 5,772 396
CC 05-14-2024
396 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B5‐8
Table B5-4.Cumulative Impacts Analysis, by Zone
Number of units: 27 8
Average unit square footage: 780 722
Achievable Density (units per acre): 35 35
Permitted Density (units per acre): 35 35
New R-4 Zone
Site 13 Scenario 2
APN: 32607022 N/A
Square footage: 71,500 43,750
Length (feet): 325 250
Width (feet): 220 175
Lot coverage: 0.55 0.55
Number of stories (70 ft max): 5 4
Maximum building footprint, given lot coverage requirements: 39,325 24,063 Maximum building envelope given setbacks, parking (see below for spaces per unit) and private open spaces (10% of unit size): 49,920 29,340 Covered parking spaces per unit: 1 1
Area required for covered parking (sqft): 39,300 24,000 Parking type: Structured garage Structured garage
Maximum occupiable building square footage: 118,000 69,408 Number of units: 131 80
Average unit square footage: 901 868
Achievable Density (units per acre): 80 80
Permitted Density (units per acre): 80 80

ZONING FOR A VARIETY OF HOUSING
Housing Element law specifies that jurisdictions must identify adequate sites to be made available through appropriate zoning and development standards to encourage the development of various types of housing for all economic segments of the population. This includes single-family housing, multifamily housing, manufactured housing, mobile homes, emergency shelters, and transitional housing, among others. See Table B5-4, Permitted Uses in Residential Zones, for permitted and conditionally permitted uses by land use in residential zones. 397
CC 05-14-2024
397 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B5‐9
Table B5-5.Permitted Uses in Residential Zones
Land Use A A-1 R-1 RHS R1C R-2 R-3 BQ
Accessory Dwelling Unit P P P P P P P -
Single-family dwelling unit P P P P P P -
Dwelling, multifamily - - - - - - P -
Manufactured Housing P P P P P P P -
Residential Care Facility
(6 or fewer) P P P P P P P -
Residential Care Facility
(7 or more)
CUP -
PC
CUP -
PC
CUP -
PC
CUP -
PC
CUP -
PC
CUP -
PC
CUP -
PC
CUP -
PC
Transitional and Supportive
Housing P P P P P P P -
Emergency Shelter - - - - - - - P
Employee Housing
(36 Beds or 12-unit spaces) P P - CUPAdmin. - - - -
Employee Housing
(6 or fewer employees) P P P P P P P P
Source: City of Cupertino Zoning Code
Notes: P – Permitted Use, - – Not Allowed, CUP - Admin. – Conditional Use Permit issued by the Director of Community Development, CUP - PC – Conditional Use Permit issued by the Planning Commission.

ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS
Accessory dwelling units (ADUs), also called “second units” in the Zoning Code, are attached or detached residential dwellings that provide complete, independent living facilities for one or more persons. That is, they include permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation on the same parcel as a single-family dwelling. To comply with Government Code Section 65852.2, ADUs must be permitted ministerially subject to objective design standards.

Junior accessory dwelling units (JADUs) are ADUs of less than 500 square feet and must be permitted within the walls of the proposed or existing single-family dwelling. An existing bedroom or interior entry into the single-family home is not required for JADUs. Currently, ADUs and JADUs are permitted within all zones where single-family and multifamily dwellings are permitted.

ADUs and JADUs offer an opportunity for homeowners to earn additional income and provide an opportunity for affordable housing units.

One additional off-street parking space is required if the principal dwelling unit has less than the minimum off-street parking spaces for the residential district in which it is located. In most cases, State law exempts ADU development from having to provide parking, except in Residential hillside zoning districts far from transit lines. The City routinely reviews its ADU ordinance to ensure compliance with State law and will continue to do so. ADUs must also comply with the underlying site development regulations specified by the zoning district. 398
CC 05-14-2024
398 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B5‐10
In February 2024, The City adopted an updated ADU ordinance to comply with state law, and to go above and beyond the State requirements. The updated ordinance includes the following:
 Permit up to three streamlined ADUs of any kind (three detached, three attached or three JADUs, or three conversion ADUs);
 In duplexes, permit streamlined ADUs similar to single family but up to a maximum of four units total: two detached, two attached, two JADUs or two conversion ADUs.

The City has included Strategy HE-1.3.8 to review and revise ADU requirements to ensure compliance with State law. Strategy HE-1.3.8 also included several actions the city plans to take to promote the development of ADUs.

TRANSITIONAL AND SUPPORTIVE HOUSING
Transitional housing is defined in Section 50675.2 of the Health and Safety Code as rental housing for stays of at least six months but where the units are recirculated to another program recipient after a set period. Transitional housing may be designated for a homeless individual or family transitioning to permanent housing. This housing can take many structural forms, such as group housing and multifamily units and may include supportive services to allow individuals to gain necessary life skills in support of independent living.

Supportive housing is defined by Health and Safety Code Section 50675.14 as housing with linked onsite or off-site services with no limit on the length of stay and occupied by a target population as defined in Health and Safety Code Section 53260 (i.e., low-income person with mental disabilities, AIDS, substance abuse, or chronic health conditions, or persons whose disabilities originated before the age of 18). Services linked to supportive housing are usually focused on retaining housing, living and working in the community, and/or health improvement.

Government Code Section 65583 requires that transitional and supportive housing types be treated as residential uses and subject only to those restrictions that apply to other residential uses of the same type in the same zone. Additionally, according to Government Code Section 65651(a), supportive housing must be permitted by-right in multifamily zones and mixed-use and nonresidential zones allowing multifamily. Both transitional and supportive housing types must be explicitly permitted in the Municipal Code. Additionally, Government Code Section 65583(c)(3) requires that jurisdictions change their zoning to provide a “by-right” process and expedited review for supportive housing. The City currently permits Transitional and Supportive housing consistent with State law but has included Strategy HE-2.3.1 to assist with the development of these housing types.

RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITIES
Pursuant to State law, licensed residential care facilities for six or fewer residents are permitted by right in all residential districts (including A, A-1, R-1, R-2, R-3, RHS, and R-1C). Licensed small group homes are not subject to special development requirements, policies, or procedures that would impede such uses from locating in a residential district. Furthermore, small group homes (with six or fewer persons) with continuous 24-hour care are permitted by right in all residential districts. Large group homes (with more than six residents) are conditionally permitted uses in the R-1 District, subject to 399
CC 05-14-2024
399 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B5‐11
Planning Commission approval. Strategy HE-5.1.5 has been included to ensure compliance with State law and allow facilities for seven or more persons only subject to those restrictions that apply to other residential uses of the same type in the same zone.

EMERGENCY SHELTERS
The Zoning Ordinance allows for permanent and rotating homeless shelters in the Quasi-Public Building (BQ) zone by-right without discretionary review. Rotating homeless shelters are permitted within existing church structures in the BQ zone for up to 25 occupants. The operation of rotating shelters cannot exceed two months in any one-year span at a single location. Permanent emergency shelter facilities are permitted in the BQ zone. To ensure compliance with Government Code Section 65583 (a)(4) (Assembly Bill [AB] 2339), the City will amend the Zoning Code to also permit emergency shelters in the new R4 zoning district by-right without discretionary review and update the definition of emergency shelter. The R4 zone is close to services and grocery stores and has sufficient capacity for an emergency shelter. The R4 zone has 22 parcels totaling 26.72 acres, ranging in size from 0.24 to 5.16 acres, with the majority of the parcels ranging from 0.05 to 1.75 acres. These parcels assumed to accommodate a potential emergency shelter are all non-vacant sites and the suitability and development potential of these sites is discussed in conjunction with the sites inventory, including in Table B4-4 and associated discussion. Based on the identified need in Appendix B2, Housing Needs Assessment, the City is required to identify sites with capacity for 102 persons experiencing homelessness. Based on an estimate of 200 square feet per person of lot space, 0.47 acres would need to develop with an emergency shelter use. Redevelopment of this amount of R4-zoned land from the inventory would not cause the RHNA inventory to enter a capacity shortfall. Strategy HE-5.1.1 has been included to allow emergency shelters in the R4 zoning district and review; amend the definition of emergency shelter to include other interim interventions, including but not limited to, navigation centers, bridge housing, and respite or recuperative care; and revise managerial standards to ensure compliance with State law including AB 2339.

SINGLE-ROOM OCCUPANCY
Single-Room Occupancy (SRO) units are one-room units intended for occupancy by a single individual. They are distinct from a studio or efficiency unit, in that a studio is a one-room unit that must contain a kitchen and bathroom. Although SRO units are not required to have a kitchen or bathroom, many SROs have one or the other. The Cupertino Zoning Ordinance does not currently define or identify where SRO units are permitted, but SRO units are treated as a regular multifamily use, subject to the same restrictions that apply to other residential uses in the same zone. However, to add clarity around the permissibility of these units, Strategy HE-2.3.10 has been included to define SROs and allow them in the R4 zoning district.
400
CC 05-14-2024
400 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B5‐12

LOW-BARRIER NAVIGATION CENTERS
AB 101, adopted in 2019, requires approval “by right” of low-barrier navigation centers that meet the requirements of State law. “Low Barrier Navigation Center” means a Housing First, low-barrier, service-enriched shelter focused on moving people into permanent housing that provides temporary living facilities while case managers connect individuals experiencing homelessness to income, public benefits, health services, shelter, and housing. To ensure compliance with State law, Strategy HE5.1.4 has been included.

FARMWORKER AND EMPLOYEE HOUSING
Pursuant to the State Employee Housing Act, any employee housing consisting of no more than 36 beds in a group quarter or 12 units or spaces designed for use by a single family or household shall be deemed an agricultural land use. No Conditional Use Permit (CUP), zoning variance, or other zoning clearance shall be required of this employee housing that is not required of any other agricultural activity in the same zone. The permitted occupancy in employee housing in a zone allowing agricultural uses shall include agricultural employees who do not work on the property where the employee housing is located. The Employee Housing Act also specifies that housing for six or fewer employees shall be treated as a residential use. In 2014, the City amended the Zoning Ordinance to be consistent with the State Employee Housing Act, permitting employee housing for six or fewer residents in all residential zoning districts and employee group quarters in the A and A-1 districts, and in the RHS district with approval of an Administrative CUP.

MANUFACTURED HOUSING
Manufactured housing can be an affordable housing option for low- and moderate-income households. Currently, the City permits mobile homes for purposes of a caretaker unit in the Park and Recreation zone by right. Strategy HE-5.1.6 has been included to amend the Zoning Code to permit manufactured homes, as defined in Government Code Section 65852.3, in the same manner and in the same zoning districts as a conventional or stick-built structures are permitted.

SB 35 STREAMLINING
SB 35 requires jurisdictions that have failed to meet their Regional Housing Needs Assessment allocation (RHNA) to provide a streamlined, ministerial entitlement process for housing developments that incorporate affordable housing. The City Council adopted procedures for processing Streamlined Projects on September 3, 2019. The SB 35 Checklist in Resolution No. 19- 113 has been updated to reflect amendments to State law by AB 1485 and is available online. This procedure has an established process that specifies the SB 35 streamlining approval process and standards for eligible projects. The City has also processed the Vallco Town Center (The Rise) Development, which included 2,669 residential units, 226,500 square feet of retail uses, and approximately 1,955,000 square feet of office development under SB 35.

SENATE BILL 330 PROCESSING PROCEDURE
SB 330, the Housing Crisis Act of 2019, established specific requirements and limitations on development application procedures. Housing developments for which a preliminary application is submitted that complies with applicable General Plan and zoning standards is subject only to the 401
CC 05-14-2024
401 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B5‐13
development standards and fees that were applicable at the time of submittal. This applies to all projects unless the project square footage or unit count changes by more than 20 percent after the preliminary application is submitted. The developer must submit a full application for the development project within 180 days of submitting the preliminary application. The City has established an application process related to SB 330 and makes the preliminary application available on the City’s website.

SB 9 CALIFORNIA HOUSING OPPORTUNITY AND MORE EFFICIENCY (HOME) ACT
SB 9, also known as the California Housing Opportunity and More Efficiency (HOME) Act, is a State bill that requires cities to allow one additional residential unit onto parcels zoned for single-dwelling units. Since the adoption of this section of the Government Code, the City has adopted regulations that allow development beyond that allowed under State law to permit duplexes in qualifying singlefamily zoning districts.

CONSTRAINTS FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES
California SB 520, passed in October 2001, requires local housing elements to evaluate constraints for persons with disabilities and develop programs that accommodate the housing needs of disabled persons. Additionally, in public comments to City Council, community members expressed a need for the City to explore ways to increase housing opportunities for the developmentally disabled population and reducing barriers to accessing below-market rate units. The City does this with the adopted Reasonable accommodation procedure and will be removing the CUP process for larger residential care facilities through implementation of Strategy HE-5.1.5. Reasonable Accommodation Procedure
Both the federal Fair Housing Act and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act impose an affirmative duty on cities and counties to make reasonable accommodations in their zoning and land use policies when such accommodations are necessary to provide equal access to housing for persons with disabilities and do not impose significant administrative or financial burdens on local government or undermine the fundamental purpose of the zoning law. Reasonable accommodations refer to modifications or exemptions to particular policies that facilitate equal access to housing. Examples include exemptions to setbacks for wheelchair access structures or to height limits to permit elevators.

The City of Cupertino adopted an ordinance in April 2010 for people with disabilities to make a reasonable accommodations request. Chapter 19.25 provides a procedure to request reasonable accommodation for persons with disabilities seeking equal access to housing under the Federal Fair Housing Act, the Federal Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988, and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act. A reasonable accommodation may be approved by the City’s Director of Community Development, only after the director first finds:
 The proposed improvements are necessary to provide housing access for persons with disabilities.
402
CC 05-14-2024
402 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B5‐14
 The reasonable accommodation granted is one that will accomplish the purpose with the least modification to the development or land use regulations from which reasonable accommodation is being requested.
 The granting of the reasonable accommodation will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and general welfare, or convenience, and to secure the purpose of the title.

The City’s requirements for approval of a reasonable accommodation conform to the State’s requirements and therefore do not serve as a constraint on housing for individuals with disabilities.

Separation Requirements: The City’s Zoning Ordinance requires residential care facilities located in the A, A-1, R-1, RHS, R1C, R-2, and R-3 zones with seven or more persons must have a minimum distance of 500 feet from the property boundary of another residential care facility, provided that the facility obtains any license.

Site Planning Requirements: Site planning requirements are no different for these uses than other residential uses in the same zone.

Zoning and Other Land Use Regulations: The City provides for a variety of housing types intended to care for the special needs of individuals with disabilities. The City’s Zoning Ordinance defines residential care facilities in residential dwellings where non-medical care is provided. Small or large community residential care facilities include counseling, recovery planning, medical, or therapeutic assistance facilities for the elderly; facilities for the mentally disordered or otherwise handicapped; alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or treatment facilities; and other similar care facilities.

Licensed residential care facilities for six or fewer individuals are allowed by right in all residential districts, while large care facilities are subject to a CUP in all residential districts. The City has included Strategy HE-5.1.5 to allow residential care facilities for seven or more persons subject only to those restrictions that apply to other residential uses of the same type in the same zone.

Definition of Family: The Zoning Ordinance contains a broad and inclusive definition of family. A family means an individual or group of persons living together who constitute a bona fide single housekeeping unit in a dwelling unit. Families are distinguished from groups occupying a hotel, lodging club, fraternity or sorority house, or institution of any kind. This definition of family does not limit the number of people living together in a household and does not require them to be related.

Therefore, the City’s definition of “family” is not a constraint on housing for individuals with disabilities.

BUILDING CODES AND PERMITTING
The City’s Building Code does not include any amendments to the California Building Code that might diminish the ability to accommodate persons with disabilities. 403
CC 05-14-2024
403 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B5‐15

DEVELOPMENT FEES AND EXACTIONS
Housing development is subject to permit processing and impact fees. These fees help to compensate the public for any impact associated with the new development. Like cities throughout California, Cupertino collects development fees to recover the capital costs of providing community services and the administrative costs associated with processing applications. New housing typically requires payment of school impact fees, sewer, and water connection fees, building permit fees, wastewater treatment plant fees, and a variety of handling and service charges. Typical development and planning fees collected are outlined in Table B5-5, Cupertino Development and Planning Fees (July 2022).

Table B5-6.Cupertino Development and Planning Fees (July 2022) Parcel Map $19,190
Tentative Map $31,919
Temporary Use Permit $4,256
Administrative Conditional Use Permit $7,048
Minor1 $19,305
Major2 $32,169
Minor1 $8,868
Major2 $16,196
Minor Duplex / Residential3 $6,782
Minor4 $13,355
Major5 $19,878
Minor Residential Permit $3,482
Two‐Story Permit without Design Review $4,522
Two‐Story Permit with Design Review $5,427
Director Minor Modification6 $4,757
Miscellaneous Ministerial Permit $3,965
Environmental Impact Report
(Plus State & County Filing Fees)
Contract + Admin Fee
Estimated cost: $60,000 - $150,000, depending on the scope of the project
Negative Declaration ‐ Major
(Plus State & County Filing Fees)
Contract + Admin Fee
Estimated cost: $30,000 - $45,000
Negative Declaration ‐ Minor
(Plus State & County Filing Fees)
Contract + Admin Fee
Estimated cost: $20,000 - $35,000
Categorical Exemption
(Plus County Filing Fee) $347 filling fee
Subdivisions
Conditional Use Permit
Amendment to Conditional Use/Development Permit
Architectural and Site Approval Permit
Single Family (R-1) Residential Permits
Ministerial Residential Permits
Environmental Assessment
404
CC 05-14-2024
404 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B5‐16
Estimated cost: $5,000 - $25,000, depending on complexity of project/studies required
All Nonresidential and Multifamily (per sq. ft.) $0.45
Residential Single-Family (per sq. ft.) $0.22
Source: City of Cupertino, Schedule C – Planning.

Notes:

1. For 10,000 square feet or less of commercial and/or industrial and/or office and/or other nonresidential use, or six or less residential units (Cupertino Municipal Code, Chapter 19.12).

2. For more than 10,000 square feet of commercial and/or industrial and/or office and/or other nonresidential use, or greater than six residential units (Cupertino Municipal Code, Chapter 19.12).

3. Architectural approval of single-family homes in a planned development zoning district, redevelopment, or modification of duplexes, and associated landscaping, where such review is required (Cupertino Municipal Code, Chapter 19.12).

4. Architectural approval of the following: minor building modifications, landscaping, signs, and lighting for new development, redevelopment, or modification in such zones where such review is required (Cupertino Municipal Code, Chapter 19.12).

5. Architectural approval of all other development projects (Cupertino Municipal Code, Chapter 19.12).

6. An application that is administratively reviewed by staff either at an advertised public hearing/meeting or in a non-hearing process (Cupertino Municipal Code, Chapter 19.164).

In the spring 2022, the Santa Clara County Planning Collaborative conducted a survey of fees and permit processing times in Santa Clara County. Fourteen of fifteen jurisdictions completed the survey.

The results indicated that Cupertino’s fees are on the higher end when looking at all Santa Clara County jurisdictions. Cupertino’s fees totaled $136,596 per single-family home (Table B5-6), $77,770 per unit of a hypothetical 10-unit multifamily development (Table B5-7), and $73,959 per unit of a 100-unit multifamily development (Table B5-8). The median fees for other jurisdictions who completed the survey were $70,626 for a single-family home, $31,802 per unit for a 10-unit development, and $29,902 per unit for a 100-unit development. The fees also represent a relatively low percentage of the overall cost to develop housing in Cupertino. Based on the Santa Clara County Planning Collaborative survey results and an analysis on housing development costs performed by Century Urban, a San Francisco-based real estate consulting firm, Cupertino’s fees represent 2.9 percent of total development costs for a single-family home, 10.3 percent for a 10-unit multifamily development, and 10.5 percent for a 100-unit multifamily development. While the current fee structure is on the high end and could be a constraint on development, City fees represent a very small percentage of the overall cost of developing housing within the city. The City has included Strategy HE-2.3.9 to review and revise impact fees as needed.

Zoning, Planning, Municipal Code Fees
405
CC 05-14-2024
405 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B5‐17
Table B5-7.Comparison of Single-Family Housing Development Fees in Santa Clara County Campbell $4,062 $43,300 $25,194 $72,556 2,600 2.6% Cupertino $5,271 $18,179 $113,146 $136,596 5,000 2.9% Gilroy $4,747 $11,105 $53,367 $69,219 5,000 1.5% Los Altos Hills $4,880 $108,659 $33,092 $146,631 5,000 3.1% Los Gatos $11,202 $16,718 $4,538 $32,458 2,600 1.2% Milpitas $17,360 $23,110 $0 $36,728 $77,198 2,600 2.8% Monte Sereno $2,900 $16,928 $7,894 $5,723 $33,445 5,000 0.7% Morgan Hill $0 $13,760 $42,143 $55,903 2,600 2.0% Mountain View $0 $14,720 $71,347 $4,356 $90,423 2,600 3.3% San Jose $312 $9,607 $9,919 2,600 0.4% Santa Clara $1,816 $13,675 $56,543 $72,034 2,600 2.6% Saratoga $7,811 $35,033 $21,428 $64,272 5,000 1.4% Sunnyvale $456 $14,322 $99,268 $19,343 $133,389 2,600 4.8% Unincorporated County $10,984 $14,182 $25,166 2,600 0.9% Source: Santa Clara County Regional Planning Collaborative, 2022.

Jurisdiction Entitlement Fees Construction Fees Impact Fees Other Fees Total Total Fees/DU % of Dev. Costs 406
CC 05-14-2024
406 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B5‐18Table B5-8. Comparison of Small Multifamily (10 units) Housing Development Fees in Santa Clara County Campbell $22,887 $4,027 $179,075 $205,989 $20,599 2.7% Cupertino $84,275 $44,478 $648,951 $777,704 $77,770 10.3% Gilroy $8,107 $17,904 $375,938 $401,949 $40,195 5.3% Los Altos Hills N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Los Gatos $16,965 $27,935 $12,743 $57,643 $5,764 0.8% Milpitas $36,714 $131,118 $485,068 $90,362 $743,262 $74,326 9.8% Monte Sereno $0 $27,675 $15,065 $5,411 $48,151 $4,815 0.6% Morgan Hill $28,052 $45,798 $339,890 $413,740 $41,374 5.5% Mountain View $2,841 $137,000 $550,770 $4,356 $694,967 $69,497 9.2% San Jose $65,000 $61,600 $107,500 $234,100 $23,410 3.1% Santa Clara $37,929 $29,239 $5,826 $72,995 $7,299 1.0% Saratoga $7,811 $51,302 $111,520 $170,633 $17,063 2.3% Sunnyvale $19,768 $35,918 $1,095,000 $116,043 $1,266,729 $126,673 16.8% Unincorporated County N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Source: Santa Clara County Regional Planning Collaborative, 2022.

Jurisdiction Entitlement Fees Construction Fees Impact Fees Other Fees Total Total Fees/DU % of Dev. Costs 407
CC 05-14-2024
407 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B5‐19
Table B5-9. Comparison of Large Multifamily (100+ Units) Housing Development Fees in Santa Clara County Campbell $28,802 $53,594 $1,771,670 $1,854,066 $18,541 2.6% Cupertino $84,275 $1,453,082 $5,858,542 $7,395,899 $73,959 10.5% Gilroy $33,787 $129,816 $3,749,871 $3,913,474 $39,135 5.6% Los Altos Hills N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Los Gatos $16,965 $189,996 $119,936 $326,897 $3,269 0.5% Milpitas $36,714 $616,695 $4,858,789 $461,772 $5,973,970 $59,740 8.5% Monte Sereno $0 $193,741 $129,164 $92,729 $415,634 $4,156 0.6% Morgan Hill $98,913 $141,780 $3,398,900 $3,639,593 $36,396 5.2% Mountain View $45,000 $278,900 $7,899,900 $35,250 $8,259,050 $82,591 11.8% San Jose $650,000 $616,000 $1,075,000 $2,341,000 $23,410 3.3% Santa Clara $84,156 $161,009 $59,633 $304,798 $3,048 0.4% Saratoga $12,211 $429,705 $1,097,200 $1,539,115 $15,391 2.2% Sunnyvale $21,545 $240,807 $8,510,640 $1,056,257 $9,829,249 $98,292 14.0% Unincorporated County N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Source: Santa Clara County Regional Planning Collaborative, 2022.

Jurisdiction Entitlement Fees Construction Fees Impact Fees Other Fees Total Total Fees / DU % of Dev. Costs 408
CC 05-14-2024
408 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B5‐20

REVIEW OF LOCAL ORDINANCES

SHORT-TERM RENTALS
On September 15, 2020, City Council adopted Ordinance No. 20-2200 with new rules to regulate short-term rentals (STRs), residential rentals of 30 days or less, such as those conducted through or VRBO. As of January 2021, all STRs must be registered with the City, pay a $211 STR registration fee, and must comply with the rules, such as those listed here:
 STRs must be an incidental use and operated by a primary resident.  Stays are limited to 60 days for un-hosted stays (no host/operator present on-site).  Limit of one STR per parcel and one rental agreement per night.  Guest occupancy is limited to two times the number of bedrooms within the STR, or two for a studio unit.
 Must provide the minimum parking spaces required by the zoning district in which it is located, and designate at least one on-site parking space for the STR.  Must have a local contact that can respond to any complaint within 60 minutes.  May not be used for commercial purposes or events that are likely to result in violation in traffic, parking, noise, or other standard regulating the residential use and character of the neighborhood. Must comply with quiet hours from 9 p.m. to 7 a.m.  Must provide a guest manual to the guest upon booking and in a prominent place within the STR. The guest manual must include information on noise, quiet hours, trash collection, vehicle parking, and any relevant regulations from the Municipal Code. A sample Guest Manual Template can be found here.
 Must maintain a license plate registry of all guest vehicles. A sample vehicle registration log can be found here.
 Must retain records documenting compliance for three years.  May not occur in any ADU.

STR platforms are required to:
 Prevent bookings of any STR that does not have a valid registration number with the City;  Collect the Transient Occupancy Tax and remit it to the City; and  Retain records for three years in case they are needed to verify compliance.

Cupertino’s STR ordinance is not seen as a constraint but rather a way to preserve the rental stock to ensure rental units are available for current and future Cupertino residents. 409
CC 05-14-2024
409 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B5‐21

BELOW-MARKET RATE MITIGATION PROGRAM
The City’s BMR Residential Mitigation Program requires all new residential developers to either provide below market rate units or pay a mitigation fee, which is placed in the City’s Below MarketRate (BMR) Affordable Housing Fund (AHF). The BMR Mitigation Program is based on a nexus study prepared by the City that demonstrated that all new developments create a need for affordable housing. Under this program, developers of for-sale housing where units may be sold individually must sell at least 15 percent of units at a price affordable to median- and moderate-income households. Projects of seven or more units must provide on-site BMR units. Developers of projects of six units or fewer can either build a unit or provide pay the Housing Mitigation fee. The City treats its BMR units the same as density bonus affordable unit, meaning the provision of BMR units can count as density bonus affordable units. Density bonus units that are counted toward the BMR unit total also have to meet the other requirements of the BMR program related to affordability. The City also accepts density bonus affordable units of a deeper affordability than the required BMR units would have been as units counting toward the BMR unit requirements. The City’s BMR program is a way to ensure affordable units are built in the city and has not been seen as a constraint to housing development.

PROCESSING AND PERMIT PROCEDURES
As a comparison, Table B5-9, Comparison of Permit Processing Times (Months), lists estimated permitted processing time from neighboring communities within Santa Clara County. Cupertino’s review times are similar to approval times for surrounding jurisdictions and not seen as a constraint to development. However, in response to feedback received from developers in a focus group, the City has included Strategy 2.3.1 through which the City will give priority in permit processing for projects providing 100 percent affordable housing throughout the city, including projects for specialneeds groups, in order to encourage housing affordability and address the desire for expedited processing times.

Table B5-10. Comparison of Permit Processing Times (Months) Jurisdiction ADU
Process
Ministerial
By-Right
Discretionary
By-Right
Discretionary
(Hearing
Officer if
Applicable)
Discretionary
(Planning
Commission)
Discretionary
(City Council)
Cupertino 1-3 1-6 2-4 2-4 3-6 6-12
Gilroy 1-2 1-2 2-4 N/A 4-5 5-6
Los Altos Hills 1-2 0.5-2 2-3 3-4 4-6 5-8
Los Gatos No Data 3-6* 1-2 2-4 4-6 6-12
Milpitas 3-5 4-6 2-3 6-18 N/A 12-24
Monte Sereno 0.75 0.75 1 1-2 N/A 1-2
Morgan Hill 1-2 1-3 2-3 2-3 4-6 4-6
Mountain View 3-5 4-6 2-3 6-18 N/A 12-24
410
CC 05-14-2024
410 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B5‐22
Table B5-10. Comparison of Permit Processing Times (Months) Jurisdiction ADU
Process
Ministerial
By-Right
Discretionary
By-Right
Discretionary
(Hearing
Officer if
Applicable)
Discretionary
(Planning
Commission)
Discretionary
(City Council)
San Jose 2 1-3 7 7 7-11 5-12
Santa Clara 0-1 0-1 0-3 4-9 6-9 6-12
Saratoga 1 1-2 2-3 N/A 4-6 6-12
Sunnyvale 1-3 1-3 3-6 6-9 9-18 9-18
Unincorporated
County 4-6 6-8 9-12 12-15 15-18 15-18
Source: Santa Clara County Constraints, Fees, & Processing Times Survey Quick Summary, 2022.

Note: Permit processing times indicated in months
*Time to first review; and City staff time.

APPROVAL PROCESS
The Housing Element must examine the length of time between receiving approval for a housing development and submittal of an application for building permits. The time between application approval and building permit issuance is influenced by a number of factors, none of which are directly impacted by the City. Factors that may impact the timing of building permit issuance include required technical or engineering studies; completion of construction drawings and detailed site and landscape design; securing construction and permanent financing; and retention of a building contractor and subcontractors.

The majority of residential permits in Cupertino are for single-family homes, with building permit issuance generally taking 8 to 14 months after Planning approvals. In Cupertino, most approved projects are constructed in a reasonable time period following approval.

As is shown in Table B5-10, projects for ADUs and single-family review (building permit only) requiring ministerial review are usually reviewed within two to four weeks. Discretionary approvals, such as two-story single-family homes, subdivisions involving multiple homes, townhomes, or smalllot homes, have longer processing time frames (three to nine months depending on the scope of the project), as is shown in Table B5-11. Larger housing developments requiring multiple approvals involve joint applications and permits that are processed concurrently and may require additional environmental review. All approvals for a particular project are reviewed in a single Planning Commission and/or City Council meeting. The typical permit processing times in Cupertino are similar to or lower than those in other jurisdictions and do not pose a major constraint to new development in the city. Cupertino is able to process applications in a timely manner because City staff works closely with applicants during a pre-application process. The pre-application is currently free of charge and its duration may vary depending on the completeness or complexity of the project.

The typical pre-application process may consist of the following:
411
CC 05-14-2024
411 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B5‐23
 Initial preliminary consultation with property owners/developers to go over project objectives and City development standards.
 Submittal and review of conceptual development plans.  Preliminary consultations with relevant City departments (i.e., Fire, Building, Public Works), as deemed necessary.
 Submittal and review of pre-submittal materials and final plans.

One-story, single-family homes in properly zoned areas do not require entitlements from the Community Development Department and are reviewed concurrently with building permit review.

However, two-story single-family homes require a two-story permit, which is approved by the Director of the Community Development Department and takes two to three months to process. Two-story homes very seldom require a meeting unless they are requesting an exception or a variance. Residential subdivisions require a tentative parcel map or tentative subdivision map, depending on the number of units in the development, and take two to four months to receive approvals. Multifamily residential developments in R3 Districts are typically approved in two to four months.

Multifamily projects with more than six units require major development permits, while those with fewer than six units require minor development permits. In the case of minor development permits, only an administrative review is required unless a decision is appealed. For major development permits, the Planning Commission is the final review body for developments of up to 49 units, except in cases where their decision is appealed, at which point the final approval is within the authority of the City Council. Developments with 50 or more units are approved by the City Council. Appeals may be made when it is alleged there is an error in any requirement, decision, or determination made. In either case, a public meeting is required but not a public hearing (i.e. only mailed notices within 300 feet of the project are required, but not a published notice in the newspaper), unless a subdivision is proposed, in which case, they are reviewed in accordance with the requirements of the Subdivision Map Act.

Review of the development proposal requires the following findings:

1. The proposed development and/or use, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience;

2. The proposed development and/or use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Cupertino Comprehensive General Plan, underlying zoning regulations, and the purpose of this title and complies with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

Finding 2 does not preclude alterations for reasonable accommodation requests or group homes. The City applies these findings in a manner compliant with the Housing Accountability Act using the “specific, adverse impact” standard outlined therein. The City also regularly provides information to the Planning Commission about the Housing Accountability Act findings which must be made by the decision making body in order to deny a project to remind the acting body about the high bar for being able to reduce the density or deny the project. Additionally, these findings are not considered a 412
CC 05-14-2024
412 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B5‐24
barrier to development, as the City has not denied any housing development projects in over fifteen years.

To ensure approval findings are not a constraint on the development of housing, Strategy HE-1.3.9 commits the City to removing the bolded text from approval finding 1 for residential developments:
“The proposed development and/or use, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience.”
Building Permit
Standard plan check and building permit issuance for single-family dwellings in Cupertino takes approximately 20 business days. Plan checks for large additions, remodels, and major structural upgrades for single-family homes are also reviewed within 20 business days. If a second review is necessary, the City will take approximately 15 business days to complete the review.

Over-the-counter plan checks are available for simple home remodels and small residential additions of 250 square feet or less. Building Department staff typically review these projects in less than 30 minutes during normal business hours. Any projects with more than 10 units might take 30 business days to review. Cupertino’s building permit procedures are reasonable and comparable to those in other California communities. Tables B5-10 and B5-11 provide the typical process for a single-family and multifamily development. These timeframes assume the applicant meets all development regulations.

Post-entitlement phase permit applications are provided with determinations of application completeness within 15 days of receipt, and permits for complete post-entitlement applications are issued within 30 days (for buildings with 25 units or fewer) or 60 days (for 25+ units) in compliance with SB 2234.

Table B5-11. Single-Family Development Process
Step 1: Application intake 2 days Staff and applicant
Step 2: Plan review Up to 30 days Staff
Step 3: Noticing and comment period 2 business days plus 2 weeks Staff Step 4: Finalizing approval letter Up to 2 business days Staff Estimated Total Processing Time 7-9 weeks Staff
Source: City of Cupertino, 2023.

Type of Approval or Permit Time to complete (days/months) Approval Body 413
CC 05-14-2024
413 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B5‐25
Table B5-12. Multifamily and Planned Development Process Step 1: Project intake 2 business days Staff and applicant Step 2: Plan review and distribution 30 business days Staff Step 3: Environmental and
architectural review
Categorical Exemption no studies needed
– 2 weeks
Staff and consultants
EIR – 9-12 months
Categorical Exemption but needs some
studies – 2 months
MND – 4-6 months
Architectural review (Concurrent) – 2-3
weeks
Step 4: Plan review (second cycle) 30 days Staff
Step 5: Schedule hearings 3 weeks Staff
Step 6: Schedule Planning
Commission/City Council hearing, if
needed
3 – 6 weeks Staff/Planning
Commission/City Council
Estimated Total Processing Time 20 – 26 Months Staff
Source: City of Cupertino, 2023.

DESIGN GUIDELINES AND OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS
Cupertino has not adopted citywide residential design guidelines. However, all Planned Development Zoning Districts, the R1 District, RHS District, the Heart of the City Specific Plan Area, and the North De Anza Boulevard Conceptual Plan Area are subject to design guidelines. These design guidelines pertain to features such as landscaping, building and roof forms, building entrances, colors, outdoor lighting, and building materials.

The Heart of the City Specific Plan design guidelines are intended to promote high-quality privatesector development, enhance property values, and ensure that both private investment and public activity continues to be attracted to the Stevens Creek Boulevard Special Area. Design guidelines promote retention and development viability of single-family residential-sized lots and enable a transition from these smaller single-family neighborhoods to the larger, multifamily residential and mixed-use properties fronting Stevens Creek Boulevard. The City requires design review for certain residential developments to ensure that new development and changes to existing developments comply with City development requirements and policies. These include:
 Variances in the R-1 District.
 Two-story residential developments in the R-1 District where second-floor to first-floor area ratio is greater than 0.66:1:00 and/or where second-story side yard setback(s) are less than 15 feet to a property line.
 Two-story addition, new two-story home, and/or second-story deck in the R1-a zone.

Type of Approval or Permit Time to complete (days/months) Approval Body 414
CC 05-14-2024
414 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B5‐26
 Any new development or modifications in planned development residential or mixed-use residential zoning districts.
 Single-family homes in a planned development residential zoning district.  Modifications to buildings in the R1-C or R-2 zoning districts.  Signs, landscaping, parking plans, and modifications to buildings in the R-3 zoning district.

For Single-Family Residential, the design guidelines for all projects include the following:1, 2  There should not be a three-car-wide driveway curb cut.  No more than 50 percent of the front elevation of a house should consist of garage area. o In the R1-a zone, the maximum width of a garage on the front elevation should be 25 feet, which will accommodate a two-car garage. Additional garage spaces should be provided through the use of a tandem garage or a detached accessory structure at the rear of the property.2
 Living area should be closer to the street, while garages should be set back more.  All roofs should have at least a one-foot overhang.
 Porches are encouraged.
o In the R1-a zone, the following porch design guidelines apply:2  When viewed from the street, a porch should appear proportionately greater in width than in height. A porch differs from an entry element, which has a proportionately greater height than its width.
o Structural supports should be designed such that the appearance is not obtrusive or massive.
o The use of large columns or pillars is discouraged.
o The eave height for a front porch should not be significantly taller than the eave height of typical single-story elements in the neighborhood.
o Porch elements should have detailing that emphasizes the base and caps for posts and fence elements.
 In R1-6e and R1-a zones, entry features should not be higher than 14 feet from natural grade to plate.2
The City has detailed two-story design principles incorporated in the R-1 District. These design principles help integrate new homes and additions to existing homes into existing neighborhoods by providing a framework for the review and approval process. Two-story homes with a second story to 1 Refer to the Eichler Design Handbook- Fairgrove Neighborhood for additional design guidelines in the R1-6e zone. 2 Nonconformance with the design guidelines in the R1-a zone shall be considered acceptable only if the applicant shows that there are no adverse impacts from the proposed project.
415
CC 05-14-2024
415 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B5‐27
first-floor ratio greater than 0.66:1.00 and homes with second-story side setbacks less than 15 feet must offset building massing with designs that encompass higher-quality architectural features and materials. For Two-Story Design Guidelines, the mass and bulk of the design should be reasonably compatible with the predominant neighborhood pattern. All new construction should not be disproportionately larger than, or out of scale with, the neighborhood pattern in terms of building forms, roof pitches, eave heights, ridge heights, and entry feature heights. Additionally, the design should use vaulted ceilings rather than high exterior walls to achieve higher volume in interior spaces.

In the R1-a zone, all second-story wall heights greater than six feet, as measured from the secondstory finished floor, should have building wall offsets at least every 24 feet, with a minimum 4-foot depth and 10-foot width. The offsets should comprise the full height of the wall plane. The current pattern of side setback and garage orientation in the neighborhood should be maintained. When possible, doors, windows, and architectural elements should be aligned with one another vertically and horizontally and symmetrical in number, size, and placement. In the R1-a zone, windows on the side elevations should be fixed and obscured to a height of five feet above the second floor and have permanent exterior louvers to a height of five feet above the second floor or have sill heights of five feet or greater to mitigate intrusion into a neighbor’s privacy.

Two-story homes that are subject to Design Review required by Section 19.28.040(E) in the Zoning Ordinance (except in R1-a zones) must include:
 An identifiable architectural style.
 Design features, proportions, and details consistent with the architectural style selected.  Visual relief deemed appropriate by the Director of Community Development.  Materials of high quality.
 Appropriate building mass and scale.
 Design with architectural integrity on all sides of the structure  Reflect symmetry, proportion, and balance in design.

The design guidelines are intended to ensure development is consistent with the existing neighborhood character and are generally not considered significant constraints to housing production. These design guidelines currently contain subjective design standards, which are inconsistent with State housing law. While much of the design guidelines are applicable to only singlefamily development, the City is in the process of developing objective design standards for other forms of residential development. The City has included Strategy HE-1.3.9 to review and revise design and development standards to ensure they are objective in nature, while preserving existing neighborhood character without creating any undue constraints on new housing development. This will also address feedback received from developers during a focus group, during which participants expressed a desire for certainty and consistency in the review process. It should be noted that single family or duplex developments are not expected to generate any significant housing options during the 6th Housing Element cycle since the City is largely built out and most housing will be infill development with attached multifamily or townhome developments in R3 and R4 zoning districts. 416
CC 05-14-2024
416 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B5‐28
 No discretionary design review is required to permit multifamily housing in the R-3 zone.

Design review is not required for projects in the R-3 zone, where multifamily housing is permitted by-right. The City is in the process of adopting Objective Design standards for all multifamily and mixed use development.

REQUESTS TO DEVELOP AT DENSITIES BELOW THOSE PERMITTED
During the previous Housing Element cycle, the city did not approve any projects proposed at densities lower than those proposed in the Housing Element. Three out of the five projects requested the maximum allowable under State law at time of entitlement based on the amount of affordability proposed (35 percent for two projects and 15 percent for one); and the 600-unit Hampton Apartment Homes received approval to build to the maximum anticipated in the Housing Element.

It should be noted that Cupertino is built out and most new development is infill development, unlike in communities where greenfields or large single-family tracts are still being developed. Most development in Cupertino is either attached multifamily or townhome/row home style developments on redeveloped property. To the extent that the City is rezoning properties, these are to accommodate developments that are higher in density than single family developments.

To incentivize development that better implements densities planned in the Housing Element sites inventory, the Housing Element sets forth a program (Strategy HE-1.3.2) to ensure that there are adequate sites available throughout the planning period to accommodate the City’s regional housing needs allocation, or RHNA.

BUILDING CODES AND CODE ENFORCEMENT
The City of Cupertino has adopted the 2022 Edition of the California Building Code, the 2022 California Electrical Code and Uniform Administrative Code Provisions, the International Association of Plumbing Officials Uniform Plumbing Code (2022 Edition), the California Mechanical Code 2022 Edition, the 2022 California Fire Code, and the 2022 Green Building Standard Code. The City also enforces the 1997 Edition of the Uniform Housing Code, the 1998 Uniform Code for Building Conservation, and the 1997 Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings.

Cupertino has adopted several amendments to the California Building Code. The City requires sprinkler systems for new and expanded one- and two-family dwellings and townhouses; underhanging appendages enclosed with fire-resistant materials; roof coverings on new buildings and replacement roofs complying with the standards established for Class A roofing, the most fire-resistant type of roof covering. The amendments also establish minimum standards for building footings, seismic reinforcing on attached multifamily dwellings, and brace wall panel construction. These amendments apply more stringent requirements than the California Building Code. The California Building Code and the City’s amendments to it have been adopted to prevent unsafe or hazardous building conditions. The City’s building codes are reasonable and do not adversely affect the ability to construct housing in Cupertino.
417
CC 05-14-2024
417 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B5‐29
The City’s code enforcement program is an important tool for maintaining the housing stock and protecting residents from unsafe or unsightly conditions. The Code Enforcement Division is responsible for enforcing the provisions of the Cupertino Municipal Code and various other related codes and policies. Code Enforcement Division staff work to achieve compliance through intervention, education, and enforcement, partnering with the community to enforce neighborhood property maintenance standards.

Code Enforcement staff investigate and enforce City codes and State statutes based on complaints received. Violation of a code regulation can result in a warning, citation, fine, or legal action, if not corrected over time. If a code violation involves a potential emergency, officers will respond immediately; otherwise, Code Enforcement staff responds to complaints through scheduled inspections. Since 2007, out of the approximately 21,000 total housing units in the city, Code Enforcement has declared only three housing units unfit for human occupancy, and most residential complaints are readily resolved. Code Enforcement activities are, therefore, not considered a constraint to development of housing in Cupertino.

ON- AND OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS
Residential developers are responsible for constructing road, water, sewer, and storm drainage improvements for new housing sites. Where a project has off-site impacts, such as increased runoff or added congestion at a nearby intersection, additional developer expenses may be necessary to mitigate these impacts. Accordingly, developers pass these expenses on to consumers.

Chapter 18 of the Cupertino Municipal Code (the Subdivision Ordinance) establishes the requirements for new subdivisions, including the provision of on- and off-site improvements. The ordinance requires that subdivisions comply with lot frontage requirements and stormwater runoff be collected and conveyed by an approved storm drain system. Furthermore, each unit or lot within the subdivision must be served by an approved sanitary sewer system, domestic water system, and gas, electric, telephone, and cablevision facilities. All utilities within the subdivision and along peripheral streets must be placed underground.

Typical residential streets are 40 feet wide curb-to-curb (60-foot right-of-way width) unless a project is adjacent to arterial and/or major roadways. Street widths within private development are subject to Fire Department requirements related to fire safety, staging, and fire truck turnaround. Typical internal streets with no parking along the street are 20 to 22 feet wide. The City works with developers to explore various street design options to meet their needs and satisfy public safety requirements.

Developers are typically required to install curbs, gutters, and sidewalks; however, there is a process where the City Council can waive these requirements. The City prefers detached sidewalks with a landscaped buffer in between the street and the pedestrian walk to enhance community aesthetics and improve pedestrian safety. However, the City works with developers to explore various frontage improvement options depending on the project objectives, taking into consideration factors such as tree preservation, land/design constraints, pedestrian safety, and neighborhood pattern/compatibility.

This is especially true in Planned Development projects, where the City works with developers to achieve creative and flexible street and sidewalk designs to maximize the project as well as community benefits.
418
CC 05-14-2024
418 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B5‐30
The Subdivision Ordinance also includes land dedication and fee standards for parkland. The formula for dedication of park land for residential development is based on a standard of three acres of parkland per 1,000 persons. The developer must either dedicate parkland based on this formula or pay an in-lieu fee based on the fair-market value of the land being developed. In addition to parkland dedication, the City Council may require a subdivider to dedicate lands to the school district(s) as a condition of approval of the final subdivision map. If school site dedication is required and the school district accepts the land within 30 days, the district must repay the subdivider the original cost of the dedicated land plus the cost of any improvements, taxes, and maintenance of the dedicated land. If the school district does not accept the offer, the dedication is terminated.

The developer may also be required to reserve land for a park, recreational facility, fire station, library, or other public use if such a facility is shown on an adopted specific plan or adopted general plan. The public agency benefiting from the reserved land shall pay the developer the market value of the land at the time of the filing of the tentative map and any other costs incurred by the developer in the maintenance of the area. The ordinance states that the amount of land to be reserved shall not make development of the remaining land held by the developer economically unfeasible.

The City of Cupertino’s site improvement requirements for new subdivisions are consistent with those in surrounding jurisdictions and do not pose a significant constraint to new housing development.

SUMMARY OF GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
The City of Cupertino maintains development regulations that are consistent with State law and that do not pose undo constraints on the development of affordable housing. To continue this into the 6th Cycle Housing Element, new strategies have been incorporated.  Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs). As of February 2024, Cupertino in compliance with State law as of submittal of this draft, though an amended ADU ordinance is pending. The City has included Strategy HE-1.3.8 to review and revise ADU requirements to ensure compliance with State law. Strategy HE-1.3.8 also included several actions the City plans to take to promote the development of ADUs and has been added to the Goal and Policy section of this 6th Cycle Housing Element to address this problem.
 Residential Design Guidelines. Cupertino maintains a requirement for design review of multifamily residential projects. These design guidelines currently contain subjective design standards, which are inconsistent with State housing law. The City has included Strategy HE1.3.9 to review and revise design and development standards to ensure they are objective.  Priority Housing Sites. The City will continue to implement Housing Element Policy HE1.3, which states: Sites assumed to meet the City Regional Housing Needs Allocation (Tables B4-7 and B4-9) are designated “Priority Housing Sites” in the Cupertino Zoning Code Section

19.80.030 and the maximum number of units listed for each site shall be permitted uses.3 3 Cupertino Zoning Code Section 19.80.030 (E)(2). “If a site is listed as a Priority Housing Site in the City's adopted Housing Element of the General Plan, then residential development that does not exceed the number of units designated for the site in the Housing Element shall be a permitted use.”
419
CC 05-14-2024
419 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B5‐31
 Low-Barrier Navigation Centers. AB 101, adopted in 2019, requires approval “by right” of low-barrier navigation centers that meet the requirements of State law. A program has been included to allow low-barrier navigation centers by right in appropriate zoning districts (see Strategy HE-5.1.4).
 California Housing Opportunity and More Efficiency (HOME) Act. SB 9, also known as the California Housing Opportunity and More Efficiency (HOME) Act, is a State bill that requires cities to allow one additional residential unit onto parcels zoned for single-dwelling units.
 Development Fees. Total fees in Cupertino are on the higher end of Santa Clara County jurisdictions for all housing developments. A program has been included to review and revise fees for housing projects (see Strategy HE-2.3.9).
 Parking Standards. The requirement for two parking spaces for studios and single-room occupancy units (SROs) in the R-3 Zoning District could be a possible constraint on the development of affordable housing. A program has been included to review and revise all residential parking standards and specially reduce the number of required parking spaces for studio and SRO units (see Strategy HE-1.3.9).

B5.2 NONGOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
In addition to governmental constraints, nongovernmental factors may constrain the production of new housing. These could include economic and market-related conditions, such as land and construction costs, as well as environmental hazards such as wildfires, earthquakes, and flooding.

LAND AND CONSTRUCTION COSTS
Land costs in Cupertino are very high due to high demand and an extremely limited supply of available land. Cupertino has seen a number of smaller detached infill housing projects where single-family homes are constructed on remnant lots or lots that have previously been developed with older homes.

Multifamily development often requires lot consolidation and/or removing existing uses. A review of available real estate listings indicated several vacant properties for sale as of September 2022. The available properties varied in size from 1,920 square feet to 11.19 acres with prices ranging from $825,000 to $7,000,000 depending on the size and location of the property.

Construction costs vary significantly depending on building materials and the quality of finishes.

Parking structures for multifamily developments represent another major variable in the development cost. In general, below-grade parking raises costs significantly. Soft costs (architectural and other professional fees, land carrying costs, transaction costs, construction period interest, etc.) comprise an additional 10 to 40 percent of the construction and land costs. Owner-occupied multifamily units have higher soft costs than renter-occupied units due to the increased need for construction defect liability insurance. Permanent debt financing, site preparation, off-site infrastructure, impact fees, and developer profit add to the total development cost of a project. Construction costs run about $100 per square foot for Type 5 construction (wood and stucco over parking) for multifamily units and $110 per square foot for single-family units. Residential developers indicate that construction costs in 420
CC 05-14-2024
420 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B5‐32
the Bay Area far exceed these national averages and can reach $200 per square foot for larger (fourto six-story) developments.

Key construction costs have risen nationally in conjunction with economic recovery and associated gains in the residential real estate market.

AVAILABILITY OF FINANCING
As a stable and affluent community, private housing mortgage financing is readily available in Cupertino. There are no mortgage-deficient areas in the city and no identifiable underserved groups in need of financing assistance. At the time this Housing Element was drafted, interest rates for homebuyers were increasing from a low of 2.75 percent in 2020 to 5.75 percent in 2022 for a fixedrate, 30-year mortgage. The current economic climate is uncertain and still affected by the COVID19 pandemic, increasing inflation, and supply chain disruptions.

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
The majority of Cupertino’s land area has been urbanized and now supports roadways, structures, other impervious surfaces, areas of turf, and ornamental landscaping. In general, urbanized areas tend to have low to poor wildlife habitat value due to replacement of natural communities, fragmentation of remaining open space areas and parks, and intensive human disturbance. There are no significant wetland or environmental resource issues of concern that would constrain development in the urbanized areas designated for residential development in Cupertino.

INFRASTRUCTURE
WATER
Three water suppliers provide service to the City of Cupertino: the California Water Company serviced through the Los Altos Suburban District, San Jose Water Company, and Cupertino Water. The San Jose Water Company also has a lease agreement to operate and maintain the City of Cupertino’s water system until 2022. The lease was extended for two more years and included an extension of the current lease for up to three years. Both of these providers derive the vast majority of their water from the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SVWD). According to the 2022 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), SVWD has developed demand projections from 2020 to 2045 based on population growth, land use changes, trends in per-capita water use, and considerations of upcoming mandates in water conservation. Based on projected demand for single-family development for 2035, the demand is 17,657 mg for single-family and 11,505 mg for multifamily in the areas serviced by San Jose Water.

The projected water supply for 2035 is 44,629 mg, which meets the need for future development for the next eight years for both single-family and multifamily water demands. Additionally, the Pacheco Reservoir is undergoing improvements that would act as a surface bank for SVWD’s existing supplies and diversify its reserve storage by increasing the volume of locally banked reserves. In addition, by increasing locally available storage, SWVD’S may be better positioned to respond to future water supply emergencies. The supply increase associated with this reservoir is to be determined and depends on imported water assumptions, demands, permit requirements, and operational requirements. However, there is current capacity to meet the City’s 2023-2031 RHNA on sites identified in Appendix B4.
421
CC 05-14-2024
421 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B5‐33

WASTEWATER
Cupertino Sanitary District (CSD) serves as the main provider of wastewater collection and treatment services for Cupertino, while the City of Sunnyvale serves a small portion of the Cupertino Urban Service area on the east side of the city. The City of Sunnyvale Wastewater Treatment Plant has a daily treatment capacity of 29 million gallons per day (mgd), of which, approximately 12 mgd were being utilized in 2022. According to the Donald M. Somers Water Pollution Control Plant (WPCP), over the next 30 years, almost every process and building in the WPCP will be rehabilitated or replaced.

This will be accomplished through up to 35 individual projects, each including several major elements and some involving multiple facilities. The improvements identified include rehabilitation of existing facilities, new primary, secondary, and tertiary treatment facilities, support facilities and upgrades to power, automation, and heating. The projects are grouped into five phases, correlating with the timing and types of improvements. It projects that projects in Phases 1 through 3 will be needed by 2030.

The cost for these projects is budgeted at $456 million and includes design, permitting, program management, construction management, and construction. The estimates for future years have been escalated to account for price inflation. These improvements are expected to ensure capacity for future buildout for the wastewater collection demand throughout the 2023-2031 planning period on sites identified in Appendix B4.

Priority Water and Wastewater Procedure
Consistent with the provisions of Government Code Section 65589.7, the City will immediately forward its adopted Housing Element to its water and wastewater providers so they can grant priority for service allocations to proposed developments that include units affordable to lower-income households (Strategy 4.1.4).

AVAILABLE DRY UTILITIES
Dry utilities, including cable, electricity, and telephone service, are available to all areas in the city.

There is sufficient capacity to meet the current need and any future need. Service providers are:
 Electricity: Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) and Silicon Valley Clean Energy  Telephone: AT&T and other providers available
 Internet Service: Comcast and other provider available

CONTINUING EFFORTS TO ADDRESS NONGOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS As residential developments are approved by the City and building permits have not been obtained, the City will make diligent efforts to contact applicants to learn why units have not been constructed within two years after approval. If these impediments are due to nongovernmental constraints, such as accelerating construction costs, shortages of labor or materials, or rising interest rates, to the extent appropriate and legally possible, the City will seek to identify actions that may help to remove these constraints. In addition, the City will aim to work with stakeholders to identify nongovernmental constraints or other circumstances that may impede the construction of housing in Cupertino and work collaboratively to find strategies and actions that can eliminate or reduce identified constraints (Strategy HE-3.3.7).
422
CC 05-14-2024
422 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B5‐34
B5.3 OPPORTUNITIES FOR ENERGY CONSERVATION
Energy conservation is a major priority in Cupertino. The City prepared a climate action plan in 2015, which provided a roadmap to actions the City will take to reduce energy consumption and lower greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The plan is entitled City of Cupertino Climate Action Plan (CAP) and was prepared by the City of Cupertino.

The City’s CAP defines Cupertino’s path toward creating a healthy, livable, and vibrant place for its current and future residents to live, learn, work, and play. The strategies outlined in this CAP seek to not only reduce GHG emissions, but also provide energy, water, fuel, and cost savings for the City, its community members and businesses, further improving Cupertino’s already high quality of life.

The plan also represents another example of a successful partnership between engaged community members and City staff to jointly plan for Cupertino’s sustainable future and continue to lead by example on important environmental issues.

The CAP identifies five objectives:
 To demonstrate environmental leadership – Cupertino as a community can rise to the difficult challenge of reducing the impact of climate change by defining measurable, reportable, verifiable climate actions to reduce its contribution to local and global GHG emissions that can serve as a model for small cities in the state and nationwide;  To save money and promote green jobs – Residents, businesses, and government can reduce their utility costs through increased energy and water efficiency, and a focus on efficiency can create job opportunities within the community that contribute to protecting our shared environmental resources;
 To comply with the letter and spirit of state environmental initiatives – California is taking the lead in tackling climate change while driving new energy markets and fostering new environmental services. As coordination with cities serves as the keystone to achieving statewide greenhouse gas emissions reductions, Cupertino has a responsibility to help the state address emissions sources that arise in our geography and meet its goals to reduce these emissions;
 To promote sustainable development – By developing this Climate Action Plan to reinforce General Plan policies and align with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District guidelines, a new class of sustainable development projects, such as mixed use and transit-oriented developments, can be fast-tracked (i.e., “streamlined”) through the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review process by not requiring GHG emissions for proposed projects consistent with the CAP; and
 To support regional climate change efforts – Cupertino developed its CAP through a county-wide effort that established consistency in the local response to climate change, and created a framework to collaborate regionally on implementation of different CAP programs.

This partnership elevates the credibility of local climate action planning by allowing 423
CC 05-14-2024
423 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B5‐35
transparency, accountability, and comparability of the plan’s actions, performance, and commitments across all participating jurisdictions.

The City of Cupertino updated its CAP in 2022.

SILICON VALLEY CLEAN ENERGY
Silicon Valley Clean Energy (SVCE) is the community electricity provider for 13 communities in Santa Clara County, including Cupertino, and is governed by local elected officials serving on the Board of Directors. SVCE was formed with the mission to reduce dependence on fossil fuels by providing carbon-free, affordable, and reliable electricity and innovative programs within the community.

PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY ENERGY-EFFICIENCY PROGRAMMING PG&E, which provides energy-efficiency services in Cupertino, offers public information and technical assistance to homeowners regarding energy conservation. PG&E also provides numerous incentives for energy efficiency in new construction and home remodeling. For example, remodeling rebates exist for projects installing three or more upgrades from a flexible menu of options that earn points towards incentives and rebates. This program’s incentives range between $1,000 and $4,500.

One of the more recent strategies in building energy-efficient homes is following the U.S. Green Building Council’s guidelines for Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Certification. The LEED for Homes program includes standards for new single-family and multifamily home construction.

Additionally, PG&E provides residents with information regarding energy-saving measures, including various incentives and programs available to developers and residential property owners. Table B5- 12, PG&E Programs and Incentives for Residential Properties, includes a description of the various financial and energy-related assistance that PG&E offers low-income customers. 424
CC 05-14-2024
424 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B5‐36
Table B5-13. PG&E Programs and Incentives for Residential Properties Energy Savings
Assistance Program
PG&E’s Energy Savings Assistance program offers free weatherization measures and energy-efficient appliances to qualified low-income households. PG&E determines qualified households through the same sliding income scale used for CARE. The program includes measures such as attic insulation, weather stripping, caulking, and minor home repairs. Some customers qualify for replacement of appliances, including refrigerators, air conditioners, and evaporative coolers.

Energy Efficiency for
Multifamily Properties
The Energy Efficiency for Multifamily Properties program is available to owners and managers of existing multifamily residential dwellings containing five or more units. The program encourages energy efficiency by providing rebates for the installation of certain energy-saving products.

California Alternate
Rates for Energy
(Care)
PG&E offers this rate-reduction program for low-income households. PG&E determines qualified households by a sliding income scale based on the number of household members.

The CARE program provides a discount of 20% or more on monthly energy bills.

Reach (Relief for
Energy Assistance
Through Community
Help)
The REACH program is sponsored by PG&E and administered through a non-profit organization. PG&E customers can enroll to give monthly donations to the REACH program.

Qualified low-income customers who have experienced uncontrollable or unforeseen hardships, which prohibit them from paying their utility bills may receive an energy credit.

Eligibility is determined by a sliding income scale based on the number of household members. To qualify for the program, the applicant’s income cannot exceed 200 percent of the federal poverty guidelines.

Medical Baseline
Allowance
The Medical Baseline Allowance program is available to households with certain disabilities or medical needs. The program allows customers to get additional quantities of energy at the lowest or baseline price for residential customers.

Source: PG&E, 2022.

As part of this Housing Element update, the City of Cupertino will implement Program Q to continue to promote and encourage energy conservation in residential development. This program will encourage energy conservation practices for new and existing residential dwelling units by enforcing State and local regulations and encouraging incentives for energy conservation “best practices,” including:
 Continuing to offer streamlining and reduced permitting fees for solar panel installations;  Continuing to implement the CALGreen building code requirements;  Continuing to require “Reach Codes” for all-electric building requirements;  Providing information regarding rebate programs and energy audits available through PG&E; and
 Providing resource materials regarding green building and conservation programs.

Program Description
425
CC 05-14-2024
425 of 1197
Review of Previous Housing Element B.6

APPENDIX
426
CC 05-14-2024
426 of 1197
427
CC 05-14-2024
427 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B6‐i
Table of Contents
B6 Review of Previous Housing Element ............................................................... B6-1 B6.1 Effectiveness of the Element ........................................................................................ B6-1 B6.2 Progress Toward Meeting Quantifiable Objectives ....................................................... B6-1 B6.3 Efforts to Address Special Housing Needs ................................................................... B6-2 B6.4 Preservation of “At Risk” Units ...................................................................................... B6-5 B6.5 Rehabilitation of Existing Units ..................................................................................... B6-5 B6.6 Progress in Implementation of Housing Element Programs ......................................... B6-5 B6.7 Appropriateness in Goals, Objectives, and Policies .................................................... B6-23 B6.8 Summary .................................................................................................................... B6-23 Tables
Table B6-1 Regional Housing Needs Allocation Compared to Permits Issued 2015 – 2022 (5th Cycle Housing Element) ....................................................................................... B6-2 Table B6-2 Review of the 5th Cycle Housing Element Programs ................................................... B6-6

428
CC 05-14-2024
428 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B6‐ii
This page intentionally left blank.
429
CC 05-14-2024
429 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B6‐1
B6 REVIEW OF PREVIOUS HOUSING ELEMENT
To effectively plan for the future, it is important to reflect back on the goals of the previous Housing Element and to identify those areas where progress was made and those areas where continued effort is needed. State Housing Element guidelines require communities to evaluate their previous Housing Element according to the following criteria:
 Effectiveness of the Element;
 Progress in Implementation; and
 Appropriateness in Goals, Objectives, and Policies.

B6.1 EFFECTIVENESS OF THE ELEMENT
The City’s 2015 Housing Element identified the following goals:
 Goal HE-1: An Adequate Supply of Residential Units for all Economic Segments;  Goal HE-2: Housing that is Affordable for a Diversity of Cupertino Households;  Goal HE-3: Enhanced Residential Neighborhoods;
 Goal HE-4: Energy and Water Conservation;
 Goal HE-5: Services for Extremely Low-Income Households and Special Needs Neighborhoods;
 Goal HE-6: Equal Access to Housing Opportunities; and  Goal HE-7: Coordination with Regional Organizations and Local School Districts.

To achieve these goals, the 2015 Housing Element listed a series of policies and actions. The policies covered a range of housing concerns, including appropriate zoning for lower- and moderate-income households, assisting in developing affordable housing, removing governmental constraints, conserving the existing affordable housing stock, preventing the conversion of affordable units to market rate, and promoting equal housing opportunities for all persons. The policies comply with State Housing Law guidelines.

B6.2 PROGRESS TOWARD MEETING QUANTIFIABLE OBJECTIVES
The 2015–2023 Regional Housing Needs Assessment allocation (RHNA) prepared by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) determined that zoning to accommodate 1,064 additional housing units needed to be in place in Cupertino during the prior planning period to meet regional housing 430
CC 05-14-2024
430 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B6‐2
needs. ABAG disaggregated this allocation into four income categories: very low, low, moderate, and above moderate. Table B6-1 compares the 5th Cycle RHNA to the building permits issued during 2015 to 2022.

Table B6-1 Regional Housing Needs Allocation Compared to Permits Issued 2015 – 2022 (5th Cycle Housing Element)
Income Group 2015 – 2022
RHNA
Building Permits
Issued
Percentage of RHNA
Accomplished
Very Low Income 356 48 13.48%
Low Income 207 19 9.18%
Moderate Income 231 158 68.40%
Above Moderate Income 270 321 118.89%
Total 1,064 546 51.32%
Source: City of Cupertino, 2023
B6.3 EFFORTS TO ADDRESS SPECIAL HOUSING NEEDS
California Government Code Section 65588 requires that local governments review the effectiveness of the housing element goals, policies, and related actions to meet the community’s special housing needs. As shown in the Review of Previous 2015-2023 Housing Element Programs matrix (Table B6-2), the City worked diligently to continuously promote housing for special-needs groups in a variety of ways.
 To ensure the housing stock has affordable housing options, the City approved 158 building permits for accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and created a pre-approved ADU program to further incentivize the creation of ADUs as of 2021.
 To help facilitate residential development, the City approved:
o Waivers for development standards and parking standards for the 48 senior affordable living units, 123 assisted living units, and 35 memory care rooms as part of the Westport Project.
o Waivers for development standards and parking standards for the 206 condominiums as part of the Marina Plaza Project.
o Incentives and concessions for the development as part of the 2,402-unit mixed-use development as part of the Vallco Town Center (The Rise) development. 431
CC 05-14-2024
431 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B6‐3
 The City’s below-market rate (BMR) Affordable Housing Fund (AHF) funded and supported affordable housing projects, strategies, and services, including, but not limited to:
o $305,615 to Project Sentinel for information and referral calls to 712 households. o $339,639 to WVCS Affordable Placement Program to assist in rental and ownership vacancies and BMR homeowner monitoring helping assist a total of 47 households. o $36,874 to Fair Housing – ECHO Housing for investigated fair housing cases assisting 21 households.
o $399,986 to WVCS Greenwood Court Renovation for rehabilitated units assisting 3 households.
o $175,000 to Hello Housing, which assisted 50 households while also assisting 49 households through Rise Housing.
o $783,049 to Vista Village Repair Project to rehabilitate BMR rental units.  To help incentivize Affordable Housing Development, the City received a total of $561,482 in Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds for Rebuilding Together Silicon Valley (RTSV).
 The City indirectly helped the Veranda Project obtain $999,906 through the Housing Trust Silicon Valley, to assist with land acquisition.
 The City provided a $3,672,000 loan to The Veranda to assist with the land acquisition of 19 extremely low-income units.
 The City also funded The Veranda Project by $500,000 through its share of HOME funds to assist with construction costs.
 The City also funded Faith in Action Rotating Shelter by providing $7,700 for job development programming that assisted 33 unhoused participants that were prepared to be resume and interview ready.
 The City provided $8,000 to fund United Way 211 Santa Clara for residents who called and accessed 211 Santa Clara County.
 In 2021, the City established the City Unhoused Task Force to address the needs of unhoused residents through resource referral and partnered with the West Valley Rotating Safe Car Park (RSCP) program and there is a max of 30 people at a time per safe parking site.  The City provided 5 households with low-interest loans through MeriWest Credit Union Program to put towards rental assistance in the amount of $86,872.  The City assisted 3 households with emergency rental assistance loans in the amount of $6,000. 432
CC 05-14-2024
432 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B6‐4
 The City also funded the Rotating Safe Car Program providing $50,000 to 20 households in rental assistance grants.
 During the planning period, the City took various steps to provide supportive services for lower-income households and persons with special needs, including:
o Establishing the City Unhoused Task Force to address the needs of unhoused residents. o CDBG funds of $22,720.18 to Live Oak Adult Day Services, a senior adult day care. o CDBG funds of $164,807 to assist 274 senior households at Live Oak Adult Day Services, a senior adult day care.
o CDBG funds of $299,156 to West Valley Community Services (WVCS) CARE Program to provide supportive services to prevent homelessness. o CDBG funds of $224,184 to City-wide curb installation project for Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)-accessible curb ramps installed throughout the city. o CDBG funds of $809,802 for Cupertino Housing for the Disabled Inc. to rehabilitate rental units.
o CDBG funds of $234,672 for 10 homeless residents who received supportive and sanitation services.
o CDBG funds of $24,142 that assisted 36 seniors to access meal deliveries. o CDBG funds of $185,000 providing $5,000 in grants to 37 small businesses. o Human Services Grant Program (HSG) $195,797 to MAITRI that assist transitional residents who receive case management.
o HSG $104,999 to SALA for seniors who received legal services. o HSG $266,788 to WVCS Haven Home program for people who received supportive services to prevent homelessness.
o The City developed and funded the Homeless Jobs Program to provide up to eight months of employment for two unhoused residents in Cupertino in the amount of $222,063. o The City also implemented the grants for De Anza students to provide $8,080 in housing assistance grants.
433
CC 05-14-2024
433 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B6‐5
B6.4 PRESERVATION OF “AT RISK” UNITS
According to the 2015 Housing Element, there was one affordable project at risk of converting to market rate within 10 years from the beginning of the 2015–2023 planning period—Beardon Drive, which has eight affordable units. In 2019, the owner of Beardon Drive paid off the City’s CDBG loan and indicated that the property would continue to operate as affordable housing.

B6.5 REHABILITATION OF EXISTING UNITS
The City had established a goal of rehabilitating 40 total housing units between 2015 and 2023.

B6.6 PROGRESS IN IMPLEMENTATION OF HOUSING ELEMENT PROGRAMS Table B6-2, Review of the 5th Cycle Housing Element Programs, identifies all of the actions the City committed to in the 2015 Housing Element. The table also includes a description of the progress that was made during the 2015–2023 planning period.
434
CC 05-14-2024
434 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B6‐6
Table B6-2 Review of the 5th Cycle Housing Element Programs No. Programs/Actions Achievements/Effectiveness Continue/Modify/Delete HE-1.3.1 Land Use Policy and Zoning Provisions
To accommodate the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), the City will continue to:  Provide adequate capacity through the Land Use Element and Zoning Ordinance to accommodate the RHNA of 1,064 units  Monitor development standards to
ensure they are adequate and appropriate to facilitate a range of housing in the community  Monitor the sites inventory and make it
available on the City website
 Monitor development activity on the
Housing Opportunity Sites to ensure that the City maintains sufficient land to accommodate the RHNA during the planning period. Identify alternative site(s) as needed The City continued to provide adequate capacity through the Land Use Element and Zoning Ordinance to accommodate the RHNA allocation. As a result of flexible land use controls as of 2021, four of the five Priority Housing Element sites from the 5th cycle used density bonuses, incentives, and/or waivers that were approved by the City between 2016-2022.

Continue, through Strategy HE-1.3.1, HE-1.3.2, and HE-1.3.3. The City will commit to rezoning and adding new zoning districts and land use designations to accommodate RHNA.

HE-1.3.2 Second Dwelling Units
The City will continue to implement the Second Dwelling Unit Ordinance and encourage the production of second units The City annually updated the Ordinance to comply with State law and established a program to streamline the ADU review and production process as part of the City 2020-21 work program. In 2021, the City created a pre-approved ADU program to further incentivize the creation of ADUs. Since 2015, the City has issued 158 building permits for ADUs.

Continue, through Strategy HE-1.3.8. The City will continue to address new State legislation for ADU’s and expand on efforts to encourage the development of these housing types. 435
CC 05-14-2024
435 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B6‐7
Table B6-2 Review of the 5th Cycle Housing Element Programs No. Programs/Actions Achievements/Effectiveness Continue/Modify/Delete HE-1.3.3 Lot Consolidation
To facilitate residential and mixed-use developments, the City will continue to:  Encourage lot consolidation  Encourage master plans for such sites with coordinated access and circulation
 Provide technical assistance  Encourage intra- and inter-agency cooperation
The City encouraged lot consolidation and provided technical assistance to property owners of adjacent parcels to coordinate redevelopment where appropriate. Sand Hill Property Company filed an application with the City of Cupertino on March 27, 2018, entitled "Vallco Town Center Project Application pursuant to SB 35." On September 21, 2018, an approval letter was issued for the project. Vallco requested less commercial development with only 1 bedroom and studio BMR units and smaller 1 bedroom and studios than market rate and 1-bedroomm studios as BMR. The coordination included intraand inter-agency cooperation and encouragement of master plans for sites with coordinated access and circulation.

Continue, through Strategy HE 1.3.7.

HE-1.3.4 Flexible Development Standards
The City recognizes the need to encourage a range of housing options in the community. The City will continue to:  Offer flexible residential development standards in planned residential zoning districts
 Consider granting reductions in offstreet parking on a case-by-case basis for senior housing
In 2021, the 123 assisted living units and 35 memory care rooms Westport Project was approved with waivers, an incentive for development standards and a reduction in parking standards. The Westport project is within the Heart of the City Specific Plan and on a Housing Element site. The City had 4 of the 5 Housing Element sites use waivers and Density Bonus parking standards as part of their project within the Vallco, Marina, Verandas, and Westport Projects. The City also allowed 2 of the 5 projects to use incentives as part of their project - Westport and Vallco.

Continue for affordable units through Strategy HE-2.3.7. The City will also commit to other strategies like density bonus incentives to address Affordable Housing Development.

HE-1.3.5 Heart of the City Specific Plan
The City will review revisions to the Heart of the City Specific Plan residential density calculation requirement to eliminate the requirement to net the non-residential portion of the development from the lot area.

Completed in May 2015. Delete, the action was completed. 436
CC 05-14-2024
436 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B6‐8
Table B6-2 Review of the 5th Cycle Housing Element Programs No. Programs/Actions Achievements/Effectiveness Continue/Modify/Delete HE-2.3.1 Office and Industrial Housing Mitigation
Program The City will continue to require that developers of office, commercial, and industrial space pay a mitigation fee for affordable housing in the City of Cupertino.

To help offset the loss of land, the City continued to implement the Office and Industrial Housing Mitigation Program. The City requires developers of office, commercial, and industrial space to pay a mitigation fee to support affordable housing. Mitigated fees are collected and deposited into the City's BMR Affordable Housing Fund (AHF) for the following fiscal years (FY) the following mitigation fees were collected and deposited and in the BMR and AFH funds:  FY19: $159,178  FY20: $39,000  FY21: $197,661  FY22: $36,000  FY23: $170,824 The Veranda project received BMR and AFH funds. This senior housing project, now complete and occupied, is a 19-unit affordable development on a vacant, 0.56-acre site, at 19160 Stevens Creek Boulevard in Cupertino.

Continue, through Strategy HE-2.3.2. This program has proven successful and will continue with only minor text updates.

HE-2.3.2 Residential Housing Mitigation Program
The City will continue to implement the Residential Housing Mitigation Program to mitigate the need for affordable housing created by new market-rate residential development. This program applies to new residential development. Mitigation includes either the payment of the “Housing Mitigation” fee or the provision of a Below Market-Rate (BMR) unit or units.

The City continued to implement the Residential Housing Mitigation Program. The program applies to new residential development and includes the provision of BMR units or the payment of the "Housing Mitigation" fee. The BMR Linkage Fees Update study was completed and adopted by City Council on May 19, 2020, which included an increased requirement of 15%-20% for inclusionary ownership projects. In 2021, the BMR AHF provided funding to the following affordable housing projects, strategies, and services:  BMR Program Administration: 400 households sought assistance, 12 new households were assisted.

Continue, through Strategy HE-2.3.3. This program has proven successful and will expand on efforts to prioritize, provide rental alternatives, develop for-sale and rental units, and develop BMR units off-site. 437
CC 05-14-2024
437 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B6‐9
Table B6-2 Review of the 5th Cycle Housing Element Programs No. Programs/Actions Achievements/Effectiveness Continue/Modify/Delete  Fair housing services: $305,615 to Project Sentinel  City of Cupertino Housing Programs for De Anza College Students
HE-2.3.3 Below Market-Rate (BMR) Affordable
Housing Fund (AHF) The City’s BMR AHF will continue to support affordable housing projects, strategies and services, including but not limited to:  BMR Program Administration  Substantial rehabilitation  Land acquisition  Acquisition of buildings for permanent affordability, with or without rehabilitation
 New construction  Preserving “at-risk” BMR units  Rental operating subsidies  Down payment assistance  Land write-downs  Direct gap financing  Fair housing The City provided ongoing technical assistance to nonprofits/developers, including providing data and information on properties for sale to nonprofit partners and developers for their consideration. In 2017, the fund provided $175,000 to Hello Housing, which assisted five households purchase BMR for-sale units and 15 new rental households. Additionally, a $3,672,000 loan to The Veranda helped assist with the Land Acquisition of 19 extremely low-income units and very lowincome senior housing development. Additional financial assistance included:  A rehabilitation award of $399,986 to the Greenwood Court Renovation Project, assisting four former transitional housing units that converted to BMR rental units.  $561,482 in CDBG funds to Rebuilding Together Silicon Valley, a low-income housing repair and rehabilitation program.  $783,049 in funds to Vista Village Renovation Project, a low-income affordable housing development.$305,615 to Project Sentinel for fair housing services.  Emergency Assistance Funds for Cupertino Tenants
Impacted by COVID
 $50,000 to Earnin  $86,872 to Meriwest Credit Union and $50,000 to West Valley Community Services (WVCS)
Continue, through Strategy HE-2.3.4. This program has proven successful and will continue with additional focus on areas with limited availability of rental housing and high cost burden. 438
CC 05-14-2024
438 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B6‐10
Table B6-2 Review of the 5th Cycle Housing Element Programs No. Programs/Actions Achievements/Effectiveness Continue/Modify/Delete To ensure the mitigation fees continue to be adequate to mitigate the impacts of new development on affordable housing needs, the City will update its Nexus Study for the Housing Mitigation Plan by the end of 2015  $8,080 to De Anza College for the City of Cupertino
Housing Program for De Anza Students
HE-2.3.4 Housing Resources
The City will continue to provide information on housing resources and services offered by the County and other outside agencies. These include, but are not limited to:  Mortgage Credit Certificate (MCC) – Santa Clara County Housing and Community Development Department  First-Time Homebuyer Assistance and
Developer Loans for Multi-Family Development – Housing Trust Silicon Valley (HTSV)  Housing Choice Vouchers (Section 8) –
Housing Authority of Santa Clara County (HASCC)
 Affordable housing development –
Santa Clara County HOME Consortium
The City will also continue to explore and pursue various affordable housing resources available at the local, regional, state, and federal levels that could be used to address housing needs in the community The City provided information on housing resources and services to:  County Measure A Affordable Housing Bond  County Mortgage Credit Certificate  County Developmental Disability Funding  Housing Trust Silicon Valley First-Time Homebuyer  Assistance and Developer Loans  Project Sentinel Rental Support  Housing Authority Section 8 Vouchers  Destination: HOME Community Housing Fund  West Valley Community Services In addition, the City worked with nonprofit organizations in providing programs and services for low-income households and private industry, in particular financial and development groups, to encourage the development of affordable housing opportunities regionally and in the city (see Program HE-2.3.3). The City provided technical assistance to the public service agencies it funded. The City coordinated with a number of groups to engage in discussions about grant funding opportunities, regional housing needs, and efforts to address homelessness. The City participated in the following groups: Santa Clara County PLHA Consortium, Regional Continue, through Strategy HE-2.3.5. The City, through the new strategy, will also continue to identify and pursue various affordable housing resources available to address needs in the community. 439
CC 05-14-2024
439 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B6‐11
Table B6-2 Review of the 5th Cycle Housing Element Programs No. Programs/Actions Achievements/Effectiveness Continue/Modify/Delete CDBG/Housing Coordinators Group, SV@Home, Non-Profit Housing of Northern CA. The participants in these groups, including the City, work together to pool their knowledge and share expertise. The County’s Office of Supportive Housing helps to coordinate these efforts and provides the participants with invaluable technical assistance. Through the SCC PLHA Consortium, the City was awarded an allocation of PLHA funding and is currently working towards implementing the funding for projects in Cupertino. In 2021, the City created a pilot Homeless Jobs Program with two Cupertino unhoused residents participating in the program. The Homeless Jobs Program assists two people per year, plus their families by extension. The City Council did not prioritize the Plan to End Homelessness for the FY 2023-25 City Work Program. This item was concluded, and no final version of the Plan was created. Unused funds will be returned to the General Fund.

HE-2.3.5 Surplus Properties for Housing
The City will explore opportunities on surplus properties as follows:  Work with local public agencies, school districts and churches, to identify surplus properties or underutilized properties that have the potential for residential development.  Encourage long-term land leases of
properties from churches, school districts, and corporations for construction of affordable units  Evaluate the feasibility of developing
special housing for teachers or other
The City worked with local public agencies, school districts, and churches to identify surplus properties that have the potential for residential development. There were no surplus properties available from any school districts or churches for the City to pursue. The City continued to support the Rotating Car-park program on church property.

Continue, through Strategy HE-2.3.6. The City will partner with local developers or organizations to purchase surplus properties, infill lots, and other green fields within the city to use for the development of affordable housing. 440
CC 05-14-2024
440 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B6‐12
Table B6-2 Review of the 5th Cycle Housing Element Programs No. Programs/Actions Achievements/Effectiveness Continue/Modify/Delete employee groups on the surplus properties
 Research other jurisdictions’ housing
programs for teachers for their potential applicability in Cupertino HE-2.3.6 Incentive for Affordable Housing
Development The City will continue to offer a range of incentives to facilitate the development of affordable housing. These include:  Financial assistance through the City’s Below Market-Rate Affordable Housing Fund (BMR AHF) and CDBG funds  Partner with CDBG and/or support the
funding application of qualified affordable housing developers for regional, state, and federal affordable housing funds, including HOME funds, Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC), and mortgage revenue bonds.  Density bonus incentives (see Strategy
HE-2.3.7)
 Flexible development standards  Technical assistance  Waiver of park dedication fees and construction tax
 Parking ordinance waivers
The City offered a range of financial assistance through the City’s BMR AHF, by partnering with CDBG and receiving a total of $64,000 in CDBG funds to Rebuilding Together Silicon Valley, a low-income housing repair and rehabilitation program. To incentivize affordable housing development, the City supported the funding application of qualified affordable housing developers for regional, state, and federal affordable housing funds, density bonus incentives, flexible development standards, technical assistance, waiver of park dedication fees and construction tax, parking ordinance waivers, and expedited permit processing. As previously mentioned, the City approved waivers of development and parking standards for the Westport and Marina Plaza projects. The City also approved density bonus incentives for the Westport and Vallco Town Center (The Rise) projects. In addition, the City allowed flexible development standards and a reduced parking standard was approved for the Hamptons Development under the Planned Development zoning district. Technical assistance was provided for the Verandas project on an ongoing basis and the project was also provided expedited permit processing with entitlements on the project being completed in 6-7 months. In addition, the City provided approximately $3.7 million in funding for this 100% affordable housing project and supported funding applications for the project. With all residential developments, parkland dedication in lieu of fees and construction taxes were waived for all affordable units. The City has provided Continue, through Strategy HE-2.3.7. Development of housing for lower-income households will be facilitated citywide, but extra focus will be given to areas with currently low percentages of renter-occupied households to facilitate housing mobility and integration of ownership and rental units. 441
CC 05-14-2024
441 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B6‐13
Table B6-2 Review of the 5th Cycle Housing Element Programs No. Programs/Actions Achievements/Effectiveness Continue/Modify/Delete  Expedited permit processing $8,172,000 in BMR AHF and CDBG funds to facilitate the development of affordable housing (see Program HE-2.3.4). The City coordinated with a number of groups to engage in discussions about grant funding opportunities, regional housing needs, and efforts to address homelessness. The City participated in the following groups: Santa Clara County PLHA Consortium, Regional CDBG/Housing Coordinators Group, SV@Home, Non-Profit Housing of Northern CA. The participants in these groups, including the City, work together to pool their knowledge and share expertise. The County’s Office of Supportive Housing helps to coordinate these efforts and provides the participants with invaluable technical assistance. Through the SCC PLHA Consortium, the City was awarded an allocation of PLHA funding and is currently working towards implementing the funding for projects in Cupertino.

HE-2.3.7 Density Bonus Ordinance
The City will encourage use of density bonuses and incentives, as applicable, for housing developments All the sites listed in the 5th cycle table with the exception of (APNs: 316-06-059, 316-06-060, and 316-06 -058) have been awarded density bonuses, incentives, waivers, and/or reduction in parking standards. They were approved by the City between 2016 and 2022.

Continue, through Strategy HE-2.3.8. Development will be citywide but extra focus will be given to areas with currently low percentages of renter-occupied households to facilitate housing mobility.

HE-2.3.8 Extremely Low-Income Housing and
Housing for Persons with Special Needs The City will continue to encourage the development of adequate housing to meet the needs of extremely low-income households and persons with special needs, including the following incentives:  Provide financing assistance using the Below Market-Rate Affordable Housing Fund (BMR AHF) and Community The City continued to provide financing assistance using the BMR AHF and CDBG funds. A $3,672,000 loan to The Veranda to assist with the Land Acquisition of 19 extremely low-income units. Additional financial assistance included grant reductions in off-street parking. The City coordinated with a number of groups to engage in discussions about grant funding opportunities, regional housing needs, and efforts to address homelessness. The City participated in the following groups: Santa Clara County PLHA Consortium, Regional CDBG/Housing Coordinators Group, SV@Home, Non-Profit Housing of Northern CA. The participants in these groups, including the City, work together to pool their knowledge and Continue, through Strategy HE-2.3.10. Additionally, Strategies HE-2.3.1 and HE-5.1.2 have been developed and supplement aspects of this program. 442
CC 05-14-2024
442 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B6‐14
Table B6-2 Review of the 5th Cycle Housing Element Programs No. Programs/Actions Achievements/Effectiveness Continue/Modify/Delete Development Block Grant funds (CDBG).
 Allow residential developments to
exceed planned density maximums if they provide special needs housing  Grant reductions in off-street parking on
a case-by-case basis
 Partner with and/or support the funding
application of qualified affordable housing developers for regional, state, and federal affordable housing funds share expertise. The County’s Office of Supportive Housing helps to coordinate these efforts and provides the participants with invaluable technical assistance. Through the SCC PLHA Consortium, the City was awarded an allocation of PLHA funding and is currently working towards implementing the funding for projects in Cupertino. In addition, the City provides technical assistance to the public service agencies it funds. The City also participates in the Santa Clara County HOME Consortium. The City worked with nonprofits and developers to review the feasibility of residential uses on two potential affordable housing sites (Mary Avenue). The City issued an RFP (request for proposals) for the site and received interest from one developer. Currently, the City is in the process of drafting an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement (ENA) to move the project forward.

HE-2.3.9 Employee Housing
The City permits employee housing in multiple zoning districts. Pursuant to the State Employee Housing Act, any employee housing consisting of no more than 36 beds in a group quarters or 12 units or spaces designed for use by a single family or household shall be deemed an agricultural land use. No conditional use permit, zoning variance, or other zoning clearance shall be required of this employee housing that is not required of any other agricultural activity in the same zone. The permitted occupancy in employee housing in a zone allowing agricultural uses shall include agricultural employees who do not work on the property where the employee housing is located. The Employee Housing Act also specifies that The City amended the zoning code in 2014 to allow employee housing in multiple zoning districts.

Deleted.
443
CC 05-14-2024
443 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B6‐15
Table B6-2 Review of the 5th Cycle Housing Element Programs No. Programs/Actions Achievements/Effectiveness Continue/Modify/Delete housing for six or fewer employees be treated as a residential use. The City amended the Zoning Ordinance to be consistent with the State law in 2014 and will continue to comply with the Employee Housing Act where it would apply.

HE-3.3.1 Residential Rehabilitation
The City will continue to:  Utilize its Below Market-Rate Affordable Housing Fund (BMR AHF) and Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds to support residential rehabilitation efforts in the community. These include:
 Acquisition/rehabilitation of rental
housing
 Rehabilitation of owner-occupied
housing
 Provide assistance for home safety
repairs and mobility/accessibility improvements to income-qualified owner-occupants using CDBG funds  Partner with and/or support the funding
application of qualified affordable housing developers for regional, state, and federal affordable housing funds The City utilized BMR AHF and CDBG funds to acquire/rehabilitate rental housing and rehabilitate owneroccupied housing. In 2021, the following CDBG funds were provided to the following rehabilitation efforts:  A rehabilitation award of $399,986 to the Greenwood Court Renovation Project, assisting four former transitional housing units that converted to BMR rental units.  $561,482 in CDBG funds to Rebuilding Together Silicon Valley, a low-income housing repair and rehabilitation program.  $783,049 to the Vista Village Renovation Project for
substantial rehabilitation.

Continue, through Strategy HE-3.3.1.
444
CC 05-14-2024
444 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B6‐16
Table B6-2 Review of the 5th Cycle Housing Element Programs No. Programs/Actions Achievements/Effectiveness Continue/Modify/Delete HE-3.3.2 Preservation of At-Risk Housing Units
One housing project – Beardon Drive (eight units. The City will proactively contact the property owner regarding its intent to remain or opt out of the affordable program. In the event the project becomes at risk of converting to market-rate housing, the City will work with the property owner or other interested nonprofit housing providers to preserve the units. The City will also conduct outreach to the tenants to provide information on any potential conversion and available affordable housing assistance programs. The City will continue to monitor its entire portfolio of affordable housing for-sale and rental inventory annually. The City will monitor its affordable for-sale inventory by requiring Below Market-Rate (BMR) homeowners to submit proof of occupancy such as utility bills, mortgage loan documentation, homeowner’s insurance, and property tax bills. The City will further monitor its affordable for-sale inventory by ordering title company lot books, reviewing property profile reports and updating its public database annually. The City will monitor its affordable rental inventory by verifying proof of occupancy and performing annual rental income certifications for each BMR tenant.

In the event the project becomes at risk of converting to marketrate housing, the City will work with the property owner or other interested nonprofit housing providers to preserve the eight units. In 2017, the BMR AFH fund provided $175,000 to Hello Housing, which assisted five households purchase BMR forsale units. In 2019, as part of the BMR AHF program, the owner of Beardon Drive paid off the City's CDBG loan and indicated that the 8 units making up the property would continue to operate as affordable housing.

Continue, through Strategy HE-3.3.2. The City will continue to monitor and conduct outreach to at-risk below-market rate housing units throughout the City and will also implement policy that provides tenants or mission-driven nonprofits the right of first refusal to purchase a property at market price. 445
CC 05-14-2024
445 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B6‐17
Table B6-2 Review of the 5th Cycle Housing Element Programs No. Programs/Actions Achievements/Effectiveness Continue/Modify/Delete HE-3.3.3 Condominium Conversion
Condominium conversions are not allowed if the rental vacancy rate in Cupertino and certain adjacent areas is less than five percent at the time of the application for conversion and has averaged five percent over the past six months. The City will continue to monitor the effectiveness of this ordinance in providing opportunities for homeownership while preserving a balanced housing stock with rental housing.

The City continued to monitor the effectiveness of this ordinance by providing opportunities for homeownership while preserving a balanced housing stock with rental housing.

Continue, through Strategy HE-3.3.3. The ordinance has proven successful and will be carried forward with no modification or additional language.

HE-3.3.4 Housing Preservation Program
When a proposed development or redevelopment of a site would cause a loss of multi-family housing, the City will grant approval only if:  The project will comply with the City’s Below Market-Rate Program
 The number of units provided on the site
is at least equal to the number of existing units, and
 Adverse impacts on displaced tenants,
in developments with more than four units, are mitigated The City will participate, as appropriate, in studies of regional housing need and displacement, and consider policies or programs to address the indirect displacement of lower income residents The City continued to participate in studies of regional housing need and displacement. In collaboration with the Santa Clara County Consortium, the City’s Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) documents was completed in spring 2022.

Continue, through Strategy HE-3.3.4. The updated strategy also commits the City to approving the redevelopment of existing multifamily units if they are redeveloped at the same or deeper affordability, with the equivalent size and provides displaced tenants with right of first refusal to rent new units at the same rent. 446
CC 05-14-2024
446 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B6‐18
Table B6-2 Review of the 5th Cycle Housing Element Programs No. Programs/Actions Achievements/Effectiveness Continue/Modify/Delete HE-3.3.5 Neighborhood and Community Clean-Up
Campaigns The City will continue to encourage and sponsor neighborhood and community clean-up campaigns for both public and private properties The City continued to encourage and sponsor neighborhood and community clean-up campaigns for both public and private properties. The City promotes and staffs the following events available to the community:  Recology provides quarterly drop-off events for bulky items, construction waste, landscape waste, and hazardous waste (due to COVID, the quarterly events were cancelled and resumed in mid-2021).  The City staffs two annual creek clean ups- National River Clean Up Day and Coastal Clean Up Day.

Deleted.

HE-4.1.1 Enforcement of Title 24
The City will continue to enforce Title 24 requirements for energy conservation and will evaluate utilizing some of the other suggestions as identified in the Environmental Resources/ Sustainability element The City continued to enforce Title 24 requirements for energy conservation and evaluate using some of the other suggestions as identified in the Environmental Resources/Sustainability element. In 2020, the City adopted REACH codes, which were further amended in 2022, that will assist in achieving the City's sustainability goals. The City has Chapter 16.58, Green Building Standards Code, that requires certain projects to achieve LEED certification or similar.

Continue, through Strategy HE-4.1.1. The program has proven successful and will be carried forward with no modification or additional language. 447
CC 05-14-2024
447 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B6‐19
Table B6-2 Review of the 5th Cycle Housing Element Programs No. Programs/Actions Achievements/Effectiveness Continue/Modify/Delete HE-4.1.2 Sustainable Practices
The City will continue to implement the Landscape Ordinance for water conservation and the Green Building Ordinance. To further the objectives of the Green Building Ordinance, the City will evaluate the potential to provide incentives, such as waiving or reducing fees, for energy conservation improvements at affordable housing projects (existing or new) with fewer than ten units to exceed the minimum requirements of the California Green Building Code. This City will also implement the policies in its climate action plan to achieve residential-focused greenhouse gas emission reductions and further these community energy and water conservation goals The City implemented the following ordinances:  Landscape Ordinance  Green Building Ordinance  The Climate Action Plan, which evaluates the potential to provide incentives for energy conservation improvements at affordable housing projects (e.g., waiving or reducing fees) and continue to implement the policies in the climate action plan.

The City also adopted energy-efficiency reach codes that include requirements for electrification for certain types of buildings, water efficiency, and green materials to reduce energy use and lower greenhouse gas emissions. These reach codes are a component of the California Energy and California Green Building Codes and include requirements for water efficiency, green materials, and other items designed to encourage building electrification for certain types of buildings.

Continue, through program HE-4.1.2.

HE-5.1.1 Emergency Shelters
The City will continue to facilitate housing opportunities for special needs persons by allowing emergency shelters as a permitted use in the “BQ” Quasi-Public zoning district. The City will subject emergency shelters to the same development standards as other similar uses within the BQ zoning district, except for those provisions permitted by State law and provided in the Zoning Ordinance for emergency shelters The City facilitated housing opportunities for special-needs groups by allowing emergency shelters as a permitted use in the "BQ" Quasi-Public Building zoning district. In 2021, the City established the City Unhoused Task Force to address the needs of unhoused residents through resource referral and partnered with the West Valley Rotating Safe Car Park (RSCP) program. The RSCP program is an emergency homeless program made up of a network of local city governments, service organizations, and volunteer faith-based host sites that provide temporary overnight parking for homeless individuals/families living out of their cars. The RSCP program is still active, and there is a maximum of 30 people at a time per safe parking site.

Continue, through Strategy HE-5.1.1. The updated strategy amends the Zoning Code to permit in the Quasi-Public zoning district without discretionary review and commits the City to review and revise managerial standards. 448
CC 05-14-2024
448 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B6‐20
Table B6-2 Review of the 5th Cycle Housing Element Programs No. Programs/Actions Achievements/Effectiveness Continue/Modify/Delete The same year, the City created a pilot Homeless Jobs Program with two Cupertino unhoused residents participating in the program. The City Work Program is renewed on an annual basis by the City Council, and contains a variety of different projects, one of which being the City Plan To End Homelessness. The City Council did not prioritize the Plan To End Homelessness for the FY 2023-25 City Work Program. This item was concluded, and no final version of the Plan was created. Unused funds will be returned to the General Fund. .

HE-5.1.2 Supportive Services for Lower-Income
Households and Persons with Special Needs The City will continue to utilize its Below Market-Rate Affordable Housing Fund, Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds, and General Fund Human Service Grants (HSG) funds to provide for a range of supportive services for lowerincome households and persons with special needs During the planning period, the City took various steps to provide supportive services for lower-income households and persons with special needs, including:  Establishing the City Unhoused Task Force to address the needs of unhoused residents.
 CDBG $164,807 to Live Oak Adult Day Services, a senior adult day care.
 CDBG $299,156 to West Valley Community Services
(WVCS) CARE Program, a community access to resource and education program.  HSG $66,189 to Catholic Charities of Santa Clara County, a long-term care ombudsman program.
 HSG $25,000 to MAITRI, a transitional housing direct client services program.
 HSG $105,999 to Senior Adult Legal Assistance, a legal assistance to elders program.
 HSG $266,778 to WVCS Haven to Home program, a
supportive services and housing resources program for the homeless.

Continue, through Strategy HE 5.1.2. The program has been a success and is carried forward with added focus on areas along the Interstate 280 corridor, in the areas abutting at the intersection of Highway 85 and Stevens Creek Boulevard, along N. Foothill Boulevard (western edge of Creston-Pharlap neighborhood), and along Miller Avenue north of Creekside Park. 449
CC 05-14-2024
449 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B6‐21
Table B6-2 Review of the 5th Cycle Housing Element Programs No. Programs/Actions Achievements/Effectiveness Continue/Modify/Delete  The City developed and funded the Homeless Jobs
Program to provide up to eight months of employment for two unhoused residents in Cupertino.

HE-5.1.3 Rotating Homeless Shelter
The City will continue to support the operation of a Rotating Homeless Shelter program The City provided Faith in Action Rotating Shelter with space at City Hall to provide intake and registration for the community each night until it was shut down in 2017. In 2021, the City partnered with the West Valley RSCP program, an emergency homeless program made up of a network of local city governments, service organizations, and volunteer faithbased host sites that provide temporary overnight parking for homeless individuals/families living out of their cars. Through $299,156 in CDBG funding, the City assisted 887 households and provided services to prevent homelessness.

Modify, through Strategy HE-5.1.3. The Strategy has been updated based on previous program outcomes. The City will continue to support the Rotating Safe Car Park program.

HE-6.1.1 Fair Housing Services
The City will continue to:  Provide fair housing services, which include outreach, education, counseling, and investigation of fair housing complaints  Retain a fair housing service provider to
provide direct services for residents, landlords, and other housing professionals  Coordinate with efforts of the Santa
Clara County Fair Housing Consortium to affirmatively further fair housing In 2020, the City coordinated with the Regional CDBG/Housing Coordinators group to begin drafting the City's Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Plan. The City has provided a total of $850,000 in BMR AHF funds to fair-housing services and landlord/tenant rental mediation programs.

Continue, through program HE-6.1.1. The strategy will also include commitments to partner with a local fair housing service provider. 450
CC 05-14-2024
450 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B6‐22
Table B6-2 Review of the 5th Cycle Housing Element Programs No. Programs/Actions Achievements/Effectiveness Continue/Modify/Delete  Distribute fair housing materials
produced by various organizations at public counters and public events HE-7.3.1 Coordination with Outside Agencies and
Organizations The City will meet with these agencies/organizations periodically to discuss the changing needs, development trends, alternative approaches, and partnering opportunities:  School districts  Housing providers  Neighboring jurisdictions  Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG)
 Air Quality Management District  Housing Trust Silicon Valley  Santa Clara County Fair Housing Consortium
 Santa Clara County HOME Consortium  Santa Clara County Continuum of Care (COC)
 Housing Authority of Santa Clara County
(HASCC)
 Valley Transportation Authority (VTA)
The City coordinated with these groups to engage in discussions about grant funding opportunities, regional housing needs, and efforts to address homelessness. The City participated in the following groups: Santa Clara County PLHA Consortium, Regional CDBG/Housing Coordinators Group, SV@Home, Non-Profit Housing of Northern CA. The participants in these groups, including the City, work together to pool their knowledge and share expertise. The County’s Office of Supportive Housing helps to coordinate these efforts and provides the participants with invaluable technical assistance. Through the SCC PLHA Consortium, the City was awarded an allocation of PLHA funding and is currently working towards implementing the funding for projects in Cupertino. Housing CA, Grounded Solutions, US Department of Housing and Urban Development, among others. In 2021, the City provided referrals to COVID-related funding sources and services. The City Council did not prioritize the Plan To End Homelessness for the Fiscal Year 2023-25 City Work Program. This item was concluded, and no final version of the Plan was created. The unused funds will be returned to the General Fund.

Continue, through Strategy HE-7.3.1. The City will commit to meet with these agencies and organizations to periodically discuss the changing needs, development trends, alternative approaches, and partnering opportunities. 451
CC 05-14-2024
451 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B6‐23
B6.7 APPROPRIATENESS IN GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND POLICIES The goals, objectives, and policies identified in the 2015 Housing Element were appropriate for the 2015-2023 timeframe because they directly relate to the program requirements listed by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD).

As for new construction, the greatest progress was made in producing housing in the Moderate Income and Above Moderate-Income categories, where the City permitted approximately 68 percent and 119 percent of the needed units, respectively. The City permitted only about 13.5 percent of its needed Very Low-Income units and 9.2 percent of its Low-Income units. As was the case in prior years, the cost of land and construction continued to be high in Cupertino, making affordable housing difficult to develop in this market.

B6.8 SUMMARY
Like many communities, the City of Cupertino experienced less construction than expected in its 2015–2023 planning period. Of the 1,064 units it identified in its table of quantified housing objectives (Table HE-6 on page H-19 of the 2015 Housing Element), the City was able to issue building permits for546 units (approximately 51.3 percent), most of them for Above Moderate-Income households, even though the City had entitled more than 3,400 units (including more than 1,201 lower income units) during this time frame.

Nonetheless, the goals, objectives, policies, and actions in the 2015–2023 Housing Element complied with State Housing Law that was in effect at the time and provided proper guidance for housing development in the city. With the 2023-2031 Housing Element update, objectives for each of the goals will be modified as appropriate to more specifically respond to the housing environment in Cupertino.

Policies will also be modified as needed to respond to current Housing Element Law and existing and anticipated residential development conditions.
452
CC 05-14-2024
452 of 1197
APPENDIX B: HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL REPORT
B6‐24
This page intentionally left blank.
453
CC 05-14-2024
453 of 1197
Appendix G: General Plan 2040
and Zoning Code Amendments
Environmental Assessment
for the City of Cupertino
April 2024
454
CC 05-14-2024
454 of 1197
455
CC 05-14-2024
455 of 1197
Appendix G: General Plan 2040
and Zoning Code Amendments
Environmental Assessment
for the City of Cupertino
April 2024
ORANGE COUNTY • BAY AREA • SACRAMENTO • CENTRAL COAST • LOS ANGELES • INLAND EMPIRE PLACEWORKS.COM
Prepared by: PlaceWorks
2040 Bancroft Way, Suite 400
Berkeley, California 94704
t 510.848.3815
456
CC 05-14-2024
456 of 1197
457
CC 05-14-2024
457 of 1197
PLACEWORKS i
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................ 1-1

1.1 Environmental Assessment Purpose............................................................................. 1-1

1.2 Proposed Action ............................................................................................................ 1-2

1.3 Environmental Assessment Scope ............................................................................... 1-2

1.4 Environmental Review Process ..................................................................................... 1-5

1.5 Tiered Environmental Review ....................................................................................... 1-5

2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................. 2-1

2.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 2-1

2.2 Document Organization ............................................................................................... 2-2

2.3 Environmental Procedures ............................................................................................ 2-3

2.4 Type and Purpose of this EA ......................................................................................... 2-4

2.5 Summary of Proposed Modified Project ..................................................................... 2-4

2.6 Summary of Project Alternatives .................................................................................. 2-6

2.7 Areas of Controversy and Issues to be Resolved ....................................................... 2-7

2.8 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures ......................................................... 2-8

3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................................... 3-1

3.1 Background .................................................................................................................... 3-1

3.2 Overview ......................................................................................................................... 3-3

3.3 Location and Setting ..................................................................................................... 3-4

3.4 Study Area ...................................................................................................................... 3-4

3.5 Planning Process Summary ........................................................................................... 3-4

3.6 Project Objectives ......................................................................................................... 3-7

3.7 Project Components ..................................................................................................... 3-8

3.8 Buildout Projections ..................................................................................................... 3-24

3.9 Intended Uses of the EA .............................................................................................. 3-27

3.10 Required Permits and Approvals ............................................................................... 3-27 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS ....................................................................................................... 4-1

4.1 Aesthetics .................................................................................................................... 4.1-1

4.2 Air Quality .................................................................................................................... 4.2-1

4.3 Biological Resources ................................................................................................... 4.3-1

4.4 Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources ..................................................................... 4.4-1

4.5 Energy .......................................................................................................................... 4.5-1

4.6 Geology and Soils ....................................................................................................... 4.6-1

4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ........................................................................................ 4.7-1 458
CC 05-14-2024
458 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

TABLE OF CONTENTS
ii APRIL 202 4

4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ............................................................................ 4.8-1

4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality ................................................................................... 4.9-1

4.10 Land Use and Planning ............................................................................................ 4.10-1

4.11 Noise ........................................................................................................................... 4.11-1

4.12 Population and Housing .......................................................................................... 4.12-1

4.13 Public Services and Recreation .............................................................................. 4.13-1

4.14 Transportation ........................................................................................................... 4.14-1

4.15 Utilities and Service Systems .................................................................................... 4.15-1

4.16 Wildfire ........................................................................................................................ 4.16-1 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED MODIFIED PROJECT ........................................................... 5-1

5.1 Purpose ........................................................................................................................... 5-1

5.2 Project Objectives ......................................................................................................... 5-1

5.3 Selection of a Reasonable Range of Alternatives .................................................... 5-2

5.4 Alternative A: No Project .............................................................................................. 5-5

5.5 Alternative B: Increased Housing Sites ...................................................................... 5-13

5.6 Environmentally Superior Alternative......................................................................... 5-24 CEQA-MANDATED SECTIONS..................................................................................................... 6-1

6.1 Impacts Found Not to Be Significant ........................................................................... 6-1

6.1 Significant and Unavoidable Impacts ........................................................................ 6-4

6.2 Significant Irreversible Changes Due to the Proposed Project ................................ 6-5

6.3 Growth-Inducing Impacts of the Proposed Project .................................................. 6-6 ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS CONSULTED .......................................................................... 7-1

7.1 Lead Agency ................................................................................................................. 7-1

7.2 Other Agencies and Organizations Consulted .......................................................... 7-1

7.3 Consultants ..................................................................................................................... 7-1

APPENDICES
Appendix A: Notice of Preparation and Scoping Comments
Appendix B: Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Data Appendix C: Tribal Consultation Correspondence
Appendix D: Noise Data
Appendix E: Transportation Analysis
459
CC 05-14-2024
459 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

TABLE OF CONTENTS
PLACEWORKS iii

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 3-1 Regional and Vicinity Map ........................................................................................... 3-5 Figure 3-2 Study Area ...................................................................................................................... 3-6 Figure 3-3 Housing Element (2023-2031) Opportunity Sites ....................................................... 3-18 Figure 3-4 Housing Opportunity Sites: Land Use Designation Changes .................................. 3-21 Figure 3-5 Housing Opportunity Sites: Zoning District Changes ................................................ 3-25 Figure 4-1 Priority Development Area and Transit Priority Areas ................................................ 4-9 Figure 4.11-1 Existing Traffic Noise Contours ............................................................................... 4.11-20 Figure 4.11-2 Future Traffic Noise Contours ................................................................................. 4.11-29 Figure 4.16-1 Fire Hazard Severity Zones ..................................................................................... 4.16-13 Figure 4.16-2 Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Areas .................................................................... 4.16-15 Figure 4.16-3 Evacuation Routes .................................................................................................. 4.16-19 Figure 4.16-4 Evacuation-Constrained Residential Areas ......................................................... 4.16-20 Figure 5-1 Alternative B: Increased Housing Sites ...................................................................... 5-16 460
CC 05-14-2024
460 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

TABLE OF CONTENTS
iv APRIL 202 4

LIST OF TABLES
Table 2-1 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures ......................................................... 2-9 Table 3-1 Amendments to the General Plan 2040 ..................................................................... 3-2 Table 3-2 Cupertino Regional Housing Needs Allocation 2023-2031 ....................................... 3-9 Table 3-3 Pipeline Projects ........................................................................................................... 3-11 Table 3-4 Housing Element (2023-2031) Opportunity Sites: Residential .................................. 3-12 Table 3-5 Housing Element (2023-2031) Opportunity Sites: Commercial/Residential (Mixed Use) ................................................................................................................... 3-14 Table 3-6 Housing Opportunity Site Maximum Density ............................................................ 3-19 Table 3-7 Housing Element 2023-2031 Site Inventory ................................................................ 3-19 Table 3-8 Proposed 2040 Buildout Projections ........................................................................... 3-26 Table 4.2-1 Criteria Air Pollutant Health Effects Summary .......................................................... 4.2-1 Table 4.2-2 CARB Recommendations for Sitting New Sensitive Land Uses .............................. 4.2-5 Table 4.2-3 Ambient Air Quality Standards for Criteria Pollutants ............................................. 4.2-7 Table 4.2-4 Attainment Status of Criteria Pollutants in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin ........................................................................................................................... 4.2-20 Table 4.2-5 Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Summary ............................................................. 4.2-21 Table 4.2-6 BAAQMD Regional (Mass Emissions) Criteria Air Pollutant Significance Thresholds ................................................................................................................... 4.2-24 Table 4.2-7 Control Measures from the BAAQMD 2017 Clean Air Plan.................................. 4.2-32 Table 4.2-8 Comparison of the Change in Population and VMT in the City of Cupertino ................................................................................................................... 4.2-36 Table 4.2-9 Proposed Modified Project Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions Forecast .................. 4.2-40 Table 4.5-1 Proposed Modified Project Energy Consumption ................................................ 4.5-18 Table 4.5-2 Cupertino Climate Action Plan 2.0 Consistency Matrix ....................................... 4.5-28 Table 4.7-1 GHG Emissions and Their Relative Global Warming Potential Compared to CO2 ............................................................................................................................... 4.7-2 Table 4.7-2 Priority Strategies for Local Government Climate Action Plans ............................ 4.7-6 Table 4.7-3 Operational GHG Emissions – Housing Element Update ..................................... 4.7-22 Table 4.7-4 Proposed Modified Project Consistency with Scoping Plan Priority Areas ........ 4.7-29 Table 4.8-1 Active Hazardous Material Sites in the Study Area................................................. 4.8-9 Table 4.9-1 Santa Clara County General Plan Policies Relevant to Hydrology and Water Quality ............................................................................................................ 4.9-10 Table 4.11-1 Typical Noise Levels .................................................................................................. 4.11-5 Table 4.11-2 Human Reaction and Damage to Buildings from Typical Vibration Levels ...... 4.11-8 Table 4.11-3 Federal Aviation Administration Normally Compatible Community Sound Levels ........................................................................................................................ 4.11-10 Table 4.11-4 Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments ............................ 4.11-13 Table 4.11-5 Daytime and Nighttime Maximum Noise Levels ................................................. 4.11-14 Table 4.11-6 Baseline Roadway Noise Levels ............................................................................ 4.11-18 Table 4.11-7 Reference Construction Equipment Noise Levels (50 feet from source) ......... 4.11-24 Table 4.11-8 Future (Modified Project Buildout) Roadway Noise Levels ................................ 4.11-26 Table 4.11-9 Representative Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment ............. 4.11-31 Table 4.11-10 Cumulative Roadway Noise Levels ...................................................................... 4.11-34 461
CC 05-14-2024
461 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

TABLE OF CONTENTS
PLACEWORKS v
Table 4.13-1 Current Capacity and Enrollment for the CUSD ................................................. 4.13-11 Table 4.13-2 Current Capacity and Enrollment for the FUHSD ................................................ 4.13-12 Table 4.15-1 Increase in Water Demand with 2040 Buildout ................................................... 4.15-13 Table 4.15-2 Cal Water LAS Service Area with Proposed Modified Project .......................... 4.15-13 Table 4.15-3 Cal Water LAS Supply and Demand Comparison: 2025 to 2040 (AFY) ............ 4.15-14 Table 4.15-4 Increase in Water Demand in SJW Service Area with Proposed Modified Project ...................................................................................................................... 4.15-16 Table 4.15-5 SJW Supply and Demand Comparison: 2025 to 2040 (AFY).............................. 4.15-17 Table 4.15-6 Increase in WasteWater Demand with Proposed Modified Project ................ 4.15-29 Table 4.15-7 Increase in Solid Waste Generation with Proposed Modified Project ............. 4.15-47 Table 4.15-8 Newby Island Landfill Data .................................................................................... 4.15-47 Table 5-1 Total Forecasted Growth for the Proposed Modified Project and the Alternatives to the Proposed Modified Project .......................................................... 5-4 Table 5-2 Comparison of Impacts of the Project Alternatives and the Proposed Modified Project ............................................................................................................ 5-4 Table 5-3 Alternative B: Increased Housing Sites ...................................................................... 5-14 462
CC 05-14-2024
462 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

TABLE OF CONTENTS
vi APRIL 202 4
This page has been intentionally left blank
463
CC 05-14-2024
463 of 1197
PLACEWORKS 1-1
Introduction
Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Chapter 14, California Code of Regulations, Section 15378(a), the proposed amendments to the City of Cupertino General Plan 2040 (General Plan 2040), also known as Community Vision 2015-2040, and the Zoning Code are considered a “project” subject to environmental review. Approval of the General Plan and Zoning Code amendments is considered “an action [undertaken by a public agency], which has the potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.”
The proposed amendments include updating the 2015-2023 Housing Element, Land Use and Community Design Element, and Mobility Element of the General Plan 2040, Heart of the City Specific Plan, and Zoning Code. Pursuant to State law, the Housing Element is required to be updated every eight years. The General Plan 2040 Land Use and Community Design Element Zoning Code, and the Heart of the City Specific Plan include standards for residential density and residential zoning districts and are therefore required to be updated at the same time to ensure internal consistency within the General Plan 2040 and consistency with the Zoning Code and Heart of the City Specific Plan.

1.1 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PURPOSE
On January 8, 2024, the Superior Court of Santa Clara County issued a stipulated judgement that requires the City of Cupertino (City) to expeditiously complete and approve an update to the 2015-2023 Housing Element. California Government Code Section 65759(a)(2) provides that when a City is ordered by a court to bring its General Plan, which includes the Housing Element, Land Use and Community Design Element, and Mobility Element, into compliance, the City shall prepare an Environmental Assessment (EA), the content of which shall substantially conform to the required content of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR). With an EA, there are no formal review periods and no “response to comments” document that would generally be prepared as part of a Final EIR.

Prior to the stipulated judgement, a Notice of Preparation (NOP) was prepared and issued on March 27, 2023, to receive comments on the evaluation of topics in a Draft Subsequent EIR for the proposed Modified Project. The comment period closed on April 25, 2023. While preparing the Draft Subsequent EIR, the stipulated judgement was issued, and the document type was changed from an EIR to an EA.

However, because the proposed Modified Project and topics evaluated remain similar between the EIR and EA, the original NOP issued on March 27, 2023, was used as the NOP for the EA.

The current General Plan was adopted in December 2014 and included a horizon year of 2040. Since this time, several amendments to the General Plan have occurred. A summary of the amendments to the General Plan 2040 is shown in Table 3-1, Amendments to the General Plan 2040, of Chapter 3, Project 464
CC 05-14-2024
464 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

INTRODUCTION
1-2 APRIL 2024
Description, of this EA. The City evaluated the impacts of the General Plan 2040 and subsequent amendments to the General Plan 2040 in the General Plan Amendment, Housing Element Update, and associated Rezoning Project Environmental Impact Report that was certified by the Cupertino City Council in December 2014, and in the subsequent addenda to the EIR that were approved by the City Council in October 2015, August 2019, December 2019, and October 2021, referred to together as the “General Plan EIR.” The General Plan 2040 and Zoning Code as amended and evaluated in the General Plan EIR are considered the “Approved Project” and the proposed amendments that are the subject of this EA are considered the “proposed Modified Project.”
The City is the lead agency for the proposed Modified Project, which pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15367 is defined as “the public agency which has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project.” As lead agency, the City determined that because the proposed Modified Project amends the Approved Project, to comply with the requirements of California Government Code Section 65759(a)(2), this EA shall be prepared as a subsequent program-level analysis of the General Plan EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162, Subsequent EIR, and 15168, Program EIR, respectively.

This EA has been prepared to provide public agency decision makers and the public with an analysis of the proposed Modified Project’s potentially significant environmental effects and identify feasible alternatives and mitigation measures that would avoid or substantially lessen any significant effects. This EA’s analysis and findings reflect the City’s independent and impartial conclusions. This EA will be reviewed in public session by the City Planning Commission and reviewed and adopted as part of the General Plan in public session by the City Council.

1.2 PROPOSED ACTION
If approved by the Cupertino City Council, the proposed Modified Project would replace the City’s existing 5th Cycle Housing Element (2015-2023) with the 6th Cycle Housing Element (2023-2031),Land Use and Community Design Element, and Mobility Element of the General Plan 2040. It would also replace corresponding sections of Title 19, Zoning (Zoning Code) of the Cupertino Municipal Code (CMC) to ensure consistency between the General Plan land use designations and zoning districts. The proposed Modified Project would build off the existing General Plan 2040 to provide a framework for land use and housing decisions to accommodate the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) of 4,588 dwelling units and associated buffer of 1,423 dwelling units for the 2023-2031 planning period. See Chapter 3, Project Description, of this EA for additional details on the proposed Modified Project. See Chapter 5, Alternatives to the Proposed Project, for a comparison of the Approved Project and the proposed Modified Project presented as the No Project Alternative.

1.3 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT SCOPE
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65759, CEQA does not apply to any discretionary actions necessary to bring the General Plan, including the proposed Housing Element (2023-2031), Land Use and Community Design Element, and Mobility Element, into compliance with the court order. Therefore, this EA serves as the environmental review document for the proposed discretionary actions detailed in 465
CC 05-14-2024
465 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

INTRODUCTION
PLACEWORKS 1-3
Chapter 3, Project Description, of this EA, which are necessary to bring the proposed Housing Element (2023-2031), relevant mandatory General Plan 2040 elements (i.e., the Land Use and Community Design Element and Mobility Element), Heart of the City Specific Plan, and Zoning Code into compliance with State law. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65759(a)(3), this EA is deemed to be part of the City’s General Plan.

Although CEQA does not apply to the proposed Modified Project, as previously stated, this EA substantially conforms to the required content for a Draft EIR found in State CEQA Guidelines Article 9 (Section 15120 et seq.) and the required content for a subsequent program-level analysis of the General Plan EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162, Subsequent EIR, and 15168, Program EIR, respectively.

1.3.1 SUBSEQUENT EIR
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162(3)(A) and (B), this EA has been prepared to evaluate potential environmental impacts associated with adoption and implementation of the proposed Modified Project as a subsequent analysis to the General Plan EIR. As defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, a subsequent EIR is prepared when:

1. Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;

2. Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or

3. New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the negative declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:

A. The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration;
B. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR;
C. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or D. Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.

Regarding the adequacy of a subsequent EIR, according to CEQA Guidelines Section 15151:
“An [S]EIR should be prepared with a sufficient degree of analysis to provide decision-makers with information which enables them to make a decision which intelligently takes account of environmental consequences. An evaluation of the environmental effects of a proposed project need 466
CC 05-14-2024
466 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

INTRODUCTION
1-4 APRIL 2024
not be exhaustive, but the sufficiency of an [S]EIR is to be reviewed in the light of what is reasonably feasible. Disagreement among experts does not make an [S]EIR inadequate, but the [S]EIR should summarize the main points of disagreement among the experts. The courts have looked not for perfection but for adequacy, completeness, and a good faith effort at full disclosure.” The General Plan EIR analyzed impacts associated with an overall development capacity of 4,040,231 square feet (sf) of office uses, 1,343,679 sf of commercial uses, 1,339 hotel rooms, and 4,421 housing units above the City’s existing (2013) conditions, over a planning horizon to 2040. The proposed 6th Cycle Housing Element (2023-2031) has been prepared to demonstrate compliance with the RHNA assigned to Cupertino to ensure the City is meeting its fair share of regional housing over the 2023-2031 planning period of 4,588 dwelling units plus an additional 1,423 dwelling units as a buffer. A buffer is necessary to ensure that if one or more of the identified housing sites are developed at lower densities than projected, or with non-housing uses, there is remaining capacity elsewhere in the city to provide an ongoing supply of sites for housing during the eight-year planning period/cycle of the Housing Element. The RHNA assignment of 4,588 dwelling units and the buffer of 1,423 dwelling units could not have been known at the time of the General Plan EIR certification and is in excess of the number of dwelling units analyzed in the General Plan EIR. In addition, the General Plan EIR did not include an evaluation of environmental topics (energy, tribal cultural resources, vehicle miles traveled, and wildfire) that were introduced in the CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G, Environmental Checklist Form, following the certification of the General Plan EIR. This EA includes an evaluation of impacts associated with the additional dwelling units required to meet the City’s fair share of regional housing as part of the proposed Housing Element 2023-2031 and the potential impacts associated with energy, tribal cultural resources, vehicle miles traveled, and wildfire.

This EA also analyzes whether the changes resulting from the proposed Modified Project would result in new significant impacts when compared to the certified General Plan EIR. This EA only includes the information necessary to make the certified General Plan EIR adequate for the proposed Modified Project.

This EA analyzes potential impacts of the proposed Modified Project, and in doing so, describes ways in which implementation of the proposed Housing Element 2023-2031 would result in impacts that would be new or different from those identified in the General Plan EIR.

1.3.2 PROGRAM EIR
This EA is the equivalent of a program EIR that analyzes the adoption and implementation of the proposed Modified Project. This is in contrast to a project-level EIR, which is used to identify and analyze the potential impacts of site-specific construction and operation. CEQA Guidelines Section 15168 states that program EIRs are appropriate when a project consists of a series of actions related to the issuance of rules, regulations, and other planning criteria.

In this case, the proposed Modified Project that is the subject of this EA consists of a long-term plan and set of regulatory changes that would be implemented over time as policy documents and regulations guiding future development activities and City actions. No specific development projects are proposed as part of the proposed Modified Project. Therefore, this EA presents a program-level evaluation of the potential environmental effects of the adoption and implementation of the proposed Modified Project. 467
CC 05-14-2024
467 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

INTRODUCTION
PLACEWORKS 1-5

1.4 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS
Although CEQA does not apply to the proposed actions, preparation of an “environmental assessment” that substantially conforms to the required content for a Draft EIR is required, if any of the proposed actions would have a significant effect on the environment. This document constitutes the required “environmental assessment.”
A Notice of Availability of the EA will be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the area and distributed to public agencies as part of Government Code Section 65352 and Public Utilities Code Section 21676 noticing requirements.

The EA and Appendices are available for review at the following locations:

City of Cupertino Community Development Department
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
City of Cupertino website: https://engagecupertino.org/hub-page/housingelement Following EA release, the City will consider all comments during their deliberations of the approval of the proposed Modified Project. Pursuant to CEQA Section 21081.6, a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) will be incorporated into this document. Such a program is intended to ensure the implementation of all mitigation measures adopted through the preparation of an EIR. The City will consider all information included in the EA when acting on the proposed Housing Element (2023-2031).

Once adopted by the City, the EA will be incorporated as an appendix to the General Plan 2040.

1.5 TIERED ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
As allowed by State CEQA Guidelines Section 15168, Program EIR, and Section 15183, Projects Consistent with a Community Plan or Zoning, the City will review future development under the proposed Modified Project considering the General Plan EIR and this EA. State CEQA Guidelines Section 15168 allows a program EIR to serve as the basis for environmental review of subsequent projects. State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 provides additional exemptions for projects proposed in accordance with an adopted community plan, general plan, or zoning code.

If any potential future development projects requiring discretionary approval are not eligible for “by right” approval, as described in Chapter 3, Project Description, of this EA, and have potentially significant adverse environmental effects that were not examined in this EA or in the General Plan EIR, an Initial Study would be prepared for that project, leading to the preparation of either a Negative Declaration, Mitigated Negative Declaration, focused EIR, or supplement to this EA or the General Plan EIR. When additional environmental documentation for a future project is necessary, this EA or the General Plan EIR may be incorporated by reference to address regional context, secondary effects, cumulative impacts, alternatives, and other factors applicable to the program overall. Section 3.8, Buildout Projections, in Chapter 3, Project Description, of this EA, provides additional information concerning future project approvals and procedures.
468
CC 05-14-2024
468 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

INTRODUCTION
1-6 APRIL 2024
This page has been intentionally left blank.
469
CC 05-14-2024
469 of 1197
PLACEWORKS 2-1

2. Executive Summary

2.1 INTRODUCTION
Each city and county in California is required to have an adopted comprehensive long-range general plan that must include eight mandatory elements.1 One such element is the housing element. The housing element of the general plan is required to be updated every eight years to comply with the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). Regional councils of government across California are responsible for allocating their region’s housing needs to individual cities and counties (i.e., RHNA). The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) is responsible for the RHNA and tasked with determining each county and city’s fair share of the regional total. This determination is made using a formula that considers population size, employment, proximity to transit, and access to high-quality resources, such as schools, health care, parks, and services. The total 2023 -2031 RHNA for all counties and municipalities in the Bay Area is 441,176 dwelling units. Cupertino received an allocation of 4,588 dwelling units to meet their fair share of housing for the region.

The City of Cupertino (City) General Plan 2040 (General Plan 2040), also known as Community Vision 2015-2040, includes the 5th Cycle Housing Element, which complied with the RHNA for the 2015 to 2023 planning period. Accordingly, the City is required to amend its General Plan 2040 with an updated 6th Cycle Housing Element and any other corresponding General Plan elements and zoning code standards to comply with the RHNA for the 2023 to 2031 planning period. The General Plan 2040 Land Use and Community Design Element, Mobility Element, Heart of the City Specific Plan, and Title 19, Zoning (Zoning Code), of the Cupertino Municipal Code (CMC), include standards for residential density and residential zoning districts, and are therefore required to be updated at the same time to ensure internal consistency in the General Plan 2040 and with Heart of the City Specific Plan and the Zoning Code.

Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Chapter 14, California Code of Regulations, Section 15378(a), the proposed amendments to the General Plan 2040, Heart of the City Specific Plan, and Zoning Code are considered a “project” subject to environmental review. Their implementation is “an action [undertaken by a public agency], which has the potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.” Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65759, this Environmental Assessment (EA) has been prepared to substantially conform to the required content for a Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) found in State CEQA Guidelines Article 9 (Section 15120 et seq.) to identify the potentially significant environmental effects from the proposed amendments to the General Plan 2040, Heart of the City Specific Plan, and Zoning Code. 1 California Government Code Section 65300.
470
CC 05-14-2024
470 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2-2 APRIL 2024
The General Plan 2040 and Zoning Code, as amended and evaluated in the City’s certified General Plan Amendment, Housing Element Update, and associated Rezoning Project Environmental Impact Report and the subsequent addenda to the EIR (General Plan EIR) are considered the “Approved Project” and the proposed amendments that are the subject of this EA are considered the “proposed Modified Project.” Because the proposed Modified Project amends the Approved Project, the City of Cupertino (City) has determined that to comply with the requirements of California Government Code Section 65759(a)(2), this EA shall be prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, Subsequent EIR, and Section 15168, Program EIR. Accordingly, this EA is a subsequent program-level analysis of the General Plan EIR.

This chapter describes the organization of this document, environmental procedures, type, and purpose of this EA, summarizes the proposed Modified Project and its alternatives, identifies issues to be resolved and areas of controversy, and summarizes impacts and mitigation from the analysis in Chapters 4.1 through 4.16 of this EA. For a complete description of the proposed Modified Project and alternatives to the proposed Modified Project, see Chapter 3, Project Description, and Chapter 5, Alternatives to the Proposed Modified Project, of this EA, respectively.

2.2 DOCUMENT ORGANIZATION
This EA is organized into the following chapters:
 Chapter 1: Introduction. Provides an overview describing the EA document and process.  Chapter 2: Executive Summary. Summarizes environmental consequences that would result from implementation of the proposed Modified Project, describes recommended mitigation measures, and indicates the level of significance of environmental impacts with and without mitigation.  Chapter 3: Project Description. Describes the proposed Modified Project in detail, including the characteristics, objectives, and the structural and technical elements of the proposed Modified Project.
 Chapter 4: Environmental Analysis. Organized into 16 chapters corresponding to the environmental resource categories identified in 2018 CEQA Guidelines Appendix G, Environmental Checklist, this chapter provides a description of existing conditions, which provide a context that the City will use to determine the significance of environmental impacts resulting from the proposed project. This chapter provides an analysis of the potential environmental impacts of the proposed Modified Project and recommended mitigation measures, if required, to reduce the impacts to less than significant where possible, and to reduce their magnitude or significance when impacts cannot be reduced to a less-than-significant level. Each subchapter also includes a description of the thresholds used to determine if a significant impact would occur, the methodology to identify and evaluate the potential impacts of the proposed Modified Project, and the potential cumulative impacts associated with the proposed Modified Project.
 Chapter 5: Alternatives to the Proposed Modified Project. Considers alternatives to the proposed Modified Project, including the CEQA-required “No Project Alternative” and “environmentally superior alternative.”
471
CC 05-14-2024
471 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
PLACEWORKS 2-3
 Chapter 6: CEQA-Mandated Sections. Describes growth inducement, cumulative impacts, unavoidable significant effects, and significant irreversible changes as a result of the proposed Modified Project.  Chapter 7: Organizations and Persons Consulted. Lists the people and organizations that were contacted during the preparation of this EA for the proposed Modified Project.  Appendices: The appendices for this document include the following supporting documents:
 Appendix A: Notice of Preparation and Scoping Comments  Appendix B: Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Data  Appendix C: Tribal Consultation Correspondence
 Appendix D: Noise Data
 Appendix E: Transportation Analysis

2.3 ENVIRONMENTAL PROCEDURES
This EA has been prepared to assess the environmental effects associated with implementation of the proposed Modified Project. The main objectives of this document as established by CEQA are:
 To disclose to decision makers and the public the significant environmental effects of proposed activities.
 To identify ways to avoid or reduce environmental damage.  To prevent environmental damage by requiring implementation of feasible alternatives or mitigation measures.
 To disclose to the public reasons for agency approval of projects with significant environmental effects.
 To foster interagency coordination in the review of projects.  To enhance public participation in the planning process.

As previously stated, this EA has been prepared to substantially conform to the required content for an EIR.

An EIR is the most comprehensive form of environmental documentation identified in the CEQA statute and in the CEQA Guidelines. It provides the information needed to assess the environmental consequences of a proposed project to the extent feasible. EIRs are intended to provide an objective, factually supported, full-disclosure analysis of the environmental consequences associated with a proposed project that has the potential to result in significant, adverse environmental impacts. An EIR is also one of various decision-making tools used by a lead agency to consider the merits and disadvantages of a project that is subject to its discretionary authority. Prior to approving a proposed project, the lead agency must consider the information contained in the EIR, determine whether the EIR was properly prepared in accordance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, determine that it reflects the independent judgment of the lead agency, adopt findings concerning the project’s significant environmental impacts and alternatives, and adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations2 if the proposed project would result in significant impacts that cannot be avoided. See Section 1.1, Environmental Assessment Purpose, in Chapter 1, Introduction, of this EA).
2 CEQA Guidelines Section 15093.
472
CC 05-14-2024
472 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2-4 APRIL 2024

2.4 TYPE AND PURPOSE OF THIS EA
According to Section 15121(a) of the CEQA Guidelines, the purpose of an EIR is to inform public agency decision makers and the public generally of the significant environmental effects of a project, identify possible ways to minimize the significant effects, and describe reasonable alternatives to the project. As described in the CEQA Guidelines, different types of EIRs are used for varying situations and intended uses. CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, Subsequent EIR, and Section 15168, Program EIR, describe the conditions for when the preparation of a subsequent EIR and program EIR are appropriate, respectively.

The RHNA for Cupertino’s 6th Cycle Housing Element and the associated buffer dwelling units could not have been known at the time of General Plan EIR certification, and these allocations are in excess of the number of dwelling units analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Further, the General Plan EIR did not evaluate environmental topics added to CEQA Guidelines Appendix G, Environmental Checklist Form, for energy, tribal cultural resources, vehicle miles traveled, and wildfire, after the certification of the General Plan EIR.

Accordingly, this EA has been prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162(3)(A) and (B). Further, because of the long-term planning horizon of the proposed Modified Project and the permitting, planning, and development actions that are related both geographically and as logical parts in the chain of contemplated actions for implementation, this EA has been prepared as a program-level evaluation of the proposed Modified Project, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15168. See Section 1.3, Environmental Assessment Scope, in Chapter 1, Introduction, of this EA. Following the approval of the EA and the proposed Modified Project, subsequent activities within the program must be evaluated to determine whether additional CEQA review needs to be prepared. However, if the program evaluation addresses the effects as specifically and comprehensively as possible, subsequent activities could be found to be in the program’s scope, and additional environmental review may not be required (CEQA Guidelines Section 15168[c]). When a program EIR is relied on for a subsequent activity, the lead agency must incorporate feasible mitigation measures and alternatives developed in the program EIR into the subsequent actions (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15168[c][3]). If a subsequent activity would have effects that are not within the scope of a program EIR, the lead agency must prepare a new Initial Study leading to a Negative Declaration, a Mitigated Negative Declaration, or an EIR. For these subsequent environmental review documents, this program EA and General Plan EIR will serve as the first-tier environmental analysis. See Section 1.5, Tiered Environmental Review, in Chapter 1, Introduction, of this EA.

2.5 SUMMARY OF PROPOSED MODIFIED PROJECT
The proposed Modified Project would replace the City’s existing 5th Cycle Housing Element (2015-2023) with the 6th Cycle Housing Element (2023-2031). It would also replace the corresponding Land Use and Community Design Element, Mobility Element, sections of the Heart of the City Specific Plan, and sections of the Zoning Code to ensure consistency between the General Plan land use designations and zoning districts. The 6th Cycle Housing Element (2023-2031) provides direction for implementation of various programs to meet existing and projected future housing needs for all income levels in Cupertino. It provides policies, programs, and strategies that support and create the framework for production, preservation, and maintenance of the City’s housing stock for all income levels. In addition, the Housing Element identifies specific sites appropriate for the development of multifamily housing. The proposed Housing Element 2023-2031 has been prepared to ensure adequate, safe, and affordable housing 473
CC 05-14-2024
473 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
PLACEWORKS 2-5
conditions and accommodate housing needs based on a comprehensive analysis of the City’s current and projected demographic, economic, and housing characteristics and needs, including its identified RHNA requirement. The City’s projected regional housing need for the 6th Cycle RHNA planning period (2023- 2031), as assigned by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) in accordance with State law, is 4,588 dwelling units.

The proposed Land Use and Community Design Element update would assign new levels of increased housing density in Cupertino neighborhoods to be consistent with the updated Housing Element. The update also includes minor policy language changes for consistency with the proposed Housing Element update. The proposed Zoning Code update would replace corresponding sections of CMC Title 19, Zoning, to ensure consistency between the General Plan land use designations to accommodate the required RHNA and zoning districts. The proposed Zoning Code update includes site development standards to ensure neighborhood compatibility and the provision of important amenities for current and new city residents. Changes to City standards and regulations necessary to implement the actions of the proposed Housing Element 2023-2031 are anticipated to include parcel-specific rezoning and may include targeted updates to one or more City-adopted Specific Plans.

The proposed Mobility Element update would ensure consistency between the proposed Housing Element and Zoning Code Amendments, including updates in State law guidance, by reducing vehicle miles traveled (VMT) at both the city level and project level scales. This update would include policies and strategies to mitigate transportation impacts associated with the implementation of the Housing Element, including evaluation of new development pursuant to the City’s adopted Transportation Analysis Guidelines, establishing VMT reduction frameworks for the city and future potential development projects, and promoting existing transit and car share programs throughout the city.

The proposed Modified Project would update the Heart of the City Specific Plan to ensure consistency between the proposed Housing Element, Land Use and Community Design Element, and Zoning Code amendments, including the Zoning Map. This would not include updates to design guidelines.

The City’s assigned RHNA of 4,588 dwelling units plus the 1,423 dwelling units for the buffer, which are “back-up” sites that are identified for housing in the event an identified Housing Element site becomes unavailable, total 6,016 dwelling units. The proposed Modified Project land use redesignations and rezonings are only needed to meet a portion of the City’s assigned RHNA and buffer dwelling units. In other words, under existing conditions (i.e., no changes to land use designations or zoning standards are required), the City can currently accommodate 2,704 dwelling units. Therefore, this EA only evaluates the proposed changes to the land use designation and zoning districts required to accommodate the remainder of the dwelling units necessary to meet the RHNA and buffer dwelling units, which is 3,312 net new dwelling units. Furthermore, because the buffer dwelling units are technically “back-up” sites, the evaluation of these sites presents a conservative evaluation of impacts in this EA. See Chapter 3, Project Description, of this EA for a detailed description of the proposed Modified Project. 474
CC 05-14-2024
474 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2-6 APRIL 2024

2.6 SUMMARY OF PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
This EA analyzes alternatives to the proposed Modified Project that are designed to reduce the significant environmental impacts of the proposed Modified Project and feasibly attain most of the proposed Modified Project objectives. There is no set methodology for comparing the alternatives or determining the environmentally superior alternative under CEQA. Identification of the environmentally superior alternative involves weighing and balancing all of the environmental resource areas by the City. The following alternatives, which present a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed project, were considered and the comparative merits of the alternatives were analyzed in detail.  Alternative A: No Project. Consistent with Section 15126.6(e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines, Alternative A presents the No Project scenario. This alternative assumes the current General Plan 2040 and Zoning Code requirements remain in effect and are not replaced by the proposed amendments to the General Plan 2040 and Zoning Code would not be adopted. Under Alternative A, the City would not implement the proposed Housing Element 2023-2031 required to comply with State law, to accommodate the lower-income RHNA units, including amendments to existing land use designations and zoning districts. The City would also not update the Land Use and Community Design Element or the Zoning Code.
 Alternative B: Increased Housing Sites. The purpose of this alternative is to reduce significant and unavoidable impacts associated with vehicle miles travelled as evaluated in the Chapter 4.14, Transportation, of this EA. Alternative B would demonstrate increased compliance with Plan Bay Area 2050, the Bay Area’s Regional Transportation Plan (RTP)/Sustainable Community Strategy (SCS) that identifies the sustainable vision for the Bay Area, than the proposed Modified Project. Alternative B assumes all the proposed amendments to the General Plan 2040 and Zoning Code would occur. The housing sites identified under the proposed Modified Project would remain, but there would be additional housing sites. These sites would include those that comply with the Affordable Housing and High Road Jobs Act, commonly known by its legislative bill number, Assembly Bill 2011 (AB 2011), that was adopted in August 2020. The intent of AB 2011 is to make affordable housing by right on commercially zoned lands, and mixed-income housing by right along commercial corridors. This alternative would focus increased residential density along Stevens Creek Boulevard and South De Anza Boulevard, which are Priority Development Areas (PDA) and Transit Priority Areas (TPA) of Plan Bay Area 2050. This would include an additional 18 sites totaling 987 additional units. As shown on Figure 5-1, the majority of the additional housing sites would be within the boundaries of the hightransit corridor along Stevens Creek Boulevard (922 additional dwelling units) and two additional sites would be on South De Anza Boulevard (65 additional dwelling units). The alternatives analysis assumes that all applicable mitigation measures and General Plan goals, policies, and strategies recommended for the proposed Modified Project would apply to Alternative B. The potential environmental impacts associated with Alternative B when compared to the proposed Modified Project are described herein.

Chapter 5, Alternatives to the Proposed Modified Project, of this EA, includes a complete description of these alternatives. As described in Chapter 5, Alternative B is the Environmentally Superior Alternative pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6.
475
CC 05-14-2024
475 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
PLACEWORKS 2-7

2.7 AREAS OF CONTROVERSY AND ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED
The CEQA Guidelines require a summary that identifies areas of controversy known to the lead agency, including issues raised by agencies and the public (CEQA Guidelines Section 15123(b)(2)); and issues to be resolved, including the choice among alternatives and whether or how to mitigate the significant effects (CEQA Guidelines Section 15123(b)(3)).

2.7.1 AREAS OF CONTROVERSY
Based on the City’s review of available information and comments received from the public and public agencies during the EIR scoping meeting and NOP public review period for the proposed Housing Element (2023-2031), the following issues may either be controversial or require resolution. Though every concern applicable to the CEQA process is addressed in this EA, this list is not necessarily exhaustive, but rather attempts to capture concerns that are likely to generate the greatest interest based on the input received during the planning and environmental review process.
 Location of potential housing sites and those
on contaminated sites
 Street traffic and congestion
 Greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution
 Impacts to public services and recreation
 Noise impacts
 Nighttime lighting and aesthetic resources
 Adequacy of electricity grid, water supply,
and other utilities
 Consultation with Native American tribes
As stated, these issues have been considered in this EA, where applicable, in Chapters 4.1 through 4.16.

With respect to the proposed Modified Project, this EA evaluates the locations and potential impacts associated with the additional dwelling units required to meet the City’s fair share of regional housing as part of the proposed Housing Element 2023-2031. The decision-making body (i.e., the City Council) will be asked to select housing strategies for the proposed Housing Element 2023-2031 that consider the values and character of the Cupertino community while meeting the various State mandates that apply for the City to meet its objective to gain certification of the Housing Element 2023-2031 in accordance with State housing laws.

2.7.2 ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED
CEQA Guidelines Section 15123(b)(3) requires that an EIR identify issues to be resolved, including the choice among alternatives, and whether or how to mitigate significant impacts. With regard to the Modified Project, the major issues to be resolved include decisions by the City, as lead agency, related to:
 Whether this EA adequately describes the environmental impacts of the proposed Modified Project.  Whether the benefits of the proposed project override environmental impacts that cannot be feasibly avoided or mitigated to a level of insignificance.
 Whether the proposed land use changes are compatible with the character of the existing area.  Whether the identified goals, policies, or mitigation measures should be adopted or modified.  Whether there are other mitigation measures that should be applied to the proposed project besides those goals, policies, strategies, or mitigation measures identified in the EA. 476
CC 05-14-2024
476 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2-8 APRIL 2024
 Whether there are any alternatives to the proposed project that would substantially lessen any of the significant impacts of the proposed Modified Project and achieve most of the basic objectives.

2.8 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Table 2-1, Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures, summarizes the conclusions of the environmental analysis in this EA and presents a summary of the identified significant impacts and the proposed General Plan 2040 policies and strategies and the CEQA-required mitigation measures that reduce impacts. As summarized in Table 2-1, and as required by CEQA, some impacts remain significant and unavoidable after implementation of General Plan 2040 policies and strategies, and consideration of feasible mitigation. Table 2-1 is organized to correspond with the environmental issues in Chapters 4.1 through 4.16. Table 2-1 is arranged in four columns: (1) standard of significance question or impact statement, (2) General Plan 2040 policies and strategies and required mitigation measures, (3) proposed project policies and strategies and required mitigation measures, and (4) level of significance. For a complete description of potential impacts, please refer to the specific descriptions in Chapters 4.1 through 4.16.
477
CC 05-14-2024
477 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
N/A = Not Applicable; LTS = Less Than Significant; LTS/M = Less Than Significant with Mitigation; SU = Significant and Unavoi dable PLACEWORKS 2-9
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Standard of Significance Question or Impact Statement General Plan 2040 Policies and Strategies and Required Mitigation Measures
Proposed Modified Project Policies and Strategies and
Required Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance

AESTHETICS (AES)
AES-1: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not have an adverse effect on a scenic
vista.

Policies LU-3.3, LU-6.7, LU-12.3, and RPC-3.1
Strategies LU-3.3.1, LU-12.4.1, and LU-13.7.5
Policies LU-3.3, LU-6.7, LU-12.3, LU-12.4, LU-13.7, and RPC-3.1
Strategies LU-3.3.1, LU-12.4.1, and LU-13.7.5
LTS

N/A N/A
AES-2: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not substantially damage scenic
resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings, within a State
scenic highway.

Policies LU-6.1 and ES-5.3 Policies LU-6.1 and ES-5.3
Strategy LU-19.3.10.

LTS

N/A N/A
AES-3: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project in an urbanized area could conflict with
applicable zoning and other regulations governing
scenic quality.

N/A N/A LTS

N/A N/A
AES-4: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not create a new source of substantial
light or glare which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area.

N/A Policies LU-3.5, LU-20.6 and LU-27.8
Strategy LU-3.5.1
LTS

N/A N/A
AES-5: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact with respect to aesthetic resources.

Policies LU-3.3, LU-6.1, LU-6.7, LU-12.3, and ES-5.3
Strategies LU-3.3.1, LU-12.4.1, and LU-13.7.5
Policies LU-3.3, LU-6.1, LU-6.7, LU-12.3, LU-12.4, LU13.7, LU-20.6, LU-27.8, ES-5.3, and RPC-3.1 Strategies LU-3.3.1, LU-12.4.1, LU-13.7.5, and LU19.3.10 LTS

N/A N/A

AIR QUALITY (AIR)
AIR-1: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would conflict with the growth assumptions
under Plan Bay Area 2040 that are applied to the Bay
Area Air Quality Management District’s (BAAQMD)
2017 Clean Air Plan, the proposed Modified Project
would therefore conflict with the air quality emissions forecast in the BAAQMD 2017 Clean Air Plan.

Policy M-1.1
Strategy ES-4.1.3
Policy M-1.1
Strategies ES-4.1.1, ES- 4.1.3, and ES- 4.2.1
SU
General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures AQ-2a: As part
of the City’s development approval process, the City
shall require applicants for future development
projects to comply with the current Bay Area Air
Quality Management District’s basic control measures
for reducing construction emissions of PM10.

General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures AQ-2b: As part
of the City’s development approval process the City
shall require applicants for future development
General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures AQ-2a and AQ2b have been incorporated into CMC Section

17.04.050(A), Standard Environmental Protection
Requirements Air Quality Permit Requirements,
therefore, compliance with the CMC is required to
mitigate impacts.
478
CC 05-14-2024
478 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
N/A = Not Applicable; LTS = Less Than Significant; LTS/M = Less Than Significant with Mitigation; SU = Significant and Unavoi dable 2-10 APRIL 2024
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Standard of Significance Question or Impact Statement General Plan 2040 Policies and Strategies and Required Mitigation Measures
Proposed Modified Project Policies and Strategies and
Required Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
projects that could generate emissions in excess of
the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s
(BAAQMDs) current significance thresholds during
construction, as determined by project-level
environmental review, when applicable, to implement
the current BAAQMD construction mitigation
measures (e.g. Table 8-3 of the BAAQMD CEQA
Guidelines) or any construction mitigation measures
subsequently adopted by the BAAQMD.

AIR-2: Operation of development projects that could
occur from implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would generate emissions that would exceed
Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s regional
significance thresholds for Reactive Organic Gases
(ROG), nitrogen oxides (NOx), coarse inhalable
particulate matter (PM10), and fine inhalable
particulate matter (PM2.5).

Policies ES-4.2 and ES- 4.3
Strategy ES-4.1.3
Policies ES-4.1, ES- 4.2, and ES-4.3
Strategies ES-4.1.1, ES-4.1.2, ES-4.1.3, ES- 4.2.1, ES4.2.2, ES- 4.2.23, ES- 4.2.4, ES- 4.2.5, ES- 4.3.1, and ES4.3.2 SU

N/A N/A
AIR-3: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project could expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.

Policies LU-1.1, LU-3.1, LU- 20.2, LU-21.3, LU- 21.4,
LU-24.2, M-1.3, M-3.6, M-4.4, ES- 4.2, and HS-6.2
Strategies LU-19.2.2, LU-27.1.1, M-5.1.1, and M-9.3.2
Policies LU-1.1, LU-3.1, LU- 20.2, LU-21.3, LU- 21.4, LU24.2, M-1.3, M-3.6, M-4.4, ES- 4.2, and HS-6.2 Strategies LU-19.2.2, LU-27.1.1, M-5.1.1, M-9.3.2, and
ES- 4.1.1
SU
General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures AQ-4a:

Applicants for future non-residential land uses within
the city that: 1) have the potential to generate 100 or more diesel truck trips per day or have 40 or more
trucks with operating diesel-powered TRUs, and 2) are
within 1,000 feet of a sensitive land use (e.g.
residential, schools, hospitals, nursing homes), as
measured from the property line of the proposed
Project to the property line of the nearest sensitive
use, shall submit a health risk assessment (HRA) to the City of Cupertino prior to future discretionary Project approval. The HRA shall be prepared in accordance
with policies and procedures of the State Office of
Environmental Health Hazard Assessment and the Bay
Area Air Quality Management District. If the HRA
shows that the incremental cancer risk exceeds ten in
General Plan EIR Mitigation Measure AQ-4a has been
incorporated into CMC Section 17.04.040(A), Standard
Environmental Protection Requirements, Air Quality
Technical Requirements, therefore, compliance with
the CMC is required to mitigate impacts.
479
CC 05-14-2024
479 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
N/A = Not Applicable; LTS = Less Than Significant; LTS/M = Less Than Significant with Mitigation; SU = Significant and Unavoi dable PLACEWORKS 2-11
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Standard of Significance Question or Impact Statement General Plan 2040 Policies and Strategies and Required Mitigation Measures
Proposed Modified Project Policies and Strategies and
Required Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
one million (10E-06), PM2.5 concentrations exceed 0.3
µg/m3, or the appropriate noncancer hazard index
exceeds 1.0, the applicant will be required to identify and demonstrate that Best Available Control
Technologies for Toxics (T-BACTs) are capable of
reducing potential cancer and noncancer risks to an
acceptable level, including appropriate enforcement
mechanisms. T-BACTs may include but are not limited
to:
 Restricting idling on-site.
 Electrifying warehousing docks.
 Requiring use of newer equipment and/or vehicles.
 Restricting offsite truck travel through the creation of truck routes.

T-BACTs identified in the HRA shall be identified as
mitigation measures in the environmental document
and/or incorporated into the site development plan as
a component of the proposed Project.

AIR-4: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not result in other emissions (such as
those leading to odors) adversely affecting a
substantial number of people.

Policy ES- 4.2
Strategies LU- 27.1.1, ES- 4.2.1, ES- 4.2.2, ES- 4.2.3, ES-4.2.4, and ES-4.2.5
Policy ES- 4.2
Strategies LU- 27.1.1, ES- 4.2.1, ES- 4.2.2, ES- 4.2.3, ES4.2.4, and ES-4.2.5 LTS

N/A N/A
AIR-5: The emissions that could occur over the buildout horizon of the proposed Modified Project could
generate a substantial increase in emissions that
exceeds the Bay Area Air Quality Management
District’s significance thresholds and cumulatively
contribute to the nonattainment designations and
health risk in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin.

Policies LU-1.1, LU-3.1, LU- 20.2, LU-21.3, LU- 21.4,
LU-24.2, M-1.1, M-1.3, M-3.6, M-4.4, ES- 4.2, ES4.3and HS-6.2 Strategies LU-19.2.2, LU-27.1.1, M-5.1.1, M-9.3.2, ES4.1.3, ES- 4.2.1, ES- 4.2.2, ES- 4.2.3, ES-4.2.4, and ES4.2.5 Policies LU-1.1, LU-3.1, LU- 20.2, LU-21.3, LU- 21.4, LU24.2, M-1.1, M-1.3, M-3.6, M-4.4, ES-4.1, ES- 4.2, ES4.3and HS-6.2 Strategies LU-19.2.2, LU-27.1.1, M-5.1.1, M-9.3.2, ES4.1.1, ES-4.1.2, ES-4.1.3, ES- 4.2.1, ES-4.2.2, ES- 4.2.3, ES- 4.2.4, ES- 4.2.5, ES- 4.3.1, and ES-4.3.2
SU
Implement General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures AQ2a, AQ-2b, and AQ-4a General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures AQ-2a and AQ2b have been incorporated into CMC Section

17.04.050(A), Standard Environmental Protection
Requirements, Air Quality Permit Requirements, and
General Plan EIR Mitigation Measure AQ-4a has been
incorporated into CMC Section 17.04.040(A), Standard
Environmental Protection Requirements, Air Quality
Technical Requirements, therefore, compliance with
480
CC 05-14-2024
480 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
N/A = Not Applicable; LTS = Less Than Significant; LTS/M = Less Than Significant with Mitigation; SU = Significant and Unavoi dable 2-12 APRIL 2024
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Standard of Significance Question or Impact Statement General Plan 2040 Policies and Strategies and Required Mitigation Measures
Proposed Modified Project Policies and Strategies and
Required Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
the CMC is required to mitigate impacts.

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (BIO)
BIO-1: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not have a substantial adverse effect,
either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or specialstatus species in local or regional plan, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish
and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Policies ES-5.2, ES-5.3, ES-5.6, ES-7.1, and ES-7.8
Strategy ES-5.3.1
Policies LU-3.5, ES-5.2, ES-5.3, ES-5.6, ES-7.1, and ES7.8 Strategies LU-3.6.2, LU-12.4.2, and ES-5.3.1
LTS
General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures BIO-1: Nests of
raptors and other birds shall be protected when in
active use, as required by the federal Migratory Bird
Treaty Act and the California Department of Fish and
Game Code. If construction activities and any required
tree removal occur during the breeding season
(February 1 and August 31), a qualified biologist shall be required to conduct surveys prior to tree removal
or construction activities. Preconstruction surveys are not required for tree removal or construction
activities outside the nesting period. If construction
would occur during the nesting season (February 1 to
August 31), preconstruction surveys shall be
conducted no more than 14 days prior to the start of
tree removal or construction. Preconstruction surveys
shall be repeated at 14-day intervals until
construction has been initiated in the area after which surveys can be stopped. Locations of active nests
containing viable eggs or young birds shall be
documented and protective measures implemented
under the direction of the qualified biologist until the nests no longer contain eggs or young birds.

Protective measures shall include establishment of
clearly delineated exclusion zones (i.e. demarcated by
identifiable fencing, such as orange construction
fencing or equivalent) around each nest location as
determined by a qualified biologist, taking into
account the species of birds nesting, their tolerance
for disturbance and proximity to existing
development. In general, exclusion zones shall be a
minimum of 300 feet for raptors and 75 feet for
General Plan EIR Mitigation Measure BIO-1 has been
incorporated into CMC Section 17.04050(D), Standard
Environmental Protection Requirements, Biological
Resources Permit Requirements, therefore, compliance
with the CMC is required to mitigate impacts.
481
CC 05-14-2024
481 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
N/A = Not Applicable; LTS = Less Than Significant; LTS/M = Less Than Significant with Mitigation; SU = Significant and Unavoi dable PLACEWORKS 2-13
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Standard of Significance Question or Impact Statement General Plan 2040 Policies and Strategies and Required Mitigation Measures
Proposed Modified Project Policies and Strategies and
Required Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
passerines and other birds. The active nest within an
exclusion zone shall be monitored on a weekly basis
throughout the nesting season to identify signs of
disturbance and confirm nesting status. The radius of
an exclusion zone may be increased by the qualified
biologist if project activities are determined to be
adversely affecting the nesting birds. Exclusion zones
may be reduced by the qualified biologist only in
consultation with California Department of Fish and
Wildlife. The protection measures shall remain in
effect until the young have left the nest and are
foraging independently or the nest is no longer active.

BIO-2: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on
any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

N/A N/A NI

N/A N/A
BIO-3: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on
state or federally protected wetlands (including, but
not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means.

N/A N/A LTS

N/A N/A
BIO-4: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not interfere substantially with the
movement of any native resident or migratory fish or
wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites.

Strategy ES-5.3.1 Strategy ES-5.3.1 LTS

N/A N/A
BIO-5: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a
tree preservation policy or ordinance.

Policies ES-5.2, ES-5.3, ES-5.6, ES-7.1, and ES-7.8
Strategy ES-5.3.1
Policies LU-3.5, ES-5.2, ES-5.3, ES-5.6, ES-7.1, and ES7.8 Strategies LU-3.6.2, LU-12.4.2, and ES-5.3.1
LTS

N/A N/A
482
CC 05-14-2024
482 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
N/A = Not Applicable; LTS = Less Than Significant; LTS/M = Less Than Significant with Mitigation; SU = Significant and Unavoi dable 2-14 APRIL 2024
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Standard of Significance Question or Impact Statement General Plan 2040 Policies and Strategies and Required Mitigation Measures
Proposed Modified Project Policies and Strategies and
Required Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
BIO-6: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not conflict with the provisions of an
adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or State habitat conservation plan

N/A N/A NI

N/A N/A
BIO-7: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact with respect to biological resources.

Policies ES-5.2, ES-5.3, ES-5.6, ES-7.1, and ES-7.8
Strategy ES-5.3.1
Policies LU-3.5, ES-5.2, ES-5.3, ES-5.6, ES-7.1, and ES7.8 Strategies LU-3.6.2, LU-12.4.2, and ES-5.3.1
LTS
Implement General Plan EIR Mitigation Measure BIO-1 General Plan EIR Mitigation Measure BIO-1 has been incorporated into CMC Section 17.04050(D), Standard
Environmental Protection Requirements, Biological
Resources Permit Requirements, therefore, compliance
with the CMC is required to mitigate impacts.

CULTURAL AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES (CUL)
CUL-1: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not cause a substantial adverse change
in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5.

Policies LU-6.1, LU-6.2, LU-6.3, LU-6.4, LU-6.5, and LU6.6Policies LU-6.1, LU-6.2, LU-6.3, LU-6.4, LU-6.5, and LU6.6LTS

N/A N/A
CUL-2: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not cause a substantial adverse change
in the significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5.

N/A N/A LTS

N/A N/A
CUL-3: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not disturb any human remains,
including those interred outside of dedicated
cemeteries?.

N/A N/A LTS

N/A N/A
CUL-4: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not 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: (i) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of
Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical

N/A N/A LTS

N/A N/A
483
CC 05-14-2024
483 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
N/A = Not Applicable; LTS = Less Than Significant; LTS/M = Less Than Significant with Mitigation; SU = Significant and Unavoi dable PLACEWORKS 2-15
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Standard of Significance Question or Impact Statement General Plan 2040 Policies and Strategies and Required Mitigation Measures
Proposed Modified Project Policies and Strategies and
Required Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section
5020.1(k), or (ii) A resource determined by the lead
agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial
evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in Public Resources Code Section 5024.1(c). In applying the criteria set forth in Public Resources Code Section 5024.1(c) for the purposes of this paragraph, the lead
agency shall consider the significance to a California
Native American tribe.

CUL-5: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact with respect to cultural and tribal cultural
resources.

Policies LU-6.1, LU-6.2, LU-6.3, LU-6.4, LU-6.5, and LU6.6Policies LU-6.1, LU-6.2, LU-6.3, LU-6.4, LU-6.5, and LU6.6LTS

N/A N/A

ENERGY (ENE)
ENE-1: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not result in potentially significant
environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or
unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during
project construction or operation.

N/A Policies HE-4.1, LU-1.1, LU-3.1, M-1.1, M-3.1, M-4.8, M8.1, M-8.3, M-9.2, ES-1.1, ES-1.2, ES-3.1, INF-6.1, INF6.2, and INF-6.3 Strategies HE- 1.3.5, HE- 2.3.12, HE-4.1.1, HE-4.1.2, HE4.1.3, M-8.1.3 ES- 1.1.1, ES-2.1.1, ES-2.12, ES-2.1.3, ES2.1.4, ES- 2.1.6, ES-2.1.7, ES-2.1.8, ES-2.1.9, ES-2.1.10, ES-3.1.1, ES-3.1.2, ES-3.1.3, ES-3.1.4, ES-4.2.2, INF6.2.1, INF-6.2.2., INF-6.2.4, INF-6.2.5, and INF-6.3.1 LTS

N/A N/A
ENE-2: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not conflict with or obstruct a State or
local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?.

N/A N/A LTS

N/A N/A
ENE-3: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not result in a substantial increase in
natural gas and electrical service demands, and would
not require new energy supply facilities and
distribution infrastructure or capacity enhancing
alterations to existing facilities.

N/A N/A LTS

N/A N/A
484
CC 05-14-2024
484 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
N/A = Not Applicable; LTS = Less Than Significant; LTS/M = Less Than Significant with Mitigation; SU = Significant and Unavoi dable 2-16 APRIL 2024
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Standard of Significance Question or Impact Statement General Plan 2040 Policies and Strategies and Required Mitigation Measures
Proposed Modified Project Policies and Strategies and
Required Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
ENE-4: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact with respect to energy resources.

N/A Policies HE-4.1, LU-1.1, LU-3.1, M-1.1, M-3.1, M-4.8, M8.1, M-8.3, M-9.2, ES-1.1, ES-1.2, ES-3.1, INF-6.1, INF6.2, and INF-6.3 Strategies HE- 1.3.5, HE- 2.3.12, HE-4.1.1, HE-4.1.2, HE4.1.3, M-8.1.3 ES- 1.1.1, ES-2.1.1, ES-2.12, ES-2.1.3, ES2.1.4, ES- 2.1.6, ES-2.1.7, ES-2.1.8, ES-2.1.9, ES-2.1.10, ES-3.1.1, ES-3.1.2, ES-3.1.3, ES-3.1.4, ES-4.2.2, INF6.2.1, INF-6.2.2., INF-6.2.4, INF-6.2.5, and INF-6.3.1 LTS

N/A N/A

GEOLOGY AND SOILS (GEO)
GEO-1: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving:
i) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a state scenic highway.
ii) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a state scenic highway.
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction.
iv) Landslides, mudslides, or other similar hazards.

Policies HS-5.1 and HS-5.2
Strategies HS-1.1.1, HS-1.1.2, HS-5.1.1, HS-5.1.2, HS5.1.3, HS-5.2.1, HS-5.2.2, HS-5.2.3, HS-5.2.4, and HS5.2.5 Policies HS-5.1 and HS-5.2
Strategies HS-1.1.1, HS-1.1.2, HS-5.1.1, HS-5.1.2, HS5.1.3, HS-5.2.1, HS-5.2.2, HS-5.2.3, HS-5.2.4, and HS5.2.5 LTS

N/A N/A
GEO-2: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil.

Policies ES-5.3, ES-7.2, and ES-7.5
Strategy ES-7.2.3,
Policies ES-5.3, ES-7.2, and ES-7.5
Strategies LU-12.3.1 and ES-7.2.3
LTS
N/A
GEO-3: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a
result of the project, and potentially result in on- or offsite landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse.

N/A N/A LTS

N/A N/A
485
CC 05-14-2024
485 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
N/A = Not Applicable; LTS = Less Than Significant; LTS/M = Less Than Significant with Mitigation; SU = Significant and Unavoi dable PLACEWORKS 2-17
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Standard of Significance Question or Impact Statement General Plan 2040 Policies and Strategies and Required Mitigation Measures
Proposed Modified Project Policies and Strategies and
Required Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
GEO-4: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not be located on expansive soil, as
defined by Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code
(1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property.

Policies HS-1.1, HS-5.1, and HS-5.2 Policies HS-1.1, HS-5.1, and HS-5.2 LTS

N/A N/A
GEO-5: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative
wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not
available for the disposal of wastewater.

N/A N/A NI

N/A N/A
GEO-6: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not directly or indirectly destroy a
unique paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature.

N/A N/A LTS

N/A N/A
GEO-7: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact to geology and soils.

Policies ES-5.3, ES-7.2, ES-7.5, HS-1.1, HS-5.1 and HS5.2 Strategies LU-12.3.1, ES-7.2.3, HS-1.1.1, HS-1.1.2, HS5.1.1, HS-5.1.2, HS-5.1.3, HS-5.2.1, HS-5.2.2, HS-5.2.3, HS-5.2.4, and HS-5.2.5
Policies ES-5.3, ES-7.2, ES-7.5, HS-1.1, HS-5.1 and HS5.2 Strategies LU-12.3.1, ES-7.2.3, HS-1.1.1, HS-1.1.2, HS5.1.1, HS-5.1.2, HS-5.1.3, HS-5.2.1, HS-5.2.2, HS-5.2.3, HS-5.2.4, and HS-5.2.5
LTS

N/A N/A

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS (GHG)
GHG-1: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would exceed the net zero greenhouse gas
emission threshold under Executive Order B-55-18.

Policies LU-1.1, LU-3.1, LU-13.5, LU-13.6, HE-1.3, M1.1, M-3.1, M-3.8, M-8.3, M-8.6, M-9.2, ES-1.1, ES-1.2, ES-2.1, ES-3.1, and INF-2.5
Strategies HE-4.1.1, HE-4.1.2, ES-1.1.1, ES-1.1.2, ES1.1.3, ES-1.2.1, ES-2.1.1, ES-2.1.1, ES-2.1.3, ES-2.1.4, ES-2.1.6, ES-2.1.8, ES-2.1.9, ES-2.1.10, ES-3.1.1, ES3.1.2, ES-3.1.3, ES-3.1.4, ES-4.2.4, and INF-2.5.1 Policies LU-1.1, LU-3.1, LU-13.5, LU-13.6, HE-1.3, M1.1, M-3.1, M-3.8, M-4.8, M-8.1, M-8.3, M-9.2, ES-1.1, ES-1.2, ES-2.1, ES-3.1, and INF-2.5
Strategies HE-4.1.1, HE-4.1.2, M-8.1.1, M-8.1.2, M8.1.3, ES-1.1.1, ES-1.1.2, ES-1.1.3, ES-1.2.1, ES-2.1.1, ES-2.1.1, ES-2.1.2, ES-2.1.3, ES-2.1.4, ES-2.1.5, ES-2.1.6, ES-2.1.7, ES-2.1.8, ES-2.1.9, ES-2.1.10, ES-3.1.1, ES3.1.2, ES-3.1.3, ES-3.1.4, ES-4.2.4, and INF-2.5.1 SU

N/A N/A
486
CC 05-14-2024
486 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
N/A = Not Applicable; LTS = Less Than Significant; LTS/M = Less Than Significant with Mitigation; SU = Significant and Unavoi dable 2-18 APRIL 2024
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Standard of Significance Question or Impact Statement General Plan 2040 Policies and Strategies and Required Mitigation Measures
Proposed Modified Project Policies and Strategies and
Required Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
GHG-2: The proposed Modified Project would not meet
California Green Building Standards Code
nonresidential voluntary Tier 2 electric vehicle parking standards and would exceed the City of Cupertino’s
vehicle miles traveled reduction threshold, and
therefore be inconsistent with the California Air
Resources Board Scoping Plan.

Policies LU-1.1, LU-3.1, LU-13.5, LU-13.6, HE-1.3, HE4.1, M-1.1, M-3.1, M-3.8, M-8.3, M-8.6, ES-1.1, ES-1.2, ES-2.1, ES-3.1, and INF-2.5
Strategies HE-4.1.1, HE-4.1.2, ES-1.1.1, ES-1.1.2, ES1.1.3, ES-1.2.1, ES-2.1.2, ES-2.1.3, ES-2.1.4, ES-2.1.6, ES-2.1.7, ES-2.1.8, ES-2.1.9, ES-2.1.10, ES-3.1.1, ES3.1.2, ES-3.1.3, ES-3.1.4, ES-4.2.4, and INF-2.5.1 Policies LU-1.1, LU-3.1, LU-13.5, LU-13.6, HE-1.3, HE4.1, M-1.1, M-3.1, M-3.8, M-8.1, M-8.3, ES-1.1, ES-1.2, ES-2.1, ES-3.1, and INF-2.5
Strategies HE-4.1.1, HE-4.1.2, M-8.1.1, M-8.1.2, M8.1.3, ES-1.1.1, ES-1.1.2, ES-1.1.3, ES-1.2.1, ES-2.1.1, ES-2.1.1, ES-2.1.2, ES-2.1.3, ES-2.1.4, ES-2.1.5, ES-2.1.6, ES-2.1.7, ES-2.1.8, ES-2.1.9, ES-2.1.10, ES-3.1.1, ES3.1.2, ES-3.1.3, ES-3.1.4, ES-4.2.4, and INF-2.5.1 SU
N/A EA Mitigation Measure GHG-2: Future development
projects in the City of Cupertino shall comply with the voluntary Tier 2 electric vehicle charging standards
under the California Green Building Standards Code
(CALGreen) version that is applicable at the time of
permit applications and shall illustrate compliance with Tier 2 CALGreen electric vehicle charging standards on
the site plans submitted to the City of Cupertino
Planning Department. Additionally, the City of
Cupertino shall amend the Chapter 17.04, Standard
Environmental Protection Requirements, of the
Cupertino Municipal Code (CMC) to require that new
parking amenities included in individual development
projects install electric vehicle spaces in compliance
with the voluntary Tier 2 standards under the
CALGreen version that is applicable at the time of
permit applications. The amended CMC shall require
that all site plans submitted to the City of Cupertino
Planning Department shall illustrate compliance with
Tier 2 CALGreen electric vehicle charging standards.

GHG-3: The proposed Modified Project would result in
vehicle miles traveled that would exceed the City of
Cupertino’s reduction target, and therefore conflict
with the California Air Resources Board Scoping Plan
and Executive Order B-55-18.

N/A N/A SU
N/A Implement EA Mitigation Measure GHG-2.
487
CC 05-14-2024
487 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
N/A = Not Applicable; LTS = Less Than Significant; LTS/M = Less Than Significant with Mitigation; SU = Significant and Unavoi dable PLACEWORKS 2-19
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Standard of Significance Question or Impact Statement General Plan 2040 Policies and Strategies and Required Mitigation Measures
Proposed Modified Project Policies and Strategies and
Required Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS (HAZ)
HAZ-1: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials.

Policies HS-6.1, HS-6.2, HS-6.4, and HS-6.5 Policies HS-6.1, HS-6.2, HS-6.4, and HS-6.5 LTS

N/A N/A
HAZ-2: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving
the release of hazardous materials into the
environment.

N/A N/A LTS

N/A N/A
HAZ-3: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25
miles of an existing or proposed school.

N/A N/A LTS
Implement General Plan EIR Mitigation Measure HAZ4a and HAZ-4b.

General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures HAZ-4a and Haz4b have been incorporated into CMC Section

17.04.040(B), Standard Environmental Protection
Requirements, Hazardous Materials and in CMC Section

17.04.050(B), Standard Environmental Protection
Requirements, Hazardous Materials Permit
Requirements, therefore, compliance with the CMC is
required to mitigate impacts.

HAZ-4: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not be located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous material sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment.

Policies HS-6.1, HS-6.2, HS-6.4, and HS-6.5 Policies HS-6.1, HS-6.2, HS-6.4, and HS-6.5 LTS General Plan EIR Mitigation Measure HAZ-4a:

Construction at the sites with known contamination
shall be conducted under a project-specific
Environmental Site Management Plan (ESMP) that is
prepared in consultation with the Regional Water
Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The purpose of the
ESMP is to protect construction workers, the general
public, the environment, and future site occupants
from subsurface hazardous materials previously
identified at the site and to address the possibility of encountering unknown contamination or hazards in
the subsurface. The ESMP shall summarize soil and
groundwater analytical data collected on the project
site during past investigations; identify management
options for excavated soil and groundwater, if
General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures HAZ-4a and Haz4b have been incorporated into CMC Section

17.04.040(B), Standard Environmental Protection
Requirements, Hazardous Materials and in CMC Section

17.04.050(B), Standard Environmental Protection
Requirements, Hazardous Materials Permit
Requirements, therefore, compliance with the CMC is
required to mitigate impacts.
488
CC 05-14-2024
488 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
N/A = Not Applicable; LTS = Less Than Significant; LTS/M = Less Than Significant with Mitigation; SU = Significant and Unavoi dable 2-20 APRIL 2024
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Standard of Significance Question or Impact Statement General Plan 2040 Policies and Strategies and Required Mitigation Measures
Proposed Modified Project Policies and Strategies and
Required Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
contaminated media are encountered during deep
excavations; and identify monitoring, irrigation, or
other wells requiring proper abandonment in
compliance with local, State, and federal laws,
policies, and regulations.

The ESMP shall include measures for identifying,
testing, and managing soil and groundwater
suspected of or known to contain hazardous
materials. The ESMP shall: 1) provide procedures for
evaluating, handling, storing, testing, and disposing of soil and groundwater during project excavation and
dewatering activities, respectively; 2) describe
required worker health and safety provisions for all
workers potentially exposed to hazardous materials in
accordance with State and federal worker safety
regulations; and 3) designate personnel responsible
for implementation of the ESMP.

General Plan EIR Mitigation Measure HAZ-4b: For
those sites with potential residual contamination in
soil, gas, or groundwater that are planned for
redevelopment with an overlying occupied building, a
vapor intrusion assessment shall be performed by a
licensed environmental professional. If the results of
the vapor intrusion assessment indicate the potential
for significant vapor intrusion into an occupied
building, project design shall include vapor controls or source removal, as appropriate, in accordance with
regulatory agency requirements. Soil vapor
mitigations or controls could include passive venting,
and/or active venting. The vapor intrusion assessment
and associated vapor controls or source removal can
be incorporated into the ESMP (Mitigation Measure
HAZ-4a).
489
CC 05-14-2024
489 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
N/A = Not Applicable; LTS = Less Than Significant; LTS/M = Less Than Significant with Mitigation; SU = Significant and Unavoi dable PLACEWORKS 2-21
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Standard of Significance Question or Impact Statement General Plan 2040 Policies and Strategies and Required Mitigation Measures
Proposed Modified Project Policies and Strategies and
Required Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
HAZ-5: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not, for a project within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public airport or public use
airport, result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area.

N/A N/A NI

N/A N/A
HAZ-6: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not impair implementation of or
physically interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan.

Policies HS-2.1, HS-2.4, HS-3.3, HS-3.4, HS-7.1, and
HS-7.2
Strategies HS-1.1.1, HS-2.2.1, HS-3.3.1, HS-3.3.3, and
HS-3.3.4
Policies HS-2.1, HS-2.4, HS-3.3, HS-3.4, HS-7.1, and HS7.2 Strategies HS-1.1.1, HS-2.2.1, HS-3.3.1, HS-3.3.3, and
HS-3.3.4
LTS

N/A N/A
HAZ-7: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not expose people or structures, either
directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires.

Policies HS-3.1, HS-3.2, and HS-3.5 Policies HS-3.1, HS-3.2, and HS-3.5 LTS

N/A N/A
HAZ-8: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact with respect to hazards and hazardous
materials.

Policies HS-2.1, HS-2.4, HS-3.1, HS-3.2,HS-3.3, HS-3.4, HS-3.5, HS-6.1, HS-6.2, HS-6.4, HS-6.5, HS-7.1, and HS7.2 Strategies HS-1.1.1, HS-2.2.1, HS-3.3.1, HS-3.3.3, and
HS-3.3.4
Policies HS-2.1, HS-2.4, HS-3.1, HS-3.2,HS-3.3, HS-3.4, HS-3.5, HS-6.1, HS-6.2, HS-6.4, HS-6.5, HS-7.1, and HS7.2 Strategies HS-1.1.1, HS-2.2.1, HS-3.3.1, HS-3.3.3, and
HS-3.3.4
LTS
Implement General Plan Mitigation Measures HAZ-4a:
and HAZ-4b.

General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures HAZ-4a and Haz4b have been incorporated into CMC Section

17.04.040(B), Standard Environmental Protection
Requirements, Hazardous Materials and in CMC Section

17.04.050(B), Standard Environmental Protection
Requirements, Hazardous Materials Permit
Requirements, therefore, compliance with the CMC is
required to mitigate impacts.

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY (HYD)
HYD-1: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not violate any water quality standards
or waste discharge requirements or otherwise
substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality.

Policies ES-7.1, ES-7.2, ES-7.3, and ES-7.5
Strategies ES-5.3.1, ES-7.2.2, ES-7.3.2, and ES-7.4.1
Policies ES-5.1, ES-5.2, ES-5.3, ES-7.1, ES-7.2, ES-7.3, ES7.4, ES-7.5, ES-7.6, and ES-7.8 Strategies ES-5.1.1, ES-5.1.2, ES-5.2.1, ES-5.3.2, ES5.6.1, ES-7.1.1, ES-7.2.1, ES-7.2.2, ES-7.2.3, ES-7.3.1, ES-7.3.2, ES-7.4.1, ES-7.4.2, ES-7.4.3, and ES-7.8.1
LTS

N/A N/A
490
CC 05-14-2024
490 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
N/A = Not Applicable; LTS = Less Than Significant; LTS/M = Less Than Significant with Mitigation; SU = Significant and Unavoi dable 2-22 APRIL 2024
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Standard of Significance Question or Impact Statement General Plan 2040 Policies and Strategies and Required Mitigation Measures
Proposed Modified Project Policies and Strategies and
Required Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
HYD-2: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not substantially decrease groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge such that the project may impede sustainable
groundwater management of the basin.

N/A Policies ES-7.5 and ES-7.8
Strategy ES-7.2.3
LTS

N/A N/A
HYD-3: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not substantially alter the existing
drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or
through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a
manner which would:
i) Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or offsite; ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result in
flooding on- or off-site;
iii) Create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or
iv) Impede or redirect flood flows
Policies INF-1.2 and INF-4.1
Strategy INF-1.1.3
Policies INF-1.1, INF-1.2, INF-1.3, INF-1.4, INF-4.1, and INF-4.2
Strategies INF-1.1.1, INF-1.1.2, INF-1.1.3, INF-1.4.1,
INF-1.4.2, INF-1.4.3, INF-4.1.1, INF-4.1.2, INF-4.1.3, and INF-4.2.1
LTS

N/A N/A
HYD-4: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not, in a flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project
inundation.

Policies HS-1.1, HS-1.2, and HS-7.2
Strategies HS-1.1.3, HS-1.2.1, HS-1.2.2, and HS-7.2.2
Policies HS-1.1, HS-1.2, HS-7.1, HS-7.2, HS-7.3, and HS7.4 Strategies HS-1.1.1, HS-1.1.2, HS-1.1.3, HS-1.2.1, HS1.2.2, HS-7.2.1, HS-7.2.2, HS-7.4.1, HS-7.4.2, HS-7.4.3 LTS

N/A N/A
HYD-5: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not conflict with or obstruct
implementation of a water quality control plan or
sustainable groundwater management plan.

N/A N/A LTS

N/A N/A
HYD-6: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact with respect to hydrology and water quality.

N/A N/A LTS

N/A N/A
491
CC 05-14-2024
491 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
N/A = Not Applicable; LTS = Less Than Significant; LTS/M = Less Than Significant with Mitigation; SU = Significant and Unavoi dable PLACEWORKS 2-23
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Standard of Significance Question or Impact Statement General Plan 2040 Policies and Strategies and Required Mitigation Measures
Proposed Modified Project Policies and Strategies and
Required Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance

LAND USE AND PLANNING (LU)
LU-1: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not physically divide an established
community.

Policies LU-23.1, LU-25.1, LU-25.2, LU-27.1, LU-27.7,
M-2.2, M-3.2, HS-8.5, and RPC-2.4
Strategies LU-1.3.2, LU-3.3.8, LU-8.3.3, LU-27.1.1, LU27.1.3, M-3.5.1, and M-3.5.2 Policies LU-4.1, LU-13.1, LU-23.1, LU-25.1, LU-25.2, LU27.1, LU-27.7, M-2.2, M-3.2, HS-8.5, and RPC-2.4 Strategies LU-1.3.2, LU-3.3.8, LU-8.3.3, LU-27.1.1, LU27.1.3, M-3.5.1, and M-3.5.2 LTS

N/A N/A
LU-2: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not cause a significant environmental
impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect.

Policies LU-1.6 and ES-1.2 Policies LU-1.6 and ES-1.2 LTS

N/A N/A
LU-3: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact with respect to land use and planning.

N/A N/A LTS

N/A N/A

NOISE (NOI)
NOI-1: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not generate a substantial temporary or
permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the
vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or in other applicable local, state, or federal standard.

Policies LU-27.8, HS-8.1, HS-8.3, HS-8.4, HS-8.5, HS8.6, and HS-8.7 Strategies HS-8.2.2, HS-8.2.3, and HS-8.6.1
Policies LU-27.8, HS-8.1, HS-8.3, HS-8.4, HS-8.5, HS-8.6, and HS-8.7
Strategies HS-8.2.2, HS-8.2.3, and HS-8.6.1
LTS

N/A N/A
NOI-2: Generate excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
N/A Policies LU-27.8 and HS-8.1 LTS

N/A N/A
NOI-3: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not for a project located within the
vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan, or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two
miles of a public airport or public use airport, expose people residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels.

N/A N/A NI

N/A N/A
NOI-4: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact with respect to noise.

N/A N/A LTS

N/A N/A
492
CC 05-14-2024
492 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
N/A = Not Applicable; LTS = Less Than Significant; LTS/M = Less Than Significant with Mitigation; SU = Significant and Unavoi dable 2-24 APRIL 2024
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Standard of Significance Question or Impact Statement General Plan 2040 Policies and Strategies and Required Mitigation Measures
Proposed Modified Project Policies and Strategies and
Required Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance

POPULATION AND HOUSING (POP)
POP-1: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not induce substantial unplanned
population growth or growth for which inadequate
planning has occurred, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for
example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure.

Policies LU-1.6, LU-5.3, LU-18.2, LU-23.1, LU-25.1, LU27.1, LU-27.2, LU-27.6, HE-1.1, HE-1.2, HE-1.3, HE-2.1, HE-2.2, HE-2.3, HE-3.1, HE-3.2, HE-3.3, HE-4.1, HE-6.1, M-2.2, M-2.4, M-9.1, M-9.3, ES-1.2, INF-2.4,and RPC2.4 Strategies LU-1.4.2, LU-3.3.8, LU-9.1.3, LU-13.7.3, LU27.1.1, LU-27.1.4, LU-27.6.1, HE-1.3.2, ES-1.2.1, INF1.1.2, and INF-1.4.2 Policies LU-1.6, LU-5.3, LU-18.2, LU-23.1, LU-25.1, LU27.1, LU-27.2, LU-27.6, HE-1.1, HE-1.2, HE-1.3, HE-2.1, HE-2.2, HE-2.3, HE-3.1, HE-3.2, HE-3.3, HE-4.1, HE-6.1, M-2.2, M-2.4, M-9.1, M-9.3, ES-1.2, INF-2.4,and RPC2.4 Strategies LU-1.3.2, LU-3.3.8, LU-9.1.3, LU-13.7.3, LU27.1.1, LU-27.1.4, LU-27.6.1, HE-1.3.2, ES-1.2.1, INF1.1.2, and INF-1.4.2 LTS

N/A N/A
POP-2: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not displace substantial numbers of
existing people or housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere.

N/A N/A LTS

N/A N/A
POP-3: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact with respect to population and housing.

N/A N/A LTS

N/A N/A

PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION (PS)
PS-1: Implementation of the proposed Modified Project
would not result in the need for new or physically
altered fire protection and emergency medical
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts to maintain
acceptable service ratios, response times, or other
performance objectives.

Policies HS-3.1, HS-3.2, HS-3.3, HS-3.5, HS-3.6, HS-3.7, and HS-38
Strategies HS-3.3.3 and HS-3.3.4
Policies HS-3.1, HS-3.2, HS-3.3, HS-3.5, HS-3.6, HS-3.7, and HS-38
Strategies HS-3.3.3 and HS-3.3.4
LTS

N/A N/A
PS-2: Implementation of the proposed Modified Project
would not result in significant cumulative impacts with respect to fire protection services.?
Policies HS-3.1, HS-3.2, HS-3.3, HS-3.5, HS-3.6, HS-3.7, and HS-38
Strategies HS-3.3.3 and HS-3.3.4
Policies HS-3.1, HS-3.2, HS-3.3, HS-3.5, HS-3.6, HS-3.7, and HS-38
Strategies HS-3.3.3 and HS-3.3.4
LTS

N/A N/A
PS-3: Implementation of the proposed Modified Project
would not result in the need for new or physically
altered police protection facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or
other performance objectives.

Policies HS-4.1, HS-4.2, and HS-4.2
Strategy 4.2.2
Policies HS-4.1, HS-4.2, and HS-4.2
Strategy 4.2.2
LTS

N/A N/A
493
CC 05-14-2024
493 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
N/A = Not Applicable; LTS = Less Than Significant; LTS/M = Less Than Significant with Mitigation; SU = Significant and Unavoi dable PLACEWORKS 2-25
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Standard of Significance Question or Impact Statement General Plan 2040 Policies and Strategies and Required Mitigation Measures
Proposed Modified Project Policies and Strategies and
Required Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
PS-4: Implementation of the proposed Modified Project
would not result in significant cumulative impacts with respect to police protection services.

Policies HS-4.1, HS-4.2, and HS-4.2
Strategy 4.2.2
Policies HS-4.1, HS-4.2, and HS-4.2
Strategy 4.2.2
LTS

N/A N/A
PS-5: Implementation of the proposed Modified Project
would not result in the need for new or physically
altered public school facilities, the construction of
which could cause significant environmental impacts to
maintain acceptable service ratios or other
performance objectives.

Policies HE-7.1, LU-1.6, LU-11.1, and RPC-8.1
Strategies HE-7.3.2, RPC-8.1.1, and RPC-8.1.2
Policies HE-7.1, LU-1.6, LU-11.1, and RPC-8.1
Strategies HE-7.3.2, RPC-8.1.1, and RPC-8.1.2
LTS

N/A N/A
PS-6: Implementation of the proposed Modified Project
would not result in significant cumulatively
considerable impact with respect to public school
services.

Policies HE-7.1, LU-1.6, LU-11.1, and RPC-8.1
Strategies HE-7.3.2, RPC-8.1.1, and RPC-8.1.2
Policies HE-7.1, LU-1.6, LU-11.1, and RPC-8.1
Strategies HE-7.3.2, RPC-8.1.1, and RPC-8.1.2
LTS

N/A N/A
PS-7: Implementation of the proposed Modified Project
would not result in the need for new or physically
altered public libraries, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios or other
performance objectives.

Policies RPC-6.1 and RPC-6.4
Strategy RPC-1.1.2
Policies RPC-6.1 and RPC-6.4
Strategy RPC-1.1.2
LTS

N/A N/A
PS-8: Implementation of the proposed Modified Project
would not result in significant cumulative impacts with respect to the construction of other public libraries.

Policies RPC-6.1 and RPC-6.4
Strategy RPC-1.1.2
Policies RPC-6.1 and RPC-6.4
Strategy RPC-1.1.2
LTS

N/A N/A
PS-9: Implementation of the proposed Modified Project
would not result in the need for new or physically
altered park facilities or other recreational facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain
acceptable service ratios, or other performance
objectives.

Policies RPC-1.2 and RPC-2.4
Strategy HE-3.3.5
Policies RPC-1.2 and RPC-2.4
Strategy HE-2.3.9 and HE-3.3.5
LTS

N/A N/A
PS-10: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational
facilities, such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur, or be accelerated.

Policies LU-7.1, RPC-1.1, and RPC-5.1
Strategies RPC-1.1.1, and RPC-2.5.1
Policies LU-7.1, RPC-1.1, and RPC-5.1
Strategies RPC-1.1.1 and RPC-2.5.1
LTS

N/A N/A
494
CC 05-14-2024
494 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
N/A = Not Applicable; LTS = Less Than Significant; LTS/M = Less Than Significant with Mitigation; SU = Significant and Unavoi dable 2-26 APRIL 2024
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Standard of Significance Question or Impact Statement General Plan 2040 Policies and Strategies and Required Mitigation Measures
Proposed Modified Project Policies and Strategies and
Required Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
PS-11: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not result in significant cumulative
impacts with respect to parks.

Policies LU-7.1, RPC-1.1, RPC-1.2, RPC-2.4, and RPC5.1 Strategies HE-3.3.5, RPC-1.1.1, and RPC-2.5.1
Policies LU-7.1, RPC-1.1, RPC-1.2, RPC-2.4, and RPC-5.1 Strategies HE-3.3.5, RPC-1.1.1, and RPC-2.5.1
LTS

N/A N/A

TRANSPORTATION (TRANS)
TRANS-1: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not conflict with a program, plan,
ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian
facilities.

Policies LU-1.1, LU-3.1, LU-13.1, LU-20.2, LU-21.3, LU21.4, LU-24.2, M-1.1, M-1.2, M-1.3, M-1.4, M-3.1, M3.6, M-4.4, M-7.1, M-8.1, and M-9.2 Strategies LU-8.3.3, LU-12.5.1, LU-13.7.4, LU-19.2.2,
LU-25.4.2, M-5.1.1, M-9.3.2, and ES-2.1.9
Policies LU-1.1, LU-3.1, LU-13.1, LU-20.2, LU-21.3, LU21.4, LU-24.2, M-1.1, M-1.3, M-3.1, M-3.2, M-3.3, M3- 4, M-3.5, M-3.6, M3.7, M-3.8, M-4.1, M-4.2, M-4.3, M4.4, M-4.5, M-4.6, M-4.7, M-4.8, M-5.1, M-7.1, M-8.1, M-8.2, M-9.2, M-10.1, M-10.3, and ES-1.2.

Strategies LU-8.3.3, LU-12.5.1, LU-13.7.4, LU-19.2.2,
LU-25.4.2, M-5.1.1, M-8.1.1, M-8.1.2, M-8.1.3, M-8.2.1, M-8.2.2, M-8.2.3, M-8.2.4, M-9.3.2, ES-1.2.1, and ES2.1.9 LTS
General Plan EIR Mitigation Measure TRAF-1 was
required for impacts related to level of service (LOS), which is no longer a threshold under CEQA.

N/A
TRANS-2: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would exceed the adopted Cupertino vehicle
miles traveled (VMT) threshold per service population
of 31.30 VMT by 3.5 VMT per service population, due
to forecasted growth through 2040.

N/A Policies M-8.1, M-8.2, and M-8.3
Strategies M-8.1.1, M-8.1.2, M-8.1.3, M-8.2.1, M-8.2.2, M-8.2.3, and M-8.2.4
SU

N/A N/A
TRANS-3: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g.,
farm equipment).

Policies LU-20.2, LU-21.3, LU-21.4, LU-24.2, M-2.2, M3.5, M-3.6, M-7.2, and HS-3.2 Strategies HS-3.3.3 and HS-8.7.2
Policies LU-20.2, LU-21.3, LU-21.4, LU-24.2, M-2.2, M3.5, M-3.6, M-7.2, and HS-3.2 Strategies HS-3.3.3 and HS-8.7.2
LTS

N/A N/A
TRANS-4: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not result in inadequate emergency
access.

Policies HS-2.2, HS-2.4, HS-3.2, HS-3.3, HS-3.4, HS-3.5, HS-3.6, and HS-7.1
Strategies HS-3.3.2 and HS-3.3.3
Policies HS-2.2, HS-2.4, HS-3.2, HS-3.3, HS-3.4, HS-3.5, HS-3.6, and HS-7.1
Strategies HS-3.3.2 and HS-3.3.3
LTS

N/A N/A
TRANS-5: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would cumulatively contribute to regional
vehicle miles traveled.

Policies LU-1.1, LU-3.1, LU-13.1, LU-20.2, LU-21.3, LU21.4, LU-24.2, M-1.1, M-1.2, M-1.3, M-1.4, M-3.1, M3.6, M-4.4, M-7.1, M-8.1, M-9.2, HS-2.2, HS-2.4, HS3.2, HS-3.3, HS-3.4, HS-3.5, HS-3.6, and HS-7.1Policies LU-1.1, LU-3.1, LU-13.1, LU-20.2, LU-21.3, LU21.4, LU-24.2, M-1.1, M-1.3, M-1.4, M-3.1, M-3.6, M4.4, M-4.8, M-7.1, M-8.1, M-8.2, M-9.2, ES-1.2, HS-2.2, HS-2.4, HS-3.2, HS-3.3, HS-3.4, HS-3.5, HS-3.6, and HSSU 495
CC 05-14-2024
495 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
N/A = Not Applicable; LTS = Less Than Significant; LTS/M = Less Than Significant with Mitigation; SU = Significant and Unavoi dable PLACEWORKS 2-27
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Standard of Significance Question or Impact Statement General Plan 2040 Policies and Strategies and Required Mitigation Measures
Proposed Modified Project Policies and Strategies and
Required Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
Strategies LU-8.3.3, LU-12.5.1, LU-13.7.4, LU-19.2.2,
LU-25.4.2, M-5.1.1, M-9.3.2, HS-3.3.2, HS-3.3.3, HS8.7.2, and ES-2.1.9

7.1 Strategies LU-8.3.3, LU-12.5.1, LU-13.7.4, LU-19.2.2, LU-25.4.2, M-5.1.1, M-8.1.1, M-8.1.2, M-8.1.3, M-8.2.1, M-8.2.2, M-8.2.3, M-8.2.4 M-9.3.2, HS-3.3.2, HS-3.3.3,
HS-8.7.2, ES-1.2.1, and ES-2.1.9
General Plan EIR Mitigation Measure TRAF-1 was
required for impacts related to level of service (LOS), which is no longer a threshold under CEQA.

N/A

UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS (UTIL)
UTIL-1: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would have insufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future
development during normal, dry, and multiple dry
years.

Policies ES-1.1 and ES-7.9
Strategy ES-7.9.1
Policies ES-1.1, ES-3.1, ES-7.6, ES-7.9, ES-7.10, ES-7.11, INF-1.1, INF-1.2, INF-1.3, INF-1.4, INF-2.5, INF-3.1, and INF-3.2
Strategies ES-1.1.1, ES-1.1.3, ES-3.1.1, ES 3.1.2, ES3.1.3, ES-3.1.4, ES-7.8.1, ES-7.9.1, ES-7.10.1, ES-7.10.2, ES-7.11.1, ES-7.11.2, ES-7.11.3, ES-7.11.4, ES-7.11.5,
ES-7.11.6, ES-7.11.7, INF-1.1.1, INF-1.1.2, INF-1.1.3,
INF-1.4.1, INF-1.4.2, INF-1.4.3, INF-2.5.1, INF-2.5.2, INF2.5.3, and INF-3.1.1 LTS

N/A N/A
UTIL-2: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not require or result in the construction of new water facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which would cause significant
environmental effects.

Policies ES-1.1 and ES-7.9
Strategy ES-7.9.1
Policies ES-1.1, ES-3.1, ES-7.6, ES-7.9, ES-7.10, ES-7.11, INF-1.1, INF-1.2, INF-1.3, INF-1.4, INF-2.5, INF-3.1, and INF-3.2
Strategies ES-1.1.1, ES-1.1.3, ES-3.1.1, ES 3.1.2, ES3.1.3, ES-3.1.4, ES-7.8.1, ES-7.9.1, ES-7.10.1, ES-7.10.2, ES-7.11.1, ES-7.11.2, ES-7.11.3, ES-7.11.4, ES-7.11.5,
ES-7.11.6, ES-7.11.7, INF-1.1.1, INF-1.1.2, INF-1.1.3,
INF-1.4.1, INF-1.4.2, INF-1.4.3, INF-2.5.1, INF-2.5.2, INF2.5.3, and INF-3.1.1 LTS

N/A N/A
UTIL-3: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact with respect to water services.

N/A N/A LTS

N/A N/A
UTIL-4: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not require or result in the construction of new wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of which would
Policy ES-7.7
Strategy INF-5.1.2
Policies ES-7.7, INF-1.1, INF-1.2, INF-1.3, INF-1.4, INF5.1, and INF-5.2 Strategies INF-1.1.1, INF-1.1.2, INF-1.1.3, INF-1.4.1,
INF-1.4.2, INF-1.4.3, INF-5.1.1, and INF-5.1.2
LTS
496
CC 05-14-2024
496 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
N/A = Not Applicable; LTS = Less Than Significant; LTS/M = Less Than Significant with Mitigation; SU = Significant and Unavoi dable 2-28 APRIL 2024
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Standard of Significance Question or Impact Statement General Plan 2040 Policies and Strategies and Required Mitigation Measures
Proposed Modified Project Policies and Strategies and
Required Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
cause significant environmental effects. N/A N/A
UTIL-5: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not result in the determination by the
wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may
serve the project that it does not have adequate
capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in
addition to the provider’s existing commitments.

Policy ES-7.7
Strategy INF-5.1.2
Policies ES-7.7, INF-1.1, INF-1.2, INF-1.3, INF-1.4, INF5.1, and INF-5.2 Strategies INF-1.1.1, INF-1.1.2, INF-1.1.3, INF-1.4.1,
INF-1.4.2, INF-1.4.3, INF-5.1.1, and INF-5.1.2
LTS
General Plan EIR Mitigation Measure UTIL-6a: The City
shall work with the Cupertino Sanitary District to
increase the available citywide treatment and
transmission capacity to 8.65 million gallons per
day, or to a lesser threshold if studies justifying
reduced wastewater generation rates are approved
by CSD as described in Mitigation Measure UTIL-6c.

General Plan EIR Mitigation Measure UTIL-6b: The City
shall work to establish a system in which a
development monitoring and tracking system to
tabulate cumulative increases in projected
wastewater generation from approved projects for
comparison to the Cupertino Sanitary District’s
treatment capacity threshold with San Jose/Santa
Clara Water Pollution Control Plant is prepared and
implemented. If it is anticipated that with approval of a development project the actual system discharge
would exceed the contractual treatment threshold, no
building permits for such project shall be issued prior to increasing the available citywide contractual
treatment and transmission capacity as described in
Mitigation Measure UTIL-6a.

General Plan EIR Mitigation Measure UTIL-6c: The City
shall work with the Cupertino Sanitary District to
prepare a study to determine a more current estimate
of the wastewater generation rates that reflect the
actual development to be constructed as part of
Project implementation. The study could include
determining how the green/LEED certified buildings in
the City reduce wastewater demands.

General Plan EIR Mitigation Measure UTIL-6a, UTIL-6b,
and UTIL-6c, have been incorporated into CMC Section

17.04.050(I)(1), Standard Environmental Protection
Requirements, Manage Wastewater Inflow and
Infiltration to Sewer System, therefore, compliance the CMC is required to mitigate impacts.
497
CC 05-14-2024
497 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
N/A = Not Applicable; LTS = Less Than Significant; LTS/M = Less Than Significant with Mitigation; SU = Significant and Unavoi dable PLACEWORKS 2-29
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Standard of Significance Question or Impact Statement General Plan 2040 Policies and Strategies and Required Mitigation Measures
Proposed Modified Project Policies and Strategies and
Required Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
UTIL-6: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact with respect to wastewater services.

N/A N/A LTS
Implement General Plan Mitigation Measure UTIL-6a,
UTIL-6b, and UTIL-6c.

General Plan EIR Mitigation Measure UTIL-6a, UTIL-6b,
and UTIL-6c, have been incorporated into CMC Section

17.04.050(I)(1), Standard Environmental Protection
Requirements, Manage Wastewater Inflow and
Infiltration to Sewer System, therefore, compliance
with this section of the CMC is required to mitigate
impacts.

UTIL-7: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of which would
cause significant environmental effects.

Policies ES-7.2 and ES-7.4
Strategy ES-7.2.3
Policies ES-7.1, ES-7.2, ES-7.3, ES-7.4, and ES-7.5
Strategies ES-7.1.1, ES-7.2.1, ES-7.2.2, ES-7.2.3, ES7.3.1, ES-7.4.1, ES-7.4.2, ES-7.4.3, and ES-7.8.1 LTS

N/A N/A
UTIL-8 : Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not result in significant cumulative
impacts with respect to stormwater.

Policies ES-7.2 and ES-7.4
Strategy ES-7.2.3
Policies ES-7.1, ES-7.2, ES-7.3, ES-7.4, and ES-7.5
Strategies ES-7.1.1, ES-7.2.1, ES-7.2.2, ES-7.2.3, ES7.3.1, ES-7.4.1, ES-7.4.2, ES-7.4.3, and ES-7.8.1 LTS

N/A N/A
UTIL-9: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not 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.

N/A Policies INF-7.1, INF-7.2, INF-7.3, INF-7.4, and INF-8.1 Strategies INF-7.3.1, INF-8.1.1, INF-8.1.2, INF-8.1.3,
INF-8.1.4, INF-8.1.5, INF-8.1.6, and INF-8.1.7
LTS

N/A N/A
UTIL-10: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would comply with federal, State, and local
statutes and regulations related to solid waste.

N/A N/A LTS
General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures UTIL-8: The City
shall continue its current recycling ordinances and
zero-waste policies in an effort to further increase its diversion rate and lower its per capita disposal rate. In addition, the City shall monitor solid waste generation volumes in relation to capacities at receiving landfill sites to ensure that sufficient capacity exists to
accommodate future growth. The City shall seek new
landfill sites to replace the Altamont and Newby
Island landfills, at such time that these landfills are closed.

N/A
498
CC 05-14-2024
498 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
N/A = Not Applicable; LTS = Less Than Significant; LTS/M = Less Than Significant with Mitigation; SU = Significant and Unavoi dable 2-30 APRIL 2024
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Standard of Significance Question or Impact Statement General Plan 2040 Policies and Strategies and Required Mitigation Measures
Proposed Modified Project Policies and Strategies and
Required Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
UTIL-11: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not result in cumulatively considerable
impact with respect to solid waste.

N/A N/A LTS
Implement General Plan EIR Mitigation Measure UTIL8.N/A UTIL-12: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded electric power,
natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the
construction or relocation of which would cause
significant environmental effects.

Policies ES-1.1, ES-2.1, and ES-3.1
Strategies ES-2.1.2, ES-2.1.3, ES-2.1.4, ES-2.1.7, ES2.1.8, and ES-3.1.1 Policies ES-1.1, ES-2.1, ES-3.1, INF-6.1, INF-6.2, and INF6.3 Strategies ES-1.1.1, ES-2.1.1, ES-2.1.2, ES-2.1.3, ES2.1.4, ES-2.1.6, ES-2.1.7, ES-2.1.8, ES-2.1.10, ES-3.1.1, ES-3.1.2, ES-3.1.3, ES-3.1.4, INF-6.2.1, INF-6.2.2, INF6.2.3, INF-6.2.4, INF-6.2.5, and INF-6.3.1 LTS

N/A N/A
UTIL-13: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not, in combination with past, present,
and reasonably foreseeable projects, result in a
cumulatively considerable impact to electric power,
natural gas, or telecommunications facilities.

Policies ES-1.1, ES-2.1, and ES-3.1
Strategies ES-2.1.2, ES-2.1.3, ES-2.1.4, ES-2.1.7, ES2.1.8, and ES-3.1.1 Policies ES-1.1, ES-2.1, ES-3.1, INF-6.1, INF-6.2, and INF6.3 Strategies ES-1.1.1, ES-2.1.1, ES-2.1.2, ES-2.1.3, ES2.1.4, ES-2.1.6, ES-2.1.7, ES-2.1.8, ES-2.1.10, ES-3.1.1, ES-3.1.2, ES-3.1.3, ES-3.1.4, INF-6.2.1, INF-6.2.2, INF6.2.3, INF-6.2.4, INF-6.2.5, and INF-6.3.1 LTS

N/A N/A

WILDFIRE (FIRE)
FIRE-1: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not substantially impair an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency evacuation
plan.

N/A Policies HS-2.1, HS-2.2, HS-2.4, HS-3.2, HS-3.4, HS-3.5, and HS-3.6
Strategies HS-3.3.2, HS-3.3.3, HS-3.3.4, and HS-3.4.2
LTS

N/A N/A
FIRE-2: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not exacerbate wildfire risks, and
thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant
concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled
spread of a wildfire.

N/A Policies HS-1.1, HS-3.1, HS-3.2, HS-3.5, and HS-3.7 Strategies HS-1.1.1 and HS-1.1.2
LTS

N/A N/A
FIRE-3: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not require the installation or
maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as
roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power
lines or other utilities) but would not exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment.

N/A N/A LTS

N/A N/A
499
CC 05-14-2024
499 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
N/A = Not Applicable; LTS = Less Than Significant; LTS/M = Less Than Significant with Mitigation; SU = Significant and Unavoi dable PLACEWORKS 2-31
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Standard of Significance Question or Impact Statement General Plan 2040 Policies and Strategies and Required Mitigation Measures
Proposed Modified Project Policies and Strategies and
Required Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
FIRE-4: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not 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.

N/A Policies ES-5.3, ES-7.2, ES-7.3, ES-7.5, and HS-7.5 Strategies ES-7.3.1 and ES-7.8.1
LTS

N/A N/A
FIRE-5: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact with respect to wildfire.

N/A N/A LTS

N/A N/A

500
CC 05-14-2024
500 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
N/A = Not Applicable; LTS = Less Than Significant; LTS/M = Less Than Significant with Mitigation; SU = Significant and Unavoi dable 2-32 APRIL 2024
This page has been intentionally left blank.
501
CC 05-14-2024
501 of 1197
PLACEWORKS 3-1

3. Project Description
This chapter describes the proposed amendments to the City of Cupertino General Plan 2040 (General Plan 2040), also known as Community Vision 2015-2040, and the Zoning Code. As described in Chapter 1, Introduction, of this Environmental Assessment (EA), the General Plan 2040 and Zoning Code, as amended and evaluated in the City’s certified General Plan Amendment, Housing Element Update, and associated Rezoning Project Environmental Impact Report (General Plan EIR) and the subsequent addenda are considered the “Approved Project” and the proposed amendments that are the subject of this EA are considered the proposed “Modified Project.” Accordingly, the City of Cupertino (City) has determined that to comply with the requirements of California Government Code Section 65759(a)(2), this EA shall be prepared as a subsequent program-level analysis General Plan EIR pursuant to pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15162, Subsequent EIR, and Section 15168, Program EIR.

The proposed Modified Project specifically addresses the changes that have occurred to the Housing Element as part of the City’s 6th Cycle Housing Element (2023 -2031) and the associated amendments to the Land Use and Community Design Element and Mobility Element for internal (or horizontal) consistency1 and the Cupertino Municipal Code (CMC) Title 19, Zoning, for consistency with the General Plan, known as vertical consistency.2 This EA provides a program-level analysis of whether the changes resulting from the approval and implementation of the proposed Modified Project would result in new significant impacts when compared to the certified General Plan EIR. The potential buildout of the city of Cupertino evaluated in this EA is described in Section 3.8, Buildout Projections.

This chapter provides a detailed description of the proposed Modified Project, including the location, setting, and characteristics of the environmental study area, as well as the project objectives, the project components, and required permits and approvals. The City is the lead agency for the environmental review of the proposed Modified Project.

3.1 BACKGROUND
Every city and county in California is required to have an adopted comprehensive long-range general plan for the physical development of the county or city and, in some cases, land outside the city or county boundaries.3 It is the community’s overarching policy document that defines a vision for future change and sets the “ground rules” for locating and designing new projects that enhance the character of the community, expanding the local economy, conserving and preserving environmental resources, improving public services and safety, minimizing hazards, and fostering community health. The General Plan, which includes a vision, guiding principles, goals, policies, and strategies, functions as the City’s primary land use 1 Government Code Section 65300.5 (internal consistency). 2 Government Code Section 65860 (vertical consistency). 3 California Government Code Section 65300.
502
CC 05-14-2024
502 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRO N MENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3-2
regulatory tool. It provides a basis for judging whether specific development proposals and public projects are in harmony with General Plan policies. It is the constitution for future change in Cupertino.

Pursuant to State law, a general plan must contain eight mandated elements: land use, circulation, housing, conservation, open space, noise, environmental justice, and safety. Typically, general plans cover a time frame or forecast of 15 to 20 years. However, general plan housing elements are required to be updated every eight years to comply with the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA).

State law requires consistency between and within general plan elements.4 The City’s General Plan Land Use Map is integrated with the City’s Zoning Map, which shows the parcel-specific delineation of the zoning districts throughout the city and depicts permitted and conditionally permitted uses. A parcel’s zoning district stems directly from its General Plan land use designation, with the zoning district acting to implement the General Plan by refining the specific uses and development standards for that parcel. State law requires that the zoning ordinance be consistent with the General Plan.5

The General Plan 2040 was adopted in December 2014 and included a horizon year of 2040. Since 2015, several amendments to the General Plan have occurred. These are shown in Table 3-1, Amendments to the General Plan 2040.

TABLE 3-1 AMENDMENTS TO THE GENERAL PLAN 2040
Date Changes
October 20, 2015 a
Minor editorial changes and figure revisions were made to Chapter 1, Introduction, Chapter 2, Planning Areas, Chapter 3, Land Use and Community Design, Chapter 5, Mobility, Chapter 6, Environmental Resources and Sustainability, Chapter 7, Health and Safety, Chapter 8, Infrastructure, and Chapter 9, Recreation Parks and Community Service, Appendix A, Land Use Definitions, and Appendix D, Community Noise Fundamentals. The General Plan Land Use Map was changed to designate a property at 10950 North Blaney Avenue from Industrial/Residential to Industrial/Commercial/Residential. In addition, the name of the General Plan, “Community Vision 2040,” was changed to “General Plan (Community Vision 2015–2040).”
July 16, 2019 b
General Plan Table LU-1, Citywide Development Allocation Between 2014-2040, was updated to increase the buildout of hotel rooms in the North Vallco Special Area from 123 to 308 and citywide from 1,429 to 1,614. Table LU-1 was also updated to show an additional 185 hotel rooms available in North Vallco Special Area and 498 hotel rooms available citywide.

August 20, 2019 a
The General Plan was updated to remove Office land use as a permitted use from the Vallco Shopping District Special Area and remove associated Office land use allocations. This amendment also included changes to the General Plan Land Use Map (Appendix A) to establish a height limit of 60 feet, a minimum residential density of 29.7 dwelling units per acre on approximately 13 acres, and prohibit residential uses as a permitted use in the Regional Shopping land use designation.

March 3, 2020 c
General Plan Table LU-1, Citywide Development Allocation Between 2014-2040, was updated to increase the buildout of hotel rooms in the Homestead Special Area from 126 to 281 and citywide from 1,614 to 1,769 to accommodate a hotel in the North Vallco Special Area. Table LU-1 was also updated to show an additional 155 hotel rooms available in the Homestead Special Area and 653 hotel rooms available citywide. Figure LU-2, Community Form Diagram, was updated to increase the maximum height for the De Anza Hotel project site from 45 to 85 feet and allow a change to the required setback to height ratio (slope line) along North De Anza Boulevard for the De Anza Hotel project site from the required 1:1 (Figure LU-4, Vallco Shopping District Allowable Land Uses, of the General Plan). 4 California Government Code Section 65300.5 (internal consistency). 5 California Government Code Section 65860 (vertical consistency). 503
CC 05-14-2024
503 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

PLACEWORKS
TABLE 3-1 AMENDMENTS TO THE GENERAL PLAN 2040
Date Changes
October 22, 2021 a
General Plan Chapter 3, Land Use and Community Design Element, and Figure LU-2, Community Form Diagram, were modified for clarification, and text edits to Chapter 6, Environmental Resources and Sustainability Element, were made for emphasis. Changes were made to Policy LU-1.1, Land Use and Transportation, to clarify that Figure LU-2, Community Form Diagram, indicates the maximum residential densities for sites that allow residential land uses. The Heart of the City Special Area description was changed to clarify that Goal LU-13 will apply throughout the entire Special Area; while more specific goals, policies, and strategies for each subarea are designed to address their individual settings and characteristics and are identified in Goals LU-14 through LU-18. In addition, Figure LU-2 included text clarifications and corrections. Chapter 6, Environmental Resources and Sustainability Element, included a revision to Strategy ES-6.1.1, Public Participation, to change “encourage” to “strongly encourage” Santa Clara County to engage with the affected neighborhoods when considering changes to restoration plans and mineral extraction activity.

Notes:
a. An addendum to the General Plan EIR was approved for the General Plan Amendment pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164. b. A Mitigated Negative Declaration, State Clearinghouse No. 2018112025, was approved for the Village Hotel project. c. A Mitigated Negative Declaration, State Clearinghouse No. 2019079010, was approved for the De Anza Hotel project.

Source: City of Cupertino. “Archived General Plans.” https://www.cupertino.org/our-city/departments/community-development/planning/generalplan/general-plan/archived-general-plans.

3.2 OVERVIEW
The General Plan’s Housing Element provides direction for implementation of various programs to meet existing and projected future housing needs for all income levels within Cupertino. It provides policies, programs, and strategies that support and create the framework for production, preservation, and maintenance of the City’s housing stock for all income levels. The Housing Element is based on the RHNA for that planning period. The current Housing Element was prepared for the 5th Cycle planning period, which is 2015 to 2023, and included a RHNA of 1,064 dwelling units. The proposed update to the Housing Element is being prepared for the 6th Cycle planning period, which is 2023 to 2031 and includes a RHNA of 4,588 dwelling units.

In updating the Housing Element, some policies in the Land Use and Community Design Element, Cupertino Land Use Map, and Mobility Element, also need to be updated to ensure General Plan internal consistency.

As required by State Housing Law, the City must specify the number of dwelling units that can realistically be accommodated on each housing site and identify whether the housing site is adequate to accommodate lower-income housing in accordance with existing regulations or if future implementation actions could accommodate these lower-income dwelling units by amending the General Plan land use designation and applicable zoning for selected housing sites. Therefore, in conjunction with these General Plan amendments, Title 19, Zoning, of the CMC would be amended to be consistent with the proposed changes to the General Plan.

The proposed Modified Project is described in detail in Section 3.7.1, General Plan 2040 Amendments, Section 3.7.3, Zoning Code Amendments, and Section 3.8, Buildout Projections. 504
CC 05-14-2024
504 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRO N MENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3-4

3.3 LOCATION AND SETTING
Cupertino is a suburban city of 10.9 square miles on the southern portion of the San Francisco Peninsula, in Santa Clara County. The city is approximately 36 miles southeast of downtown San Francisco and 8 miles west of downtown San José. As shown on Figure 3-1, Regional and Vicinity Map, the cities of Los Altos and Sunnyvale are adjacent to the northern city limit, while the cities of Santa Clara and San José lie to the east, and Saratoga lies to the south of Cupertino. Unincorporated areas of Santa Clara County form the western and portions of the southern limit of the city.

The city is accessed by Interstate 280 (I-280), which functions as a major east to west regional connector and State Route 85 (SR-85), which functions as the main north to south regional connector. Cupertino is served by the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) and has eight bus routes that include frequent, local, and express routes operating throughout various locations in the city, including several stops along De Anza Boulevard and Stevens Creek Boulevard.6 The VTA bus system provides local and regional transportation to the greater Silicon Valley, including San José and Sunnyvale. In addition, VTA has built a Bus Rapid Transit line along Stevens Creek Boulevard, which is a major east to west arterial connector in the city.7 Cupertino is also served by the Via-Cupertino Shuttle (Via), an app-based ridesharing program that provides transportation anywhere inside the city and also connects to the Sunnyvale Caltrain station.8 Via plans to expand into Santa Clara with electric cars in the coming years.

3.4 STUDY AREA
The environmental study area for this EA is the same as that of the General Plan EIR and includes all the lands within the city’s urban service area, the sphere of influence (SOI), and the city limit. The urban service area is predominantly coterminous with the current city limit; however, the SOI area extends beyond these boundaries. These locations are shown on Figure 3-2, Study Area.

3.5 PLANNING PROCESS SUMMARY
The proposed updates to the Housing Element, Land Use and Community Design Element, Mobility Element, and the Zoning Code involved public outreach efforts. The planning process began in October 2021 with the proposed Housing Element when the first community workshop was held to inform the public about the update and collect input from the community and the location and type of housing that is best suited for Cupertino. Throughout the preparation for the public draft of the Housing Element, nine community workshops and meetings were held both in person and virtually. These events were given in a variety of formats, some centered around a panel of individuals while others were informal “pop-up” events.
6 Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, 2023, February 17 (accessed). Bus Routes, https://www.vta.org/go/routes. 7 Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, 2023, February 17 (accessed). Route 523, https://www.vta.org/go/routes/rapid-523.
8 Via-Cupertino Shuttle, https://www.cupertino.org/our-city/departments/public-works/transportationmobility/community-shuttle, accessed on February 17, 2023. 505
CC 05-14-2024
505 of 1197
Stevens Creek
County Park
Rancho San
Antonio OSP
Fremont
Older OSP
Picchetti
Ranch
OSP
Monte
Bello OSP
Saratoga
Gap OSP
Stevens
Creek
Reservoir
Miller Ave
Hollenbeck Ave
Payne Ave
S B
ernardo Av
e
W Campbell Ave
Doyle Rd
Pierce
Rd

J
ohnson Ave
S Ma
ry
Av
e Sar
a og
t
a
S
unnyval
e
R
d
Stevens Creek Blvd
Mccoy Ave
Quito Rd
E Homestead Rd
S Blaney Ave
Bollinger Rd
S De Anza Blvd
Homestead Rd
Cox Ave
Hamilton Ave

Po
m
e
r
o
y
Ave
Foothil
l
Expy
N Stelling Rd
Prospect Rd
W Homestead Rd
Williams Rd
Benton St
Kiely Blvd
La
w
rence
E
x
py
Mcclellan Rd
S Wolfe Rd
Pruneridge Ave
N De Anz
a
Blv
d
Bubb Rd
N W
olfe R
d
N Bla
n
e
y
Ave
Moorpark Ave
Saratoga Ave
S Stelling Rd
S
a
n
To
mas
Expy
StevensCanyon
Rd
280
85 Saratoga
Los Altos
Hills
Los Altos
Cupertino
Loyola
Sunnyvale
Santa Clara
Campbell
San Jose
Figure 3-1
Regional and Vicinity Map
Source: ESRI, 2022; City of Cupertino, 2023; PlaceWorks, 2023. 0 0.25 0.5 1
Miles

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

CITY OF CUPERTINO
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT San
Francisco
Bay
Pacific
Ocean
(/101
880
680 280
9 87
237
114
17 85
236
130
82 35
84 1

ALAMEDA COUNTY

SAN MATEO

COUNTY SANTA CLARA
COUNTY

SANTA CRUZ
COUNTY
County Boundaries
City Limit
Sphere of Influence
Urban Service Area
Creeks and Waterways
Parks and Open Space
506
CC 05-14-2024
506 of 1197
Stevens Creek
County Park
Rancho San
Antonio OSP
Fremont
Older OSP
Picchetti
Ranch
OSP
Monte
Bello OSP
Saratoga
Gap OSP
Stevens
Creek
Reservoir
Miller Ave
Homestead Rd
Hollenbeck Ave
Payne Ave
S Be
r
n
a
rdo Av
e
Doyle Rd
Johnson
Ave
S Stelling Rd
S Ma
ry
Av
e
Stevens Creek Blvd
Mccoy Ave
Saratoga Ave
E Homestead Rd
Bollinger Rd
S D
e
A
n
z
a
Blv
d
Pruneridge Ave
Cox Ave
Williams Rd
Benton St
Moorpark Ave
Hamilton Ave
Po
m
e
r
o
y
Ave
Foothill Expy
N Stelling Rd
Prospect Rd
W Homestead Rd
L
a
wre
n
c
e
E
x
py
Kie
ly
B
l
v
d
S Wolfe Rd
Quito Rd
Mcclellan Rd
N
Foothill
Blvd
Pier ce Rd
N D
e
Anz
a
Blv
d
Bubb Rd
N W
olfe R
d
N Bl
a
n
ey Ave
S
arato
g
a Su
nny
v
ale Rd
Mo unt Ed
en Rd
Stevens Canyon
Rd
280
85 HOMESTEAD VILLA

NEIGHBORHOOD

JOLLYMAN

NEIGHBORHOOD

GARDEN GATE

NEIGHBORHOOD

NORTH BLANEY

NEIGHBORHOOD
RANCHO

RINCONADA

NEIGHBORHOOD

SOUTH BLANEY

NEIGHBORHOOD

FAIR GROVE

NEIGHBORHOOD

CRESTON-PHARLAP

NEIGHBORHOOD

OAK VALLEY

NEIGHBORHOOD

MONTA VISTA
SOUTH

NEIGHBORHOOD

INSPIRATION

HEIGHTS

NEIGHBORHOOD

MONTA VISTA
NORTH

NEIGHBORHOOD
Figure 3-2
Study Area
Source: ESRI, 2022; ABAG, 2022; City of Cupertino, 2023; PlaceWorks, 2023. 0 0.25 0.5 1
Miles

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

CITY OF CUPERTINO
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT City Limit
Study Area
Sphere of Influence
Urban Service Area
Creeks and Waterways
Parks and Open Space
507
CC 05-14-2024
507 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

PLACEWORKS
In addition to public outreach events, there were 14 Housing Commission, Planning Commission, and City Council meetings. Meetings were also held with Project Sentinel Executive Director, Carole Conn, and Fair Housing director, Molly Current, to describe fair housing and rental housing issues in Cupertino and countywide. A dedicated affirmatively furthering fair housing (AFFH) outreach was also done as part of this process. The City released two sets of e-newsletters, the first set was to 685 email subscribers, and the second was sent to 1,856 subscribers with a 58 percent open rate and a 5 percent click rate. Social media outreach included Facebook, Nextdoor, Twitter, and electronic notification. The two posts that were made for the proposed Housing Element had a combined reach of 20,758 people and a combined engagement of 742 people. Mailed outreach through The Cupertino Scene, which is the City’s official newsletter, was used twice and went out to 23,351 addresses each time. Surveys were also conducted multiple times throughout the process. The City maintains a website for the proposed Housing Element at: https://engagecupertino.org/hub-page/housingelement The website offers opportunities for the public to weigh in on key issues and download information about the project. A complete description of the public outreach process for the proposed Housing Element 2021-2031 is available on this website.

Following the preparation of the public draft Housing Element, the City engaged in additional outreach efforts for the Zoning Code updates. These activities included an in-person community open house on September 9, 2023, and a virtual community open house on September 14, 2023.

3.6 PROJECT OBJECTIVES
The primary purpose of the proposed Modified Project is to update the State-mandated Housing Element of the 2040 General Plan for the 6th Cycle planning period (2023-2031) to ensure adequate, safe, and affordable housing conditions in Cupertino and to update the other relevant General Plan elements and Zoning Code for consistency with the updated Housing Element. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15124, the following project objectives support the proposed Modified Project’s purpose and assist the City, as the lead agency, in developing a reasonable range of alternatives to be evaluated in this EA.  Update the General Plan’s Housing Element to comply with State-mandated housing requirements and to address the maintenance, preservation, improvement, and development of housing in the city between 2023 and 2031.
 Include an adequate inventory of housing sites and rezone the sites as necessary to meet the required Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) and to provide an appropriate buffer.  To affirmatively further fair housing (AFFH).
 Incentivize the development of housing, particularly affordable housing, suited to special needs and all income levels.
 Promote a healthy and sustainable Cupertino through support of housing at all income levels that minimizes reliance on natural resources and automobile use. 508
CC 05-14-2024
508 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRO N MENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3-8
 Update the City’s Zoning Code and Land Use and Community Design General Plan Element to be consistent with the Housing Element pursuant to Government Code Section 65300.5 (internal consistency) and Government Code Section 65860 (vertical consistency), respectively.  Update the City’s General Plan Mobility Element to minimize environmental impacts associated with implementation of the Housing Element and be consistent with updated State law and guidance for vehicle miles traveled.
 Update the Heart of the City Specific Plan to be consistent with the Housing Element pursuant to Government Code Section 65860 (vertical consistency).

3.7 PROJECT COMPONENTS

3.7.1 GENERAL PLAN 2040 AMENDMENTS
The proposed Modified Project includes amendments to the General Plan 2040 Housing Element, Land Use and Community Design Element, and Mobility Element. Chapter 2, Planning Areas, would also be updated for internal consistency. Each element contains background information and a series of goals, policies, and strategies, which would address, among other things, the maintenance, preservation, improvement, and development of housing in the city. The following provides a description of goals, policies, and strategies and explains the relationship between them:
 A goal is a broad statement of values or aspirations needed to achieve the vision of the General Plan.

It is a description of the general desired result that the City seeks to create through the implementation of its General Plan.
 A policy is a more precise statement that guides the actions of City staff, developers, and policy makers necessary to achieve the goal. A policy is ongoing and requires no further implementation.

Policies regulate activities in the city and set out the standards that will be used by City staff and the other decision makers in their review of land development projects and in decision making about City actions.
 A strategy is a specific task that the City will undertake to implement the policy and work toward achieving the goals. Implementation of the strategies is intended to help reach a specified goal. The City must take additional steps to implement each strategy in the General Plan. A strategy is something that can and will be completed.

Policies and strategies are at the same level of importance and are both intended to support goals. In most cases, goals have both policies and strategies. The following describes the changes to the Housing Element, Land Use and Community Design Element, and Mobility Element.

3.7.1.1 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
State law requires that all cities and counties in California have a compliant housing element. The housing element must analyze housing needs, evaluate factors that could potentially constrain housing production, and identify sites for new residential development. Each city and county must submit their housing 509
CC 05-14-2024
509 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

PLACEWORKS
element to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for review and certification to ensure that it meets the minimum requirements under State law. Cupertino’s current Housing Element was adopted in 2015. The planning period covered by that Housing Element was 2015 through 2023. State law requires that the City’s next Housing Element be adopted in 2023 and cover the period from 2023 through 2031. State requirements for housing elements have expanded considerably in the last eight years. The focus of prior housing elements was on housing conservation and the creation of new housing opportunities. While housing production is still the central focus, there is a much greater emphasis on equity, fair housing, and meeting the needs of lower-income households and people with special needs. Cities and counties have been asked to plan for much larger quantities of housing and provide substantially more detail on potential housing sites. Requirements for community engagement and outreach to under-represented populations have also been expanded. Cities and counties must demonstrate that their policies and strategies are affirmatively furthering fair housing and directly addressing the factors that have resulted in segregation and concentrated poverty around the state.

The proposed Modified Project includes a housing sites inventory with sufficient existing and new housing sites at appropriate densities to meet the City’s fair share of housing for the region (i.e., required RHNA) plus an ample buffer (backup sites for housing).

Regional Housing Needs Allocation
The proposed Housing Element 2023-2031 process started with the State determining the total need for housing in each region of California over an eight-year period. These estimates are broken down by income categories, with households categorized as very low-income, low-income, moderate-income, or above moderate-income. Regional councils of government across California are responsible for allocating their region’s housing needs to individual cities and counties (i.e., RHNA). In the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area, the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) is responsible for the RHNA and tasked with determining each county and city’s fair share of the regional total. This determination is made using a formula that considers population size, employment, proximity to transit, and access to high-quality resources, such as schools, health care, parks, and services. The total 2023 -2031 RHNA for all counties and municipalities in the Bay Area is 441,176 dwelling units. Cupertino received an allocation of 4,588 dwelling units to meet their fair share of housing for the region. The breakdown of dwelling units pursuant to income category is shown in Table 3-2, Cupertino Regional Housing Needs Allocation 2023-2031. To have a substantially compliant 2023-2031 Housing Element, the City is required to demonstrate that it has the realistic capacity to produce 4,588 dwelling units by 2031.

TABLE 3-2 CUPERTINO REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ALLOCATION 2023-2031 Income Category Income Range a Dwelling Units
Very Low b <$93,200 1,193
Low $93,200 to $149,100 687
Moderate $149,100 to $199,200 755
Above Moderate >$199,200 1,953
Total Units 4,588
Notes:
a. Income range is for a household of four residents.
b. It is assumed that 50 percent of the very low-income category (596 units) is allocated to the extremely low-income category.

Source: Association of Bay Area Governments, 2021; California Department of Housing and Community Development Income Levels, 2022. 510
CC 05-14-2024
510 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRO N MENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3-10
In addition to the required RHNA, the City is required to identify a buffer of dwelling units because of the Housing Accountability Act’s “no net loss” provisions. California State Senate Bill 166 (adopted in 2017) enacted Government Code Section 65589.5 requires that the land inventory and site identification programs in the Housing Element always include sufficient sites to accommodate unmet RHNA. The buffer is necessary to ensure that if one or more of the identified housing sites are developed at lower densities than projected, or with non-housing uses, there is remaining capacity elsewhere in the city to provide an ongoing supply of sites for housing at the remaining income levels during the eight-year planning period/cycle of the Housing Element. While there is no specific number of buffer dwelling units, HCD recommends a buffer of 10 to 30 percent of the assigned RHNA.

While State law requires the Housing Element to include an inventory of housing sites and requires the City to appropriately zone sites to meet its RHNA, the City is not responsible for sponsoring projects or generating the housing itself. Future development would be at the discretion of individual property owners, would largely be dependent on market forces, and in the case of affordable housing, available funding and/or other incentives. However, the number of dwelling units permitted annually (by income category) will be used as a metric to evaluate the success of the proposed Housing Element 2023-2031 and the need for additional City-led programs to come closer to the targets.

Housing Site Inventory
To comply with Housing Law,
9 the City must specify the number of dwelling units that can be accommodated on each housing opportunity site and identify whether the site is adequate to accommodate lower-income housing in accordance with existing regulations or if future implementation actions are needed. To assess options to meet the RHNA for Cupertino, the City compiled an inventory of pipeline projects, estimated a reasonably foreseeable amount of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), and identified housing opportunity sites that when combined would have the potential to accommodate the City’s RHNA plus the HCD-recommended buffer (“back-up” sites). Collectively, pipeline projects, estimated ADUs, and housing opportunity sites, would be used to meet the City’s RHNA plus the buffer. The housing inventory sites for the proposed Housing Element are described in the following sections.

Pipeline Projects
The City identified nine sites, listed in Table 3-3, Pipeline Projects, that are currently in the permitting or construction process and account for 2,119 dwelling units to meet the RHNA. Pipeline projects are those that have the highest likelihood of being constructed within the eight-year Housing Element cycle. These projects have received planning entitlements, so that the primary permit needed prior to construction is a building permit.10 Some of these sites have already received building permits. These sites count towards the RHNA but are not evaluated as net new housing in this EA. 9 California Government Code Sections 65580 through 65589.8 10 Engage Cupertino, 2023, February 23 (accessed). Housing Site Information, https://engagecupertino.org/availablehousing-sites. 511
CC 05-14-2024
511 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

PLACEWORKS
TABLE 3-3 PIPELINE PROJECTS
Assessor’s
Parcel
Number
Size
(Acres)
Project
Name
General Plan
Land Use Designation
Zoning
Designation
Current Maximum
Allowed Density
(units/acre)
a
Total New
Dwelling
Units
31620120,
31620121 50.8 Vallco(The Rise)
Regional Shopping/
Residential CG 35 1,569 b
32627043 7.9 Westport Commercial/Residential P (CG, Res) 25 259 34216087,
35907021,
35920030

1.57 Canyon Crossing Commercial/Residential P(CG) 15 18 36610061,
36610126 1.68 Coach House (1655 South De Anza)
Commercial/Office/
Residential
P(CG,Res 5-
15) 15 34
32634043,
32634066 5.1 Marina Plaza Commercial/Office/Residential P (CG, Res) 25 206 34214066,
34214104,
34214105

0.78 Bateh Brothers Commercial/Residential P(CG) 15 10c 35907021 0.34 Leon Townhomes Residential P (CG, Res) 25 7 35920030 1.35 McClellan LLC Residential R1-10 5 12 c
36231003 0.23 Cleo Subdivision Residential P(R3) 20 4
TOTAL 71.33 2,119
Notes:
a. Dwelling unit density is expressed as the number of dwelling units permitted per gross acre. b. Because it is anticipated that the Vallco/Rise project will extend beyond the year 2031, the proposed Housing Element (2023-2031) and this EA evaluates only the units for Phases 1 and 2 of the Vallco (The Rise) project as indicated in the projects phasing plan, totaling 1,569 dwelling units instead of the total project 2,402 dwelling units.
c. Includes Accessory Dwelling Units
Source: City of Cupertino, 2023.

Accessory Dwelling Units
The City developed a projection of ADUs that would be built within the 2023-2031 planning period based on the average annual production of 24 ADUs per year between 2018 and 2022. Accordingly, the City estimates construction of 192 ADUs during the 2023-2031 planning period.

Housing Opportunity Sites
The City identified 63 parcels (approximately 67 acres) as housing opportunity sites to accommodate residential only or commercial/residential (mixed-use) development. The proposed housing opportunity sites are listed in Table 3-4, Housing Element (2023-2031) Opportunity Sites: Residential, and Table 3-5, Housing Element (2023-2031) Opportunity Sites: Commercial/Residential (Mixed Use), and shown on Figure 3-3, Housing Element (2023-2031) Opportunity Sites. Table 3-4 and Table 3-5 show the existing and proposed General Plan land use designations and zoning districts, and the maximum density for each housing opportunity site for the existing, proposed, and net new maximum density for each housing opportunity site. The proposed Modified Project would revise the General Plan land use designations and zoning districts on each site shown in Tables 3-4 and 3-5 to accommodate higher density and create consistencies between the General Plan and Zoning Code. As shown on Tables 3-4 and 3-5, many of the sites have existing residential General Plan land use designations and zoning districts; therefore, the total number of additional dwelling units is described as “net new.” 512
CC 05-14-2024
512 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3-12 APRIL 2024
TABLE 3-4 HOUSING ELEMENT (2023-2031) OPPORTUNITY SITES: RESIDENTIAL Site
No.

Assessor’s
Parcel
Number
Size
(acres)
Special Area /
Gateway /
Neighborhood
General Plan
Land Use Designation Zoning District
Maximum Density
(dwelling units/acre) a
Maximum Dwelling Units from
Applying the Maximum Density
Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Net New b 1 31623027 0.64 Heart of the City
- Central
Commercial/
Office/
Residential
High/Very High
Density P(CG, Res) R4 25 65 16 42 26
2 36903005 0.47 Heart of the City
- Central
Commercial/
Office/
Residential
High/Very High
Density P(CG, Res) R4 25 65 12 31 19
3 32634047 1.09 Heart of the City
- Crossroads
Commercial/
Office/
Residential
High/Very High
Density P(CG, Res) R4 25 65 27 71 44
4 35907006 0.32 Heart of the City
- Crossroads
Commercial/
Office/
Residential
High/Very High
Density P(CG, Res) R4 25 65 8 21 13
5 37506006 1.71 Heart of the City
- East
Commercial/
Office/
Residential
Very High
Density P(CG, Res) R4 25 80 43 137 94
6 37506007 0.96 Heart of the City
- East
Commercial/
Office/
Residential
Very High
Density P(CG, Res) R4 25 80 24 77 53
7 31621031 1.81 Heart of the City
Commercial/
Office/
Residential
High/Very High
Density P(CG, Res) R4 25 65 45 118 72
8 31623026 1.78 Heart of the City
Commercial/
Office/
Residential
High/Very High
Density P(CG, Res) R4 25 65 45 116 71
9 32632050 0.83 Heart of the City
Commercial/
Office/
Residential
High/Very High
Density P(CG, Res) R4 25 65 21 54 33
10 32627053 0.75 Heart of the City
- West Transportation High/Very High Density T R4 0 65 0 49 49 11 32336018 0.42 Homestead Commercial /
Residential
High/Very High
Density P(CG) R4 35 65 15 27 13
12 31604064 0.44 Homestead
Residential
Low
(1-5 du/ac)
Medium
Density A1-43 R3/TH 5 20 2 9 7
13 32607022 1.64
Homestead
Special Area -
Stelling Gateway
Commercial Very High
Density P(CG) R4 15 80 25 131 107
513
CC 05-14-2024
513 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PLACEWORKS 3-13
TABLE 3-4 HOUSING ELEMENT (2023-2031) OPPORTUNITY SITES: RESIDENTIAL Site
No.

Assessor’s
Parcel
Number
Size
(acres)
Special Area /
Gateway /
Neighborhood
General Plan
Land Use Designation Zoning District
Maximum Density
(dwelling units/acre) a
Maximum Dwelling Units from
Applying the Maximum Density
Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Net New b 14 32607030 0.92
Homestead
Special Area -
Stelling Gateway
Commercial Very High
Density BQ R4 15 80 14 74 60
15 32607031 0.24
Homestead
Special Area -
Stelling Gateway
Commercial Very High
Density P(CG) R4 15 80 4 19 16
16 32607036 1.74
Homestead
Special Area -
Stelling Gateway
Commercial Very High
Density P(CG) R4 15 80 26 139 113
17 36937022 0.39 South Blaney
Residential
Medium
(10-20 du/ac)
Very High
Density R3 R4 20 65 8 25 18
18 36937023 0.22 South Blaney
Residential
Medium
(10-20 du/ac)
Medium High
Density R3 R3/TH 20 35 4 8 4
19 36937024 0.17 South Blaney
Residential
Medium
(10-20 du/ac)
Medium High
Density R3 R3/TH 20 35 3 6 3
20 36934053 0.54 South Blaney Commercial /
Residential
Medium High
Density P(CG) R3/TH 15 35 8 19 11
21 35918044 0.26 South De Anza Commercial /
Residential
High/Very High
Density P(CG) R4 25 65 7 17 10
22 36610121 1.34 South De Anza Commercial /
Residential
Medium High
Density
P(CG, Res
5-15) R3/TH 15 35 20 47 27
23 36610137 0.92 South De Anza Commercial /
Residential
Medium High
Density
P(CG, Res
5-15) R3TH 15 35 14 32 18
24 36619047 2.33 South De Anza Commercial /
Residential
High/Very High
Density
P(CG, Res
5-15) R4 15 65 35 151 117
25 36619078 0.08 South De Anza Commercial /
Residential
High/Very High
Density
P(CG, Res
5-15) R4 15 65 1 5 4
26 35909017 1.00 South De Anza Commercial /
Residential
High/Very High
Density P(CG, Res) R4 25 65 25 65 40
27 31620088 5.16 Vallco Shopping
District
Regional
Shopping
Very High
Density CG R4 0 80 0 413 413
28 35913019 0.99 Jollyman
Residential
Low
(1-5 du/ac)
Medium
Density R1-10 R3 5 20 5 20 15
29 c 35606001 0.73 Monta Vista Residential Medium High R1-7.5 R3/TH 5 35 4 26 22 514
CC 05-14-2024
514 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3-14 APRIL 2024
TABLE 3-4 HOUSING ELEMENT (2023-2031) OPPORTUNITY SITES: RESIDENTIAL Site
No.

Assessor’s
Parcel
Number
Size
(acres)
Special Area /
Gateway /
Neighborhood
General Plan
Land Use Designation Zoning District
Maximum Density
(dwelling units/acre) a
Maximum Dwelling Units from
Applying the Maximum Density
Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Net New b North Low
(1-5 du/ac)
Density
30 c 35606002 0.69 Monta Vista
North
Residential
Low
(1-5 du/ac)
Medium High
Density R1-7.5 R3/TH 5 35 3 24 21
31 c 35606003 0.25 Monta Vista
North
Residential
Low
(1-5 du/ac)
Medium High
Density R1-7.5 R3/TH 5 35 1 9 8
32 c 35606004 0.87 Monta Vista
North
Residential
Low
(1-5 du/ac)
Medium High
Density R1-7.5 R3/TH 5 35 4 30 26
33 36231001 0.25 Monta Vista
South
Residential
Medium
(10-20 du/ac)
Medium High
Density P(R3) R3/TH 20 35 5 9 4
34 36231030 0.23 Monta Vista
South
Residential
(10-20 du/ac)
Medium High
Density P(R3) R3/TH 20 35 5 8 3
35 32720034 1.34 Creston-Pharlap
Residential
Low
(1-5 du/ac)
Low Medium
Density R1-10 R3/TH 5 10 7 13 7
Total 34 484 2,040 1,556
Notes:
a. Dwelling unit density is expressed as the number of dwelling units permitted per gross acre. b. The net new is the proposed maximum density minus the existing maximum density. c. The land use and rezoning of this parcel assumes the approximately 0.42-acre parcel currently shown as the “cul-de-sac road” would also redesignate the land use to MHD – Medium High Density and rezone to R3/TH. This approximately 0.42-acre property could be developed with up to 15 units.

Source: City of Cupertino, 2023.

TABLE 3-5 HOUSING ELEMENT (2023-2031) OPPORTUNITY SITES: COMMERCIAL/RESIDENTIAL (MIXED USE) Site
No.

Assessor’s
Parcel
Number
Size
(acres)
Special Area /
Gateway /
Neighborhood
General Plan
Land Use Designation Zoning District
Maximum Density
(dwelling units/acre) a
Maximum Dwelling Units from
Applying the Maximum Density
Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Net New b 36 31623093 1.35 Heart of the City
Commercial/
Office/
Residential
Commercial/
Residential -
High/Very High
Density
P(CG, Res) P (CG/R4) 25 65 25
88 58
37 31623036 0.24 Heart of the City Commercial/
Office/
Commercial/
Residential – P(CG, Res) P (CG/R4) 25 65 5
515
CC 05-14-2024
515 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PLACEWORKS 3-15
TABLE 3-5 HOUSING ELEMENT (2023-2031) OPPORTUNITY SITES: COMMERCIAL/RESIDENTIAL (MIXED USE) Site
No.

Assessor’s
Parcel
Number
Size
(acres)
Special Area /
Gateway /
Neighborhood
General Plan
Land Use Designation Zoning District
Maximum Density
(dwelling units/acre) a
Maximum Dwelling Units from
Applying the Maximum Density
Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Net New b Residential High/Very High
Density
38 36906002 0.9 Heart of the City
Commercial/
Office/
Residential
Commercial/
Residential –
Very High
Density
P(CG, Res) P (CG/R4) 25 80 17 72 55
39 36906003 0.53 Heart of the City
Commercial/
Office/
Residential
Commercial/
Residential –
Very High
Density
P(CG, Res) P (CG/R4) 25 80 10 42 32
40 36906004 1.29 Heart of the City
Commercial/
Office/
Residential
Commercial/
Residential –
Very High
Density
P(CG, Res) P (CG/R4) 25 80 24 103 79
41 35910015 1.18 Heart of the City Commercial /
Residential
Commercial/
Residential –
High/Very High
Density
P(CG) P (CG/R4) 25 65 22 77 55
42 35910060 0.98 Heart of the City Commercial /
Residential
Commercial/
Residential –
High/Very High
Density
P(CG) P (CG/R4) 25 65 18 64 45
43 35910044 0.18 South De Anza Commercial /
Residential
Commercial/
Residential –
High/Very High
Density
P(CG) P(CG/R4) 25 65 3 12 8
44 35908025 0.83 Heart of the City
- Crossroads
Commercial/
Office/
Residential
Commercial/
Residential -
High/ Very
High Density
P(CG, Res) P (CG/R4) 25 65 16 54 38
45 35908026 0.45 Heart of the City
- Crossroads
Commercial/
Office/
Residential
Commercial/
Residential –
High/Very High
Density
P(CG, Res) P (CG/R4) 25 65 8 29 21
46 35908027 0.87 Heart of the City
- Crossroads
Commercial/
Office/
Residential
Commercial/
Residential –
High/Very High
Density
P(CG, Res) P (CG/R4) 25 65 16 57 40
516
CC 05-14-2024
516 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3-16 APRIL 2024
TABLE 3-5 HOUSING ELEMENT (2023-2031) OPPORTUNITY SITES: COMMERCIAL/RESIDENTIAL (MIXED USE) Site
No.

Assessor’s
Parcel
Number
Size
(acres)
Special Area /
Gateway /
Neighborhood
General Plan
Land Use Designation Zoning District
Maximum Density
(dwelling units/acre) a
Maximum Dwelling Units from
Applying the Maximum Density
Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Net New b 47 35908028 0.85 Heart of the City
- Crossroads
Commercial/
Office/
Residential
Commercial/
Residential –
High/Very High
Density
P(CG, Res) P (CG/R4) 25 65 16 55 39
48 35908029 0.92 Heart of the City
- Crossroads
Commercial/
Office/
Residential
Commercial/
Residential –
High/Very High
Density
P(CG, Res) P (CG/R4) 25 65 17 60 43
49 32609052 0.74
Homestead
Special Area –
Stelling Gateway
Commercial
Commercial/
Residential –
High/Very High
Density
P(CG) P (CG/R4) 35 80 19 59 40
50 32609060 2.75
Homestead
Special Area -
Stelling Gateway
Commercial
Commercial/
Residential –
Very High
Density
P(Rec/
Enter) P (CG/R4) 0 80 0 220 220
51 32609061 1.12
Homestead
Special Area -
Stelling Gateway
Commercial
Commercial/
Residential –
Very High
Density
P(CG) P (CG/R4) 35 80 29 90 60
52 36934052 2.70 South Blaney Commercial /
Residential
Commercial/
Residential –
High/Very High
Density
P(CG) P (CG/R4) 15 65 30 176 145
53 36937028 0.56 South De Anza Commercial /
Residential
Commercial/
Residential –
High/Very High
Density
P(CG) P (CG/R4) 25 65 11 36 26
54 36619055 0.40 South De Anza Commercial /
Residential
Commercial/
Residential –
Medium High
Density
P(CG, Res
5-15)
P
(CG/R3/TH) 15 35 5 14 10
55 36619053 0.56 South De Anza Commercial /
Residential
Commercial/
Residential –
Medium High
Density
P(CG, Res
5-15)
P
(CG/R3/TH) 15 35 6 20 13
56 36619054 1.75 South De Anza Commercial /
Residential
Commercial/
Residential –
P(CG, Res
5-15)
P
(CG/R3/TH) 15 35 20 61 42
517
CC 05-14-2024
517 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PLACEWORKS 3-17
TABLE 3-5 HOUSING ELEMENT (2023-2031) OPPORTUNITY SITES: COMMERCIAL/RESIDENTIAL (MIXED USE) Site
No.

Assessor’s
Parcel
Number
Size
(acres)
Special Area /
Gateway /
Neighborhood
General Plan
Land Use Designation Zoning District
Maximum Density
(dwelling units/acre) a
Maximum Dwelling Units from
Applying the Maximum Density
Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Net New b Medium High
Density
57 31605050 1.02 North Vallco
Park
Commercial /
Residential
Commercial/
Residential -
Very High
Density
P(CG, Res) P (CG/R4) 25 80 19 82 62
58 31605051 0.62 North Vallco
Park
Commercial /
Residential
Commercial/
Residential -
Very High
Density
P(CG, Res) P (CG/R4) 25 80 12 50 38
59 31605052 0.73 North Vallco
Park
Commercial /
Residential
Commercial/
Residential -
Very High
Density
P(CG, Res) P (CG/R4) 25 80 14 58 45
60 31605053 0.92 North Vallco
Park
Commercial /
Residential
Commercial/
Residential -
Very High
Density
P(CG, Res) P (CG/R4) 25 80 17 74 56
61 31605056 6.94 North Vallco
Park
Commercial /
Residential
Commercial/
Residential -
Very High
Density
P(CG, Res) P (CG/R4) 25 80 130 555 425
62 31605072 0.54 North Vallco
Park
Commercial /
Residential
Commercial/
Residential -
Very High
Density
P(CG, Res) P (CG/R4) 25 80 10 43 33
63 35920028 0.75 Jollyman Quasi-Public
Commercial/
Residential –
Medium High
Density
BQ P (CG/R3) 0 35 0 26 26
Total 33 520 2,276 1,756
Notes:
a. Dwelling unit density is expressed as the number of dwelling units permitted per gross acre. b. The net new is the proposed maximum density minus the existing maximum density.

Source: City of Cupertino, 2023.
518
CC 05-14-2024
518 of 1197
519
CC 05-14-2024
519 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

PLACEWORKS
Table 3-6, Housing Opportunity Site Maximum Density, when considering the “maximum density” from the proposed changes to the General Plan land use designation and zoning district on 63 parcels in the city would generate an additional 3,312 dwelling units.

TABLE 3-6 HOUSING OPPORTUNITY SITE MAXIMUM DENSITY
Housing Inventory
Category
Dwelling Units per
Existing
Residential Density a
Dwelling Units per
Proposed
Residential Density b
Net New Dwelling Units per
Proposed
Residential Density c
Housing Element Sites (2023-2031)
Residential 485 2,041 1,556
Commercial/Residential
(Mixed Use) 520 2,276 1,756
Total 1,005 4,317 3,312
Notes:
a. The existing dwelling units represent the buildout of the Housing Element Sites at the maximum density under existing conditions for residential sites, 75 percent of the maximum residential density for the commercial/residential sites, and assumes 25 percent of the commercial/residential sites would be commercial.
b. The proposed dwelling units represent the buildout of the Housing Element Sites at the maximum density under the proposed Modified Project. c. The net new dwelling units represent the projected new growth evaluated in this EA.

Sources: City of Cupertino, 2014; PlaceWorks, 2023.

Housing Element Site Summary
The housing sites identified in the housing site inventory that count towards Cupertino’s RHNA plus a buffer inventory for the 2023 -2031 planning period are shown in Table 3-7, Housing Element 2023-2031 Site Inventory. The proposed Housing Element applies a “realistic capacity” to ensure that enough opportunity sites are identified in the Housing Element that is less than the “maximum capacity” applied to the analysis in this EA, which is applied to ensure a conservative evaluation of environmental impacts.

As shown in Table 3-7, the proposed Housing Element site inventory includes a total of 6,011 dwelling units from the pipeline projects, the estimated ADUs, and a realistic capacity of each housing opportunity site. As stated, the realistic capacity identified in the proposed Housing Element is less than the maximum density on each housing opportunity site shown in Tables 3-4 and 3-5 of this EA. As shown in Table 3-7, the proposed Housing Element site inventory adequately meets the City’s RHNA fair share of 4,588 dwelling units, plus a 31 percent buffer of 1,423 dwelling units.

TABLE 3-7 HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 SITE INVENTORY
Housing Inventory Category Regional Housing Needs Allocation with Buffer Pipeline Projects 2,119
ADUs 192
Residential Only 1,928
Commercial/Residential (Mixed Use) 1,772
Total 6,011
Sources: City of Cupertino, 2014; PlaceWorks, 2023.
520
CC 05-14-2024
520 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3-20

3.7.1.2 PLANNING AREAS
Chapter 2, Planning Areas, of the General Plan provides a description of the distinct Planning Areas that make up Cupertino. The Planning Areas are divided into two categories: Special Areas and Neighborhoods.

The Planning Areas chapter provides an overview of each Planning Area, including its current context and future vision. Specific goals, policies and strategies for each Planning Area are included in the various topical elements of the General Plan (i.e., Chapters 3 through 9). The proposed Modified Project would include updates to this chapter, including the figures, to ensure internal General Plan consistency.

Including updating the map figures.

3.7.1.3 LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT UPDATE
The Land Use and Community Design Element provides direction on land use and design principles to shape development in Cupertino, consistent with California Government Code Section 65302(a). This element contains Figure LU-2, Community Form Diagram, which provides residential dwelling unit densities and height limits for each of the City’s eight special areas, as well as neighborhoods in the city limits. This element also describes the City’s development allocations that establish the amount of commercial and office square footage, hotel rooms, and dwelling units by special area, other locations, and major employers that the City anticipates over the General Plan 2040 buildout horizon.

The Land Use and Community Design Element is divided into a background section providing context, a citywide set of goals, policies, and strategies for land use development, and specific planning area goals and policies for each of the special areas, neighborhoods, and subareas.

The proposed Modified Project would update the Land Use and Community Design Element to ensure consistency between the proposed Housing Element and Zoning Code amendments, including the Land Use Map and Zoning Map. This would include an updated Figure LU-2, Community Form Diagram; Appendix A, Land Use Definitions; and revised goals, policies, and strategies to streamline housing development on housing opportunity sites. Figure 3-4, Housing Opportunity Sites: Land Use Designation Changes, shows the proposed Land Use Map changes to the housing opportunity sites. Appendix A, Land Use Definitions, of the General Plan 2040 would include updates to the Residential and Commercial/Residential land use designations as listed:
 Residential
 High Density would be changed from greater than 35 dwelling units per acre to 35.01 to 50 dwelling units per acre.
 A new High/Very High Density category would be added, which would include 50.01 to 65 dwelling units per acre.
 A new Very High Density category would be added, which would include 65.01 to 80 dwelling units per acre.
 A new Highest Density category would be added, which would include 80.1 to 95 dwelling units per acre.
521
CC 05-14-2024
521 of 1197
522
CC 05-14-2024
522 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3-22
 Commercial/Residential. This land use designation would be updated to include six sub-categories based on residential densities.
 Commercial/Residential Low/Medium Density, which would include mixed-use land uses with

5.01 to 10 dwelling units per acre of residential land use.  Commercial/Residential Medium Density, which would include mixed-use land uses with 10.01 to 20 dwelling units per acre of residential land use.
 Commercial/Residential Medium High Density, which would include mixed-use land uses with

20.01 to 35 dwelling units per acre of residential land use.  Commercial/Residential High Density, which would include mixed-use land uses with 35.01 to 50 dwelling units per acre of residential land use.
 Commercial/Residential High/Very High Density, which would include mixed-use land uses with

50.01 to 65 dwelling units per acre of residential land use.  Commercial/Residential Very High Density, which would include mixed-use land uses with 65.01 to 80 dwelling units per acre of residential land use.

Due to changes in State housing law to address the statewide housing crisis, the proposed Modified Project would update Table LU-1, Citywide Development Allocation Between 2014-2040, of the Land Use and Community Design Element to remove the residential development allocation. No changes to the development allocation for commercial and office square footage, nor the number of hotel rooms are proposed.

3.7.1.4 MOBILITY ELEMENT UPDATE
The Mobility Element provides and overview of the transportation and transit network in Cupertino and goals, policies, and strategies to guide decision making regarding transportation network improvements needed to accommodate the City’s anticipated growth, consistent with California Government Code Section 65302(b). One of the primary purposes of this element is to reduce the strain on the automobile network by improving bicycling, pedestrian, and transit access throughout the city.

The proposed Modified Project would include updates to Mobility Element to ensure internal General Plan consistency, as well as updates in State law guidance, by reducing vehicle miles traveled (VMT) at both the city level and project level scales. This update would include policies and strategies to mitigate transportation impacts associated with the implementation of the Housing Element, including evaluation of new development pursuant to the City’s adopted Transportation Analysis Guidelines, establishing VMT reduction frameworks for the city and future potential development projects, and promoting existing transit and car share programs throughout the city.

3.7.2 HEART OF THE CITY SPECIFIC PLAN
The Heart of the City Specific Plan provides the development standards and design guidelines for the Heart of the City area. The proposed Modified Project would update the Heart of the City Specific Plan to ensure consistency between the proposed Housing Element, Land Use and Community Design Element, and Zoning Code amendments, including the Zoning Map. This would not include updates to design guidelines.
523
CC 05-14-2024
523 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

PLACEWORKS

3.7.3 ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS
The Zoning Code is the City’s primary tool for implementing the objectives, policies, and programs of the General Plan. The Zoning Code aims to protect the character and social and economic stability of different zoning districts within the city, while mitigating negative impacts to public safety. The Zoning Code contains various chapters, including definitions, administration, and regulations for the use of land and the placement of buildings for each zoning district, density bonus, signs, wireless communications facilities, public art, and parking.

The Zoning Map establishes and delineates the different zoning districts within the study area. Together, the Zoning Code and Zoning Map govern the use of land, including the construction, alteration, movement, replacement, or maintenance of buildings; the height, bulk, and placement of buildings and uses on each site; the provision of open space, amenities, off-street parking, and loading; the relationships between buildings and uses on adjoining sites or within adjoining classes of districts; and other aspects of land use and development.

The proposed Modified Project would include updates to the Zoning Code and map to ensure consistency between the proposed Housing Element and the proposed Land Use and Community Design Element.

This would include text updates, the creation of a new zoning district and combining district, and an updated Zoning Map. Tables 3-4 and 3-5 show the proposed changes to zoning for the housing opportunity sites.

The proposed Modified Project would include revisions to the following sections of the Zoning Code:
 Section 19.08: Definitions. This section would be revised and updated to include additional appropriate definitions for the revised content listed below.  Section 19.12: Administration. Updates to this section would include adding references to the new zoning and combining districts and establishing a by-right process.  Section 19.16: Designations and Establishment of Districts. Updates to this section would incorporate reference to new zoning and combining districts.
 Section 19.20: Permitted, Conditional, and Excluded Uses in Agricultural and Residential Zones.

Updates to this section would incorporate reference to new zoning and combining districts and revise the land use table with the new zoning districts.
 Section 19.28: Single-Family Residential (R-1) Zones. Revisions to this section would include revising Table 19.28.040 to allow missing-middle housing.
 Section 19.36: Multiple-Family Residential (R-3) Zones. Updates to this section would include establishing density levels as medium, medium/high, and high density, as well as revising the site and building development regulations. Densities would range from 20.01 to 50 dwelling units per acre.  Section 19.38: Multiple-Family Residential (R-4) Zones. This would be a new section that includes establishing a new zoning district and regulations for high/very high and very high density multiplefamily residential. This district would correlate to the High/Very High and Very High land use designations with residential densities ranging from 50.01 to 80 dwelling units per acre. 524
CC 05-14-2024
524 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3-24
 Section 19.46: Townhome (TH) Combining District. This would be a new section that establishes a new combining district and regulations for townhome development in combination with the R-3 and R-4 zoning districts.
 Section 19.48: Fences. Revisions to this section would incorporate reference to new zoning and combining districts.
 Section 19.76: Public Building (BA), Quasi-Public Building (BQ), and Transportation (T) Zones. This section would be updated to revise requirements for rotating homeless shelters and permanent emergency shelters.
 Section 19.80: Planned Development (P) Zones. Revisions to this section would include incorporating reference to new zoning and combing districts, and establishing low-barrier navigation centers and supportive housing as allowed uses in mixed-use zones where residential is an allowed use.  Section 19.100: Accessory Buildings/Structures. Updates to this section would include incorporating references to new zoning and combining districts.
 Section 19.124: Parking Regulations. Revisions to this section would include establishing parking standards for new zoning and combining districts, which includes revising parking standards for the R3 zoning district and for emergency shelters, as well as clarifying parking standards for the R1-C zoning district.

Figure 3-5, Housing Opportunity Sites: Zoning District Changes, shows the proposed zoning map changes.

3.8 BUILDOUT PROJECTIONS
As shown in Table 3-8, Proposed 2040 Buildout Projections, the proposed changes to the maximum density on the housing opportunity sites would add a total net new 3,312 dwelling units to Cupertino over the buildout horizon of the General Plan 2040. These additional dwelling units would accommodate an increase in population of approximately 9,737 people, and a proposed 2040 buildout population of 81,037 people, which is an increase from what was evaluated in the General Plan EIR. The proposed Modified Project does not include an increase in commercial, office, or hotel space in the city, and therefore would not increase the number of jobs in the city. Buildout projections for office and commercial square feet, or hotel rooms would occur as part of the proposed Modified Project. 525
CC 05-14-2024
525 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO
;-_ -_ -� Sphere of Influence
, _ - _, Urban Service Area
Creeks and Waterways
Parks and Open Space

0.25 0.5
Mies

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
oposed Zoning P (CG/R3) - Planned
esignations - Develop�ent (G�
ner�I
R3 _ Residential Medium Commerc1al/Res1dent1al
Density Medium Density)
-
R3/TH - Residential
Medium to High
Density /Town home
- R4 - Residential Very
High Density
D
R4/TH - Residential
Very High Density/
Townhome
P (CG/R3/TH) - Planned
Development (General
Commercial/Residential
Medium Density/
Townhome)
P (CG/R4) - Planned
Development (General
Commercial/Residential
Very High Density)
Note: This map is intended to show general locations of identified housing opportunity sites by Assessor Parcel Numbers or APNs, and is not intended to be used to identify project specific development boundaries.

Project-specific development boundaries will be determined on a project-by-project basis as future development is proposed.

Source: ESRI, 2022; ABAG, 2022; City of Cupertino, 2023; PlaceWorks, 2023. Figure 3-5 Housing Opportunity Sites: Zoning District Changes
526
CC 05-14-2024
526 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3-26
TABLE 3-8 PROPOSED 2040 BUILDOUT PROJECTIONS
Category
Existing Conditions Net New 2040 Buildout
2013
General Plan
EIR
2023
2013 Existing +
Pipeline
General Plan
EIR
a
Proposed
Modified
Project
General Plan
EIR
Proposed
Modified
Project
Office
(square feet) 8,929,774 11,019,774 b 4,040,231 0 12,970,005 12,970,005 Commercial
(square feet) 3,729,569 4,040,201 c 1,343,679 0 5,073,248 5,073,248 Hotel rooms 1,090 1,430 d 1,339 0 2,429 2,429
Housing units 21,399 24,351 e 4,421 3,312 f 25,820 29,132 Population 58,302 65,922 g 12,998 9,737 h 71,300 81,037 Jobs 21,399 29,158 i 16,855 0 44,242 44,242
Notes:
a. The General Plan EIR evaluated the impacts from the addition of new development that is different than the Development Allocation limits shown in the General Plan 2040 at the time of adoption (2015) and the current General Plan 2040 that has since been amended (2023). b. Additional office square footage includes the Vallco (The Rise) 1,810,000 square feet and 19191 Vallco Parkway (Apple) 280,000 square feet. c. Additional commercial square footage includes the Public Storage 209,458 square feet; Scandinavian Design 2,235 square feet; Loc-N-Stor 96432 square feet; and 19191 Vallco Way (Apple) 2,300 square feet. d. Additional hotel rooms include the Village Hotel 185 hotel rooms and De Anza Hotel 155 hotel rooms. e. Includes the pipeline projects shown in Table 3-3 (2,119 dwelling units currently in the permitting or construction process) plus full buildout of the Vallco (The Rise) project (2,402 dwelling units) for an additional 883 dwelling units, for a total of 2,952 dwelling units. f. Proposed housing units include the net new dwelling units from the housing opportunity sites. See Table 3-6, Housing Opportunity Site Maximum Density
g. Population is calculated by applying the City’s generation rate used in the General Plan EIR of 2.94 persons per household (2,952 dwelling units x

2.94 persons per unit = 7,620 additional population)
h. Proposed population is the 3,312 net new dwelling units x 2.94 persons per household. i. Jobs are calculated applying the City’s generation rates used in the General Plan EIR as follows; 300 square feet office = 1 job; 450 square feet commercial = 1 job; 1 hotel room = .3 jobs. (2,090,000 sf office total / 300 sf per job = 6,967 additional jobs) + (310,632 sf commercial total / 450 sf per job = 690 additional jobs) + (340 rooms total x 0.3 jobs per room = 102 new jobs) = 7,759 total new jobs Sources: City of Cupertino, 2014; PlaceWorks, 2023.

As previously described, the proposed Housing Element (2023-2031) identifies a total of 6,011 units to meet the required RHNA (4,588 dwelling units) and buffer (1,423 dwelling units) and the proposed changes to the land use designations and zoning districts result in a total net new 3,312 dwelling units.

Accordingly, the proposed changes are only needed to meet a portion of the City’s assigned RHNA and buffer dwelling units. In other words, under existing conditions (i.e., no changes to land use designations or zoning standards are required), the City can currently accommodate 2,704 dwelling units toward the RHNA. Therefore, this EA only evaluates the proposed changes to the land use designation and zoning districts required to accommodate the remainder of the dwelling units necessary to meet the RHNA and buffer dwelling units, which is 3,312 net new dwelling units. Furthermore, because the buffer dwelling units are technically “back-up” sites, the evaluation of these sites presents a conservative evaluation of impacts in this EA.

While the proposed Housing Element, a policy-level document, has a planning horizon of 2031, the exact timing of development under the Housing Element 2023-2031 is unknown and will ultimately be market driven. Individual projects would occur incrementally over time, largely based on economic conditions, market demand, and other planning considerations. Therefore, as a subsequent analysis to the General Plan EIR, this analysis assumes that the projected cumulative growth will occur by the year 2040, which 527
CC 05-14-2024
527 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

PLACEWORKS
was the horizon year used in the General Plan EIR. This EA will provide an update to that analysis necessitated by the net new housing growth that was not anticipated in the General Plan EIR. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(d) states that “In evaluating the significance of the environmental effect of a project, the lead agency shall consider direct physical changes in the environment which may be caused by the project and reasonably foreseeable indirect physical changes in the environment which may be caused by the project.” The 2040 buildout projections represent the City’s projection of “reasonably foreseeable” development that could occur over the next 17 years and are used as the basis for the cumulative analysis in this EA. Although the General Plan EIR assumed a buildout horizon of 2040, it is possible that the maximum development potential may be reached sooner than anticipated. However, the General Plan EIR evaluated the maximum development potential that could occur at any given time and did not consider the phased buildout of the development potential; therefore, the evaluation of impacts as a result of any expedited buildout that might occur are not included as part of this analysis. See Chapter 4, Environmental Analysis, of this EA, for additional discussion on the setting for the cumulative impact analysis.

3.9 INTENDED USES OF THE EA
This EA is intended to review potential environmental impacts associated with the adoption and implementation of the proposed Modified Project and determine corresponding mitigation measures, as necessary. This EA is a program-level evaluation and does not evaluate the impacts of specific, individual developments that may be allowed under the proposed Modified Project. Each specific future project will conduct separate approval and environmental review processes pursuant to City procedures and CEQA, if required, to secure the necessary discretionary development permits. Therefore, while subsequent environmental review may be tiered off the analysis provided in this EA, this EA is not intended to address impacts of individual projects. Subsequent projects will be reviewed by the City for consistency with the proposed Modified Project and this EA, which will be appended to the General Plan 2040 pursuant to Government Code Section 65759. Projects successive to this EA include, but are not limited to, the following:
 Updates to utility infrastructure master plans, such as the water, wastewater, and stormwater master plans.
 Issuance of permits and other approvals necessary for implementation of the proposed Modified Project.
 Development plan approvals, such as tentative maps, variances, conditional use permits, and other land use permits.
 Development of hazard mitigation or adaptation programs.  Permit issuance and other approvals necessary for public and private development projects.  Development agreement processes and approvals.

3.10 REQUIRED PERMITS AND APPROVALS
The proposed Housing Element 2023-2031 is subject to review and certification by HCD, and the proposed Health and Safety Element is subject to review by the California Department of Forestry and Fire 528
CC 05-14-2024
528 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3-28
Protection, California Geological Survey, and California Office of Emergency Services. Following these reviews, the General Plan 2040 and Zoning Code Amendments would be adopted solely by the City of Cupertino City Council, without permitting by other agencies. The Planning Commission and other decision-making bodies will review the proposed Modified Project and make recommendations to the City Council. Subsequent development under the General Plan 2040 and Zoning Code, as amended, may require approval by responsible and trustee agencies that may rely on the analysis for this EA for decisions in their areas of permitting. Responsible and trustee agencies that may rely on the analysis for this EA include, but are not limited to:
 California Geological Survey (CGS)
 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE)  Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD)
 California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)
 San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board (San Francisco RWQCB) 529
CC 05-14-2024
529 of 1197
PLACEWORKS 4-1
Environmental Analysis
This chapter describes the organization of the environmental analysis of this Environmental Assessment (EA) and the assumptions and methodology of the impact analysis and the cumulative impact setting.

CHAPTER ORGANIZATION
The EA is made up of 16 subchapters that evaluate the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts of the proposed project. In accordance with Appendix F, Energy Conservation, and Appendix G, Environmental Checklist Form, of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, the potential environmental effects of the proposed project are analyzed for potential significant impacts in the following 16 environmental issue areas, which are organized with the listed abbreviations:

4.1 Aesthetics (AES)

4.2 Air Quality (AIR)

4.3 Biological Resources (BIO)

4.4 Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources (CUL)

4.5 Energy (ENE)

4.6 Geology and Soils (GEO)

4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHG)

4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials (HAZ)

4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality (HYD)

4.10 Land Use and Planning (LU)

4.11 Noise (NOI)

4.12 Population and Housing (POP)

4.13 Public Services and Recreation (PS)

4.14 Transportation (TRANS)

4.15 Utilities and Service Systems (UTIL)

4.16 Wildfire (FIRE)
Each subchapter is organized into the following sections:
 Environmental Setting offers a description of the existing environmental conditions, providing a baseline against which the impacts of the proposed Modified Project can be compared, and an overview of federal, State, regional, and local laws and regulations relevant to each environmental issue.
 Standards of Significance refer to the quantitative or qualitative standards, performance levels, or criteria used to evaluate the existing setting with and without the proposed Modified Project to determine whether the impact is significant. These thresholds are based primarily on the CEQA Guidelines, and also may reflect established health standards, ecological tolerance standards, public service capacity standards, or guidelines established by agencies or experts.  Impact Discussion gives an overview of the potential impacts of the proposed Modified Project compared to the Approved Project and explains why impacts are found to result or not result in new or more severe impacts beyond what was evaluated in the General Plan EIR. This section also includes a discussion of cumulative impacts related to the proposed Modified Project. Impacts and mitigation measures are numbered consecutively within each topical analysis and begin with an acronym or abbreviated reference to the impact section.
530
CC 05-14-2024
530 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4-2 APRIL 2024

STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
As stated, significance criteria are identified before the impact discussion subsection in each chapter. For each impact identified, a level of significance is determined using the following classifications:
 Significant. A significant impact includes a description of the circumstances where an established or defined threshold would be exceeded.
 Less than Significant. A less-than-significant impact includes effects that are noticeable, but do not exceed established or defined thresholds, or can be mitigated below such thresholds.  No Impact. A no impact conclusion describes circumstances where there is no adverse effect on the environment.
 Significant and Unavoidable. For each impact identified as being significant, the EA identifies mitigation measures to reduce, eliminate, or avoid the adverse effect. If one or more mitigation measures would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level successfully, this is stated in the EA.

Significant and unavoidable impacts are described where mitigation measures would not diminish these effects to less-than-significant levels. The identification of a program-level significant and unavoidable impact does not preclude the finding of less-than-significant impacts for subsequent projects that comply with the applicable regulations and meet applicable thresholds of significance.

EVALUATION METHODOLOGY
Under CEQA, the decision as to whether an environmental effect should be considered significant is reserved to the discretion of the City of Cupertino, acting as the lead agency, based on substantial evidence in the record as a whole, including views held by members of the public. An ironclad definition of significant effect is not always possible because the significance of an activity may vary based on the setting. The analysis in the EA is based on scientific and factual data that has been reviewed by the lead agency and represents the lead agency’s independent judgment and conclusions.1 This section describes the methodology for the program-level evaluation in Chapters 4.1 through 4.16 with respect to the horizon year, the baseline, the application of the proposed City of Cupertino General Plan 2040 (General Plan 2040) policies, effects of the environment on the project, parking impacts, and cumulative impacts.

INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE
Pertinent documents relating to this EA are cited in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15148 or have been incorporated by reference in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15150, which encourages incorporation by reference as a means of reducing redundancy and the length of environmental reports. The following documents are hereby incorporated by reference. Information in these documents is used for various sections of this EA. 1 California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, Section 15064(b). 531
CC 05-14-2024
531 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
PLACEWORKS 4-3

CUPERTINO GENERAL PLAN
Adopted in December 2014, the City’s General Plan serves as a blueprint for the community through the year 2040. Since this time, several amendments to the General Plan have occurred. The General Plan provides a roadmap for new housing and job growth, while protecting those characteristics and values that make Cupertino a desirable and distinctive place to live, work, and visit. The City’s General Plan consists of seven elements: Land Use and Community Character; Housing; Mobility; Environmental Resources and Sustainability; Health and Safety; Infrastructure; and Recreation, Parks, and Community Services. Each General Plan Element includes goals, policies, and strategies that create a roadmap for new housing and job growth, provide guidance for decision makers on allocating resources, and describe the use, management, and conservation of natural resources, public services, and infrastructure. This document is available for viewing on the City’s website at: https://www.cupertino.org/gp. The General Plan is used in this EA as a source for existing City policy.

GENERAL PLAN EIR
The General Plan Amendment, Housing Element Update, and associated Rezoning Project Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2014032007) and the subsequent addenda to the EIR (General Plan EIR) assessed the potentially significant environmental effects of the General Plan 2040. The General Plan EIR was used in this EA as a source for existing environmental setting data, buildout impact analyses, and City mitigation measures. This document is available for viewing on the City’s website at:
https://records.cupertino.org/WebLink/Browse.aspx?id=697928&dbid=0&repo=CityofCupertino

CUPERTINO MUNICIPAL CODE
The Cupertino Municipal Code (CMC) regulates land use and activities in the City’s jurisdiction, including the Environmental Regulations and Zoning Code (codified in CMC Titles 17 and 19, respectively). The Municipal Code is organized by title, chapter, and section. The Environmental Regulations and Zoning Code are the primary tools for implementing the City’s General Plan policies. Title 17, Environmental Regulations, contains Chapter 17.04, Standard Environmental Protection Requirements, which codify several of the project-level mitigation measures from the General Plan EIR. Every project in the Study Area must comply with these standards for environmental compliance. This section includes standards for the following:
 Air Quality Technical Requirements
 Hazardous Materials
 Vehicle Miles Traveled Technical Report
Requirements
 Vibration Technical Report Requirements
 Air Quality Permit Requirements
 Hazardous Materials Permit Requirements
 Greenhouse Gas Emission and Energy Permit
Requirements
 Biological Resources Permit Requirements
 Cultural Resources Permit Requirements
 Hydrology and Water Quality Permit
Requirements
 Noise and Vibration Permit Requirements
 Paleontological Resources Permit
Requirements
 Utilities and Service Systems Permit
Requirements
532
CC 05-14-2024
532 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
PLACEWORKS 4-4
Additional details regarding each of the Standards Environmental Protection Requirements is described in Chapters 4.1 through 4.16 of this EA, where relevant. In addition, CMC Title 16, Buildings and Construction, and CMC Title 18, Subdivisions, contain regulatory provisions that apply to residential development. The CMC was used throughout this EA to establish the proposed Modified Project baseline requirements for City regulatory compliance. The CMC can be accessed online at:
https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/cupertino/latest/cupertino_ca/0-0-0-78624. 2040 HORIZON DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL
As described in Section 3.7.1.1, Housing Element Update, this EA evaluates the conservative possibility that all housing opportunity sites would be developed to 100 percent of their allowed density. For purposes of this EA, only sites that require a change in the General Plan Land Use Designation, Zoning District, or increase density will be evaluated, and the net new increase in density is the focus of the analysis. This EA considers potential impacts of potential future development that may result from adoption of the proposed Housing Element 2023-2031, including rezoning of potential housing sites to allow housing and/or mixed-use developments, and related actions to encourage housing production, including, but not limited to, changes in allowable densities and changes in development standards.

The Housing Element is a policy-level document that presents the City’s proposed policies and strategies to achieve the City’s housing objectives in the 2023-2031 planning period. Growth assumptions in the Housing Element 2023-2031 represent a theoretical development capacity (based on the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation [RHNA] as determined by the Association of Bay Area Governments [ABAG]), which, consistent with the Housing Element planning period, is estimated to occur by 2031. The Housing Element 2023-2031 does not propose development, but rather is intended to accommodate and encourage housing development to accommodate projected housing needs at all income levels in Cupertino. The amendments to the Land Use and Community Character Element, Mobility Element, Heart of the City Specific Plan, and the Zoning Code support the implementation of the Housing Element through land use designation and site development standard changes. The 6,011 dwelling unit development capacity, inclusive of the development at 100 percent of the proposed density, potential accessory dwelling units, and pipeline projects, which would include the buffer needed to meet the remaining unmet RHNA of 4,588 dwelling units, is based on theoretical conditions used to conduct a thorough and conservative analysis of potential environmental impacts that would result from future potential development accommodated by the Housing Element 2023-2031 and corresponding updates to the Land Use and Community Character Element, Mobility Element, Heart of the City Specific Plan, and Zoning Code.

The development capacity and planning period do not consider factors that influence the timing of development, such as economics and market forces, among others. Individual projects would occur incrementally over time, largely based on economic conditions, market demand, and other planning considerations. The actual rate of housing development would be outside of the City’s control and would be dictated by factors that influence development, as described previously. Therefore, while the City’s remaining unmet RHNA is 4,588 dwelling units, it is unlikely that the anticipated development would occur in the Housing Element’s 2031 planning horizon. The intent of the Housing Element 2023-2031 is to provide the capacity (i.e., through modifications to existing land use designations and zoning 533
CC 05-14-2024
533 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
PLACEWORKS 4-5
classifications) for the housing market to adequately address housing needs for all income groups, rather than generating the full development capacity within the planning cycle. The Housing Element 2023-2031 further directs the development capacity to occur where planned growth is best suited to occur.

Therefore, to provide a conservative analysis of potential environmental impacts associated with the Housing Element 2023-2031 implementation (i.e., a “worst-case” scenario environmentally) and corresponding updates to the Land Use and Community Character Element and Zoning Code, this EA assumes project buildout of all 6,011 dwelling units on any combination of the housing sites by 2031.

To assess the increase in housing units with the adoption and implementation of the proposed project, this EA will use an updated baseline and updated projections for 2040. The updated baseline and projections are shown in Table 3-8, Proposed 2040 Buildout Projections, of Chapter 3, Projection Description, of this EA, and are explained briefly here.  Existing Conditions: 2013 General Plan EIR column is included for informational purposes. Comparison with the 2023 Existing Conditions allows readers to understand changes since the General Plan EIR was prepared.
 Existing Conditions: 2023, 2013 Existing + Pipeline column reflects conditions on the ground in Cupertino when the Notice of Preparation (NOP) was published in 2023 and also includes the pipeline commercial, residential, and office projects that have been approved and are either under construction or expected to commence construction shortly. As described in Chapter 3, Project Description, of this EA, this data is used as the baseline for the analysis of the proposed Modified Project impacts.
 Net New: General Plan EIR column reflects the addition of new development that is different than the Development Allocation limits shown in the General Plan 2040 at the time of adoption (2015) and the current General Plan 2040 that has since been amended (2023).  Net New: Proposed Modified Project column shows the net new units and population growth proposed by the Housing Element 2023-2031. The proposed housing units include the net new dwelling units from the housing opportunity sites maximum density, which is shown in Table 3-6, Housing Opportunity Site Maximum Density. Population is calculated by applying the City’s generation rate used in the General Plan EIR of 2.94 persons per household.  2040 Buildout: General Plan EIR column is included for informational purposes and allows readers to understand the maximum buildout of the General Plan that was anticipated in the General Plan EIR.  2040 Buildout: Proposed Modified Project column provides a summary of the maximum buildout of the General Plan as a result of the proposed Modified Project plus other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable development projects that were not reflected in the General Plan EIR projections. The data reflects the 2040 Buildout General Plan EIR projections plus the 3,312 additional units anticipated as a result of the Housing Element 2023-2031.

The environmental analysis in this EA describes the potential for adverse impacts to occur from increasing the buildout potential in the Study Area, as well as new and modified General Plan 2040 goals, policies, and strategies. The 2040 horizon development potential under the proposed Modified Project includes the net increase of maximum development potential for the city. As shown in Table 3-8, Proposed 2040 Buildout Projections, in Chapter 3, Project Description, of this EA, this combined projected new growth in 534
CC 05-14-2024
534 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4-6 APRIL 2024
the entire Study Area for the 2040 horizon year includes approximately 3,312 new residential units and 9,737 new residents.

Because the proposed Modified Project consists of a long-term policy document (i.e., the General Plan 2040) that is intended to guide future development activities and City actions, and because no specific development projects are proposed as part of the project, it is reasonable to assume that future development would occur incrementally or gradually over the buildout horizon. However, while this assumption describes the long-range nature of the proposed Modified Project, it does not prohibit or restrict when development can occur over the horizon period.

BASELINE
As a subsequent analysis to the General Plan EIR, this analysis assumes that the projected cumulative growth would occur by the year 2040, which was the horizon year used in the General Plan EIR. The 2040 buildout projections represent the City’s projection of “reasonably foreseeable” development that could occur over the next 17 years and are used as the basis for the cumulative analysis in this EA. Therefore, this EA, which is in the format of a subsequent Draft EIR, provides an update to that analysis necessitated by the net new housing growth that was not anticipated in the General Plan EIR. As shown in Table 3-8, Proposed 2040 Buildout Projections, in Chapter 3, Project Description, of this EA, the baseline conditions in 2040 include approximately 25,820 residential units and 71,300 residents.

GENERAL PLAN 2040 POLICIES
As described in Chapter 3, Project Description, the proposed goals, policies, and strategies in the proposed Housing Element 2023-2031 aim to maintain, preserve, improve, and develop housing; affirmatively further fair housing; incentivize the development of housing for special needs and all income levels; and promote healthy and sustainable housing throughout the Study Area. Housing Element 2023-2031 and associated Land Use and Community Design Element policies aim to avoid hazardous conditions and facilitate a healthy and safe environment for residents and visitors to Cupertino.

In October 2015, the adopted policies and strategies in the General Plan 2040 document were revised. 2 Therefore, the numbering of policies and strategies may be different between the Approved Project and proposed Modified Project. The amended General Plan 2040 is the primary reference document for the current list of goals and strategies referenced in this EA.

This EA includes substantive General Plan 2040 policy and strategy changes, which includes the addition, removal, or functional revisions (i.e., not purely semantic) to the text in ways that have the potential to result in a physical impact on the environment. Chapters 4.1 through 4.16 of this EA include an analysis of how substantive policy changes may result in adverse physical changes to the environment. Amended and new policies collectively reflect the changes to the current General Plan 2040. The proposed goals, policies, and strategies were reviewed for their adequacy in reducing and/or avoiding impacts to the environment that could occur from future development in the city. The proposed Modified Project goals, 2 Cupertino General Plan Community Vision 2015 – 2040, adopted by council on May 19, 2015, per Resolution No. 15-042 535
CC 05-14-2024
535 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
PLACEWORKS 4-7
policies, and strategies are listed in the impact discussions of Chapters 4.1 through 4.16 to illustrate where they would reduce impacts from potential future development in Cupertino.

The content of the General Plan 2040 policies and strategies are directly integrated with and reflective of the proposed Modified Project as a whole. Therefore, impact discussions for the effects of the proposed project necessarily encompass analysis of the effects of these policies as a whole, and policies with relevance to CEQA topics are described in the appropriate chapters. Non-substantive changes include but are not limited to, the renumbering of policies or minor text revisions, which do not have the potential to result in a physical change to the environment.

PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT AND TRANSIT PRIORITY AREAS
Plan Bay Area is the San Francisco Bay Area’s Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS), prepared by ABAG in partnership with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, and the Bay Conservation and Development Commission. Plan Bay Area 2050, adopted October 21, 2021, is the current version.3 Plan Bay Area 2050 is a limited and focused update to the Plan Bay Area 2040, with updated planning assumptions that incorporate key economic, demographic, and financial trends from the last several years. Although recently updated, Plan Bay Area 2040 provides information not available in Plan Bay Area 2050, such as population projections at a City scale, and is used as the basis for other regional planning documents, such as the Bay Area Air Quality Management District 2017 Clean Air Plan. Therefore, this EA references both Plan Bay Area 2040 and Plan Bay Area 2050 in the analysis. Also note that, Plan Bay Area 2050+, a limited and focused update that builds upon the foundation of Plan Bay Area 2050, is being prepared.

Plan Bay Area provides transportation and environmental strategies to continue to meet the regional transportation-related greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction goals of Senate Bill (SB) 375. Under the Plan Bay Area strategies, just under half of all Bay Area households would live within one half-mile of frequent transit by 2050, with this share increasing to over 70 percent for households with low incomes.

Transportation and environmental strategies that support active and shared modes, combined with a transit-supportive land use pattern, are forecasted to lower the share of Bay Area residents that drive to work alone from over 50 percent in 2015 to 36 percent in 2050. GHG emissions from transportation would decrease significantly as a result of these transportation and land use changes, and the Bay Area would meet the State mandate of a 19 percent reduction in per-capita emissions by 2035 — but only if all strategies are implemented.4 Strategies to reduce GHG emissions include focusing housing and commercial construction in walkable, transit-accessible places; investing in transit and active transportation; and shifting the location of jobs to encourage shorter commutes. As part of the implementing framework for Plan Bay Area, Priority Development Areas (PDAs) and Transit Priority Areas (TPAs) are identified as areas where concentrated development can have beneficial environmental effects and reduce adverse environmental impacts. The Study Area includes the Santa Clara Valley Transportation 3 Association of Bay Area Governments and Metropolitan Transportation Commission, 2021, October, Plan Bay Area 2050, https://www.planbayarea.org/sites/default/files/documents/Plan_Bay_Area_2050_October_2021.pdf, accessed May 25, 2023. 4 Association of Bay Area Governments and Metropolitan Transportation Commission, 2021, October, Plan Bay Area 2050, https://www.planbayarea.org/sites/default/files/documents/Plan_Bay_Area_2050_October_2021.pdf, accessed June 21, 2023. 536
CC 05-14-2024
536 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4-8 APRIL 2024
Authority City Cores, Corridors, and Station Areas PDA and an unnamed TPA, which are shown on Figure 4-1, Priority Development Areas and Transit Priority Areas. Additional details about PDAs and TPAs are provided in the sections that follow.

PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT AREAS
A PDA is a place that has convenient public transit service, often referred to as “transit-oriented,” that is prioritized by local governments, such as Cupertino, for housing, jobs, and services in existing communities. PDAs are created and planned by local governments, which nominate eligible areas to ABAG for adoption.5 The PDAs identified throughout the Bay Area in Plan Bay Area 2050 were projected to accommodate 72 percent (or 985,000 units) of new housing and 48 percent (or 679,000) of new jobs in the region from the 2015 baseline.6 Development in PDAs leverage existing infrastructure and therefore can minimize development in greenfield (undeveloped) areas and maximize growth in transit-rich communities to help lower vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and consequently reduce GHG emissions, air quality pollutants, and noise from vehicles with internal combustion engines dependent on fossil fuels and reduce wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources. Additionally, due to the location, infill development in PDAs results in fewer impacts related to agricultural, forestry, mineral, archaeological, and biological resources, energy, geology and soils, hydrology and water quality, and wildfire. Impacts related to concentrated development in the PDAs is described throughout this EA and specific quantified impacts are described in Chapter 4.2, Air Quality; Chapter 4.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions; and Chapter 4.14, Transportation, of this EA. Certain potential future residential or mixed-use residential projects and projects in PDAs that meet defined criteria in the CEQA Guidelines may be eligible for CEQA streamlining. For example, while not exclusive to PDAs, due to their urban setting, development in a PDA is more likely to qualify for a CEQA Guidelines Section 15332, Infill Development Projects, Class 32 Categorical Exemption.
5 Cupertino’s PDA was designated by VTA as part of their Cores, Corridors and Station Areas program. The PDA was affirmed by the City in June 2012, and again in 2019, since the PDA boundaries align, for the most part, with the City’s Heart of the City Specific Plan area, which was envisioned as the core of the city where much of the City’s growth/change is anticipated to occur. 6 Metropolitan Transportation Commission and Association of Bay Area Governments, October 2021, Plan Bay Area 2050, https://www.planbayarea.org/sites/default/files/documents/Plan_Bay_Area_2050_October_2021.pdf, accessed January 23, 2024.
537
CC 05-14-2024
537 of 1197
538
CC 05-14-2024
538 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4-10 APRIL 2024

TRANSIT PRIORITY AREAS
Plan Bay Area 2050 also identifies TPAs, referred to as Transit-Rich PDAs.7 These are areas within a halfmile of a major transit stop (i.e., a stop with service frequency of 15 minutes or less) that is existing or planned to be completed in the planning horizon of a Transportation Improvement Program adopted pursuant to Section 450.216 or Section 450.322 of Title 23 of the Code of Federal Regulations. In Cupertino, there are five major transit stops identified in the Regional Transportation Plan.8 TPAs generally include existing neighborhoods served by transit and opportunities for housing and jobs, high performing schools, and amenities. Certain potential future residential or mixed-use residential projects and projects9 in TPAs that meet defined criteria in the CEQA Guidelines may be eligible for CEQA streamlining. Like development in PDAs, developing in TPAs also minimizes development in greenfield (undeveloped) areas and maximizes growth in transit-rich communities to help lower VMT and consequently reduce GHG emissions, air quality pollutants, and noise from vehicles with internal combustion engines dependent on fossil fuels and reduce wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources.

With respect to potential future development in a TPA, SB 743, which became effective on January 1, 2014, amended CEQA by adding Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21099 regarding analysis of transportation, aesthetics, and parking impacts for urban infill projects, among other provisions. SB 743, which became effective on January 1, 2014, amended CEQA by adding PRC Section 21099 regarding analysis of transportation, aesthetics, and parking impacts for urban infill projects, among other provisions.
 Transportation Impacts. SB 743 required the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research—the entity charged with drafting guidelines to help agencies implement CEQA—to identify new metrics for identifying and mitigating transportation impacts under CEQA, shifting from a congestion-based standard (level of service or LOS) to a vehicle miles traveled (VMT) standard. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 was added in December 2018 pursuant to SB 743 and describes specific considerations for evaluating a project’s transportation impacts. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b)(1) states that projects within half a mile of either an existing major transit stop or a stop along an existing highquality transit corridor should be presumed to cause a less-than-significant transportation impact.

Accordingly, transportation impacts related to VMT from potential future development in the TPA that meets the specific criteria, are presumed to be less than significant. Transportation impacts consistent with the required VMT standard are described in Chapter 4.14, Transportation, of this EA.  Aesthetic and Parking Impacts. PRC Section 21099(d)(1), states, “Aesthetic and parking impacts of a residential, mixed-use residential, or employment center project on an infill site located within a TPA shall not be considered significant impacts on the environment.” Accordingly, these topics are no 7 Association of Bay Area Governments and Metropolitan Transportation Commission, Plan Bay Area 2050: Regional Growth Framework Update – Overview of Existing and Updated Geographies, https://www.planbayarea.org/sites/default/files/pdfs_referenced/2019_Regional_Growth_Framework_Update_- _Whats_Changed_1.pdf, accessed January 23, 2024.
8 Association of Bay Area Governments and Metropolitan Transportation Commission, https://opendata.mtc.ca.gov/datasets/MTC::transit-stops-major-2021/explore?location=37.323167%2C-122.009494%2C14.00 accessed on March 5, 2024.
9 A project in a transit priority area is referred to as a transit priority project (TPP). 539
CC 05-14-2024
539 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
PLACEWORKS 4-11
longer considered in determining significant environmental effects for a project that meets all three of the following criteria:
 Is located on an infill site which is defined as “a lot located within an urban area that has been previously developed or on a vacant site where at least 75 percent of the perimeter of the site adjoins or is separated only by an improved public right-of-way from, parcels that are developed with qualified urban uses.”
 Is a residential, mixed-use residential, or an employment-center project.  Is in a TPA, which is defined as “an area within one-half-mile of a major transit stop that is existing or planned, if the planned stop is scheduled to be completed within the planning horizon included in a Transportation Improvement Program adopted pursuant to Section 450.216 or Section 450.322 of Title 23 of the Code of Federal Regulations.” Accordingly, in compliance with SB 743, no significant aesthetic or parking impacts can be made in the environmental analysis for potential future qualifying development in the TPAs in the Study Area as they exist today or are modified over the buildout horizon.

POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF THE ENVIRONMENT ON THE PROJECT
The California Supreme Court concluded in the California Building Industry Association vs. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (CBIA vs. BAAQMD) case that “CEQA generally does not require an analysis of how existing environmental conditions will impact a project’s future users or residents.” The CBIA vs.

BAAQMD ruling provided for several exceptions to the general rule where an analysis of the project on the environment is warranted: (1) if the project would exacerbate existing environmental hazards (such as exposing hazardous waste that is currently buried); (2) if the project qualifies for certain specific specified exemptions (certain housing projects and transportation priority projects per PRC Sections 21159.21 (f)(h), 21159.22 (a),(b)(3), 21159.23 (a)(2)(A), 21159.24 (a)(1),(3), or 21155.1 (a)(4),(6)); (3) if the project is exposed to potential noise and safety impacts on projects due to proximity to an airport (per PRC Section 21096); and (4) school projects require specific assessment of certain environmental hazards (per PRC Section 21151.8). Therefore, the evaluation of the significance of project impacts under CEQA focuses on the potential impacts of the proposed project on the environment, including whether the proposed project may exacerbate any existing environmental hazards. Existing potential environmental hazards in Cupertino include seismic hazards, flooding, and wildfire. Therefore, while the effects of these hazards on the proposed project are not subject to CEQA review following the CBIA vs. BAAQMD case,10 the City recognizes that seismic, flooding, and wildfire hazards are issues of local concern. Therefore, a discussion of the project’s potential to exacerbate these hazardous conditions is provided in Chapter 4.6, Geology and Soils; Chapter 4.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions; Chapter 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality; and Chapter

4.16, Wildfire, of this EA.
10 California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (2015) 62 Cal.4th 369. 540
CC 05-14-2024
540 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4-12 APRIL 2024

PARKING IMPACTS
Effective in 2010, parking inadequacy as a significant environmental impact was eliminated from the CEQA Guidelines by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, which is the entity charged with drafting guidelines to help agencies implement CEQA. Accordingly, parking adequacy in the Study Area is not discussed further in this EA.

DENSITY BONUS LAW
On January 1, 2021, Assembly Bill 2345 amended the California Density Bonus Law (Government Code Section 65915 et seq.) to expand development incentives for projects with affordable and/or senior housing units. Under this amended law, future potential development with 15 percent of total units for very low income, 24 percent of total units for low income, or 44 percent of total units for moderate income, can receive a density bonus of up to 50 percent. Future potential development under both the Approved Project and proposed Modified Project could exceed site development standards. However, the density bonus and concessions would be approved on a project-by-project basis, and therefore it would be speculative to evaluate increases in density under this law for a plan level analysis.

CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS
A cumulative impact consists of an impact created as a result of the combination of the project evaluated in the EA, together with other reasonably foreseeable projects causing related impacts. Section 15130 of the CEQA Guidelines requires an EIR to discuss cumulative impacts of a project when the project’s incremental effect is “cumulatively considerable.” Used in this context, cumulatively considerable means that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.

In the case of a long-range plan such as the General Plan 2040 and proposed Modified Project, cumulative effects occur when future development under the long-range plan is combined with development in the surrounding areas, or in some instances, in the entire region.

Where the incremental effect of a project is not “cumulatively considerable,” a lead agency need not consider that effect significant but must briefly describe its basis for concluding that the incremental effect is not cumulatively considerable. The CEQA Guidelines state that a lead agency has discretion to determine if a project’s contribution to a significant cumulative impact is cumulatively considerable.

The cumulative discussions in Chapters 4.1 through 4.16 of this EA explain the geographic scope of the area affected by each cumulative effect (e.g., immediate project vicinity, county, watershed, or air basin).

The geographic area considered for each cumulative impact depends on the impact that is being analyzed.

For example, in assessing macro-scale air quality impacts, all development within the air basin contributes to regional emissions of criteria pollutants, and basin-wide projections of emissions are the best tool for determining the cumulative impact. In assessing aesthetic impacts, on the other hand, only development in the local area of change would contribute to a cumulative visual effect since the area of change is only visible in its vicinity.
541
CC 05-14-2024
541 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
PLACEWORKS 4-13
CEQA Guidelines Section 15130 permits two different methodologies for the cumulative impact analysis:
 The “list” approach permits the use of a list of past, present, and probable future projects producing related or cumulative impacts, including projects both in and outside the city.  The “projections” approach allows the use of a summary of projections in an adopted plan or related planning document, such as an RTP, or in an EIR prepared for such a plan. The projections may be supplemented with additional information such as regional modeling.

The cumulative impact analysis in this EA relies on a projections approach and considers growth from the proposed Modified Project in the Study Area in combination with impacts from projected growth in the rest of Santa Clara County and the surrounding region, as forecast by ABAG’s Metropolitan Transportation Plan and the Sustainable Communities Strategy, also known as Plan Bay Area. The following provides a summary of the cumulative impact setting for each impact area:
 Aesthetics: The cumulative setting for visual/aesthetic impacts includes potential future development under the proposed Modified Project combined with effects of development on lands adjacent to the city in Los Altos, Sunnyvale, Santa Clara, San Jose, Saratoga, and the unincorporated areas of Santa Clara to the west of the Study Area.
 Air Quality: Cumulative air quality impacts could occur from a combination of the proposed project with regional growth in the San Francisco Air Basin.
 Biological Resources: The geographic scope of the cumulative analysis for biological resources considers the surrounding incorporated and unincorporated lands and the region.  Cultural and Tribal Resources: Cumulative impacts to cultural and tribal resources could occur from projected growth in the surrounding region.
 Energy: Cumulative impacts to energy resources could occur from the estimated growth in the energy provider’s (i.e., Silicon Valley Clean Energy and Pacific Gas and Electric Company) service area.  Geology and Soils: Potentially cumulative geological impacts could arise from combination of the development of the proposed Modified Project together with future development in the immediate vicinity of the adjoining jurisdictions.
 Greenhouse Gas Emissions: The cumulative impact analyses for GHG emissions are related to the entire region. Because GHG emissions are not confined to a particular air basin but are dispersed worldwide, the cumulative impact analysis focuses on the global impacts and thus, is by nature cumulative.
 Hazards and Hazardous Materials: The cumulative analysis considers the effects of the proposed Modified Project in combination with growth in the rest of Santa Clara County and surrounding region.
 Hydrology and Water Quality: The geographic context used for the cumulative assessment of hydrology and water quality impacts, including the potential to exacerbate the potential for flooding, considers the watersheds that encompass Cupertino.
 Land Use and Planning: The geographic context for the cumulative land use and planning effects considers impacts from projected growth in the rest of Santa Clara County and the surrounding region, as forecast in Plan Bay Area.
542
CC 05-14-2024
542 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4-14 APRIL 2024
 Noise: The geographic context for cumulative construction noise and vibration considers development that could occur with implementation of the proposed Modified Project and cumulative development in adjacent cities. The vehicle traffic noise levels are based on cumulative traffic conditions that consider cumulative development in the Study Area.
 Population and Housing: Impacts from cumulative growth are considered in the context of their consistency with regional planning efforts in the Santa Clara County region.  Public Services and Recreation: Cumulative impacts are considered in the context of projected growth in the rest of Santa Clara County and the surrounding region, as forecast by Plan Bay Area and contiguous with the service area boundaries of the service providers evaluated in this section.  Transportation: The analysis of the proposed Modified Project addresses cumulative impacts to the transportation network and VMT in the Study Area and surrounding region.  Utilities and Service Systems: Cumulative impacts are considered in the context of the estimated growth in each utility’s service area.
 Wildfire: The geographic context for the cumulative wildfire analysis includes impacts of the proposed Modified Project plus cumulative development in Cupertino and the surrounding region. 543
CC 05-14-2024
543 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

AESTHETICS
PLACEWORKS 4.1-1

4.1 AESTHETICS
This chapter describes the potential impacts to aesthetics associated with the adoption and implementation of the proposed Modified Project. This chapter describes the regulatory framework and existing conditions, identifies criteria used to determine impact significance, provides an analysis of the potential aesthetics impacts, and identifies General Plan 2040 policies and strategies that could minimize any potentially significant impacts.

4.1.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
State Regulations
California State Scenic Highway Program
California’s Scenic Highway Program was created by the State legislature in 1963. Its purpose is to protect and enhance the natural scenic beauty of California highways and adjacent corridors through special conservation treatment. The State laws governing the Scenic Highways Program are found in the Streets and Highways Code, Sections 260 through 263. The California Scenic Highway Program is maintained by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans).

California Building Code
The State of California provides a minimum standard for building design through Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR), commonly referred to as the California Building Code (CBC). The CBC is in Part 2 of Title 24. The CBC is updated on a three-year cycle. It is effective statewide, but a local jurisdiction may adopt more restrictive standards based on local conditions under specific amendment rules prescribed by the State Building Standards Commission. The CBC includes standards for outdoor lighting that are intended to reduce light pollution and glare by regulating light power and brightness, shielding, and sensor controls.

The City of Cupertino (City) regularly adopts each new CBC update under the Cupertino Municipal Code (CMC) Chapter 16.02, Administrative Code.

California Building Code: CALGreen
The California Building Standards Commission provides the California Green Building Standards Code, also known as CALGreen, as part of CCR Title 24. As part of the CBC, CALGreen is in Part 11 of Title 24.

CALGreen establishes building standards aimed at enhancing the design and construction of buildings using building concepts that reduce negative impacts and increase positive environmental impacts by encouraging sustainable construction practices. Specifically, CALGreen Section 5.106.8, Light Pollution Reduction, establishes backlight, uplight, and glare ratings to minimize the effects of light pollution for nonresidential development. The local building permit process enforces the mandatory provisions of CALGreen. The City regularly adopts each new CALGreen update under CMC Chapter 16.58, Green Building Standards Code Adopted.
544
CC 05-14-2024
544 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

AESTHETICS

4.1-2 APRIL 2024
Senate Bill 743
As described in Chapter 4, Environmental Analysis, of this Environmental Assessment (EA), Senate Bill (SB) 743, which became effective on January 1, 2014, amended the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) by adding California Public Resources Code Section 21099 regarding analysis of aesthetics impacts for urban infill projects, among other provisions. CEQA Section 21099(d)(1), states, “Aesthetic and parking impacts of a residential, mixed-use residential, or employment center project on an infill site located within a transit priority area (TPA) shall not be considered significant impacts on the environment.” Accordingly, these topics are no longer to be considered in determining significant environmental effects for projects that meet all three of the following criteria:

1. Is on an infill site, which is defined as “a lot located within an urban area that has been previously developed or on a vacant site where at least 75 percent of the perimeter of the site adjoins, or is separated only by an improved public right-of-way from, parcels that are developed with qualified urban uses.”

2. Is a residential, mixed-use residential, or an employment-center project.

3. Is in a transit priority area (TPA), which is defined as “an area within one-half mile of a major transit stop that is existing or planned, if the planned stop is scheduled to be completed within the planning horizon included in a Transportation Improvement Program adopted pursuant to Section 450.216 or Section 450.322 of Title 23 of the Code of Federal Regulations.” Accordingly, in compliance with SB 743, no significant aesthetic impact findings can be made in any environmental analysis for potential future development in the Cupertino TPA (see Figure 4-1, Priority Development Areas and Transit Priority Areas, in Chapter 4, Environmental Analysis, of this EA). Aesthetic impacts are not discussed further in this EA with respect to potential future development in the TPA. As appropriate, aesthetic impacts are only considered for potential future development outside of these areas.

Local Regulations
General Plan 2040
The Land Use and Community Design (LU) and Recreation Parks and Community Services (RPC) Elements of the General Plan 2040 contain goals, policies, and strategies that require local planning and development decisions to consider impacts to aesthetic resources. Applicable policies and strategies that would minimize potential adverse impacts on aesthetic resources are identified in Section 4.1.3, Impact Discussion.

Municipal Code
The CMC includes various directives to minimize adverse impacts to visual resources in Cupertino. The CMC is organized by title, chapter, and section. Most provisions related to aesthetics and visual character are included in Title 1, General Provisions; Title 14, Street, Sidewalks and Landscaping; Title 18, Subdivision Regulations; and Title 19, Zoning, as follows:
545
CC 05-14-2024
545 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

AESTHETICS
PLACEWORKS 4.1-3
 Title 1, General Provisions. This title establishes the adoption and general terms of the CMC.  Chapter 1.09, Nuisance Abatement. This chapter addresses nuisance abatement and includes provisions aimed at protecting the visual quality of the community. This chapter defines aspects that constitute a nuisance, including “a condition that diminishes property values and degrades the quality of life within the city.” This chapter requires proper maintenance of buildings and property and the abatement of visual nuisances to ensure the protection of public health and safety.  Title 14, Street, Sidewalks and Landscaping. This title provides development standards related to aesthetics, such as street improvements, encroachments, and use of the rights-of-way, landscaping, and undergrounding utilities in the city.
 Chapter 14.8, Protected Tree Ordinance. This ordinance outlines the importance of protected trees to the community, and measures to preserve these trees. Actions that are prohibited through this ordinance are deliberately causing damage to any protected trees and removing any protected trees in any zoning district without first obtaining a tree removal permit as required by Section 14.18.110 unless a permit is not required per Section 14.18.150. This ordinance also outlines Heritage Tree Designations and how this designation can only be initiated by the owner of property on which the tree is located unless the tree is on public or quasi-public property. After designation, the heritage tree shall be added to the heritage tree list and a heritage tree identification tag will be added and placed by the City. Removals of heritage trees is also addressed in this chapter.  Title 18, Subdivision Regulations. This title establishes the standards that regulate and control the division of land in Cupertino for the preservation of public safety and general welfare. The ordinance provides standards to support orderly growth and development, ensure appropriate design and construction, promote and protect open space, offer adequate traffic circulation, and install necessary infrastructure.
 Title 19, Zoning. The zoning code is the primary tool that shapes the form and character of physical development in Cupertino. This title establishes comprehensive zoning regulations for the city and ensures the orderly and beneficial development of the city, attains a desirable balance of residential and employment opportunities, and promotes efficient urban design and arrangement. The zoning code sets forth the standards requiring architectural and site review and stipulating aesthetic criteria for new development.
 Chapter 19.48, Fences. This chapter regulates the location and height of fences and vegetation in all zoning districts.
 Chapter 19.102, Glass and Lighting Standards. This chapter regulates the design and construction of structures and accessory elements in all zoning districts to protect the natural environment, particularly enhancing bird-safety and reducing light pollution. Section 19.102.030, Bird-safe Development Requirements, provides guidelines on glazing and indoor and outdoor light to help protect birds. Section 19.102.040, Outdoor Lighting Requirements, describes outdoor lighting regulations and requirements to minimize light pollution and impact on the dark sky.  Chapter 19.104, Signs. This chapter regulates the appearance and placement of signs to maintain the aesthetic of the city while providing information to the public.  Chapter 19.168, Architectural and Site Review. This chapter provides an orderly process to review architectural and site designs of buildings, structures, signs, lighting, and landscaping for prescribed types of land development within the city to promote the goals and objectives contained in the 546
CC 05-14-2024
546 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

AESTHETICS

4.1-4 APRIL 2024
General Plan, to protect and stabilize property values, and to maintain the character and integrity of neighborhoods.

Heart of the City Specific Plan
The Heart of the City Specific Plan (Specific Plan) provides guidance for development along Stevens Creek Boulevard, a major commercial corridor in Cupertino. The General Plan 2040 identifies the Specific Plan area as the Heart of the City Special Area. The primary aim of the Specific Plan is to create a greater sense of place and community identity for Cupertino. To accomplish this goal, the Specific Plan provides design guidelines that promote buildings that create visual interest. In addition, the Specific Plan focuses on aesthetics to ensure the corridor maintains appropriate character and form.

South Vallco Master Plan
The South Vallco Master Plan (SVMP) is a coordinated framework for the development of commercial properties in the South Vallco area, or as described in the General Plan 2040, the South Vallco Gateway East and South Vallco Gateway West, within the Heart of the City Special Area. As development under the SVMP occurs, the City envisions achievement of the following benefits: area revitalization, aesthetic coordination, property connectivity, roadway infrastructure optimization, and identity recognition. The SVMP also establishes the following policies to ensure that the community character and aesthetics of the SVMP area are realized.
 Policy 4.1. Establish consistent, pedestrian friendly landscape and streetscape to promote a downtown and Main Street style setting.
 Policy 4.2. Identify the style and design features for lighting, street furniture, and wayfinding to promote a consistent aesthetic.
 Policy 4.3. Enhance and supplement current landscaped areas with quality landscaping.  Policy 4.4. Support a variety of architectural styles, heights, massing, and uses to create an eclectic Main Street style character.
 Policy 4.5. Support gateway features, signage, and/or monuments.  Policy 4.6. Include native vegetation and drought tolerant landscaping.

Monta Vista Design Guidelines
The Monta Vista Design Guidelines (MV Guidelines) refine and implement the policies of General Plan 2040 by outlining building design details, landscaping treatment, signage, and public improvement details for the Monta Vista Commercial Area and is located in the area between the urban transition and the hillside transition,1 historically the rural part of the city. The Monta Vista Commercial Area portion of the Monta Vista Village Neighborhood is considered “Downtown Monta Vista” and is to the north and south of Stevens Creek Boulevard between State Route 85 (SR-85) on the east and Byrne Avenue to the west.

Future potential development in this area would be required to comply with the applicable design 1 See Figure LU-2 of Chapter 3 of the General Plan.
547
CC 05-14-2024
547 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

AESTHETICS
PLACEWORKS 4.1-5
standards outlined in the MV Guidelines. The MV Guidelines outline the activities that trigger improvement requirements or conformance with the design standards. In some cases, changes in land use activity may trigger one or more of the other improvements, including, but not limited to, landscaping, public improvements, and signage improvements.

Conceptual Plans
The North De Anza Boulevard, South De Anza Boulevard, and South Sunnyvale-Saratoga Conceptual Plans delineate the guidelines for development, redevelopment, and change of use for properties and businesses in these areas of Cupertino. These Conceptual Plans set forth conditions implementing all the relevant policies of the Cupertino General Plan relating to development and establish limits to ensure future potential development blends with and enhances the existing development pattern in these areas.

EXISTING CONDTIONS
Chapter 4.1, Aesthetics, of the General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR), addresses the impacts to visual resources associated with buildout of the Approved Project at a program level. The setting for aesthetic resources is described in the General Plan EIR Section 4.1.1.2, Existing Conditions. Since the certification of the General Plan EIR, the approval and construction of the following new projects have contributed to the visual character of Cupertino:
 Apple Park (formally Apple Campus 2), completed in 2017, included the construction of a corporate campus on a 175-acre site in the northeastern portion of the city. The campus is made up of a ringshaped four-story building that has 60-foot-tall panels of curved glass and solar panels along the exterior of the building. The overall campus and building are surrounded by mature trees ranging from 15 to 60 feet tall.
 Westport Cupertino, currently under construction on an 8.1-acre parcel, is a senior and family living project along Stevens Creek Boulevard and Mary Avenue, adjacent to SR-85. This project adds two sixstory buildings and 88 three-story townhomes where a single-story town and country shopping center was previously located.
 The Rise (Formerly Vallco) is the area known as Study Area 6 of the General Plan EIR. This area includes the Vallco Mall, which is mostly demolished and slated for new development of a mix of uses, including over 2,650 housing units, approximately 1.95 million square feet of office space, and approximately 226,000 square feet of retail uses.

4.1.2 STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Implementation of the proposed Modified Project would result in a significant aesthetics impact if it would:

Impact of the
Approved
Project (General
Plan 2040 EIR)
Impact of the
Proposed
Modified
Project
AES-1. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? LTS LTS AES-2. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? LTS LTS 548
CC 05-14-2024
548 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

AESTHETICS

4.1-6 APRIL 2024
Implementation of the proposed Modified Project would result in a significant aesthetics impact if it would:

Impact of the
Approved
Project (General
Plan 2040 EIR)
Impact of the
Proposed
Modified
Project
AES-3. In nonurbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?

LTS LTS
AES-4. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? LTS LTS
AES-5. Result in a cumulatively considerable impact with respect to aesthetic resources? LTS LTS
Note: In December 2018, amendments were made to Appendix G, Environmental Checklist, of the CEQA Guidelines after the certification of the General Plan EIR in 2015. Some of the questions have been added, modified, or removed, while others have been relocated to different chapters of this EA. AES-3 was revised to differentiate between urban and nonurbanized areas when it comes to evaluating visual character.

Key: NI = no impact; LTS = less than significant; LTS/M = less than significant with mitigation; SU = significant and unavoidable With respect to AES-3, CEQA Section 21071, Urbanized Area; Definition, has several metrics by which an incorporated city can be defined as an “urbanized” area. CEQA Section 21071(a)(2) states that an incorporated city can be classified as an urbanized area if the city has a population of less than 100,000 persons and if the population of that city, and not more than two contiguous incorporated cities combined, equals at least 100,000 persons. As described in Chapter 3, Project Description, of this EA, the population estimate in 2023 for Cupertino was 65,922 residents. 2 According to the U.S. Census, the two
contiguous cities, Sunnyvale to the north and San Jose to the east, have 153,091 and 971,233 residents, respectively. This brings the total population of the three contiguous cities to 1,190,246. Therefore, Cupertino is considered an urbanized area under CEQA Section 21071(a)(2) and impacts of potential future development projects in Cupertino are based on part two of the standard regarding whether the proposed Modified Project conflicts with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality.

4.1.3 IMPACT DISCUSSION
AES-1 Implementation of the proposed Modified Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista.

As described in the General Plan EIR, scenic vistas are generally interpreted as long-range views, while scenic corridors are made up of short-, middle-, and long-range views. The General Plan EIR considered the westward views of the foothills and ridgelines of the Santa Cruz Mountains as scenic vistas and the Caltrans-designated segment of Interstate 280 (I-280) from Santa Clara County line on the west to I-880 on the east as an eligible State Scenic Highway “scenic corridor.” Please note that the impacts to the Statedesignated scenic corridor are described under impact discussion AES-2. 2 Population is calculated applying the City’s generation rate used in the General Plan EIR of 2.94 persons per household (2,952 dwelling units x 2.94 persons per unit = 7,620 additional population). 549
CC 05-14-2024
549 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

AESTHETICS
PLACEWORKS 4.1-7
The General Plan EIR found that potential future development over the buildout horizon of the General Plan 2040 with heights ranging from 30 to 160 feet would not block views of scenic vistas/corridors from specific publicly accessible vantage points or alter the overall scenic vista/corridor itself. However, as described in Chapter 4, Environmental Analysis, due to the expanded California Density Bonus law (Assembly Bill 2345), future potential development under both the Approved Project and proposed Modified Project could exceed this height limit. The density would be approved on a project-by-project basis, and therefore would be speculative to evaluate increases in height that may be granted.

As described in the General Plan EIR, because the topography of Cupertino is essentially flat, the views from street-level public viewing to the scenic resources are already inhibited by existing conditions such as buildings, structures, and mature trees/vegetation. In addition, the maximum heights currently permitted also limit the opportunity for views of scenic vistas/corridors from street-level public viewing.

Furthermore, as shown on Figure 3-3, Housing Element (2023-2031) Opportunity Sites, in Chapter 3, Project Description, of this EA, the location of potential future development under the proposed Modified Project, as with the Approved Project, would be concentrated on a limited number of parcels and in the form of infill/intensification on sites either already developed and/or underutilized, and/or in close proximity to existing residential and residential-serving development, where future development would have a lesser impact on scenic vistas. Additionally, the areas of potential development identified in the proposed Modified Project are not considered destination public viewing points.

Development at these locations support the goal of a more sustainable, less auto-oriented city.

Specifically, areas of concentrated growth would occur in the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) City Cores, Corridors & Station Areas Priority Development Area (PDA) and the TPA that covers much of Cupertino, as shown on Figure 4-1, Priority Development Areas and Transit Priority Areas, in Chapter 4 of this EA. As described in the General Plan EIR, even with more intense development on the sites being analyzed as a result of the proposed Modified Project, similar views would continue to be visible between elements of the built environment and over lower-intensity areas, and no new or greater impacts to views of the existing scenic resources would occur. Additionally, as described in Section 4.1.1.1, Regulatory Framework, under subheading “Senate Bill 743,” there is the potential for future qualifying development located within the TPA surrounding Stevens Creek Boulevard and North Wolfe Road to be exempt from aesthetics evaluation.

The General Plan EIR also found that the General Plan 2040 Land Use and Community Design (LU), Environmental Resources and Sustainability (ES), and Recreation, Parks, and Community Service (RPC) Elements contain policies and strategies that require local planning and development decisions to consider impacts to scenic vistas/corridors from potential new development. Like the Approved Project, the following existing General Plan 2040 policies and strategies, and updated policies and strategies as part of the proposed Modified Project, would also serve to minimize potential adverse impacts on scenic vistas/corridors:
 Policy LU-3.3. Building Design. Ensure that building layouts and design are compatible with the surrounding environment and enhance the streetscape and pedestrian activity. (General Plan EIR Policy 2-18)
550
CC 05-14-2024
550 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

AESTHETICS

4.1-8 APRIL 2024
 Strategy LU-3.3.1. Attractive Design. Emphasize attractive building and site design by paying careful attention to building scale, mass, placement, architecture, materials, landscaping, screening of equipment, loading areas, signage, and other design considerations. (General Plan EIR Policy 2-16)  Policy LU- 6.7. Heritage Trees. Protect and maintain the city’s heritage trees in a healthy state. (General Plan EIR Policy 2-74)
 Policy LU-12.3. Rural Improvement Standards in Hillside Areas. Require rural improvement standards in hillside areas to preserve the rural character of the hillsides. Improvement standards should balance the need to furnish adequate utility and emergency services against the need to protect the hillside, vegetation, and animals. (General Plan EIR Policy 2-51)  Policy LU-12.4. Hillside Views. The Montebello foothills at the south and west boundary of the valley floor provide a scenic backdrop, adding to the City’s scale and variety. While it is not possible to guarantee an unobstructed view of the hulls from every vantage point, an attempt should be made to preserve views of the foothills.
 Strategy LU-12.4.1. Views from Public Facilities. Design public facilities, particularly open spaces, so they include views of the foothills or other nearby natural features, and plan hillside developments to minimize visual and other impacts on adjacent public open space. (General Plan EIR Policy 2-52)  Policy LU-13.7. Streetscape and Connectivity. Create a walkable and bikeable boulevard with active uses and a distinct image for each subarea.
 Strategy LU-13.7.5. Neighborhood Buffers. Consider buffers such as setbacks. Landscaping and/or building transitions to buffer abutting single-family residential areas from visual and noise impacts.  Policy RPC- 3.1. Preservation of Natural Areas. Design parks to utilize natural features and the topography of the site in order to protect natural features and keep maintenance costs low. (General Plan EIR Policy 2-88)
In summary, potential future development under the proposed Modified Project would not further obstruct public views of scenic vistas from within the city. Similar views would continue to be visible between projects and over lower-density areas. Considering this and the fact that the proposed housing locations are not considered destination public viewing points and are in similar locations as those evaluated under the Approved Project, overall impacts from the proposed Modified Project would not result in new or more severe impacts to scenic vistas beyond what was evaluated in the General Plan EIR.

Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant. 551
CC 05-14-2024
551 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

AESTHETICS
PLACEWORKS 4.1-9
AES-2 Implementation of the proposed Modified Project would not substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State Scenic Highway.

As described in the General Plan EIR, Caltrans designated the segment of I-280 from Santa Clara County line on the west to I-880 on the east as an eligible State Scenic Highway.3 The status of a proposed State Scenic Highway changes from “eligible” to officially “designated” when the local governing body applies to Caltrans for scenic highway approval, adopts a Corridor Protection Program, and receives notification that the highway has been officially designated a Scenic Highway. The City of Cupertino has not applied to Caltrans for Scenic Highway approval at the time of drafting this EA. As described in Section 4.1.1.1, Regulatory Framework, under subheading “Senate Bill 743,” there is the potential for future qualifying development located within the TPA surrounding Stevens Creek Boulevard and North Wolfe Road would be exempt from aesthetics evaluation. The General Plan EIR found that potential future development over the buildout horizon of the General Plan 2040 with heights ranging from 30 to 160 feet would not represent a substantial change in the character of the areas in the viewshed of this segment of I-280, because the existing viewshed in this area is largely urbanized and built out.

As with the Approved Project, the proposed Modified Project would primarily involve gradual changes in development intensity along the I-280 viewshed, similar to existing buildings, albeit with increased building height potential. Like the Approved Project, new and/or intensified uses in the I-280 viewshed, as a result of the proposed Modified Project, would be dispersed within the Heart of the City Special Area, North De Anza Special Area, North Vallco Park Special Area, South De Anza Special Area, and Homestead Special Area, and would not fully obstruct views of far-field scenic resources (e.g., Santa Cruz Mountains), trees, or historic buildings from the eligible State Scenic Highway (I-280).

As described under impact discussion AES-1, the General Plan EIR found that the Land Use and Community Design (LU); Recreation, Parks, and Community Service (RPC); and Environmental Resources and Sustainability (ES) Elements contain policies and strategies that require local planning and development decisions to consider impacts to scenic vistas/corridors, including I-280, from potential new development. Additional policies and strategies that require local planning and development decisions to consider impacts to scenic resources include:
 Policy LU- 6.1. Historic Preservation. Maintain and update an inventory of historically significant structures and sites in order to protect resources and promote awareness of the city’s history in the following four categories: Historic Sites, Commemorative Sites, Community Landmarks and Historic Mention Sites (General Plan Figure LU-3). (General Plan EIR Policy 2-71)  Strategy LU-19.3.10. Trees. Retain trees along the Interstate 280, Wolfe Road, and Stevens Creek Boulevard to the extent feasible, when new developments are proposed. 3 California Department of Transportation website, Officially Designated State Scenic Highways, https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8e8057116f1aacaa, accessed September 6, 2023.
552
CC 05-14-2024
552 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

AESTHETICS

4.1-10 APRIL 2024
 Policy ES-5.3. Development Near Sensitive Areas. Encourage the clustering of new development away from sensitive areas such as riparian corridors, wildlife habitat and corridors, public open space preserves and ridgelines. New developments in these areas must have harmonious landscaping plan approved prior to development. (General Plan EIR Policy 5-9) Like the Approved Project, these policies and strategies would continue to serve to minimize potential adverse impacts along the I-280 viewshed. Accordingly, overall impacts to scenic resources in the I-280 viewshed under the proposed Modified Project would not result in new or more severe impacts beyond what was evaluated in the General Plan EIR.

Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.

AES-3 Implementation of the proposed Modified Project in an urbanized area could conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality.

The General Plan EIR identified sites, shown on Figure 3-40, General Plan and Zoning Ordinance Conformance Sites, of the General Plan EIR, where there were inconsistencies between the Approved Project and existing land use for the location. However, under the Approved Project, the General Plan Map was amended to bring consistency between the existing use and the General Plan land use for the location. Additionally, future potential projects under the Approved Project would be reviewed for compliance with applicable regulations as part of the entitlement process. Given the existing commercial, industrial, and residential uses surrounding the locations for future potential development under the Approved Project, gradual development of those future projects would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the Study Area and their surroundings. General Plan 2040 is the primary planning document for Cupertino and is implemented by the zoning code. The proposed amendments to the General Plan 2040 and zoning code are intended to ensure consistency between the General Plan 2040, zoning code, and State law. All potential future development under the proposed Modified Project, like the Approved Project, would be required to be consistent with the General Plan 2040, zoning code, and other City regulations governing visual character, as described in Section 4.1.1.1, Environmental Setting. Because the proposed Modified Project includes updates to the overriding planning documents for the City, and because the proposed Modified Project involves amending the General Plan 2040 and the zoning code to improve consistency, adoption and implementation of the proposed Modified Project would have no impact with respect to being inconsistent with policies or regulations governing scenic quality. With respect to State regulations, as described in impact discussion AES-2, impacts associated with State regulations governing designated State Scenic Highways would not result in new or more severe impacts beyond what was evaluated in the General Plan EIR. However, it should also be noted, as described in Section 4.1.1.1., Regulatory Framework, under subheading “Senate Bill 743,” there is the potential for future qualifying development located within the TPA surrounding Stevens Creek Boulevard and North Wolfe Road to be exempt from aesthetics evaluation.

Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant. 553
CC 05-14-2024
553 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

AESTHETICS
PLACEWORKS 4.1-11
AES-4 Implementation of the proposed Modified Project would not create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area.

Light pollution refers to all forms of unwanted light in the night sky, including glare, light trespass, sky glow, and over-lighting. Views of the night sky are an important part of the natural environment. Excessive light and glare can be visually disruptive to humans and nocturnal animal species. Although there is considerable development in Cupertino, commercial development is concentrated near highways, in the Heart of the City Special Area, and along major arterials. Generally, light pollution takes form through street lighting along major streets and highways and nighttime illumination of commercial buildings, shopping centers, and industrial buildings. Nighttime illumination and glare impacts are the effects of a development’s exterior lighting on adjoining uses and areas. Light and glare impacts are determined through a comparison of the existing light sources with the proposed lighting plan or policies.

As described in the General Plan EIR, the Study Area currently contains many existing sources of nighttime illumination, including street and parking area lights, security lighting, and exterior lighting on existing residential, commercial, and institutional buildings, as well as traffic on SR-85 and I-280. As stated in the General Plan EIR, despite the new and expanded sources of nighttime illumination and glare from the Approved Project, potential future development over the buildout horizon of the General Plan 2040 with heights ranging from 30 to 160 feet was not expected to generate a substantial increase in light and glare.

The General Plan EIR found that besides general guidelines that require lighting that is context-sensitive in style and intensity, all potential new development in Cupertino would also have to comply with the General Plan 2040 policies and CMC provisions that ensure new land uses do not generate excessive light levels.

After the certification of the General Plan EIR, the City adopted the Bird Safe and Dark Sky Ordinance into CMC Chapter 19.102. The ordinance regulates the design and construction of structures and accessory components in all zoning districts to protect the natural environment, particularly enhancing birdsafety and reducing light pollution by establishing regulations to reduce light pollution. Potential future development under the proposed Modified Project would be required to follow these standards.

The General Plan EIR also found that the Land Use and Community Design (LU) Element contains policies that require local planning and development decisions to consider impacts from light and glare. Like the Approved Project, the following existing General Plan 2040 policies and strategy, and updated policies and strategy as part of the proposed Modified Project, would also serve to minimize potential adverse impacts from light and glare.
 Policy LU-3.5. Light Pollution. Reduce light pollution and other adverse effects associated with night lighting from street and urban uses.
 Strategy LU-3.5.1. Dark Sky Ordinance. New development and other applicable projects shall comply with the City’s Glass and Lighting Standards Ordinance, which provides Dark Sky regulations to reduce light pollution.
 Policy LU-20.6. Neighborhood Buffers. Provide building transitions, setbacks and/or landscaping to buffer development from adjoining single-family residential uses. 554
CC 05-14-2024
554 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

AESTHETICS

4.1-12 APRIL 2024
 Policy LU-27.8. Protection. Protect residential neighborhoods from noise, traffic, light, glare, odors, and visually intrusive effects from more intense development with landscape buffers, site and building design, setbacks, and other appropriate measures.

Additionally, the preservation of mature trees with substantial tree canopies, as described in CMC Chapter

14.8, Protected Tree Ordinance, would diffuse the overall amount of light generated by new development and glare generated by windows of multistory buildings. Furthermore, because the areas of potential growth are largely developed, the lighting associated with the proposed Modified Project would not substantially increase nighttime light and glare within the Study Area or its surroundings compared to the Approved Project.

Potential future development under the proposed Modified Project, same as the Approved Project, would occur on a limited number of parcels and in the form of infill/intensification on sites either already developed and/or underutilized, and/or in close proximity to existing residential and residential-serving development, where future development would have lesser light and glare impacts. Potential future development under the proposed Modified Project would be subject to the same regulatory setting as that of the Approved Project, including the City’s General Plan policies that require reducing light and glare spillover from future development to surrounding land uses by buffering new development with landscaping and trees and CMC Section 19.102.040, Outdoor Lighting Requirements, to minimize impact on the dark sky. Accordingly, overall impacts related to light and glare would not result in new or more severe impacts beyond what was evaluated in the General Plan EIR.

Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.

AES-5 Implementation of the proposed Modified Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact with respect to aesthetic resources.

The General Plan EIR considers growth projected by the General Plan in the Cupertino city limit and Sphere of Influence (SOI), in combination with impacts from projected growth in the rest of Santa Clara County and the surrounding region, as forecast by the Association of Bay Area of Governments (ABAG) and found that because of the developed nature of the Study Area, future development would not negatively impact the visual character of the city. Because of the developed nature of the projected areas of growth in Cupertino, future development under the proposed Modified Project, in combination with other new development, would not negatively impact the visual character of the city or the surrounding communities. Furthermore, the proposed Modified Project would not constitute a significant adverse impact, when compared to the Approved Project, because future potential development and redevelopment within the Study Area is anticipated to occur as growth occurs.

The General Plan 2040 policies and strategies listed in impact discussions AES-1, AES-2, and AES-4 would not cause adverse physical changes that could create aesthetic impacts in Cupertino. Individual potential future developments would continue to be subject to General Plan policies and strategies and the CMC provisions related to aesthetics, including potential project-level design review requirements. Additionally, similar to the Approved Project, as part of the approval process, potential future development as a result of implementation of the proposed Modified Project would be subject to architectural, environmental, 555
CC 05-14-2024
555 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

AESTHETICS
PLACEWORKS 4.1-13
and site design review, as applicable, to ensure that the development is aesthetically pleasing and compatible with adjoining land uses. With the development review mechanisms in place, approved future potential development under the proposed Modified Project would not create substantial impacts to visual resources in Cupertino or the surrounding communities, when compared to the Approved Project.

Therefore, the proposed Modified Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact to aesthetic resources and cumulative impacts would continue to be less than significant. Overall cumulative aesthetics impacts would not result in new or more severe impacts to aesthetics resources beyond what was evaluated in the General Plan EIR.

Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant. 556
CC 05-14-2024
556 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

AESTHETICS

4.1-14 APRIL 2024
This page has been intentionally left blank.
557
CC 05-14-2024
557 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

AIR QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 4.2-1

4.2 AIR QUALITY
This chapter describes the potential impacts to air quality associated with the adoption and implementation of the proposed Modified Project. This chapter describes the regulatory framework and baseline conditions, identifies criteria used to determine impact significance, provides an analysis of the potential air quality impacts, and identifies General Plan 2040 policies and/or strategies that could minimize any potentially significant impacts.

4.2.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

AIR POLLUTANTS OF CONCERN
Criteria Air Pollutants
The pollutants emitted into the ambient air by stationary and mobile sources are categorized as primary and/or secondary pollutants. Primary air pollutants are emitted directly from sources. Carbon monoxide (CO), volatile organic compounds (VOC), nitrogen oxides (NOX), sulfur dioxide (SO2), coarse inhalable particulate matter (PM10), fine inhalable particulate matter (PM2.5), and lead (Pb) are primary air pollutants. Of these, CO, SO2, NOX, PM10, and PM2.5 are “criteria air pollutants,” which means that Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS) have been established for them. VOC and NOX are criteria pollutant precursors that form secondary criteria air pollutants through chemical and photochemical reactions in the atmosphere. Ozone (O3) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) are the principal secondary pollutants. Table

4.2-1, Criteria Air Pollutant Health Effects Summary, summarizes the potential health effects associated with the criteria air pollutants.

TABLE 4.2-1 CRITERIA AIR POLLUTANT HEALTH EFFECTS SUMMARY Pollutant Health Effects Examples of Sources
Carbon Monoxide (CO)
Chest pain in heart patients, Headaches,
nausea, Reduced mental alertness
Death at very high levels
Any source that burns fuel such as cars, trucks,
construction and farming equipment, and
residential heaters and stoves
Ozone (O3)
Cough, chest tightness, Difficulty taking a deep
breath, Worsened asthma symptoms
Lung inflammation
Atmospheric reaction of organic gases with
nitrogen oxides in sunlight
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) Increased response to allergens, Aggravation of respiratory illness
Same as carbon monoxide sources
Particulate Matter
(PM10 and PM2.5)
Hospitalizations for worsened heart diseases,
Emergency room visits for asthma, Premature
death
Cars and trucks (particularly diesels),
Fireplaces and woodstoves, Windblown dust
from overlays, agriculture, and construction
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)
Aggravation of respiratory disease
(e.g., asthma and emphysema)
Reduced lung function
Combustion of sulfur-containing fossil fuels,
smelting of sulfur-bearing metal ores, and
industrial processes
Lead (Pb) Behavioral and learning disabilities in children, Nervous system impairment
Contaminated soil
Source: California Air Resources Board, 2024, Common Air Pollutants: Air Pollution and Health, https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/common-airpollutants, accessed January 29, 2024; South Coast Air Quality Management District, May 6, 2005, Guidance Document for Addressing Air Quality Issues in General Plans and Local Planning, http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/planning/air-quality-guidance/complete-guidance-document.pdf, accessed January 29, 2024.
558
CC 05-14-2024
558 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

AIR QUALITY

4.2-2 APRIL 2024
A description of each of the primary and secondary criteria air pollutants and their known health effects is presented below.
 Carbon Monoxide (CO) is a colorless, odorless gas produced by incomplete combustion of carbon substances, such as gasoline or diesel fuel. CO is a primary criteria air pollutant. CO concentrations tend to be the highest during winter mornings with little to no wind, when surface-based inversions trap the pollutant at ground levels. The highest ambient CO concentrations are generally found near traffic-congested corridors and intersections. When inhaled at high concentrations, CO combines with hemoglobin in the blood and reduces its oxygen-carrying capacity. This results in reduced oxygen reaching the brain, heart, and other body tissues. This condition is especially critical for people with cardiovascular diseases, chronic lung disease, or anemia, as well as for fetuses. Even healthy people exposed to high CO concentrations can experience headaches, dizziness, fatigue, unconsciousness, and even death.  Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) are a by-product of fuel combustion and contribute to the formation of ground-level O3, PM10, and PM2.5. The two major forms of NOX are nitric oxide (NO) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2). NO is a colorless, odorless gas formed from atmospheric nitrogen and oxygen when combustion takes place under high temperature and/or high pressure. The principal form of NOX produced by combustion is NO, but NO reacts quickly with oxygen to form NO2, creating the mixture of NO and NO2 commonly called NOX. NO2 is an acute irritant and more injurious than NO in equal concentrations. At atmospheric concentrations, however, NO2 is only potentially irritating. NO is a colorless, odorless gas formed from atmospheric nitrogen and oxygen when combustion takes place under high temperature and/or high pressure. NO2 acts as an acute irritant and in equal concentrations is more injurious than NO. At atmospheric concentrations, however, NO2 is only potentially irritating. There is some indication of a relationship between NO2 and chronic pulmonary fibrosis. Some increase in bronchitis in children (2 and 3 years old) has also been observed at concentrations below 0.3 parts per million (ppm).  Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) is a colorless, pungent, irritating gas formed by the combustion of sulfurous fossil fuels. It enters the atmosphere as a result of burning high-sulfur-content fuel oils and coal and chemical processes at plants and refineries. Gasoline and natural gas have very low sulfur content and do not release significant quantities of SO2. When sulfur dioxide forms sulfates (SO4) in the atmosphere, together these pollutants are referred to as sulfur oxides (SOX). Thus, SO2 is both a primary and secondary criteria air pollutant. At sufficiently high concentrations, SO2 may irritate the upper respiratory tract. Current scientific evidence links short-term exposures to SO2, ranging from 5 minutes to 24 hours, with an array of adverse respiratory effects, including bronchoconstriction and increased asthma symptoms. These effects are particularly adverse for asthmatics at elevated ventilation rates (e.g., while exercising or playing) at lower concentrations and when combined with particulates, SO2 may do greater harm by injuring lung tissue.  Suspended Particulate Matter (PM10 and PM2.5) consists of finely divided solids or liquids such as soot, dust, aerosols, fumes, and mists. In the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB or Air Basin), most particulate matter is caused by combustion, factories, construction, grading, 559
CC 05-14-2024
559 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

AIR QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 4.2-3
demolition, agricultural activities, and motor vehicles. Two forms of fine particulates are now recognized and regulated. Inhalable coarse particles, or PM10, include particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 microns (i.e., 10 millionths of a meter or 0.0004 inch) or less.

Inhalable fine particles, or PM2.5, have an aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 microns or less (i.e.,

2.5 millionths of a meter or 0.0001 inch). Diesel particulate matter (DPM) is also classified as a carcinogen. Extended exposure to particulate matter can increase the risk of chronic respiratory disease. PM10 bypasses the body’s natural filtration system more easily than larger particles and can lodge deep in the lungs. The EPA scientific review concluded that PM2.5 penetrates even more deeply into the lungs, and this is more likely to contribute to health effects—at concentrations well below current PM10 standards. These health effects include premature death in people with heart or lung disease, nonfatal heart attacks, irregular heartbeat, aggravated asthma, decreased lung function, and increased respiratory symptoms (e.g., irritation of the airways, coughing, or difficulty breathing). Motor vehicles are currently responsible for about half of particulates in the SFBAAB. Wood burning in fireplaces and stoves is another large source of fine particulates.  Ozone (O3) is a key ingredient of “smog” and is a gas that is formed when ROGs and NOX, both byproducts of internal combustion engine exhaust, undergo photochemical reactions in sunlight. O3 is a secondary criteria air pollutant. O3 concentrations are generally highest during the summer months when direct sunlight, light winds, and warm temperatures create favorable conditions for its formation. O3 poses a health threat to those who already suffer from respiratory diseases as well as to healthy people. Breathing O3 can trigger a variety of health problems, including chest pain, coughing, throat irritation, and congestion. It can worsen bronchitis, emphysema, and asthma; reduce lung function; and inflame the linings of the lungs. Besides causing shortness of breath, it can aggravate existing respiratory diseases such as asthma, bronchitis, and emphysema.

Chronic exposure to high ozone levels can permanently damage lung tissue. O3 can also damage plants and trees and materials such as rubber and fabrics.  Reactive Organic Gases (ROGs)/Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) are compounds composed primarily of hydrogen and carbon atoms. Internal combustion associated with motor vehicle usage is the major source of ROGs. Other sources of ROGs include evaporative emissions from paints and solvents, the application of asphalt paving, and the use of household consumer products such as aerosols. Adverse effects on human health are not caused directly by ROGs, but rather by reactions of ROGs to form secondary pollutants such as O3. There are no AAQS established for ROGs. However, because they contribute to the formation of O3, the BAAQMD has established a significance threshold for this pollutant.  Lead (Pb) is a metal found naturally in the environment as well as in manufactured products. The major sources of lead emissions have historically been mobile and industrial sources. As a result of the phasing out of leaded gasoline, metal processing is currently the primary source of lead emissions. The highest levels of lead in the air are generally found near lead smelters. Other stationary sources are waste incinerators, utilities, and lead-acid battery manufacturers. Because 560
CC 05-14-2024
560 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

AIR QUALITY

4.2-4 APRIL 2024
emissions of lead are found only in projects that are permitted by the BAAQMD, lead is not an air quality of concern for the Approved Project or proposed Modified Project.

Toxic Air Contaminants
The California Health and Safety Code defines a toxic air contaminant (TAC) as “an air pollutant which may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or in serious illness, or which may pose a present or potential hazard to human health.” A substance that is listed as a hazardous air pollutant pursuant to Section 112(b) of the federal Clean Air Act (42 US Code Section 7412[b]) is a toxic air contaminant. People exposed to toxic air pollutants at sufficient concentrations and durations may have an increased chance of getting cancer or experiencing other serious health effects. These health effects can include damage to the immune system, as well as neurological, reproductive (e.g., reduced fertility), developmental, respiratory, and other health problems.1 CARB has identified over 200 substances and groups of substances as TACs.2 Additionally, CARB has implemented control measures for several compounds that pose high risks and show potential for effective control measures. Most of the estimated health risks from TACs can be attributed to relatively few compounds. The most important compounds are particulate matter from diesel-fueled engines.

In 1998, CARB identified Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM) as a TAC. Previously, the individual chemical compounds in diesel exhaust were considered TACs. Almost all diesel exhaust particles are 10 microns or less in diameter. Because of their extremely small size, these particles can be inhaled and eventually trapped in the bronchial and alveolar regions of the lungs. According to the BAAQMD, PM emitted from diesel engines contributes to more than 85 percent of the cancer risk in the SFBAAB. Cancer risk from TACs is highest near major DPM sources.3
Because placement of sensitive land uses falls outside CARB’s jurisdiction, CARB developed and approved the Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective (2005) to address the siting of sensitive land uses in the vicinity of freeways, distribution centers, rail yards, ports, refineries, chromeplating facilities, dry cleaners, and gasoline-dispensing facilities. This guidance document was developed to assess compatibility and associated health risks when placing sensitive receptors near existing pollution sources. CARB’s recommendations on the siting of new sensitive land uses identified in Table 4.2-2, CARB Recommendations for Siting New Sensitive Land Uses, are based on a compilation of recent studies that evaluated data on the adverse health effects from proximity to air pollution sources. 1 United States Environmental Protection Agency, updated November 2023, Health and Environmental Effects of Hazardous Air Pollutants, https://www.epa.gov/haps/health-and-environmental-effects-hazardous-air-pollutants, accessed January 29, 2024.
2 California Air Resources Board, 2022, CARB Identified Toxic Air Contaminants. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/carb-identified-toxic-air-contaminants, accessed January 29, 2024. 3 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, April 2014, Improving Air Quality & Health in Bay Area Communities, Community Air Risk Evaluation Program Retrospective & Path Forward (2004-2013), https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/Files/Planning%20and%20Research/CARE%20Program/Documents/CARE_Retrospective_Apri l2014.ashx?la=en, accessed January 29, 2024.
561
CC 05-14-2024
561 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

AIR QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 4.2-5
TABLE 4.2-2 CARB RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SITTING NEW SENSITIVE LAND USES Source/Category Advisory Recommendations
Freeways and High-Traffic Roads Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 500 feet of a freeway, urban roads with 100,000 vehicles per day, or rural roads with 50,000 vehicles per day.

Distribution Centers
Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 1,000 feet of a distribution center (that accommodates more than 100 trucks per day, more than 40 trucks with operating transport refrigeration units [TRUs] per day, or where TRU unit operations exceed 300 hours per week).

Rail Yards Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 1,000 feet of a major service and maintenance rail yard.

Ports
Avoid siting of new sensitive land uses immediately downwind of ports in the most heavily impacted zones. Consult local air districts or the CARB on the status of pending analyses of health risks.

Refineries
Avoid siting new sensitive land uses immediately downwind of petroleum refineries.

Consult with local air districts and other local agencies to determine an appropriate separation.

Chrome Platers Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 1,000 feet of a chrome plater.

Dry Cleaners Using Perchloroethylene
Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 300 feet of any dry cleaning operation.

For operations with two or more machines, provide 500 feet. For operations with 3 or more machines, consult with the local air district. Do not site new sensitive land uses in the same building with perc dry cleaning operations.

Gasoline Dispensing Facilities
Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 300 feet of a large gas station (defined as a facility with a throughput of 3.6 million gallons per year or greater). A 50 foot separation is recommended for typical gas dispensing facilities.

Source: California Air Resources Board, April 2005, Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective, https://files.ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/221458-6/attachment/UNr-g159CW-r0G4DR8q6daNdAKT3RJTd8gGQCfz4wqFfleNdZNQEqjf8tfls1x6Gsae7YqpXwtFIZBd0, accessed January 29, 2024.

The key observation in these studies is that proximity to air pollution sources substantially increases both exposure and the potential for adverse health effects. There are three carcinogenic TACs that constitute the majority of the known health risks from motor vehicle traffic: DPM from trucks, benzene, and 1,3- butadiene from passenger vehicles.

In 2017, CARB provided a supplemental technical advisory to the handbook for near-roadway air pollution exposure, Strategies to Reduce Air Pollution Exposure Near High-Volume Roadways. Strategies include practices and technologies that reduce traffic emissions, increase dispersion of traffic pollution (or the dilution of pollution in the air), or remove pollution from the air.

REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
Federal, State, and local air districts have passed laws and regulations intended to control and enhance air quality. Land use in the Study Area is subject to the rules and regulations imposed by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), California Air Resources Board (CARB), the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA), and Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD).

AAQS have been adopted at federal and state levels for criteria air pollutants. In addition, both the federal and state governments regulate the release of TACs. Cupertino is in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB) and is subject to the rules and regulations imposed by BAAQMD, the national AAQS adopted by 562
CC 05-14-2024
562 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

AIR QUALITY

4.2-6 APRIL 2024
the EPA, and the California AAQS adopted by CARB. The regulatory framework applicable to future potential development under the proposed Modified Project is summarized below.

Federal and State Regulations
Ambient Air Quality Standards
The Clean Air Act was passed in 1963 by the United States Congress and has been amended several times.

The 1970 Clean Air Act amendments strengthened previous legislation and laid the foundation for the regulatory scheme of the 1970s and 1980s. In 1977, Congress again added several provisions, including nonattainment requirements for areas not meeting National AAQS and the Prevention of Significant Deterioration program. The 1990 amendments represent the latest in a series of federal efforts to regulate the protection of air quality in the United States. The Clean Air Act allows states to adopt more stringent standards or to include other pollution species. The California Clean Air Act, signed into law in 1988, requires all areas of the state to achieve and maintain the California AAQS by the earliest practical date. The California AAQS tends to be more restrictive than the National AAQS, based on even greater health and welfare concerns.

Both California and the federal government have established health based AAQS for seven air pollutants, which are shown in Table 4.2-3, Ambient Air Quality Standards for Criteria Pollutants. These National AAQS and California AAQS are the levels of air quality considered to provide a margin of safety in the protection of the public health and welfare. They are designed to protect “sensitive receptors” most susceptible to further respiratory distress, such as asthmatics, the elderly, very young children, people already weakened by other disease or illness, and persons engaged in strenuous work or exercise. Healthy adults can tolerate occasional exposure to air pollutant concentrations considerably above these minimum standards before adverse effects are observed. California has also adopted a host of other regulations that reduce criteria pollutant emissions, including:4

 Assembly Bill (AB) 1493: Pavley Fuel Efficiency Standards.  Heavy-Duty (Tractor-Trailer) GHG Regulation.
 Advanced Clean Cars Regulation.
 Advanced Clean Fleets Regulation.
 Senate Bill (SB) 1078 and SB 107: Renewables Portfolio Standards.  Title 20 California Code of Regulations (CCR): Appliance Energy Efficiency Standards.  Title 24, Part 6, CCR: Building Energy Efficiency Standards.  Title 24, Part 11, CCR: Green Building Standards Code. 4 See Chapter 4.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of this Draft EA for a description of regulations that reduce emissions including Assembly Bill 32, also known as the Global Warming Solutions Act, Senate Bill 375, also known as the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act. See Chapter 4.14, Transportation, of this Draft EIR for a description on Senate Bill 743, and how it relates to reducing vehicle miles traveled or “VMT.” 563
CC 05-14-2024
563 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

AIR QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 4.2-7
TABLE 4.2-3 AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS FOR CRITERIA POLLUTANTS Pollutant
Averaging
Time
California
Standard a
Federal Primary
Standard b Major Pollutant Sources
Ozone (O3) c 1 hour 0.09 ppm * Motor vehicles, paints, coatings, and solvents. 8 hours 0.070 ppm 0.070 ppm Carbon Monoxide
(CO)
1 hour 20 ppm 35 ppm Internal combustion engines, primarily gasolinepowered motor vehicles. 8 hours 9.0 ppm 9 ppm Nitrogen Dioxide
(NO2)
Annual
Arithmetic Mean 0.030 ppm 0.053 ppm Motor vehicles, petroleum-refining operations, industrial sources, aircraft, ships, and railroads.
1 hour 0.18 ppm 0.100 ppm
Sulfur Dioxide
(SO2)
Annual
Arithmetic Mean * 0.030 ppm
Fuel combustion, chemical plants, sulfur recovery
1 hour 0.25 ppm 0.075 ppm plants, and metal processing. 24 hours 0.04 ppm 0.14 ppm
Respirable Coarse
Particulate
Matter
(PM10)
Annual
Arithmetic Mean 20 µg/m3 * Dust and fume-producing construction, industrial, and agricultural operations, combustion, atmospheric photochemical reactions, and natural
24 hours 50 µg/m activities (e.g., wind-raised dust and ocean sprays). 3 150 µg/m3 Respirable Fine
Particulate
Matter
(PM2.5) d
Annual
Arithmetic Mean 12 µg/m3 12 µg/m3 Dust and fume-producing construction, industrial, and agricultural operations, combustion, atmospheric photochemical reactions, and natural
24 hours * 35 µg/m activities (e.g., wind-raised dust and ocean sprays). 3 Lead (Pb)
30-Day Average 1.5 µg/m3 *
Present source: lead smelters, battery
manufacturing & recycling facilities. Past source:
combustion of leaded gasoline.

Calendar Quarter * 1.5 µg/m3
Rolling 3-Month
Average * 0.15 µg/m3
Sulfates (SO4) e 24 hours 25 µg/m3 * Industrial processes.

Visibility Reducing
Particles 8 hours
ExCo =0.23/km
visibility of 10≥
miles
No Federal
Standard
Visibility-reducing particles consist of suspended
particulate matter, which is a complex mixture of
tiny particles that consists of dry solid fragments,
solid cores with liquid coatings, and small droplets
of liquid. These particles vary greatly in shape, size
and chemical composition, and can be made up of
many different materials such as metals, soot, soil,
dust, and salt.

Hydrogen Sulfide 1 hour 0.03 ppm No Federal
Standard
Hydrogen sulfide (H2S) is a colorless gas with the
odor of rotten eggs. It is formed during bacterial
decomposition of sulfur-containing organic
substances. Also, it can be present in sewer gas
and some natural gas, and can be emitted as the
result of geothermal energy exploitation.

Vinyl Chloride 24 hours 0.01 ppm No Federal
Standard
Vinyl chloride (chloroethene), a chlorinated
hydrocarbon, is a colorless gas with a mild, sweet
odor. Most vinyl chloride is used to make polyvinyl
564
CC 05-14-2024
564 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

AIR QUALITY

4.2-8 APRIL 2024
TABLE 4.2-3 AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS FOR CRITERIA POLLUTANTS Pollutant
Averaging
Time
California
Standard a
Federal Primary
Standard b Major Pollutant Sources
chloride (PVC) plastic and vinyl products. Vinyl
chloride has been detected near landfills, sewage
plants, and hazardous waste sites, due to microbial
breakdown of chlorinated solvents.

Notes: ppm: parts per million; μg/m3: micrograms per cubic meter; *Standard has not been established for this pollutant/duration by this entity. a. California standards for O3, CO (except 8-hour Lake Tahoe), SO2 (1 and 24 hour), NO2, and particulate matter (PM10, PM2.5, and visibility reducing particles), are values that are not to be exceeded. All others are not to be equaled or exceeded. California ambient air quality standards are listed in the Table of Standards in Section 70200 of Title 17 of the California Code of Regulations. b. National standards (other than O3, PM, and those based on annual arithmetic mean) are not to be exceeded more than once a year. The O3 standard is attained when the fourth highest 8-hour concentration measured at each site in a year, averaged over three years, is equal to or less than the standard. For PM10, the 24-hour standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with a 24-hour average concentration above 150 µg/m3 is equal to or less than one. For PM2.5, the 24-hour standard is attained when 98 percent of the daily concentrations, averaged over 3 years, are equal to or less than the standard.
c. On October 1, 2015, the national 8-hour ozone primary and secondary standards were lowered from 0.075 to 0.070 ppm. d. On December 14, 2012, the national annual PM2.5 primary standard was lowered from 15 μg/m3 to 12.0 µg/m3. The existing national 24-hour PM2.5 standards (primary and secondary) were retained at 35 µg/m3, as was the annual secondary standard of 15 µg/m3. The existing 24-hour PM10 standards (primary and secondary) of 150 µg/m3 also were retained. The form of the annual primary and secondary standards is the annual mean, averaged over 3 years.
e. On June 2, 2010, a new 1-hour SO2 standard was established and the existing 24-hour and annual primary standards were revoked. The 1-hour national standard is in units of parts per billion (ppb). California standards are in units of parts per million (ppm). To directly compare the 1-hour national standard to the California standard the units can be converted to ppm. In this case, the national standard of 75 ppb is identical to 0.075 ppm.

Source: California Air Resources Board, March 2017, Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Reduction Strategy, https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020- 07/final_SLCP_strategy.pdf, accessed January 29, 2024.

Tanner Air Toxics Act and Air Toxics “Hot Spot” Information and Assessment Act Public exposure to TACs is a significant environmental health issue in California. In 1983, the California Legislature enacted a program to identify the health effects of TACs and reduce exposure to these contaminants to protect public health. A substance that is listed as a hazardous air pollutant pursuant to Section 112(b) of the federal Clean Air Act (42 United States Code Section 7412[b]) is a toxic air contaminant. Under State law, CalEPA, acting through CARB, is authorized to identify a substance as a TAC if it is an air pollutant that may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or serious illness, or may pose a present or potential hazard to human health.

California regulates TACs primarily through Assembly Bill (AB) 1807 (Tanner Air Toxics Act) and AB 2588 (Air Toxics “Hot Spot” Information and Assessment Act of 1987). AB 1807 sets up a formal procedure for CARB to designate substances as TACs. Once a TAC is identified, CARB adopts an “airborne toxics control measure” for sources that emit designated TACs. If there is a safe threshold for a substance (i.e., a point below which there is no toxic effect), the airborne toxics control measure must reduce exposure to below that threshold. If there is no safe threshold, the airborne toxics control measure must incorporate toxics best available control technology to minimize emissions. To date, CARB has established formal control measures for 11 TACs that are identified as having no safe threshold.

Under AB 2588, TAC emissions from individual facilities are quantified and prioritized by the air quality management district or air pollution control district. High priority facilities5 are required to perform a 5 Each district is responsible for establishing the prioritization score threshold at which facilities are required to prepare a health risk assessment. In the Bay Area, facilities that generate a cancer risk of greater or equal to 10 in a million and a non565 CC 05-14-2024
565 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

AIR QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 4.2-9
health risk assessment, and if specific thresholds are exceeded, are required to communicate the results to the public through notices and public meetings. CARB has promulgated the following specific rules to limit TAC emissions:
 13 CCR Chapter 10 Section 2485: Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Limit Diesel-Fueled Commercial Motor Vehicle Idling. Restricts on-road diesel-powered commercial motor vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating of greater than 10,000 pounds from idling more than five minutes.  13 CCR Chapter 10 Section 2480: Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Limit School Bus Idling and Idling at Schools. Restricts a school bus or transit bus from idling for more than five minutes when within 100 feet of a school.
 13 CCR Section 2477 and Article 8: Airborne Toxic Control Measure for In-Use Diesel-Fueled Transport Refrigeration Units (TRU) and TRU Generator Sets and Facilities Where TRUs Operate. Regulations established to control emissions associated with diesel-powered TRUs.

Regional Regulations
Bay Area Air Quality Management District
BAAQMD is the agency responsible for ensuring that the National and California AAQS are attained and maintained in the SFBAAB. Air quality conditions in the SFBAAB have improved significantly since BAAQMD was created in 1955.6 BAAQMD prepares air quality management plans (AQMP) to attain ambient air quality standards in the SFBAAB. BAAQMD prepares ozone attainment plans for the National O3 standard and clean air plans for the California O3 standard BAAQMD prepares these air quality management plans in coordination with Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) to ensure consistent assumptions about regional growth. 2017 Clean Air Plan
BAAQMD adopted the 2017 Clean Air Plan, Spare the Air, Cool the Climate (2017 Clean Air Plan) on April 19, 2017, making it the most recently adopted comprehensive plan. The 2017 Clean Air Plan incorporates significant new scientific data, primarily in the form of updated emissions inventories, ambient measurements, new meteorological episodes, and new air quality modeling tools. The 2017 Clean Air Plan serves as an update to the adopted Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan and continues to provide the framework for SFBAAB to achieve attainment of the California and National AAQS. The 2017 Clean Air Plan updates the Bay Area’s ozone plan, which is based on the “all feasible measures” approach to meet the requirements of the California Clean Air Act. Additionally, it sets a goal of reducing health risk impacts to local communities by 20 percent between 2015 and 2020. Furthermore the 2017 Clean Air Plan also lays the groundwork for reducing GHG emissions in the Bay Area to meet the State’s 2030 GHG reduction cancer chronic or acute risk greater or equal to 10 in a million are high priority facilities. Types of facilities that have the potential to generate risks of this level include refineries, other heavy industrial manufacturing/industrial processes, and fueling stations. 6 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, April 2023, California Environmental Quality Act: Air Quality Guidelines, https://www.baaqmd.gov/plans-and-climate/california-environmental-quality-act-ceqa/updated-ceqa-guidelines, accessed January 29, 2024.
566
CC 05-14-2024
566 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

AIR QUALITY

4.2-10 APRIL 2024
target and 2050 GHG reduction goal. It also includes a vision for the Bay Area in a post-carbon year 2050 that encompasses the following: 7
 Construct buildings that are energy efficient and powered by renewable energy.  Walk, bicycle, and use public transit for the majority of trips and use electric-powered autonomous public transit fleets.
 Incubate and produce clean energy technologies.
 Live a low-carbon lifestyle by purchasing low-carbon foods and goods in addition to recycling and putting organic waste to productive use.

A multipollutant control strategy was developed to be implemented in the next three to five years to address public health and climate change and to set a pathway to achieve the 2050 vision. The control strategy includes 85 control measures to reduce emissions of ozone, particulate matter, TACs, and GHG from a full range of emission sources. These control measures cover the following sectors: 1) stationary (industrial) sources; 2) transportation; 3) energy; 4) agriculture; 5) natural and working lands; 6) waste management; 7) water; and 8) super-GHG pollutants. The control strategy includes these key priorities:
 Reduce emissions of criteria air pollutants and toxic air contaminants from all key sources.  Reduce emissions of “super-GHGs” such as methane, black carbon, and fluorinated gases.  Decrease demand for fossil fuels (gasoline, diesel, and natural gas).  Increase efficiency of the energy and transportation systems.  Reduce demand for vehicle travel and high-carbon goods and services.  Decarbonize the energy system.
 Make the electricity supply carbon-free.
 Electrify the transportation and building sectors.

Community Air Risk Evaluation (CARE) Program
The BAAQMD Community Air Risk Evaluation program was initiated in 2004 to evaluate and reduce health risks associated with exposure to outdoor TACs in the Bay Area, primarily DPM. The last update to this program was conducted in 2014. Based on findings of the 2014 report, DPM was found to account for approximately 85 percent of the cancer risk from airborne toxics. Carcinogenic compounds from gasolinepowered cars and light duty trucks were also identified as significant cancer risks: 1,3-butadiene contributed 4 percent of the cancer risk-weighted emissions and benzene contributed 3 percent.

Collectively, five compounds—DPM, 1,3-butadiene, benzene, formaldehyde, and acetaldehyde—were found to be responsible for more than 90 percent of the cancer risk attributed to emissions. All these compounds are associated with emissions from internal combustion engines. The most important sources of cancer risk–weighted emissions were combustion-related sources of DPM, including on-road mobile sources (31 percent), construction equipment (29 percent), and ships and harbor craft (13 percent).

Overall, cancer risk from TACs dropped by more than 50 percent between 2005 and 2015, when emissions inputs accounted for State diesel regulations and other reductions.8 7 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, April 19, 2017, Final 2017 Clean Air Plan, Spare the Air, Cool the Climate: A Blueprint for Clean Air and Climate Protection in the Bay Area, https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-andresearch/plans/2017-clean-air-plan/attachment-a_-proposed-final-cap-vol-1-pdf.pdf?la=en, accessed January 29, 2024. 8 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, April 2014, Improving Air Quality & Health in Bay Area Communities, Community Air Risk Evaluation Program Retrospective & Path Forward (2004-2013), 567
CC 05-14-2024
567 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

AIR QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 4.2-11
The major contributor to acute and chronic noncancer health effects in the SFBAAB is acrolein (C3H4O).

Major sources of acrolein are on-road mobile sources and aircraft near freeways and commercial and military airports.9 Currently CARB does not have certified emission factors or an analytical test method for acrolein. Since the appropriate tools needed to implement and enforce acrolein emission limits are not available, BAAQMD does not conduct health risk screening analyses for acrolein emissions.10 Air District Rules and Regulations
Regulation 7, Odorous Substances
Sources of objectionable odors may occur within the Study Area. BAAQMD’s Regulation 7, Odorous Substances, places general limitations on odorous substances and specific emission limitations on certain odorous compounds. Odors are also regulated under BAAQMD Regulation 1, Rule 1-301, Public Nuisance, which states that “no person shall discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or the public; or which endangers the comfort, repose, health or safety of any such persons or the public, or which causes, or has a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property.” Under BAAQMD ’s Rule 1-301, a facility that receives three or more violation notices within a 30-day period can be declared a public nuisance.

Naturally Occurring Asbestos Program
To reduce public exposure to naturally occurring asbestos, BAAQMD places Airborne Toxic Control Measures to regulate all construction, maintenance, grading, and mining activities that could potentially produce dust containing naturally occurring asbestos.11 The Naturally Occurring Asbestos Program also requires the best available dust mitigation measures to be followed to reduce exposure to airborne asbestos.12
https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/Files/Planning%20and%20Research/CARE%20Program/Documents/CARE_Retrospective_Apri l2014.ashx?la=en, accessed January 29, 2024.
9 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, April 2014, Improving Air Quality & Health in Bay Area Communities, Community Air Risk Evaluation Program Retrospective & Path Forward (2004-2013), https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/Files/Planning%20and%20Research/CARE%20Program/Documents/CARE_Retrospective_Apri l2014.ashx?la=en, accessed January 29, 2024.
10 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, January 2010, Air Toxics NSR Program Health Risk Screening Analysis (HSRA) Guidelines, http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/Files/Engineering/Air%20Toxics%20Programs/hrsa_guidelines.ashx, accessed January 29, 2024. 11 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2023, Naturally Occurring Asbestos. https://www.baaqmd.gov/permits/asbestos/naturally-occuring-asbestos, accessed January 29, 2024. 12 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2018, Compliance Advisory, Naturally Occurring Asbestos Program Fee Change. https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/compliance-and-enforcement/advisories/asbestos-atcm/noa-compliance-advisory2019_final-pdf.pdf?la=en, accessed May 25, 2023. 568
CC 05-14-2024
568 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

AIR QUALITY

4.2-12 APRIL 2024
Other Air District Regulations
In addition to the plans and programs described above, BAAQMD administers several specific regulations on various sources of pollutant emissions that would apply to potential future development constructed, including:
 Regulation 2, Rule 2, New Source Review
 Regulation 2, Rule 5, New Source Review of Toxic Air Contaminants  Regulation 6, Rule 1, General Requirements
 Regulation 6, Rule 2, Commercial Cooking Equipment
 Regulation 8, Rule 3, Architectural Coatings
 Regulation 8, Rule 4, General Solvent and Surface Coatings Operations  Regulation 8, Rule 7, Gasoline Dispensing Facilities
 Regulation 11, Rule 2, Asbestos, Demolition, Renovation and Manufacturing  Regulation 11, Rule 18, Reduction of Risk from Air Toxic Emissions at Existing Facilities Valley Transportation Authority
The Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) is the congestion management agency for Santa Clara County.

VTA is tasked with developing a comprehensive transportation improvement program among local jurisdictions to reduce traffic congestion and improve land use decision making and air quality plans. VTA’s latest congestion management program (CMP) is the Congestion Management Program Document, adopted December 2021.
13 VTA’s countywide transportation model must be consistent with the regional transportation model developed by the MTC with ABAG data. The countywide transportation model is used to help evaluate cumulative transportation impacts of local land use decisions on the CMP system.

Plan Bay Area
MTC and ABAG adopted Plan Bay Area on October 21, 2021.14 Plan Bay Area provides transportation and environmental strategies to continue to meet the regional transportation related GHG reduction goals of SB 375. Strategies to reduce GHG emissions include focusing housing and commercial construction in walkable, transit-accessible places; investing in transit and active transportation; and shifting the location of jobs to encourage shorter commutes. As part of the implementing framework for Plan Bay Area, local governments have identified Priority Development Areas (PDAs) and Transit Priority Areas (TPAs) to focus growth. As described in Chapter 4, Environmental Analysis, of this EA, PDAs are transit-oriented, infill development opportunity areas within existing communities. TPAs are half-mile buffers surrounding major transit stops or terminals. As shown on Figure 4-1, Priority Development Area and Transit Priority Areas, of 13 Valley Transportation Authority, December 2021, Congestion Management Program (CMP) Document, https://www.vta.org/sites/default/files/2022-01/2021CMPDocumentV2_Reduced.pdf, accessed January 29, 2024. 14 Association of Bay Area Governments and Metropolitan Transportation Commission, October 2021, Plan Bay Area 2050, https://www.planbayarea.org/sites/default/files/documents/Plan_Bay_Area_2050_October_2021.pdf, accessed January 29, 2024.
569
CC 05-14-2024
569 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

AIR QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 4.2-13
this EA, there are four TPAs and two PDAs, the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority City Cores, Corridors & Station Areas, and South DeAnza.15,16
Nitrogen Oxides from Natural Gas-Fired Furnaces, Boilers, and Water Heaters BAAQMD adopted amendments to Regulation 9, Inorganic Gaseous Pollutants, Rule 4, Nitrogen Oxides from Natural Gas-Fired Furnaces (Rule 9-4) and Rule 6, Nitrogen Oxides Emissions from Natural Gas-Fired Boilers and Water Heaters (Rule 9-6). Space- and water-heating appliances generate a large portion of nitrogen oxide (NOX) emissions from sources in the Bay Area. NOX are a key criteria pollutant as a precursor to ozone and secondary particulate matter (PM) formation. The amendments would require more stringent NOX emission standards for space- and water-heating appliances within BAAQMD’s jurisdiction starting in year 2023 and would substantially reduce NOX emissions from these appliances commonly found in single-family homes and commercial applications. The amendments to Rules 9-4 and 9-6 include the following elements:
 Sales and installation of smaller water heaters and boilers (below 75,000 BTU/hour) must be zero emission, starting in 2027.
 Sales and installation of furnaces (heat input rate less than 175,000 BTU/hour) must be zero emission starting in 2029.
 Sales of larger water heaters and boilers (between 75,000 and 2 million BTU/hour) must be zero emission starting in 2031.
 Existing appliances can remain in operation, but the rule would apply once they need replacement.

Local Regulations
General Plan 2040
The Mobility (M), Environmental Resources (ES), and Health and Safety (HS) Elements of the General Plan 2040 contain goals, policies, and strategies that require local planning and development decisions to consider air quality impacts. Applicable policies and strategies that would minimize potential adverse impacts to air quality are identified in Section 4.2.3, Impact Discussion.

Climate Action Plan
Adopted in August 2022, the City of Cupertino Climate Action Plan (CAP 2.0) is an updated roadmap of specific actions to reduce GHG emissions, achieve the City’s target of carbon neutrality by 2040, and increase community resilience, and capacity to adapt to the impacts of climate change.17 The CAP 2.0 allows City decision-makers and the community to understand the sources and magnitude of local GHG 15 Metropolitan Transportation Commission, Transit Priority Areas (2021), 2024, https://opendata.mtc.ca.gov/datasets/MTC::transit-priority-areas-2021-1/explore?location=37.328339%2C122.044206%2C14.00, accessed on January 20, 2024 16 Metropolitan Transportation Commission, Priority Development Areas – Plan Bay Area 2050, 2024, https://opendata.mtc.ca.gov/datasets/priority-development-areas-plan-bay-area-2050/explore?location=37.319615%2C122.033008%2C14.71, accessed on January 20, 2024. 17 City of Cupertino, August 2022, Climate Action 2.0,
https://www.cupertino.org/home/showpublisheddocument/31683/637964240923930000, accessed on January 29, 2024. 570
CC 05-14-2024
570 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

AIR QUALITY

4.2-14 APRIL 2024
emissions and identifies a strategy, reduction measures, and implementation actions the City will use to achieve targets consistent with State recommendations of 4.3 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2e) per person by 2030 and 1.2 MTCO2e per person by 2050. The CAP 2.0 adopted in 2022 updated and expanded the City’s goals from the 2015 CAP, including strategies for Cupertino to prepare for and mitigate approaching risks from climate change.

Municipal Code
The Cupertino Municipal Code (CMC) includes various directives to minimize adverse impacts to local and regional air quality. The CMC is organized by title, chapter, and section. Most provisions related to air quality are included in Title 6, Franchises, Title 14, Street, Sidewalks and Landscaping, Title 16, Buildings and Construction, Title 17, Environmental Regulations, and Title 19, Zoning, as follows:
 Chapter 6.24, Garbage, Non-Organic Recycling and Organic Waste Recycling Collection and Disposal.

This chapter includes Section 6.24.037, Mandatory Organic Waste Disposal Reduction, which includes a list of requirements for organic waste generators, in compliance with state recycling laws, and state organic recycling laws.
 Chapter 14.02, Transportation Impact Fee Program. This chapter recognizes that there will be additional demand on the City’s existing transportation infrastructure and therefore created the Transportation Impact Fee Program to generate revenue that the City can use as a funding source for the costs of the transportation improvements required to serve new development.  Chapter 14.18, Protected Trees. This chapter protects, preserves, and replenishes healthy and valuable trees in the city for the health and welfare of residents and to counteract air pollutants and maintain climatic balances, among reasons.
 Chapter 16.32, Energy Code. Adopts the 2022 edition of the California Energy Code and each and all the regulations, provisions, conditions and terms of the code and requires newly constructed buildings in the City to be all-electric, with varying exceptions for non-residential occupancies.  Chapter 16.72, Recycling and Salvaging of Construction and Demolition Debris. This chapter requires projects to recycle or divert at least sixty-five percent (65 percent), or meet the amounts, criteria and requirements specified in the applicable California Green Building Standards Code, whichever is more restrictive, of all materials generated for discard by the project. This helps the City reduce landfill waste, foster resource conservation, and meet and exceed an overall waste diversion rate of 50 percent.
 Section 17.04.040, Standard Environmental Protection Technical Report Submittal Requirements. This section requires project applicants to submit technical reports for air quality and hazardous materials which are subject to review and approval prior to the approval of the project.

Air Quality Technical Report Requirements

1. Control Diesel Particulate Matter from Non-Residential Projects During Operation. Applicants for new non-residential land uses within the city that either have the potential to generate 100 or more diesel truck trips per day or have 40 or more trucks with operating diesel-powered Transport Refrigeration Units (TRUs), and are within 1,000 feet of a sensitive land use (e.g., 571
CC 05-14-2024
571 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

AIR QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 4.2-15
residential, schools, hospitals, nursing homes), as measured from the property line of the project to the property line of the nearest sensitive use, shall:
a. Prepare and submit an operational Health Risk Assessment (HRA) for approval by the City prior to approval of the project.
b. The HRA shall be prepared in accordance with policies and procedures of the State Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD).
c. If the HRA shows that the incremental cancer risk exceeds ten in one million (10E-06), PM2.5 concentrations exceed 0.3 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3 ), or the appropriate
noncancer hazard index exceeds 1.0, the project applicant shall be required to identify and demonstrate that Best Available Control Technologies for Toxics (T-BACTs) are capable of reducing potential cancer and noncancer risks to an acceptable level, including appropriate enforcement mechanisms.
d. T-BACTs identified in the HRA shall be indicated in the appropriate applicable construction document prior to approval of the project. T-BACTs may include the following measures from BAAQMD’s Planning Healthy Places Guidebook but are not limited to:
i. Restricting nonessential idling on-site to no more than two minutes. ii. Providing electric charging capable truck trailer spaces to accommodate Zero Emissions (ZE) Trucks.
iii. Providing electric charging capable warehousing docks to accommodate ZE Transport Refrigeration Units (TRUs).
iv. Requiring use of Near Zero Emissions (NZE) or ZE equipment (e.g., yard trucks and forklifts) and/or vehicles.
v. Restricting offsite truck travel through the creation of truck routes.