Cupertino City Council
May 14, 2024

2. Manage Indoor Air Pollution.
a. Applicants for residential and other sensitive land use projects (e.g., hospitals, nursing homes, day care centers) in areas identified on the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s (BAAQMD) “Conduct Further Study” on the Planning Healthy Places Map shall:
i. Prepare and submit an operational Health Risk Assessment (HRA) to the City prior to approval of the project.
ii. The HRA shall be prepared in accordance with policies and procedures of the State Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) and BAAQMD. The latest OEHHA guidelines shall be used for the analysis, including age sensitivity factors, breathing rates, and body weights appropriate for children ages 0 to 16 years. iii. 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 identify and demonstrate measures that are capable of reducing potential cancer and non-cancer risks to an 572
CC 05-14-2024
572 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

AIR QUALITY

4.2-16 APRIL 2024
acceptable level (i.e., below ten in one million or a hazard index of 1.0), including appropriate enforcement mechanisms.
iv. Measures to reduce risk may include, but are not limited to:

1. Air intakes located away from high volume roadways and/or truck loading zones.

2. Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems of the buildings provided with appropriately sized Minimum Efficiency Reporting Value (MERV) filters. b. Applicants for residential and/or other sensitive land use projects (e.g., hospitals, nursing homes, day care centers) must state in the applicable construction document where the site is located on the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) Planning Healthy Places Map, as subsequently revised, supplemented, or replaced. If the site is located in an area identified as “Implement Best Practices,” the project applicant shall implement, and include in applicable construction documents, the following best practices identified in the BAAQMD Planning Healthy Places Guidebook:
i. Install air filters rated at a MERV 13 or higher.
ii. Locate operable windows, balconies, and building air intakes as far away from any emission source as is feasible.
iii. Incorporate solid barriers or dense rows of trees in a minimum planter width of 5 feet per row of trees between the residential and/or sensitive land use, and the emissions source into site design.
iv. Do not locate residential and/or sensitive land use on the ground floor units of buildings near non-elevated sources (e.g., ground level heavily traveled roadways and freeways). c. The project applicant shall include the applicable measures identified in subsections (a) and (b) above in the applicable construction documents prior to approval of the project.

Specifically, the air intake design and MERV filter requirements shall be included on all applicable construction documents submitted to the City and verified by the City’s Planning Division.
 Section 17.04.050, Standard Environmental Protection Permit Submittal Requirements. This section requires project applicants to control construction exhaust and describes the procedures to be implemented.

1. Control Fugitive Dust During Construction. Projects shall implement the Bay Area Air Quality Management District Basic Control Measures included in the latest version of BAAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, as subsequently revised, supplemented, or replaced, to control fugitive dust (i.e., particulate matter PM2.5 and PM10) during demolition, ground disturbing activities and/or construction. The project applicant shall include these measures in the applicable construction documents, prior to issuance of the first permit.

2. Control Construction Exhaust. Projects that disturb more than one-acre and are more than two months in duration, shall implement the following measures and the project applicant shall include them in the applicable construction document, prior to issuance of the first permit:
a. Utilize off-road diesel-powered construction equipment that is rated by the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as Tier 4 or higher for equipment more than 25 horsepower. Any emissions control device used by the contractor shall achieve emissions 573
CC 05-14-2024
573 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

AIR QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 4.2-17
reductions that are no less than what could be achieved by a Tier 4 interim emissions standard for a similarly sized engine, as defined by the California Air Resources Board’s (CARB) regulations. Applicable construction documents shall clearly show the selected emission reduction strategy for construction equipment over 25 horsepower. b. Ensure that the construction contractor shall maintain a list of all operating equipment in use on the project site for verification by the City. The construction equipment list shall state the makes, models, and number of construction equipment on-site. c. Ensure that all equipment shall be properly serviced and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations.

3. Control Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Paint. Projects shall use low-VOC paint (i.e., 50 grams per liter [g/L] or less) for interior and exterior wall architectural coatings. The project applicant shall include the use of low-VOC paint in the applicable construction documents prior to issuance of the first permit.
 Chapter 19.72, Light Industrial (ML) and Industrial Park (MP) Zones. This chapter includes regulation for smoke and odor in Section 19.72.050, Restrictions Related to Emissions. No visible grey smoke of a shade equal to or darker than No. 1 on the Ringelmann Smoke Chart shall be permitted at any point. No emission of detectable odorous gases is permitted without a secondary safeguard system so that control will be maintained if the primary safeguard system should fail.

EXISTING CONDITIONS
Chapter 4.2, Air Quality, of the General Plan EIR, addresses the impacts to air quality associated with buildout of the General Plan 2040 at a program level. The setting for air quality is described in the General Plan EIR Section 4.2.1.2, Existing Conditions. Since the certification of the General Plan EIR, the City has codified regulations equivalent to the General Plan EIR mitigation measures to reduce constructionrelated air quality impacts in CMC Chapter 17.04, Standard Environmental Protection Requirements, as described under the “Municipal Code” heading in Section 4.2.1.2, Regulatory Framework. The Standard Environmental Protection Requirements incorporate mitigation from the General Plan EIR, notably Mitigation Measure AQ-2a which requires applicants for future development projects to comply with the current Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) basic control measures for reducing fugitive dust emissions (PM10 and PM2.5) during construction and Mitigation Measures AQ-4a and AQ-4b, which require the submittal of health risk assessments (HRAs) to the City to ensure mobile sources of TACs are considered in subsequent project-level environmental review from the General Plan EIR. Thus, individual project applicants for future potential development must include these measures in the applicable construction documents, prior to issuance of the first permit. Additionally, Plan Bay Area was updated as described in Section 4.2.1.2, Regulatory Framework.

San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin Conditions
California is divided geographically into air basins for the purpose of managing the air resources of the State on a regional basis. The State is divided into 15 air basins and the Study Area is in the SFBAAB. The BAAQMD is the regional air quality agency for the SFBAAB, which comprises all of Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara Counties; the southern portion of Sonoma County; and the southwestern portion of Solano County. Air quality in this area is determined by such 574
CC 05-14-2024
574 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

AIR QUALITY

4.2-18 APRIL 2024
natural factors as topography, meteorology, and climate, in addition to the presence of existing air pollution sources and ambient conditions. The discussion below identifies the natural factors in the SFBAAB that affect air pollution. Air pollutants of concern are criteria air pollutants and TACs. Federal, State, and local air districts have adopted laws and regulations intended to control and improve air quality.

Meteorology
The SFBAAB is characterized by complex terrain, consisting of coastal mountain ranges, inland valleys, and bays, which distort normal wind flow patterns. The Coast Range splits the Bay Area, creating a western coast gap, the Golden Gate strait, and an eastern coast gap, the Carquinez Strait, which allows air to flow in and out of the Bay Area and the Central Valley. The climate is dominated by the strength and location of a semi-permanent, subtropical high-pressure cell. During the summer, the Pacific high-pressure cell is centered over the northeastern Pacific Ocean, resulting in stable meteorological conditions and a steady northwesterly wind flow. The upwelling of cold ocean water from below the surface because of the northwesterly flow produces a band of cold water off the California coast. The cool and moisture-laden air approaching the coast from the Pacific Ocean is further cooled by the presence of the cold-water band, resulting in condensation and the presence of fog and stratus clouds along the Northern California coast.

In the winter, the Pacific high-pressure cell weakens and shifts southward, resulting in wind flow offshore, the absence of upwelling, and the occurrence of storms. Weak inversions coupled with moderate winds result in a low air pollution potential.

Wind Patterns
During the summer, winds flowing from the northwest are drawn inland through the Golden Gate and over the lower portions of the San Francisco Peninsula. Immediately south of Mount Tamalpais in Marin County, the northwesterly winds accelerate considerably and come more directly from the west as they stream through the Golden Gate. This channeling of wind through the Golden Gate produces a jet that sweeps eastward and splits off to the northwest toward Richmond and to the southwest toward San José when it meets the East Bay hills. Wind speeds may be strong locally in areas where air is channeled through a narrow opening, such as the Carquinez Strait, the Golden Gate, or the San Bruno gap.

The air flowing in from the coast to the Central Valley, called the sea breeze, begins developing at or near ground level along the coast in late morning or early afternoon and the sea breeze deepens and increases in velocity while spreading inland. Under normal atmospheric conditions, the air in the lower atmosphere is warmer than the air above it. In the winter, the SFBAAB frequently experiences stormy conditions with moderate to strong winds, known as Diablo Winds, as well as periods of stagnation with very light winds.

Winter stagnation episodes (i.e., conditions where there is little mixing, which occurs when there is a lack of or little wind) are characterized by nighttime drainage flows in coastal valleys. Drainage is a reversal of the usual daytime air-flow patterns; air moves from the Central Valley toward the coast and back down toward the Bay from the smaller valleys within the SFBAAB.

Temperature
Summertime temperatures in the Air Basin are determined in large part by the effect of differential heating between land and water surfaces. Because land tends to heat up and cool off more quickly than 575
CC 05-14-2024
575 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

AIR QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 4.2-19
water, a large-scale gradient (differential) in temperature is often created between the coast and the Central Valley, and small-scale local gradients are often produced along the shorelines of the ocean and bays. The temperature gradient near the ocean is also exaggerated, especially in summer, because of the upwelling of cold water from the ocean bottom along the coast. On summer afternoons, the temperatures at the coast can be 35 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) cooler than temperatures 15 to 20 miles inland; at night, this contrast usually decreases to less than 10°F. In the winter, the relationship between minimum and maximum temperatures is reversed. During the daytime the temperature contrast between the coast and inland areas is small, whereas at night the variation in temperature is large.

Precipitation
The SFBAAB is characterized by moderately wet winters and dry summers. Winter rains (November through March) account for about 75 percent of the average annual rainfall. The amount of annual precipitation can vary greatly from one part of the SFBAAB to another, even within short distances. In general, total annual rainfall can reach 40 inches in the mountains, but it is often less than 16 inches in sheltered valleys.

During rainy periods, ventilation (rapid horizontal movement of air and injection of cleaner air) and vertical mixing (an upward and downward movement of air) are usually high, and thus pollution levels tend to be low (i.e., air pollutants are dispersed more readily into the atmosphere rather than accumulate under stagnant conditions). However, during the winter, frequent dry periods do occur, where mixing and ventilation are low and pollutant levels build up.

Wind Circulation
Low wind speed contributes to the buildup of air pollution because it allows more pollutants to be emitted into the air mass per unit of time. Light winds occur most frequently during periods of low sun (fall and winter, and early morning) and at night. These are also periods when air pollutant emissions from some sources are at their peak, namely, commuter traffic (early morning) and wood-burning appliances (nighttime). The problem can be compounded in valleys, when weak flows carry the pollutants up-valley during the day, and cold air drainage flows move the air mass down-valley at night. Such restricted movement of trapped air provides little opportunity for ventilation and leads to buildup of pollutants to potentially unhealthful levels.

Inversions
An inversion is a layer of warmer air over a layer of cooler air. Inversions affect air quality conditions significantly because they influence the mixing depth (i.e., the vertical depth in the atmosphere available for diluting air contaminants near the ground). There are two types of inversions that occur regularly in the SFBAAB. Elevation inversions are more common in the summer and fall, and radiation inversions are more common during the winter. The highest air pollutant concentrations in the SFBAAB generally occur during inversions.
576
CC 05-14-2024
576 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

AIR QUALITY

4.2-20 APRIL 2024
Attainment Status of the SFBAAB
The AQMP provides the framework for air quality basins to achieve attainment of the State and federal AAQS through the State Implementation Plan. Areas that meet AAQS are classified as attainment areas, and areas that do not meet these standards are classified nonattainment areas. Severity classifications for O3 range from marginal, moderate, and serious to severe and extreme.  Unclassified: A pollutant is designated unclassified if the data are incomplete and do not support a designation of attainment or nonattainment.
 Attainment: A pollutant is in attainment if the AAQS for that pollutant was not violated at any site in the area during a three-year period.
 Nonattainment: A pollutant is in nonattainment if there was at least one violation of an AAQS for that pollutant in the area.
 Nonattainment/Transitional: A subcategory of the nonattainment designation. An area is designated nonattainment/transitional to signify that the area is close to attaining the AAQS for that pollutant.

The attainment status for the SFBAAB is shown in Table 4.2-4, Attainment Status of Criteria Pollutants in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. The SFBAAB is currently designated a nonattainment area for California and National O3, California and National PM2.5, and California PM10 AAQS.

TABLE 4.2-4 ATTAINMENT STATUS OF CRITERIA POLLUTANTS IN THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA AIR BASIN Pollutant State Federal
Ozone – 1-hour Nonattainment Classification revoked (2005) Ozone – 8-hour Nonattainment (serious) Nonattainment (marginal) a PM10 Nonattainment Unclassified/Attainment b
PM2.5 Nonattainment Unclassified/Attainment
CO Attainment Attainment
NO2 Attainment Unclassified
SO2 Attainment Attainment
Lead Attainment Attainment
Sulfates Attainment Unclassified/Attainment
All others Unclassified/Attainment Unclassified/Attainment Notes:
a. Severity classification current as of February 13, 2017. b. In December 2014, US EPA issued final area designations for the 2012 primary annual PM2.5 National AAQS. Areas designated “unclassifiable/attainment” must continue to take steps to prevent their air quality from deteriorating to unhealthy levels. The effective date of this standard is April 15, 2015.

Source: 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-and-research/plans/2017-clean-air-plan/attachment-a_- proposed-final-cap-vol-1-pdf.pdf?la=en, accessed January 29, 2024.

Existing Ambient Air Quality
Existing levels of ambient air quality and historical trends and projections in the City are best documented by measurements taken by the BAAQMD. The BAAQMD has 24 permanent monitoring stations around the 577
CC 05-14-2024
577 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

AIR QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 4.2-21
Bay Area. The nearest station to the Study Area is the San Jose-Jackson Street Monitoring Station, which monitors O3, NO2, PM10, and PM2.5. Data from the monitoring station is summarized in Table 4.2-5, Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Summary. The data show that the area regularly exceeds the State and federal one-hour, eight-hour O3 standards and federal PM2.5, and occasionally exceeds the State PM10 in the last three recorded years.

TABLE 4.2-5 AMBIENT AIR QUALITY MONITORING SUMMARY
Pollutant/Standard Number of Days Thresholds Were Exceeded and Maximum Levels 2020 2021 2022
Ozone (O3)
State 1-Hour ≥ 0.09 ppm
(Days exceed threshold)
1 3 0
State & Federal 8-hour ≥ 0.070 ppm
(Days exceed threshold)
2 4 1
Max. 1-Hour Conc. (ppm) 0.106 0.098 0.090
Max. 8-Hour Conc. (ppm) 0.085 0.084 0.074
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)
State 1-Hour ≥ 0.18 ppm
(Days exceed threshold) 0 0 0
Federal 1-Hour ≥ 0.100 ppm
(Days exceed threshold) 0 0 0
Max. 1-Hour Conc. (ppm) 0.0519 0.0478 0.0468
Coarse Particulates (PM10)
State 24-Hour > 50 µg/m3
(Days exceed threshold) 10 0 0
Federal 24-Hour > 150 µg/m3
(Days exceed threshold) 0 0 0
Max. 24-Hour Conc. (µg/m3) 137.1 45.1 44.5
Fine Particulates (PM2.5)
Federal 24-Hour > 150 µg/m3
(Days exceed threshold) 12 1 2
Federal Max. 24-Hour Conc. (µg/m3) 120.5 38.1 36.2
Notes: ppm = parts per million; parts per billion, µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter. Data for O3, NO2, PM10 and PM2.5 obtained from the San JoseJackson Street Monitoring Station Source: California Air Resources Board, January 29, 2024 (accessed), iADAM: Air Quality Data Statistics, https://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/topfour/topfour1.php
Sensitive Receptors
Some land uses are considered more sensitive to air pollution than others due to the types of population groups or activities involved. Sensitive population groups include children, seniors, the acutely ill, and the chronically ill, especially those with cardiorespiratory diseases.

Residential areas are considered sensitive receptors to air pollution because residents (including children and seniors) tend to be at home for extended periods of time, resulting in sustained exposure to any pollutants present. Other sensitive receptors include retirement facilities, hospitals, and schools. 578
CC 05-14-2024
578 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

AIR QUALITY

4.2-22 APRIL 2024
Recreational land uses are considered moderately sensitive to air pollution. Although exposure periods are generally short, exercise places a high demand on respiratory functions, which can be impaired by air pollution. In addition, noticeable air pollution can detract from the enjoyment of recreation. Industrial, commercial, retail, and office areas are considered the least sensitive to air pollution. Exposure periods are relatively short and intermittent, as most of the workers tend to stay indoors most of the time. In addition, the working population is generally the healthiest segment of the public.

Existing Emission Sources
Existing sources of criteria pollutant and TACs emissions in the Study Area principally include area, energy, and mobile sources. Area source emissions are generated from the use of landscaping equipment, paints and coatings, and other non-point source fuel and aerosol applications. Energy source emissions are generated through the consumption of on-site natural gas for building space and water heating. Mobile source emissions for development projects are generated from the consumption of transportation fuels.

As the Study Area currently has a mix of predominately residential, commercial, and retail land uses, the above emission sources exist in the city.

4.2.2 STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Implementation of the proposed Modified Project would result in significant air quality impact if it would:

Impact of the
Approved
Project (General
Plan 2040 EIR)
Impact of the
Proposed
Modified
Project
AIR-1. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? SU SU AIR-2. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment under applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard?
SU SU
AIR-3. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? LTS/M LTS/M AIR-4. Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people? LTS LTS
AIR-5. Result in a cumulatively considerable impact with respect to air quality? SU SU 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. General Plan EIR AIR-2 has been removed, and AIR-3 has been modified to exclude analyzing ozone precursors. Accordingly, this EA only analyzes the current questions AIR-1 through AIR-5 as shown here.

Key: NI = no impact; LTS = less than significant; LTS/M = less than significant with mitigation; SU = significant and unavoidable

BAAQMD Plan-Level Significance Criteria
The BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines were prepared to assist in the evaluation of air quality impacts of projects and plans proposed within the Bay Area. The guidelines provide recommended procedures for evaluating potential air impacts during the environmental review process, consistent with CEQA requirements, and include recommended thresholds of significance, mitigation measures, and background air quality information. They also include recommended assessment methodologies for air toxics, odors, greenhouse gas emissions, and environmental justice. 579
CC 05-14-2024
579 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

AIR QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 4.2-23
In June 2010, BAAQMD’s Board of Directors adopted CEQA thresholds of significance and an update of the CEQA Guidelines. These thresholds are designed to establish the level at which BAAQMD believed air pollution emissions would cause significant environmental impacts under CEQA. BAAQMD published a new version of the BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines dated April 2023.18 This latest version of the BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines was used to prepare the analysis in this EA.

Clean Air Plan Consistency
Under its plan-level review criteria, which apply to long-range plans such as the proposed Modified Project, the BAAQMD recommends a consistency evaluation of the proposed plan with its current AQMP control measures. The BAAQMD considers a plan to be consistent with the applicable AQMP, which is currently the 2017 Clean Air Plan, if it is consistent with below considerations:
 Does the project support the primary goals of the AQMP?  Does the project include applicable control measures from the AQMP?  Does the project disrupt or hinder implementation of any AQMP control measure?  Does the project result in VMT growth that is equal to or less than the projected population growth over the same timeframe?
Criteria Air Pollutants and Ozone Precursors
Plan-Level
The BAAQMD has identified thresholds of significance for criteria air pollutant and ozone precursor emissions, including ROG, NOX, PM10, and PM2.5. These significance thresholds are recommended by the BAAQMD as de minimis thresholds for individual development projects, meaning they represent a level of air pollutant emissions at which impacts to air quality become potentially significant and could contribute to a potential or existing violation of federal and State AAQS. Development projects below the significance thresholds are not expected to generate sufficient air pollutant emissions to violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected violation of federal or State AAQS.

According to the BAAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, long-range plans (e.g., general plans) present unique challenges for assessing air quality impacts. Because of the SFBAAB’s nonattainment status for ozone and particulate matter and the cumulative impacts of population and development growth on air quality, these plans can often have significant and unavoidable adverse air quality impacts. To meet the BAAQMD’s recommended plan-level significance thresholds for operational criteria air pollutant and precursor impacts, a proposed plan must satisfy the following criteria:
 Consistency with current Air Quality Management Plan control measures.  A proposed plan’s VMT or vehicle trips growth is equal to or less than the projected population growth over the same timeframe?
18 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 25, 2024.
580
CC 05-14-2024
580 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

AIR QUALITY

4.2-24 APRIL 2024
Project-Level
The BAAQMD’s regional significance criteria for projects that exceed the screening thresholds are shown in Table 4.2-6, BAAQMD Regional (Mass Emissions) Criteria Air Pollutant Significance Thresholds. Criteria for both the construction and operational phases of the project are shown.

TABLE 4.2-6 BAAQMD REGIONAL (MASS EMISSIONS) CRITERIA AIR POLLUTANT SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLDS Air Pollutant
Construction Phase Operational Phase
Average Daily Emissions
(lbs/day)
Average Daily Emissions
(lbs/day)
Maximum Annual Emissions
(Tons/year)
ROG 54 54 10
NOX 54 54 10
PM10 82 (Exhaust) 82 15
PM2.5 54 (Exhaust) 54 10
PM10 and PM2.5 Fugitive Dust Best Management Practices None None Source: 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 25, 2024.

If projects exceed the emissions in Table 4.2-6, BAAQMD Regional (Mass Emissions) Criteria Air Pollutant Significance Thresholds, emissions would cumulatively contribute to the nonattainment status and would contribute in elevating health effects associated to these criteria air pollutants. Reducing emissions would further contribute to reducing possible health effects related to criteria air pollutants.

However, for projects that exceed the emissions in Table 4.2-6, it is speculative to determine how exceeding the regional thresholds would affect the number of days the region is in nonattainment since mass emissions are not correlated with concentrations of emissions or how many additional individuals in the air basin would be affected by the health effects cited above. The BAAQMD is the primary agency responsible for ensuring the health and welfare of sensitive individuals to elevated concentrations of air quality in the SFBAAB and at the present time, it has not provided methodology to assess the specific correlation between mass emissions generated and the effect on health in order to address the issue raised in Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (Friant Ranch, L.P.) (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502, Case No. S21978 (Friant Ranch).

Ozone concentrations are dependent upon a variety of complex factors, including the presence of sunlight and precursor pollutants, natural topography, nearby structures that cause building downwash, atmospheric stability, and wind patterns. Because of the complexities of predicting ground-level ozone concentrations in relation to the National AAQS and California AAQS, it is not possible to link health risks to the magnitude of emissions exceeding the significance thresholds. To achieve the health-based standards established by the EPA, the air districts prepare air quality management plans that detail regional programs to attain the AAQS. However, if a future potential development project within the Study Area exceeds the regional significance thresholds, the future potential development project could contribute to an increase in health effects in the basin until such time the attainment standards are met in the SFBAAB.
581
CC 05-14-2024
581 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

AIR QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 4.2-25
Sensitive Receptor Exposure to Pollutant Concentrations Local Carbon Monoxide Hotspots
Congested intersections have the potential to create elevated concentrations of CO, referred to as CO hotspots. The significance criteria for CO hotspots are based on the California AAQS for CO, which are 9.0 ppm (8-hour average) and 20.0 ppm (1-hour average). Under a plan-level review, the BAAQMD does not require an evaluation of CO hotspots. With the turnover of older vehicles, introduction of cleaner fuels, and implementation of control technology, the SFBAAB is in attainment of the California and National AAQS for CO emissions, and CO concentrations in the Air Basin have steadily declined. Because CO concentrations have improved, the BAAQMD does not require a CO hotspot analysis if the following criteria are met (BAAQMD 2023):
 The project is consistent with an applicable congestion management program established by the County Congestion Management Agency for designated roads or highways, the regional transportation plan, and local congestion management agency plans.  The project would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 44,000 vehicles per hour.
 The project traffic would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersection to more than 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal mixing is substantially limited (e.g., tunnel, parking garage, bridge underpass, natural or urban street canyon, below-grade roadway).

Community Risk and Hazards
The BAAQMD’s significance thresholds for local community risk and hazard impacts apply to both the siting of a new source and to the siting of a new receptor. Local community risk and hazard impacts are associated with TACs and PM2.5 because emissions of these pollutants can have significant health impacts at the local level. The proposed Modified Project would generate TACs and PM2.5 during construction activities that could elevate concentrations of air pollutants at the nearby sensitive receptors. The thresholds for construction-related local community risk and hazard impacts are the same as for project operations. The BAAQMD has adopted screening tables for air toxics evaluation during construction.

Construction-related TAC and PM2.5 impacts should be addressed on a case-by-case basis, taking into consideration the specific construction-related characteristics of each project and proximity to off-site and on-site receptors, as applicable.19
Community Risk and Hazards: Project
Project-level emissions of TACs or PM2.5 from individual sources that exceed any of the thresholds listed below are considered a potentially significant community health risk:
 An excess cancer risk level of more than 10 in one million, or a noncancer (i.e., chronic or acute) hazard index greater than 1.0 would be a significant project contribution. 19 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 25, 2024.
582
CC 05-14-2024
582 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

AIR QUALITY

4.2-26 APRIL 2024
 An incremental increase of greater than 0.3 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3) annual average PM2.5 from a single source would be a significant project contribution.20 Community Risk and Hazards: Cumulative
Cumulative sources represent the combined total risk values of each of the individual sources within the 1,000-foot evaluation zone. A project would have a cumulatively considerable impact if the aggregate total of all past, present, and foreseeable future sources within a 1,000-foot radius from the fence line of a source or location of a receptor, plus the contribution from the project, exceeds any of the following:
 An excess cancer risk level of more than 100 in one million or a chronic noncancer hazard index (from all local sources) greater than 10.0.
 0.8 µg/m3 annual average PM2.5.
21 In February 2015, the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) adopted new health risk assessment guidance that includes several efforts to be more protective of children’s health.

These updated procedures include the use of age sensitivity factors to account for the higher sensitivity of infants and young children to cancer causing chemicals, and age-specific breathing rate. 22 Odor Impacts
The BAAQMD’s thresholds for odors are qualitative based on BAAQMD’s Regulation 7, Odorous Substances. This rule places general limitations on odorous substances and specific emission limitations on certain odorous compounds. In addition, odors are also regulated under BAAQMD Regulation 1, Rule 1-301, Public Nuisance, which states that no person shall discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or the public; or which endangers the comfort, repose, health or safety of any such persons or the public, or which causes, or has a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property. Under BAAQMD’s Rule 1-301, a facility that receives three or more violation notices within a 30-day period can be declared a public nuisance. The BAAQMD has established odor screening thresholds for land uses that have the potential to generate substantial odor complaints, including wastewater treatment plants, landfills or transfer stations, composting facilities, confined animal facilities, food manufacturing, and chemical plant. For a plan-level analysis, BAAQMD requires:
 Potential existing and planned locations of odor sources to be identified.  Policies to reduce odors.
20 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 25, 2024. 21 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 25, 2024.
22 California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), February 2015, Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessment, https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf, accessed January 29, 2024. 583
CC 05-14-2024
583 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

AIR QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 4.2-27

4.2.3 IMPACT DISCUSSION

METHODOLOGY
Emissions Quantification
Impacts related to air quality resulting from implementation of the proposed Modified Project are described below. The impact analysis is based on air quality modeling of the criteria air pollutant and ozone precursor emissions that would result from future potential development under the proposed Modified Project. To determine the increase in air pollutants because of the proposed Modified Project, the maximum allowable net new residential dwelling units envisioned by the proposed Modified Project (3,312 units) 23 were estimated by calculating the net change from Approved Project and buildout of the proposed Modified Project in 2040. Due to a lack of available information on existing development on sites identified to accommodate the envisioned 3,312 dwelling units through 2040, emissions generated by the net new 3,312 dwelling units are herein considered to be a net increase from conditions under the Approved Project.

CalEEMod Version 2022.1 was used to calculate emissions of air pollutants associated with buildout of the proposed Modified Project (see Table 4.2-9, Proposed Modified Project Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions Forecast). Tables 3-4 and 3-5 in Chapter 3, Project Description, identify the sites intended to accommodate the housing supply growth envisioned by the proposed Modified Project. Based on the housing density data from these tables, all new housing units have been assigned to “Apartments Low-Rise”, “Apartments Mid-Rise”, Condos/Townhouse”, and “Single-Family Housing” land use categories in CalEEMod. Consistent with the Transportation Analysis prepared by Fehr & Peers for the proposed Modified Project, emissions modeling for weekday rates utilized the daily vehicle trips and VMT provided for cumulative conditions and cumulative conditions with project implementation. Saturday and Sunday trip generation and VMT in the emissions modeling were calculated using the proportional change from CalEEMod default weekday trip rates to those provided by Fehr & Peers with the CalEEMod default values for Saturday and Sunday trip rates. All vehicle trips represented in the emissions modeling were assigned to be 100 percent primary, meaning no trip distance or generation discounts were applied for pass-by or diverted trips to provide a conservative emissions estimate.

Consistent with the BAAQMD’s Regulation 6, Rule 3, Wood-Burning Devices, no new dwelling units modeled with CalEEMod were assumed to contain any wood-burning devices. In addition, the perdwelling unit indoor and outdoor water consumption rates as well as the solid waste generation and energy consumption rates reflect utilization of CalEEMod default rates.

Impacts of the Environment on a Project
BAAQMD’s CEQA Guidelines include methodology for jurisdictions wanting to evaluate the potential impacts from placing sensitive receptors proximate to major air pollutant sources. For assessing community risk and hazards for siting a new receptor, sources within a 1,000-foot radius of a project site 23 Modeling assumed 3,317 new residential units within the City for consistency with the transportation analysis. 584
CC 05-14-2024
584 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

AIR QUALITY

4.2-28 APRIL 2024
are typically considered. Sources are defined as freeways, high volume roadways (with volume of 10,000 vehicles or more per day or 1,000 trucks per day) and permitted sources.

Buildout under the proposed Modified Project could result in siting sensitive uses (e.g., residential) near sources of emissions (e.g., freeways, industrial uses, etc.). Developing new sensitive land uses near sources of emissions could expose persons that inhabit these sensitive land uses to potential air qualityrelated impacts. However, the purpose of this environmental evaluation is to identify the significant effects of the proposed Modified Project on the environment, not the significant effects of the environment on the proposed Modified Project. California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (2015) 62 Cal.4th 369 (Case No. S213478). Thus, CEQA does not require analysis of the potential environmental effects from placing sensitive receptors near existing sources, and this type of analysis is not provided below in the Section 4.2.3, Impact Analysis.

While it is generally not within the purview of CEQA to analyze impacts of the environment on a project, the CMC includes provisions to prioritize of the health of Cupertino’s residents through the incorporation of design features to minimize air quality impacts and to achieve appropriate health standards. The General Plan 2040 contains several goals, policies, and strategies that aim to reduce the potential for sensitive receptor exposure to TACs. For example, General Plan Policy ES-4.1, New Development, aims to promote the reduction in health and safety hazards associated with TACs and fugitive dust generated by new development in the city.

AIR-1 Implementation of the proposed Modified Project would conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan.

As described in the General Plan EIR, the potential future development under the Approved Project would not exceed regional growth projections or hinder BAAQMD’s ability to attain the California or National AAQS. As the Approved Project would adhere to BAAQMD regulations as well as to General Plan policies, it would ensure new sources of TACs do not expose populations to significant health risk. The Approved Project is consistent with the goals of the 2010 Clean Air Plan and implements policies and strategies that ensure consistency with the control measures of the 2010 Clean Air Plan. However, the Approved Project would result in a higher VMT rate of growth than rate of service population growth, and buildout of the Approved Project would conflict with the BAAQMD 2010 Clean Air Plan goal for community-wide VMT to increase at a slower rate compared to population and employment growth.

The following describes potential air quality impacts of consistency with the AQMP from the implementation of the proposed Modified Project. The General Plan plays an important role in local agency project review by linking local planning and individual projects to the 2017 Clean Air Plan. It fulfills the CEQA goal of informing decision makers of the environmental efforts of the project under consideration at an early enough stage to ensure that air quality concerns are fully addressed. It also provides the local agency with ongoing information as to whether they are contributing to clean air goals in the Bay Area. BAAQMD requires a consistency evaluation of a proposed project with the current AQMP control measures, as described in Section 4.2.2, Standards of Significance. 585
CC 05-14-2024
585 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

AIR QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 4.2-29
BAAQMD 2017 Clean Air Plan Goals
Attain Air Quality Standards
As described in the General Plan EIR, the potential future development under the Approved Project would not exceed regional growth projections of Plan Bay Area or hinder BAAQMD’s ability to attain the California or National AAQS. Since the certification of the General Plan EIR, BAAQMD adopted its 2017 Clean Air Plan. BAAQMD’s 2017 Clean Air Plan strategy is based on regional population and employment projections in the Bay Area compiled by ABAG, which are based in part on cities’ general plan land use designations. These demographic projections are incorporated into Plan Bay Area. Demographic trends incorporated into Plan Bay Area determine VMT in the Bay Area, which BAAQMD uses to forecast future air quality trends. The SFBAAB is currently designated a nonattainment area for O3, PM2.5, and PM10 (State AAQS only).

In addition, as described in greater detail under Impact Discussion AIR-2, individual development projects facilitated by the proposed Modified Project that are subject to CEQA would be required to undergo their own respective environmental review. In determining whether an individual development project would have potentially significant impacts on local and regional air quality, including consideration of an individual development project’s contribution to an existing or forecast air quality violation, BAAQMD recommends using project-level significance thresholds for criteria pollutants and ozone precursors.

Utilizing the BAAQMD’s recommended project-level significance thresholds and considering that the SFBAAB is currently in nonattainment for PM standards, individual potential future development projects facilitated by the proposed Modified Project would be considered to have potentially significant sitespecific or project-specific impacts related to the generation of fugitive dust during construction activities if they do not implement BAAQMD’s Basic Dust Control Measures targeting dust control and sediment migration. The SFBAAB is currently designated a nonattainment area for PM, and BAAQMD’s recommended significance threshold for construction fugitive dust is binary—meaning if a project includes dust control best management practices (BMP) that resemble BAAQMD’s Basic Dust Control Measures, then construction fugitive dust emissions would be less than significant. Pursuant to CMC Section 17.04, Standard Environmental Protection Requirements, potential future development under both the Approved Project and proposed Modified Project would be required to implement BAAQMD’s Basic Dust Control Measures and therefore impacts related to construction fugitive dust would be less than significant. The proposed Modified Project would not result in new or more severe impacts related to construction fugitive dust when compared to what was evaluated in the General Plan EIR.

In addition, construction and operation of potential future development on the Housing Opportunity Sites, as identified 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), of this EA, the proposed Modified Project could result in air quality emissions that exceed the BAAQMD significance criteria for ozone precursors. However, like the Approved Project, potential future development under the proposed Modified Project would implement the City’s Standard Environmental Protection Requirements as stipulated in CMC Chapter 17.04. These requirements are codified regulations equivalent to the General Plan EIR mitigation measures to reduce construction-related air quality impacts. For example, CMC Section 17.04.050(A)(3) would require a future project to use low-VOC architectural coatings of no 586
CC 05-14-2024
586 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

AIR QUALITY

4.2-30 APRIL 2024
greater than 50 grams per liter of product, potential impacts related to construction VOC emissions—an O3 precursor—so that these emissions would be reduced during construction and impacts would be less than significant. As the Standard Environmental Protection Requirements would apply to both the Approved Project and the proposed Modified Project, the proposed Modified Project would not result in new or more severe impacts with regard to construction and operational criteria pollutant emissions or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared what was evaluated in the General Plan EIR.

Moreover, the General Plan EIR found that potential future development under the Approved Project would not exceed regional projections for residential or employment populations and would not hinder BAAQMD’s ability to attain the California or National AAQS. As discussed in Chapter 3, Project Description, the proposed Modified Project would introduce up to 3,312 net new housing units and 9,737 new residents, which would increase the City’s total population to approximately 81,037. According to the Plan Bay Area 2040 growth projections, which underpin the growth assumptions that inform the emissions forecasts in the 2017 Clean Air Plan, Cupertino is projected to have a population of 68,305 people by 2040; therefore, the proposed Modified Project would result in greater population growth in the city than what is accounted for in the 2017 Clean Air Plan. As a result, the proposed Modified Project would be considered inconsistent with the growth assumptions and emissions forecasts of the AQMP and impacts would be potentially significant. It is important to note that this impact conclusion is solely based on the fact that the City’s population growth projections exceed what is currently accounted for in BAAQMD’s 2017 Clean Air Plan. Should BAAQMD update its Clean Air Plan to reflect the updated regional growth projections from ABAG for the City’s 6th Cycle Housing Element (2023 -2031), it is possible that the new growth accommodated by the proposed Modified Project would not conflict with or obstruct BAAQMD’s ability to attain the California or National AAQS; however, it is unknown how BAAQMD’s attainment strategy may change in response to updated population growth projections or emissions forecasts. As such, this impact would be potentially significant.

Reduce Population Exposure and Protect Public Health
As described in the General Plan EIR, the Cupertino is largely developed, and new sensitive land uses could be proximate to major sources of TACs. Under the Approved Project, adherence to BAAQMD regulations would ensure new sources of TACs do not expose populations to significant health risk. Like the Approved Project, future potential development of the proposed Modified Project could result in new sources of TACs and PM2.5. Stationary sources, including smaller stationary sources associated with residential development (e.g., emergency generators, boilers), are subject to review by BAAQMD as part of the permitting process. Adherence to BAAQMD permitting regulations would ensure that new stationary sources of TACs do not expose populations to significant health risk. Mobile sources of air toxics (e.g., truck idling) are not regulated directly by BAAQMD. However, potential future residential development associated with the proposed Modified Project would not generate substantial truck traffic or idling. Furthermore, individual future potential development projects facilitated by the proposed Modified Project would be required to achieve the project-level risk thresholds established by BAAQMD to ensure the sensitive receptor impact resulting from the subject development project would be less than significant. Therefore, the proposed Modified Project would not result in new or more severe impacts with regard to reducing the population’s exposure and protecting public health or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared what was evaluated in the General Plan EIR. 587
CC 05-14-2024
587 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

AIR QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 4.2-31
Reduce GHG Emissions and Protect the Climate
Consistency of the proposed Modified Project with State, regional, and local plans adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions are discussed in Chapter 4.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of this EA.

The General Plan EIR determined that the Approved Project is consistent with the goals of the 2010 Bay Area Clean Air Plan to reduce GHG emissions and protect the climate and that new policies would be introduced as part of the Approved Project to minimize impacts. Like the Approved Project, future development allowed by the proposed Modified Project would be required to adhere to statewide measures that have been adopted to achieve the GHG reduction targets of AB 32, SB 32, and AB 1279.

The proposed Modified Project is consistent with regional strategies for infill development identified in Plan Bay Area 2050 and the City’s Climate Action Plan. Since the certification of the General Plan EIR, BAAQMD adopted its 2017 Clean Air Plan. While Impact Discussion GHG-1 in Chapter 4.7 identifies that the proposed Modified Project would generate a substantial increase in GHG emissions, the proposed Modified Project is consistent with State, regional and local plans to reduce GHG emissions. Therefore, the proposed Modified Project is consistent with the goal of the 2017 Clean Air Plan to reduce GHG emissions and protect the climate and impacts would be less than significant. The proposed Modified Project would not result in new impacts with regards to reducing GHG emissions and protecting the climate or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to the General Plan EIR. 2017 Clean Air Plan Control Measures
The General Plan EIR determined that the Approved Project would not hinder BAAQMD from implementing the control measures contained in the 2010 Clean Air Plan. Since the certification of the General Plan EIR, BAAQMD has adopted its 2017 Clean Air Plan. Table 4.2-7, Control Measures from the BAAQMD 2017 Clean Air Plan, identifies the control measures included in the 2017 Clean Air Plan that are required by BAAQMD to reduce air quality emissions for a wide range of both stationary and mobile sources. Like the Approved Project, the proposed Modified Project would not conflict with the 2017 Clean Air Plan and would not hinder BAAQMD from implementing the control measures in the 2017 Clean Air Plan and impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, the proposed Modified Project would not result in new impacts or a substantial increase in magnitude impacts from implementation of the 2017 Clean Air Plan Control Measures than what was evaluated in the General Plan EIR.

Growth Projections for VMT and Population
The General Plan EIR determined that VMT in the Study Area would increase at a rate higher than the service population. However, because BAAQMD’s AQMP recommends that the VMT increase be less than or equal to the projected population increase to determine in part a proposed plan’s consistency with the applicable AQMP, impacts were significant under the Approved Project. The VMT Analysis (2024) prepared for the proposed Modified Project, which estimated the weekday citywide VMT generation for the proposed Modified Project under existing conditions (2019) and future with project conditions (2040), accounts for full buildout of the proposed Modified Project in 2040. 588
CC 05-14-2024
588 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

AIR QUALITY

4.2-32 APRIL 2024
TABLE 4.2-7 CONTROL MEASURES FROM THE BAAQMD 2017 CLEAN AIR PLAN Type Measure Number / Title Consistency
Stationary
Source Control
Measures
 SS 1 – Fluid Catalytic Cracking in Refineries
 SS 2 – Equipment Leaks
 SS 3 – Cooling Towers
 SS 4 – Refinery Flares
 SS 5 – Sulfur Recovery Units
 SS 6 – Refinery Fuel Gas
 SS 7 – Sulfuric Acid Plants
 SS 8 – Sulfur Dioxide from Coke Calcining
 SS 9 – Enhanced NSR Enforcement for Changes in Crude Slate  SS 10 – Petroleum Refining Emissions Tracking
 SS 11 – Petroleum Refining Facility-Wide Emission Limits  SS 12 – Petroleum Refining Climate Impacts Limit
 SS 13 – Oil and Gas Production, Processing and Storage  SS 14 – Methane from Capped Wells
 SS 15 – Natural Gas Processing and Distribution
 SS 16 – Basin-Wide Methane Strategy
 SS 17 – GHG BACT Threshold
 SS 18 – Basin-Wide Combustion Strategy
 SS 19 – Portland Cement
 SS 20 – Air Toxics Risk Cap and Reduction from Existing Facilities  SS 21 – New Source Review for Toxics
 SS 22 – Stationary Gas Turbines
 SS 23 – Biogas Flares
 SS 24 – Sulfur Content Limits of Liquid Fuels
 SS 25 – Coatings, Solvents, Lubricants, Sealants and Adhesives  SS 26 – Surface Prep and Cleaning Solvent
 SS 27 – Digital Printing
 SS 28 – LPG, Propane, Butane
 SS 29 – Asphaltic Concrete
 SS 30 – Residential Fan Type Furnaces
 SS 31 – General Particulate Matter Emission Limitation  SS 32 – Emergency Backup Generators
 SS 33 – Commercial Cooking Equipment
 SS 34 – Wood Smoke
Stationary and area sources are regulated directly by BAAQMD; therefore, as the implementing agency, new stationary and area sources within the City would be required to comply with BAAQMD regulations. BAAQMD routinely adopts/revises rules or regulations to implement the stationary source (SS) control measures to reduce stationary source emissions. Based on the new residential uses under the proposed Modified Project, implementation of the proposed Modified Project would not hinder the ability of BAAQMD to implement these SS control measures. Major stationary source are more commonly associated with industrial manufacturing or warehousing. However, BAAQMD and the City have existing regulations in place to ensure potential future development under the proposed Modified Project would not conflict with the applicable SS control measures. Non-residential land uses may generate small quantities of stationary source emissions during project operation (e.g., emergency generators, dry cleaners, and gasoline dispensing facilities); however, these small-quantity generators would require review by BAAQMD for permitted sources of air toxics, which would ensure consistency with the 2017 Clean Air Plan.

The proposed Modified Project involves residential uses and would not include major stationary sources of emissions. Boilers and emergency generators for multi-family residential products would be required to follow BAAQMD’s permitting requirements. 589
CC 05-14-2024
589 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

AIR QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 4.2-33
TABLE 4.2-7 CONTROL MEASURES FROM THE BAAQMD 2017 CLEAN AIR PLAN Type Measure Number / Title Consistency
 SS 35 – PM from Bulk Material Storage, Handling and Transport, Including Coke and Coal
 SS 36 – PM from Trackout
 SS 37 – PM from Asphalt Operations
 SS 38 – Fugitive Dust
 SS 39 – Enhanced Air Quality Monitoring
 SS 40 – Odors
Transportation
Control
Measures
 TR 1 – Clean Air Teleworking Initiative
 TR 2 – Trip Reduction Programs
 TR 3 – Local and Regional Bus Service
 TR 4 – Local and Regional Rail Service
 TR 5 – Transit Efficiency and Use
 TR 6 – Freeway and Arterial Operations
 TR 7 – Safe Routes to Schools and Safe Routes to Transit  TR 8 – Ridesharing, Last-Mile Connection
 TR 9 – Bicycle and Pedestrian Access and Facilities
 TR 10 – Land Use Strategies
 TR 11 – Value Pricing
 TR 12 – Smart Driving
 TR 13 – Parking Policies
 TR 14 – Cars and Light Trucks
 TR 15 – Public Outreach and Education
 TR 16 – Indirect Source Review
 TR 17 – Planes
 TR 18 – Goods Movement
 TR 19 – Medium and Heavy Duty Trucks
 TR 20 – Ocean Going Vessels
 TR 21 – Commercial Harbor Craft
 TR 22 – Construction, Freight and Farming Equipment
 TR 23 – Lawn and Garden Equipment
Transportation (TR) control measures are strategies to reduce vehicle trips, vehicle use, VMT, vehicle idling, and traffic congestion for the purpose of reducing motor vehicle emissions. Although most of the TR control measures are implemented at the regional level—that is, by MTC or Caltrans—the 2017 Clean Air Plan relies on local communities to assist with implementation of some measures.

Future potential development under the proposed Modified Project would be reviewed based on current General Plan 2040 policies, which are largely unchanged as a result of the proposed Modified Project being an update to the Housing Element. For example, the General Plan 2040 Mobility Element contains several policies and strategies that encourage regional transportation planning coordination, improvements to active transportation infrastructure, and improvements to transit and rideshare programs.

Energy and
Climate Control
Measures
 EN 1 – Decarbonize Electricity Production
 EN 2 – Renewable Energy Decrease Electricity Demand
The energy and climate (EN) control measures are intended to reduce energy use as a means to reducing adverse air quality emissions.

Future potential development under the proposed Modified Project would be reviewed based on current General Plan 2040 policies and strategies, which are largely unchanged 590
CC 05-14-2024
590 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

AIR QUALITY

4.2-34 APRIL 2024
TABLE 4.2-7 CONTROL MEASURES FROM THE BAAQMD 2017 CLEAN AIR PLAN Type Measure Number / Title Consistency
as a result of the proposed Modified Project being an update to the Housing Element. For example, the General Plan Environmental Resources and Sustainability Element contains several goals, policies, and strategies that encourage green building design for the conservation of energy during construction and operation of new development.

Furthermore, future potential development accommodated under the proposed Modified Project would be built to comply with the latest Building Energy Efficiency Standards and CALGreen standards. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Modified Project would not conflict with these EN control measures.

Buildings
Control
Measures
 BL 1 – Green Buildings
 BL 2 – Decarbonize Buildings
 BL 3 – Market-Based Solutions
 BL 4 – Urban Heat Island Mitigation
The buildings (BL) control measures focus on working with local governments to facilitate adoption of best GHG emissions control practices and policies.

Future potential development under the proposed Modified Project would be reviewed based on current General Plan 2040 policies, which are largely unchanged as a result of the proposed Modified Project being an update to the Housing Element. For example, the General Plan Environmental Resources and Sustainability Element contains several goals, policies, and strategies that encourage green building design for the conservation of energy during construction and operation of new development.

Furthermore, potential future development accommodated under the proposed Modified Project would be built to comply with the latest Building Energy Efficiency Standards and CALGreen standards. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Modified Project would not conflict with these BL control measures.

Agriculture
Control
Measures
 AG 1 – Agricultural Guidance and Leadership
 AG 2 – Dairy Digesters
 AG 3 – Enteric Fermentation
 AG 4 – Livestock Waste
Agricultural practices in the Bay Area accounts for a small portion, roughly 1.5 percent, of the Bay Area GHG emissions inventory. The GHGs from agriculture include methane and nitrous oxide, in addition to carbon dioxide. While the Agriculture (AG) control measures target larger scale farming practices that are not included in the proposed Modified Project, the housing sites identified under the proposed Modified Project do not constitute any sites which currently host commercial agricultural operations.

Therefore, implementation of the proposed Modified Project would not conflict with these AG control measures.

Natural and
Working Lands
Control
Measures
 NW 1 -- Carbon Sequestration in Rangelands
 NW 2 – Urban Tree Planting
 NW 3 – Carbon Sequestration in Wetlands
The control measures for the natural and working lands sector focus on increasing carbon sequestration on rangelands and wetlands. While the Natural Working Lands (NW) control measures target the sequestration of GHG emissions through improving or establishing working lands, working lands are not included in the proposed Modified Project, and the housing sites identified under the proposed Modified Project do not constitute any sites which currently host working lands.

Therefore, implementation of the proposed Modified Project would not conflict with these NW control measures.
591
CC 05-14-2024
591 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

AIR QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 4.2-35
TABLE 4.2-7 CONTROL MEASURES FROM THE BAAQMD 2017 CLEAN AIR PLAN Type Measure Number / Title Consistency
Water Control
Measures
 WR 1 – Limit GHGs from publicly owned treatment works (POTWs)  WR 2 – Support Water Conservation
The 2017 Clean Air Plan includes measures to reduce water use. Future potential development under the proposed Modified Project would be reviewed based on current General Plan 2040 policies. The Environmental Resources and Sustainability Element contains goals, policies, and strategies that direct the City to develop and adopt a Climate Action Plan that, among other objectives, aims to improve water efficiency and conservation through project design review. Furthermore, future potential development accommodated under the proposed Modified Project would be built to comply with the latest Building Energy Efficiency Standards and CALGreen standards that would ensure incremental improvements in water efficiency in building design. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Modified Project would not conflict with these WR control measures.

Super-GHG
Control
Measures
 SL 1 – Short-Lived Climate Pollutants
 SL 2 – Guidance for Local Planners
 SL 3 – GHG Monitoring and Emissions Measurements Network Super-GHGs include methane, black carbon and fluorinated gases. The compounds are sometimes referred to as short-lived climate pollutants because their lifetime in the atmosphere is generally fairly short. Measures to reduce super GHGs are addressed on a sector-by-sector basis in the 2017 Clean Air Plan. Through ongoing implementation of the CAP, the City will continue to reduce local GHG emissions, meet State, regional, and local reduction targets, which would ensure implementation of the proposed Modified Project would not conflict with these SL control measures.

Further Study
Control
Measures
 FSM SS 1 – Internal Combustion Engines
 FSM SS 2 – Boilers, Steam Generator and Process Heaters  FSM SS 3 – GHG Reductions from Non Cap-and Trade Sources  FSM SS 4 – Methane Exemptions from Wastewater Regulation  FSM SS 5 – Controlling start-up, shutdown, maintenance, and malfunction (SSMM) Emissions
 FSM SS 6 – Carbon Pollution Fee
 FSM SS 7 – Vanishing Oils and Rust Inhibitors
 FSM SS 8 – Dryers, Ovens and Kilns
 FSM SS 9 – Omnibus Rulemaking to Achieve Continuous
Improvement
 FSM BL 1 – Space Heating
 FSM AG 1 – Wineries
The majority of the further study control measures apply to sources regulated directly by BAAQMD. Because BAAQMD is the implementing agency, new and existing sources of stationary and area sources in the project area would be required to comply with these additional further study control measures in the 2017 Clean Air Plan.

Source: 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-and-research/plans/2017-clean-air-plan/attachment-a_-proposed-final-cap-vol-1-pdf.pdf?la=en, accessed January 29, 2024. 592
CC 05-14-2024
592 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

AIR QUALITY

4.2-36 APRIL 2024
Table 4.2-8, Comparison of the Change in Population and VMT in the City of Cupertino, displays the change in VMT and population growth between existing conditions under the Approved Project (2019) and future 2040 conditions with buildout of the proposed Modified Project.

TABLE 4.2-8 COMPARISON OF THE CHANGE IN POPULATION AND VMT IN THE CITY OF CUPERTINO Category
Existing Conditions
(2019)
Cumulative Year With
Proposed Modified
Project (2040)
Change from Existing
Change %
Population a 56,784 81,037 24,253 42.7%
Daily VMT b 3,772,000 3,927,390 155,390 4.1%
VMT/person c 66.43 48.46 -17.97 -27.1%
Notes:
a. City Population in 2019 was drawn from the California Department of Finance's Table E-4 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2011-2020, with 2010 Benchmark. City Population for Cumulative Year (2040) was identified by adding the 2040 forecasted population from the General Plan EIR and adding the 9,737 net new residents accommodated by the proposed Modified Project through the buildout year of 2040, as described in Chapter 4.12, Population and Housing, of this EA. b. The Existing Conditions (2019) and Cumulative Year with Proposed Modified Project (2040) VMT estimates are drawn from Table 7 in the Fehr & Peers Transportation Analysis for the Environmental Review, dated January 2024 (Appendix E). c. VMT/person estimates are identified by dividing the Daily VMT estimates by the City Population for the corresponding year.

As shown in Table 4.2-8, Comparison of the Change in Population and VMT in the City of Cupertino, implementation of the proposed Modified Project in 2040 would result in a lower daily per capita VMT rate than is experienced under the Approved Project, which would result in a population growth which outpaces VMT growth in the Study Area from 2019 through 2040. Therefore, the proposed Modified Project would be considered consistent with the VMT-reduction objectives of the current AQMP.

Nonetheless, the proposed Modified Project would result in the introduction of a population growth which goes beyond the growth projections contained in Plan Bay Area 2040, which underpins the growth assumptions used for the emissions forecasts in the 2017 Clean Air Plan. Therefore, the proposed Modified Project would be considered inconsistent with the applicable AQMP and impacts with regards to attainment of air quality standards would be potentially significant.

The General Plan EIR also found that the Mobility (M)and Environmental Resources and Sustainability (ES) Elements contain a policy and strategies that require local planning and development decisions to consider impacts that development could have on consistency with air quality plans. Like the Approved Project, the following existing General Plan 2040 includes a policy and strategies, and updated policy and strategies as part of the proposed Modified Project, would also ensure consistency with air quality plans.  Policy M-1.1. Regional Transportation Planning. Participate in regional transportation planning processes to develop programs consistent with the goals and policies of Cupertino’s General Plan and to minimize adverse impacts on the City’s circulation system. Work with neighboring cities to address regional transportation and land use issues of mutual interest. (General Plan EIR Policy 4-1)  Strategy ES- 4.1.1. Toxic Air Contaminants. Continue to review projects for potential generation of toxic air contaminants at the time of approval and confer with Bay Area Air Quality Management District on controls needed if impacts are uncertain.
593
CC 05-14-2024
593 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

AIR QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 4.2-37
 Strategy ES- 4.1.3. Planning. Ensure that land use and transportation plans support air quality goals. (General Plan EIR Strategy 3)
 Strategy ES- 4.2.1. Public Education Program. Establish a citywide public education program providing information on ways to reduce and control emissions; and continue to provide information about alternative commutes, carpooling and restricting exacerbating activities on “Spare the Air” highemissions days.

Summary
While implementation of the proposed Modified Project would have less-than-significant impacts with respect to construction fugitive dust and criteria air pollutant emissions, exposing sensitive receptors to TACs and PM2.5, generating GHG emissions and harming the climate, and implementing the control measures from the 2017 Clean Air Plan, would be considered consistent with the VMT-reduction objectives of the current AQMP, implementation of the proposed Modified Project would be inconsistent with the growth projections applied to the 2017 Clean Air Plan and would therefore be inconsistent with the 2017 Clean Air Plan. Impacts would be potentially significant.

Impact 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.

Significance without Mitigation: Significant and Unavoidable. While the proposed Modified Project would support the primary goals of the 2017 Clean Air Plan, the buildout of the proposed Modified Project would exceed the growth projections that underpin the growth assumptions that inform the emissions forecasts in the 2017 Clean Air Plan. There are no feasible mitigation measures to address the timing of the update to the BAAQMD Clean Air Plan to incorporate the current growth projections for the Bay Area as issued by ABAG. It should be noted that the identification of this program-level impact does not preclude the finding of less-than-significant impacts for subsequent projects that comply with BAAQMD screening criteria or meet applicable thresholds of significance. However, due to the programmatic nature of the proposed Modified Project, no additional mitigation measures are available, and the impact is considered significant and unavoidable.

AIR-2 Implementation of the proposed Modified Project would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment under applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard.

As described in the General Plan EIR, criteria air pollutant emissions associated with construction and operation under the Approved Project would generate a substantial increase in ROG, NOX, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions that would exceed the BAAQMD regional significance thresholds, even with implementation of the General Plan 2040 policies and strategies. Therefore, even with implementation of General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures AQ-2a and AQ-2b to comply with BAAQMD control measures to reduce PM10 594
CC 05-14-2024
594 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

AIR QUALITY

4.2-38 APRIL 2024
(fugitive dust) and implement construction mitigation measures, respectively, the Approved Project could contribute to an increase in health effects in the air basin until the attainment standards are met in the SFBAAB. Impacts were found to be significant and unavoidable.

Construction
The proposed Modified Project would not directly result in construction of any development or infrastructure; however, potential future development facilitated by the proposed Modified Project would result in short-term construction-related criteria pollutant emissions with the potential to have an adverse effect on air quality. Short-term criteria pollutant emissions would occur during demolition, site preparation, grading, building construction, paving, and architectural coating activities associated with individual development projects. ROG and NOX emissions are primarily associated with gasoline and diesel equipment exhaust and the application of architectural coatings. Fugitive dust emissions (PM10 and PM2.5) are primarily associated with site preparation and vary as a function of such parameters as soil silt content, soil moisture, wind speed, acreage of disturbance area, and VMT by construction vehicles onand off-site. Typical construction equipment associated with development and redevelopment projects includes dozers, graders, excavators, loaders, and trucks.

Although the exact coverage, location, or duration of future potential construction projects is unknown at the time of preparation of this EA, potential future development activities under the proposed Modified Project would generally entail demolition, site preparation, grading, building construction, paving, and painting, like those under the Approved Project. Since Cupertino is a built-out city, many potential future developments in the Study Area would likely require the demolition of existing structures to make room for newer ones. Fugitive dust emissions would typically be greatest during building demolition, site preparation, and grading activities due to the disturbance of soils and transport of material. NOX emissions would result from the combustion of diesel fuels used to power off-road heavy-duty vehicles and equipment (e.g., backhoes, bulldozers, excavators). The types and quantity of equipment, as well as duration of construction activities, would be dependent on project-specific conditions. Larger developments would require more equipment over a longer time frame than required for redevelopment of a single residential home.

As described under Impact Discussion AIR-1, BAAQMD does not recommend plan-level thresholds of significance for construction emissions; however, similar to potential future development under the Approved Project, BAAQMD does maintain and recommend project-level thresholds of significance for construction emissions that future potential development projects under the proposed Modified Project would be subject to. In addition, the BAAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines identify and recommend a series of “Basic” measures to control and reduce construction-related fugitive dust emissions. The SFBAAB is currently designated as a nonattainment area for both PM10 and PM2.5, and BAAQMD’s recommended significance threshold for construction fugitive dust is binary, meaning if a project includes dust control best management practices that resemble BAAQMD’s Basic Dust Control Measures, then construction fugitive dust emissions would be less than significant. Because CMC Section 17.04.050(A)(1) requires construction projects to implement BAAQMD’s Basic Dust Control Measures, same as General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures AQ-2a and AQ2-b, impacts related to construction fugitive dust for potential future development under both the Approved and Modified Project would be less than significant. The proposed 595
CC 05-14-2024
595 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

AIR QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 4.2-39
Modified Project would not result in new impacts and a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to what was evaluated in the General Plan EIR.

Operation
The proposed Modified Project would accommodate potential future development that would operate through the planning horizon year 2040. Potential future residential development facilitated by the proposed Modified Project would result in long-term area-, energy-, and mobile-source air quality emissions. Area source emissions are the combination of many small emission sources that include use of outdoor landscape maintenance equipment, use of consumer products such as cleaning products, use of fireplaces and hearths, and periodic reapplication of architectural coatings. Criteria pollutants generated from energy sources are principally from the on-site use of natural gas; electricity consumption is not included in energy source emissions because those potential emissions would be generated as the result of the operation of an electricity generation facility, which may or may not be within the same air basin and under the same attainment status as the end use. Mobile source emissions result from the vehicle activity associated with the operation of a given land use development project.

Implementation of the proposed Modified Project may result in potential future development of up to 3,312 net new residential units compared to the Approved Project. It should be noted that the proposed Modified Project would not itself authorize specific development in the city. Future potential development projects would be subject to the City’s standard review process and would be required to assess projectspecific emissions in relation to the BAAQMD significance thresholds. As such, future potential development projects subject to CEQA would prepare project-specific analyses, which would compare project emissions to the BAAQMD’s project-level significance thresholds and identify and implement mitigation measures, as necessary, to reduce any potential impacts that could occur. Although specific project-level information for potential future development is not available at this time and the estimation of emissions resulting from future potential development would be speculative, CalEEMod was utilized to provide an estimate of the potential overall area, energy, and mobile source emissions resulting from implementation of the proposed Modified Project for informational purposes only (i.e., not for the purpose of determining significance of potential air quality impacts).

CalEEMod Version 2022.1 was used to calculate emissions of air pollutants associated with buildout of the proposed Modified Project (see Table 4.2-9, Proposed Modified Project Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions Forecast). Please refer to Table 3-4, Housing Element (2023-2031) Opportunity Sites: Residential, and Table 3-5, Housing Element (2023-2031) Opportunity Sites: Commercial/Residential (Mixed Use), in Chapter 3, Project Description, of this EA, for the sites identified to accommodate the housing supply growth envisioned by the proposed Modified Project. Based on the housing density data from these tables, all new housing units have been assigned to “Apartments Low-Rise”, “Apartments Mid-Rise”, Condos/Townhouse”, and “Single-Family Housing” categories. Consistent with the Transportation Analysis prepared by Fehr & Peers for the proposed Modified Project (see Appendix E, Transportation Analysis, of this EA), modeling for weekday rates utilized the daily vehicle trips and VMT provided for cumulative conditions under the Approved Project and cumulative conditions with proposed Modified Project implementation. Saturday and Sunday trip generation and VMT were calculated from the ratio CalEEMod default Saturday and Sunday trip rates to the weekday rate. Moreover, all vehicle trips represented in the 596
CC 05-14-2024
596 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

AIR QUALITY

4.2-40 APRIL 2024
emissions modeling were assigned to be 100 percent primary, meaning no trip distance or generation discounts were applied for pass-by or diverted trips to provide a conservative emissions estimate.

Consistent with the BAAQMD’s Regulation 6, Rule 3, Wood-Burning Devices, no new dwelling units modeled with CalEEMod were assumed to contain any wood-burning devices. In addition, the perdwelling unit indoor and outdoor water consumption rates as well as the solid waste generation and energy consumption rates reflect utilization of CalEEMod default rates. The estimated criteria air pollutants resulting from full implementation of the proposed Modified Project are shown in Table 4.2-9, Proposed Modified Project Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions Forecast. CalEEMod output files are included as Appendix B, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Data, of this EA.

TABLE 4.2-9 PROPOSED MODIFIED PROJECT CRITERIA AIR POLLUTANT EMISSIONS FORECAST Sectors
Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions
(Tons per year)
ROG NOX PM10 PM2.5
Proposed Modified Project Land Uses (Year 2031)
Mobile 54 26 104 27
Area 16 <1 <1 <1
Energy <1 2 <1 <1
Total Average (Tons/year) 71 28 104 27
BAAQMD Project-Level Threshold (Tons/year) 10 10 15 10
Total Average (lbs./day) 389 154 570 82
BAAQMD Project-Level Threshold (lbs./day) 54 54 82 54
Notes: Emissions may not total to 100 percent due to rounding.

As previously described, the air quality emissions estimates in Table 4.2-9 provide an estimate of the potential overall area, energy, and mobile source emissions resulting from implementation of the proposed Modified Project. Implementation of the proposed Modified Project could generate a substantial increase in criteria air pollutant emissions that exceeds the BAAQMD project-level significance thresholds, and this impact would be potentially significant. Compliance with applicable policies and programs would contribute to minimizing long-term emissions. However, implementation of the proposed Modified Project would still exceed the BAAQMD significance thresholds for operation. While the Approved Project resulted in criteria air pollutant emission that exceeds the BAAQMD average daily thresholds for ROG, NOx, PM10, and PM2.5 as well as its annual ROG and NOx thresholds, the proposed Modified Project would result in an exceedance of BAAQMD’s average daily and annual thresholds for all pollutants. However, the Approved Project did not account for operational fugitive dust emissions. As BAAQMD has since updated its guidance for CEQA analyses to include fugitive dust emissions in operational emissions estimates, the annual PM emission estimates for full implementation of the proposed Modified Project shown in Table 4.2-9 are greater than those of the Approved Project because they include both exhaust and fugitive dust PM estimates. 597
CC 05-14-2024
597 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

AIR QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 4.2-41
Consistency with AQMP Control Measures
As previously described, the BAAQMD’s plan-level guidance does not require an emissions inventory of criteria air pollutants for plan-level analysis; however, the BAAQMD recommends that one method used for determining plan-level impact significance is to analyze the proposed plan’s consistency with the current AQMP control measures. As described in Impact Discussion AIR-1, the proposed Modified Project would be consistent with the applicable 2017 Clean Air Plan control measures, as illustrated in Table 4.2-6.

As such, the proposed Modified Project would be consistent with the current AQMP control measures, and this impact would be less than significant. The proposed Modified Project would not result in new impacts and a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to what was evaluated in the General Plan EIR.

Proposed Plan VMT and Population Growth
As previously described, the BAAQMD’s plan-level guidance does not require an emissions inventory of criteria air pollutants for plan-level analysis; however, the BAAQMD recommends that the second method for determining plan-level impact significance is to analyze the proposed plan’s projected VMT growth versus its projected population growth from existing conditions through the General Plan’s planning horizon year (2040). If the proposed Modified Project’s projected VMT growth outpaces its projected population growth, then it would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in criteria pollutants, and this impact would be potentially significant. As described in Impact Discussion AIR-1, the VMT growth facilitated by the proposed Modified Project would constitute an approximately 4.1 percent growth through 2040 while population growth facilitated by the proposed Modified Project would constitute an approximately 42.7 percent growth through 2040. Therefore, the forecast population growth would outpace the forecast VMT growth facilitated by the proposed Modified Project, and this impact would be less than significant. As such, the proposed Modified Project would not result in new or more severe impacts with regard to attainment of air quality standards or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to the General Plan EIR.

The General Plan EIR also found that the Environmental Resources and Sustainability (ES) Element contains policies and strategies that reduce criteria air pollutants. Like the Approved Project, the following existing General Plan 2040 includes policies and strategies, and updated policies and strategies as part of the proposed Modified Project, would also reduce criteria air pollutants from development projects to the maximum extent practicable.
 Policy ES-4.1. New Development. Minimize the air quality impacts of new development projects and air quality impacts that affect new development.
 Strategy ES- 4.1.1. Toxic Air Contaminants. Continue to review projects for potential generation of toxic air contaminants at the time of approval and confer with Bay Area Air Quality Management District on controls needed if impacts are uncertain.
 Strategy ES- 4.1.2. Dust Control. Continue to require water application to non-polluting dust control measures during demolition and the duration of the construction period.  Strategy ES- 4.1.3. Planning. Ensure that land use and transportation plans support air quality goals. (General Plan EIR Strategy 3)
598
CC 05-14-2024
598 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

AIR QUALITY

4.2-42 APRIL 2024
 Policy ES- 4.2. Existing Development. Minimize the air quality impacts of existing development. (General Plan Policy 5-5)
 Strategy ES- 4.2.1. Public Education Program. Establish a citywide public education program providing information on ways to reduce and control emissions; and continue to provide information about alternative commutes, carpooling and restricting exacerbating activities on “Spare the Air” highemissions days.  Strategy ES- 4.2.2. Home Occupations. Review and consider expanding the allowable home-based businesses in residentially zoned properties to reduce the need to commute to work.  Strategy ES- 4.2.3. Tree Planting in Private Development. Review and enhance the City’s tree planting and landscaping program and requirements for private development to reduce air pollution levels.  Strategy ES- 4.2.4. Fuel- efficient Vehicles and Use. Prioritize the purchase, replacement and ongoing use of fuel-efficient and low polluting City fleet vehicles. Update applicable policies and programs to require life cycle cost analyses and include alternative fueling infrastructure review and related funding allocations. Update the Vehicle Use Policy and pursue fleet management best practices to support fuel conservation, scheduled maintenance and fleet fuel tracking. Pursue available grant funding to offset the cost of implementing these programs.  Strategy ES- 4.2.5. Point Sources of Emissions. Continue to seek the cooperation of the BAAQMD to monitor emissions from identified point sources that impact the community. In addition, for sources not within the regulatory jurisdiction of the City, seek cooperation from the applicable regulatory authority to encourage reduction of emissions and dust from the point source.  Policy ES- 4.3. Use of Open Fires and Fireplaces. Discourage high pollution fireplace use. (General Plan EIR Policy 5-7)
 Strategy ES- 4.3.1. Education. Continue to make BAAQMD literature on reducing pollution from fireplace use available.
 Strategy ES-4.3.2. Fireplaces. Continue to prohibit new wood-burning fireplaces, except EPA certified wood stoves as allowed by the Building Code.

Summary
While implementation of the proposed Modified Project would have less-than-significant impacts with respect to construction fugitive dust, would be consistent with the current AQMP control measures, and the Modified Project’s projected VMT growth would not outpace its projected population growth, implementation of the proposed Modified Project could generate a substantial increase in criteria air pollutant emissions that exceeds the BAAQMD project-level significance, and impacts would be potentially significant.

Impact 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). 599
CC 05-14-2024
599 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

AIR QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 4.2-43
Significance without Mitigation: Significant and Unavoidable. The General Plan includes policies and strategies, listed above and under Impact Discussion AIR-1 that, once adopted would minimize GHG emissions to the extent feasible; however, there are no additional measures available to mitigate this impact due to the level of growth forecast in the city. It should be noted that the identification of this program-level impact does not preclude the finding of less-thansignificant impacts for subsequent projects that comply with BAAQMD screening criteria or meet applicable thresholds of significance. However, due to the programmatic nature of the proposed Modified Project, no additional mitigation measures are available, and the impact is considered significant and unavoidable.

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

As described in the General Plan EIR, the Approved Project would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 44,000 vehicles per hour or 24,000 vehicles per hour and therefore would not have the potential to result in CO hotspots at affected intersections in Cupertino. In addition, the Approved Project would implement the General Plan 2040 policies, which would address TACs under Policy ES-4.1, New Development, Strategy ES-4.1.1, Toxic Air Contaminants, and Policy ES-4.2, Existing Development, accompanying Strategy ES-4.2.4, Fuel-Efficient Vehicles and Use, and Policy HS-6.2, Proximity of Residents to Hazardous Materials. However, even with implementation of these policies, the General Plan EIR found impacts from TACs would be significant without mitigation. With implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-4a and 4b, which would ensure that new development projects are consistent with BAAQMD’s CEQA Guidelines and require submission of a health risk assessment for projects within 1,000 feet of a major source of TACs, impacts from TACs would be less than significant.

Same as the Approved Project, implementation of the proposed Modified Project could facilitate individual future potential development projects that cause or contribute significantly to elevated pollutant concentration levels such that it would expose sensitive receptors to elevated pollutant concentrations. Unlike regional emissions, localized emissions are typically evaluated in terms of air concentration rather than mass so they can be more readily correlated to potential health effects.

Construction Community Risk and Hazards
Future potential construction under the proposed Modified Project would temporarily elevate concentrations of TACs and DPM in the vicinity of sensitive land uses during construction activities. Since the details regarding future potential construction activities are not known at this time, due to this analysis being conducted at the programmatic level construction emissions are evaluated qualitatively in accordance with BAAQMD’s plan-level guidance. Subsequent environmental review of future potential development projects would be required to assess potential impacts under BAAQMD’s project-level thresholds. In addition, CMC Section 17.04.040, Standard Environmental Protection Technical Report Submittal Requirements, requires new development to analyze health impacts for new sensitive receptors, such as residences, that are located within “Conduct Further Study” areas on BAAQMD’s “Planning Healthy Places” map. Moreover, CMC Section 17.04.050, Standard Environmental Protection Permit Submittal Requirements, require that new projects which disturb more than 1 acre and occur for longer 600
CC 05-14-2024
600 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

AIR QUALITY

4.2-44 APRIL 2024
than 2 months to use construction equipment that is rated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as Tier 4 for all off-road construction engines that are greater than 25 horsepower.

Compliance with the CMC would reduce potential health risk impacts from construction of individual projects. While construction impacts associated with individual future potential projects under the proposed Modified Project could still exceed BAAQMD’s project level and cumulative significance thresholds for community risk and hazards, similar to the Approved Project, implementation of the CMC Section 17.04.040(A)(1) and Section 17.04.040(A)(2), which incorporate General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures AQ-4a and AQ-4b, would reduce the proposed Modified Project construction-related health risk impacts to a level that is less than significant. The proposed Modified Project would not result in new impacts with regard to construction-related health risk or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to what was evaluated in the General Plan EIR.

Operational: CO Hotspots
As determined by the General Plan EIR, the Approved Project would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections by more than 44,000 vehicles per hour or 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal mixing is substantially limited. Areas of vehicle congestion have the potential to create pockets of CO called hotspots. These pockets have the potential to exceed the State 1-hour standard of 20 ppm or the 8-hour standard of 9.0 ppm. Since CO is produced in the greatest quantities from vehicle combustion and does not readily disperse into the atmosphere, adherence to AAQS is typically demonstrated through an analysis of localized CO concentrations. Hotspots are typically produced at intersections, where traffic congestion is highest because vehicles queue for longer periods and are subject to reduced speeds.

An overarching goal of the Plan Bay Area 2050 is to concentrate development in areas where there are existing services and infrastructure rather than allocate new growth in outlying areas where substantial transportation investments would be necessary to achieve the per capita passenger vehicle VMT and associated GHG emissions reductions. The proposed Modified Project would be consistent with the overall goals of the Plan Bay Area 2050 because many of the new housing sites would be located within existing PDAs and TPAs. Additionally, the proposed Modified Project would not hinder the capital improvements outlined in the Santa Clara County CMP. Thus, the proposed Modified Project would not conflict with the CMP.

Furthermore, the proposed Modified Project would result in an incremental increase in daily vehicles trips that would be distributed across the city’s roadway network. The proposed Modified Project is not anticipated to increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than BAAQMD’s screening criteria of 44,000 vehicles per hour or 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal mixing is substantially limited. Overall, similar to the Approved Project, the proposed Modified Project is not expected to increase CO emissions at intersections in the city and vicinity such that BAAQMD’s CO hotspot screening criteria are exceeded. Localized air quality impacts related to mobile-source emissions would therefore be less than significant. The proposed Modified Project would not result in new impacts with regards to CO Hotspots or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to what was evaluated in the General Plan EIR.
601
CC 05-14-2024
601 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

AIR QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 4.2-45
Operational Community Risk and Hazards
Common sources of TAC emissions are stationary sources, such as dry cleaners, diesel backup generators, and gasoline stations, that are subject to BAAQMD permit requirements. Implementation of the proposed Modified Project could result in new sources of TACs and PM2.5. Stationary sources, including smaller stationary sources associated with residential development (e.g., emergency generators and boilers), are subject to review by BAAQMD as part of the permitting process. Adherence to BAAQMD permitting regulations would ensure that new stationary sources of TACs do not expose populations to significant health risk. Mobile sources of air toxics (e.g., truck idling) are not regulated directly by BAAQMD. However, potential future residential development associated with the proposed Modified Project would not generate substantial truck traffic or idling. Furthermore, individual development projects would be required to achieve the project-level risk thresholds established by BAAQMD to ensure the sensitive receptor impact resulting from the subject development project would not be potentially significant.

Similar to the Approved Project, implementation of CMC Section 17.04.040(A)(1) and Section

17.04.040(A)(2), which incorporate General Plan EIR’s Mitigation Measures AQ-4a and AQ-4b, would reduce the proposed Modified Project’s operational-related health risk impacts to a level that is less than significant. The proposed Modified Project would not result in new impacts with regard to operational community risk and hazards or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to what was evaluated in the General Plan EIR.

The General Plan EIR also found that the Land Use and Community Design (LU), Mobility (M), Environmental Resources and Sustainability (ES), and Health and Safety (HS) Elements contain policies and strategies that reduce the exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations of air pollution.

Like the Approved Project, the following existing General Plan 2040 includes policies and strategies, and updated policies and strategies as part of the proposed Modified Project, would also reduce concentrations of air pollution.
 Policy LU-1.1. Land Use and Transportation. Focus higher land use intensities and densities within a half-mile of public transit service, and along major corridors. (General Plan EIR Policy 4-7)  Policy LU-3.1. Site Planning. Ensure that project sites are planned appropriately to create a network of connected internal streets that improve pedestrian and bicycle access, provide public open space and building layouts that support city goals related to streetscape character for various Planning Areas and corridors. (General Plan EIR Policy 4-4)
 Strategy LU -19.2.2. Existing Streets. Improve Stevens Creek Boulevard and Wolfe Road to become more bike land pedestrian-friendly with bike lanes, wide sidewalks, street trees, improved pedestrian intersections to accommodate the connects to Ninteen800, Main Street, and the surrounding areas. (General Plan EIR Policy 4-9)
 Policy LU-20.2. Streetscape and Connectivity. Future roadway improvements on Wolfe Road, Homestead Road and Tantau Avenue shall be coordinated with planned improvements to improve pedestrian, bike and transit connections. Streetscape improvements will enhance the pedestrian environment with street trees, attractive bus shelters and street furniture. The campus site should provide an attractive landscaped edge along the street. Future improvements to the Wolfe Road bridge should be coordinated to preserve the vision for this area. (General Plan EIR Policy 4-12) 602
CC 05-14-2024
602 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

AIR QUALITY

4.2-46 APRIL 2024
 Policy LU-21.3. Streetscape and Connectivity. North De Anza is envisioned as a walkable, bikeable boulevard with wide sidewalks with street trees and roadway improvements for bike lanes and pedestrian crossings. Pedestrian and bike improvements and enhanced pedestrian crossings are also envisioned along other streets in this area to create an interconnected grid. Such improvements will also improve school routes from the Garden Gate neighborhood to Lawson school to the east and provide access to transit routes. (General Plan EIR Policy 4-12)  Policy LU-21.4. Streetscape and Connectivity. South De Anza is envisioned as a walkable, bikeable boulevard with sidewalks, street trees and roadway improvements for bike lanes and pedestrian crossings. Side streets are also envisioned with pedestrian and bicycle improvements to ensure walkable connections from adjacent neighborhoods. (General Plan EIR Policy 4-12)  Policy LU-24.2. Streetscape and Connectivity. Bubb Road is envisioned as a walkable, bikeable corridor with sidewalks, street trees and roadway improvements for bike lanes and pedestrian crossings.

Pedestrian and bike improvements and enhanced pedestrian crossings are also envisioned along other streets in this area to create an interconnected grid. Such improvements will also improve routes from the northern and eastern neighborhood to the tri-school area, parks and services and reduce impacts caused by to school and employment traffic. (General Plan EIR Policy 4-12)  Strategy LU-27.1.1 Regulations. Maintain and update design regulations and guidelines for single family development that address neighborhood compatibility and visual and privacy impacts. (General Plan EIR Policy 2-8)
 Policy M-1.3. Regional Trail Development. Continue to plan and provide for a comprehensive system of trails and pathways consistent with regional systems, including the Bay Trail, Stevens Creek Corridor and Ridge Trail. (General Plan EIR Policy 4-6)
 Policy M-3.6. Safe Spaces for Pedestrians. Require parking lots to include clearly defined paths for pedestrians to provide a safe path to building entrances. (General Plan EIR Policy 4-13)  Policy M-4.4. Transit Facilities with New Development. Work with VTA and/or major developments to ensure all new development projects include amenities to support public transit including bus stop shelters, space for transit vehicles as appropriate and attractive amenities such as trash receptacles, signage, seating and lighting. (General Plan EIR Policy 4-7)  Strategy M-5.1.1. Coordination with School Districts. Coordinate with the School Districts to develop plans and programs that encourage car/van-pooling, stagger hours of adjacent schools, establish drop-off locations, and encourage walking and bicycling to school. (General Plan EIR Policy 4-15)  Strategy M-9.3.2. Streetscape Design. When reviewing the widening of an existing street, consider aesthetically pleasing enhancements and amenities to improve the safe movement of pedestrians and bicyclists in keeping with the vision of the Planning Area. (General Plan EIR Policy 4-12)  Strategy ES- 4.1.1. Toxic Air Contaminants. Continue to review projects for potential generation of toxic air contaminants at the time of approval and confer with Bay Area Air Quality Management District on controls needed if impacts are uncertain.
 Policy ES- 4.2. Existing Development. Minimize the air quality impacts of existing development. (General Plan Policy 5-5)
603
CC 05-14-2024
603 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

AIR QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 4.2-47
 Policy HS-6.2. Proximity of Residents to Hazardous Materials. Assess future residents’ exposure to hazardous materials when new residential development or sensitive populations are proposed in existing industrial and manufacturing areas. Do not allow residential development or sensitive populations if such hazardous conditions cannot be mitigated to an acceptable level of risk. (General Plan EIR Policy 6-28)
As with the Approved Project, while the proposed Modified Project would accommodate future potential development projects that may result in a localized impacts during construction, compliance with the City’s Standard Environmental Protection Requirements, such as those identified in CMC Section

17.04.050(A)(2), would reduce potential health impacts during construction. Furthermore, compliance with CMC Section 17.04.040(A)(1) and Section 17.04.040(A)(2) would reduce the proposed Modified Project health risk impacts to a level that is less than significant. The proposed Modified Project would not result in new impacts or a substantial increase in the magnitude of impacts compared to what was evaluated in the General Plan EIR.

Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.

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.

As described in the General Plan EIR, the Approved Project would minimize odor impacts as siting of new sensitive land uses would require utilization of BAAQMD’s odor screening distances during future CEQA review and would require compliance with BAAQMD Regulation 7.

Construction
While odors could be generated during construction activities, the proposed Modified Project is a General Plan Housing Element Update and would not directly result in construction of any development project.

Identification of potential impacts to odor receptors resulting from construction-generated odors, such as equipment exhaust, would require project-specific information for future individual land use development projects that is not currently known. As previously discussed, consistent with the BAAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, a plan-level analysis must acknowledge odor sources within the Study Area and identify policies, goals, and objectives aimed at reducing potential odor impacts to ensure that potential impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Modified Project would not result in new impacts or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to the General Plan EIR as they pertain to construction odors.

Operation
According to the BAAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, land uses associated with odor complaints typically include agricultural operations, wastewater treatment plants, landfills, and certain industrial operations such as chemical and other manufacturing. While odors do not themselves present a health risk, they are often considered a nuisance by people who live, work, or otherwise are located near outdoor odor sources. Future potential development under the proposed Modified Project would not 604
CC 05-14-2024
604 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

AIR QUALITY

4.2-48 APRIL 2024
include odor-generating uses, such as composting, green waste, and recycling operations; food processing; and painting/coating operations, because these are types of uses are often found in the commercial and/or industrial areas. Increase in residential uses would not generate substantial odors that would affect a substantial number of people. During operation, residences could generate odors from cooking. However, odors from cooking are not substantial enough to be considered nuisance odors that would affect a substantial number of people.

The General Plan EIR also found that the Land Use and Community Design (LU) and Environmental Resources and Sustainability (ES) Elements contain policies and strategies that reduce potential land use incompatibilities regarding objectionable odors. Like the Approved Project, the following existing General Plan 2040 includes policies and strategies, and updated policies and strategies as part of the proposed Modified Project, would also reduce other emissions.
 Strategy LU-27.1.1 Regulations. Maintain and update design regulations and guidelines for single family development that address neighborhood compatibility and visual and privacy impacts. (General Plan EIR Policy 2-8)
 Policy ES- 4.2. Existing Development. Minimize the air quality impacts of existing development. (General Plan Policy 5-5)
 Strategy ES- 4.2.1. Public Education Program. Establish a citywide public education program providing information on ways to reduce and control emissions; and continue to provide information about alternative commutes, carpooling and restricting exacerbating activities on “Spare the Air” highemissions days. (General Plan EIR Strategy 3 and 4)  Strategy ES- 4.2.2. Home Occupations. Review and consider expanding the allowable home-based businesses in residentially zoned properties to reduce the need to commute to work. (General Plan EIR Strategy 3 and 4)
 Strategy ES- 4.2.3. Tree Planting in Private Development. Review and enhance the City’s tree planting and landscaping program and requirements for private development to reduce air pollution levels. (General Plan EIR Strategy 3 and 4)
 Strategy ES- 4.2.4. Fuel- efficient Vehicles and Use. Prioritize the purchase, replacement and ongoing use of fuel-efficient and low polluting City fleet vehicles. Update applicable policies and programs to require life cycle cost analyses and include alternative fueling infrastructure review and related funding allocations. Update the Vehicle Use Policy and pursue fleet management best practices to support fuel conservation, scheduled maintenance and fleet fuel tracking. Pursue available grant funding to offset the cost of implementing these programs. (General Plan EIR Strategy 3 and 4)  Strategy ES- 4.2.5. Point Sources of Emissions. Continue to seek the cooperation of the BAAQMD to monitor emissions from identified point sources that impact the community. In addition, for sources not within the regulatory jurisdiction of the City, seek cooperation from the applicable regulatory authority to encourage reduction of emissions and dust from the point source. (General Plan EIR Strategy 3 and 4)
Furthermore, nuisance odors are regulated under BAAQMD Regulation 7, Odorous Substances, which requires abatement of any nuisance generating an odor complaint. In addition, odors are also regulated 605
CC 05-14-2024
605 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

AIR QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 4.2-49
under BAAQMD Regulation 1, Rule 1-301, Public Nuisance. Compliance with BAAQMD Regulation 7 would ensure that odor impacts associated with future potential development under the proposed Modified Project are minimized. Therefore, the proposed Modified Project would not result in new impacts or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to the General Plan EIR as they pertain to operational odors.

Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.

AIR-5 Implementation of the proposed Modified Project would result in a cumulatively considerable impact with respect to air quality.

As described in the General Plan EIR, regional air quality impacts were identified as significant and unavoidable; therefore, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, the Approved Project even with implementation of applicable regulations and mitigation measures, would result in a significant cumulative impact with respect to air quality.

As with the Approved Project, the proposed Modified Project would also exceed the BAAQMD criteria air pollutant emissions thresholds, even with implementation of the General Plan 2040 policies and strategies described under Impact Discussions AIR-1 through AIR-4. As described under Impact Discussion AIR-1, the proposed Modified Project would be inconsistent with BAAQMD’s 2017 Clean Air Plan due to the introduction of more residents than is assumed in the AQMP’s demographic growth projections and the collective exceedance of BAAQMD’s regional significance thresholds during operation. In addition, as shown under Impact AIR-2, implementation of the proposed Modified Project would collectively result in an exceedance of BAAQMD’s regional air quality thresholds of significance. Implementation of the proposed Modified Project would not result in localized health risks that exceed BAAQMD’s significance thresholds after compliance with the CMC Section 17.04.040(A)(1) and Section 17.04.040(A)(2), as reported under Impact AIR-3. As described under Impact AIR-4, the proposed Modified Project would constitute the development and operation of residential land uses, which are not substantial odor generators, and thus would result in less-than-significant impacts related to odors. Therefore, cumulatively, the proposed Modified Project would result in significant impacts related to consistency with the 2017 Clean Air Plan, generating cumulatively considerable criteria air pollutants, and exposing sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. As with the Approved Project, the proposed Modified Project would result in a significant and unavoidable cumulatively considerable air quality impact.

Impact 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.

Significance without Mitigation: Significant and Unavoidable. No feasible mitigation has been identified.
606
CC 05-14-2024
606 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

AIR QUALITY

4.2-50 APRIL 2024
This page has been intentionally left blank.

607
CC 05-14-2024
607 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
PLACEWORKS 4.3-1

4.3 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
This chapter describes the potential biological resource impacts associated with the approval and implementation of the proposed Modified Project. This chapter also describes the regulatory framework and existing conditions, identifies criteria used to determine impact significance, provides an analysis of the potential biological resource impacts, and identifies policies and/or strategies that could mitigate any potentially significant impacts.

4.3.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
Federal Regulations
Federal Endangered Species Act
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has jurisdiction over federally listed threatened and endangered plant and animal species. The federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) and its implementing regulations prohibit the take of any fish or wildlife species that is federally listed as threatened or endangered without prior approval pursuant to either Section 7 or Section 10 of the FESA. FESA defines “take” as to “harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct.” Title 50, Wildlife and Fisheries, Part 17, Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants, Section 17.3, Definitions, of the Code of Federal Regulations, defines the term “harass” as an intentional or negligent act that creates the likelihood of injuring wildlife by annoying it to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavior patterns, such as breeding, feeding, or sheltering. Furthermore, Section 17.3 defines “harm” as an act that either kills or injures a listed species. By definition, “harm” includes habitat modification or degradation that actually kills or injures a listed species by significantly impairing essential behavior patterns, such as breeding, spawning, rearing, migrating, feeding, or sheltering.

Section 10(a) of the FESA establishes a process for obtaining an incidental take permit that authorizes nonfederal entities to incidentally take federally listed wildlife or fish. Incidental take is defined by FESA as take that is “incidental to, and not the purpose of, the carrying out of an otherwise lawful activity.” Preparation of a habitat conservation plan (HCP) is required for all Section 10(a) permit applications. The USFWS and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries Service) have joint authority under the FESA for administering the incidental take program.

NOAA Fisheries Service has jurisdiction over anadromous fish species and USFWS has jurisdiction over all other fish and wildlife species.

Section 7 of the FESA requires all federal agencies to ensure that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any species listed under the FESA, or result in the destruction or adverse modification of its habitat. Federal agencies are also required to minimize impacts to all listed species resulting from their actions, including issuance of permits or funding. Section 7 requires consideration of the indirect effects of a project, effects on federally listed plants, and effects on 608
CC 05-14-2024
608 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

4.3-2 APRIL 2024
critical habitat (FESA requires that the USFWS identify critical habitat to the maximum extent that it is prudent and determinable when a species is listed as threatened or endangered). This consultation results in a Biological Opinion prepared by the USFWS stating whether implementation of the HCP required under Section 10(a) will result in jeopardy to any HCP Covered Species or will adversely modify critical habitat and the measures necessary to avoid or minimize effects to listed species.

Although federally listed animals are legally protected from harm no matter where they occur, Section 9 of the FESA provides protection for endangered plants by prohibiting the malicious destruction on federal land and other “take” that violates State law. Protection for plants not living on federal lands is provided by the California Endangered Species Act (CESA).

Clean Water Act
The United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is responsible under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act to regulate the discharge of fill material into waters of the United States (U.S.). These waters, and their lateral limit, include streams that are tributaries to navigable waters and their adjacent wetlands.1 The lateral limits of jurisdiction for a nontidal stream are measured at the line of the ordinary high-water mark2 or the limit of adjacent wetlands.3 Any permanent extension of the limits of an existing water of the U.S., whether natural or human-made, results in a similar extension of USACE jurisdiction.

Waters of the U.S. fall into two broad categories: wetlands and other waters. Other waters include waterbodies and watercourses generally lacking plant cover, such as rivers, streams, lakes, springs, ponds, coastal waters, and estuaries. Wetlands are aquatic habitats that support hydrophytic wetland plants and include marshes, wet meadows, seeps, floodplains, basins, and other areas experiencing extended seasonal soil saturation. Seasonally or intermittently inundated features, such as seasonal ponds, ephemeral streams, and tidal marshes, are categorized as wetlands if they have hydric soils and support wetland plant communities. Seasonally inundated waterbodies or watercourses that do not exhibit wetland characteristics are classified as other waters of the U.S.

Waters and wetlands that cannot trace a continuous hydrologic connection to a navigable water of the U.S. are not tributaries to waters of the U.S. These are termed “isolated wetlands.” Isolated wetlands are jurisdictional when their destruction or degradation can affect interstate or foreign commerce.4 The USACE may or may not take jurisdiction over isolated wetlands depending on the specific circumstances.

In general, a project proponent must obtain a Section 404 permit from the USACE before placing fill or grading in wetlands or other waters of the U.S. Prior to issuing the permit, the USACE is required to consult with the USFWS under Section 7 of FESA if the project may affect federally listed species.

All USACE permits require water quality certification under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. This regulatory program is administered by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Project 1 Code of Federal Regulations, Title 33, Navigation and Navigable Waters, Part 328.3(a). 2 Code of Federal Regulations, Title 33, Navigation and Navigable Waters, Part 328.3(e). 3 Code of Federal Regulations, Title 33, Navigation and Navigable Waters, Part 328.3(b). 4 Code of Federal Regulations, Title 33, Navigation and Navigable Waters, Part 328.3(a). 609
CC 05-14-2024
609 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
PLACEWORKS 4.3-3
proponents who propose to fill wetlands or other waters of the U.S. must apply for water quality certification from the RWQCB, which has adopted a policy requiring mitigation for any loss of wetland, streambed, or other jurisdictional area.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act
The federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) prohibits the taking, hunting, killing, selling, purchasing, etc. of migratory birds, parts of migratory birds, or their eggs and nests. As used in the MBTA, the term “take” is defined as “to pursue, hunt, shoot, capture, collect, kill, or attempt to pursue, hunt, shoot, capture, collect, or kill, unless the context otherwise requires.”5 Most bird species native to North America are covered by this act. The MBTA prohibits the intentional or incidental killing of birds or destruction of their nests when in active use. USFWS administers permits to take migratory birds in accordance with the MBTA.

State Regulations
California Endangered Species Act
CESA generally parallels the main provisions of the FESA and is administered by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). Its intent is to prohibit take and protect State-listed endangered and threatened species of fish, wildlife, and plants. Unlike its federal counterpart, CESA also applies the take prohibitions to species petitioned for listing (State candidates). Candidate species may be afforded temporary protection as though they were already listed as threatened or endangered at the discretion of the Fish and Game Commission. Unlike the FESA, CESA does not include listing provisions for invertebrate species. Under certain conditions, CESA has provisions for take through a Section 2081 Incidental Take Permit or memorandum of understanding (MOU). In addition, some sensitive mammals and birds are protected by the State as “fully protected species.” California “species of special concern” are species designated as vulnerable to extinction due to declining population levels, limited ranges, and/or continuing threats. This list is primarily a working document for the CDFW’s California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), which maintains a record of known and recorded occurrences of sensitive species.

Informally listed taxa are not protected necessarily but warrant consideration in the preparation of biological resource assessments.

California Environmental Quality Act
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) applies to “projects” proposed to be undertaken or requiring approval by State and local government agencies. Projects are defined as having the potential to have physical impact on the environment. Under Section 15380 of the CEQA Guidelines, a species not included on any formal list “shall nevertheless be considered rare or endangered if the species can be shown by a local agency to meet the criteria” for listing. With sufficient documentation, a species could be shown to meet the definition of rare or endangered under CEQA and be considered a “de facto” rare or endangered species.
5 United States Code, Title 16, Conservation, Section 715n. 610
CC 05-14-2024
610 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

4.3-4 APRIL 2024
California Fish and Game Code
CDFW is responsible for enforcing the California Fish and Game Code (CFGC), which contains several protections from “take” for a variety of species. CDFW also protects streams, water bodies, and riparian corridors through the Streambed Alteration Agreement process under Sections 1601 to 1606 of the CFGC.

CFGC stipulates that it is “unlawful to substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow or substantially change the bed, channel or bank of any river, stream or lake” without notifying the CDFW, incorporating necessary mitigation, and obtaining a Streambed Alteration Agreement.6 CDFW’s jurisdiction extends to the top of banks and often includes the outer edge of riparian vegetation canopy cover.

The CFGC also lists animal species designated as Fully Protected or Protected, which may not be taken or possessed at any time. CDFW does not issue licenses or permits for take of these species except for necessary scientific research, habitat restoration/species recovery actions, or live capture and relocation pursuant to a permit for the protection of livestock. Fully protected species are listed in CFGC Sections 3511 (birds), 4700 (mammals), 5050 (reptiles and amphibians), and 5515 (fish) of the CFGC, while protected amphibians and reptiles are listed in Chapter 5, Sections 41 and 42, respectively.

Several provisions in the CFGC provide for the protection of birds and bird nests in active use. Unless the CFGC or its implementing regulations provide otherwise, under California law, it is unlawful to:
 Take a bird, mammal, fish, reptile, or amphibian.
 Take, possess, or needlessly destroy the nest or eggs of any bird.  Take, possess, or destroy any bird of prey in the orders Strigiformes (owls) and Falconiformes (such as falcons, hawks, and eagles) or the nests or eggs of such a bird.  Take or possess any of the 13 fully protected bird species listed in CFGC Section 3511.  Take any nongame bird (i.e., bird that is naturally occurring in California that is not a gamebird, migratory game bird, or fully protected bird).
 Take or possess any migratory nongame bird as designated in the MBTA or any part of such bird, except as provided by rules or regulations adopted by the United States Department of the Interior (DOI) under the MBTA.
 Take, import, export, possess, purchase, or sell any bird (or products of a bird), listed as an endangered or threatened species under the CESA unless the person or entity possesses an Incidental Take Permit or equivalent authorization from CDFW.

Non-native species, including European starling (Sturnus vulgaris), house sparrow (Passer domesticus), and rock pigeon (Columba livia), are not afforded any protection under the MBTA or CFGC. 6 California Fish and Game Code Section 1602.
611
CC 05-14-2024
611 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
PLACEWORKS 4.3-5
Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
Under the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act,7 the RWQCB is authorized to regulate the discharge of waste that could affect the quality of the state’s waters. The RWQCB asserts jurisdiction over isolated waters and wetlands, as well as waters and wetlands that are regulated by the USACE. Therefore, even if a project does not require a federal permit, it still requires review and approval by the RWQCB. When reviewing applications, the RWQCB focuses on ensuring that projects do not adversely affect the “beneficial uses” associated with waters of the state. In most cases, the RWQCB seeks to protect these beneficial uses by requiring the integration of waste discharge requirements into projects that will require discharge into waters of the state. For most construction projects, the RWQCB requires the use of construction and post-construction best management practices.

California Native Plant Protection Act
The California Native Plant Protection Act of 1977 prohibits importation of rare and endangered plants into California, “take” of rare and endangered plants, and sale of rare and endangered plants. CESA defers to the California Native Plant Protection Act, which ensures that State-listed plant species are protected when State agencies are involved in projects subject to CEQA. In this case, plants listed as rare under the California Native Plant Protection Act are not protected under CESA but rather under CEQA.

The California Native Plant Society (CNPS) is a nongovernmental conservation organization that has developed a list of plants of special concern in California. The following explains the designations for each plant species:8
 Rank 1A. Plants Presumed Extirpated in California and Either Rare or Extinct Elsewhere  Rank 1B. Plants Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California and Elsewhere  Rank 2A. Plants Presumed Extirpated in California, But Common Elsewhere  Rank 2B. Plants Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California, But More Common Elsewhere  Rank 3. Plants About Which More Information is Needed; A Review List  Rank 4. Plants of Limited Distribution; A Watch List
California Natural Communities
Sensitive natural communities are natural community types considered to be rare or of a “high inventory priority” by CDFW. Although sensitive natural communities have no legal protective status under FESA or CESA, they are provided some level of consideration under CEQA. Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines identifies potential impacts on a sensitive natural community as one of six criteria to consider in determining the significance of a proposed project. While no thresholds are established as part of this criterion, it serves as an acknowledgement that sensitive natural communities are an important resource and, depending on their rarity, should be recognized as part of the environmental review process. The level of significance of a project’s impact on any particular sensitive natural community depends on that natural community’s relative abundance and rarity.
7 California Water Code Sections 13000 through 14920.
8 California Native Plant Society, 2023, CNPS Rare Plant Ranks, https://www.cnps.org/rare-plants/cnps-rare-plant-ranks, accessed March 10, 2023.
612
CC 05-14-2024
612 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

4.3-6 APRIL 2024
As an example, a discretionary project that has a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat, native grassland, valley oak woodland, and/or other sensitive natural community would normally be considered to have a significant effect on the environment. Further loss of a sensitive natural community could be interpreted as substantially diminishing habitat, depending on its relative abundance, quality, degree of past disturbance, and the anticipated impacts to the specific community type.

Oak Woodlands Conservation Act
The California Oak Woodlands Conservation Act9 of 2001 acknowledges the importance of private land stewardship to the conservation of the state’s valued oak woodlands. This act established the California Oak Woodlands Conservation Program, which aims to conserve oak woodlands existing in the state’s working landscapes by providing education and incentives to private landowners. The program provides technical and financial incentives to private landowners to protect and promote biologically functional oak woodlands.

Regional Regulations
Recovery Plan for Serpentine Soil Species of the San Francisco Bay Area Adopted in 1998, the Recovery Plan for Serpentine Soil Species of the San Francisco Bay Area covers 28 special-status species of plants and animals that occur mainly on serpentine soils and grasslands in the San Francisco Bay Area.10 Due to much of the San Francisco Bay being converted into urban and industrial uses, many species have been forced to move from their historic ranges. The goal of this recovery plan is to delist certain endangered and threatened species, improve the security of several listed species, and ensure long-term conservation of certain species of concern.

Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan
Adopted in August 2012, the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan provides a framework for promoting the protection and recovery of natural resources, including endangered species, while streamlining the permitting process for planned development, infrastructure, and maintenance activities.11 The permit area for the plan does not cover any part of Cupertino; therefore, the regulations in the plan do not apply to any projects in Cupertino.
9 California Fish and Game Code Section 1360 et seq. 10 United States Fish and Wildlife Service, September 1998, Recovery Plan for Serpentine Soil Species of the San Francisco Bay Area, https://www.nps.gov/goga/learn/management/upload/-1491-Recovery-Plan-for-serpentine-soil-species-of-the-SanFrancis.pdf, accessed August 9, 2022. 11 Santa Clara County, 2012, Santa Clara County Habitat Plan, https://www.scvhabitatagency.org/DocumentCenter/View/137/Executive-Summary, accessed on July 25, 2023. 613
CC 05-14-2024
613 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
PLACEWORKS 4.3-7
Local Regulations
General Plan 2040
The Land Use and Community Design (LU) and Environmental Resources and Sustainability (ES) Elements of the General Plan 2040 contain goals, policies, and strategies that require local planning and development decisions to consider impacts to biological resources. Applicable policies and strategies that would minimize potential adverse impacts to biological resources are identified in Section 4.3.3, Impact Discussion.

Municipal Code
The Cupertino Municipal Code (CMC) includes various directives to minimize adverse impacts to biological resources in Cupertino. The CMC is organized by title, chapter, and section. Most provisions related to biological resources are included in Title 8, Animals; Title 9, Health and Sanitation; Title 14, Streets, Sidewalks and Landscaping; Title 17, Environmental Regulations; and Title 19, Zoning.  Title 8, Animals. This section of the CMC outlines how animals may be handled in the city and the level of authority that different people in the city have.  Chapter 9.19, Water Resource Protection. The City has established requirements to obtain a streamside modification permit under certain conditions and establishes procedures for the administration and issuance of such permits. These permits apply to the specific property for which it was issued and therefore transfers when the property ownership is transferred, unless specific conditions provide otherwise.
 Chapter 14.8, Protected Tree Ordinance. This ordinance outlines how important protected trees are to the community, and how protecting trees in all zoning districts is intended to preserve this asset.

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 process 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 that is purchased and placed by the City. It also outlines removal and replacement of Protected, including Heritage, trees.
 Chapter 14.12, Trees. This chapter describes the comprehensive plan that the City has for purchase, planting, and maintenance of public trees in Cupertino. In the chapter, the master street tree list is established, which dictates the tree type and species, as well as locations for where trees should be planted in Cupertino.
 Chapter 14.15, Landscape Ordinance. This chapter was created to promote the use of regionappropriate plants that require minimal supplemental irrigation.  Chapter 17.04, Standard Environmental Protection Requirements. The purpose of this chapter is to identify standard environmental protection requirements that all construction projects must meet, including, but not limited to, environmental mitigation measures identified in any environmental 614
CC 05-14-2024
614 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

4.3-8 APRIL 2024
documents required as part of a General Plan update. This chapter includes specific requirements for biological resources, including requirements about active nests and special-status roosting bats.  Section 17.04.050(D)(1), Avoid Nesting Birds During Construction. This section requires that for all projects that involve removal of a tree (either protected or unprotected) or other vegetation suitable for nesting birds, or construction or ground-disturbing activities defined in Section

17.04.020, the project applicant shall comply with, and the construction contractor shall indicate the following on all construction plans, when required to ensure the following measures are performed to avoid inadvertent take of bird nests protected under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Department of Fish and Game Code when in active use:
a. Demolition, construction, ground-disturbing, and tree removal/pruning activities shall be scheduled to avoid the nesting season to the extent feasible. If feasible, construction, ground-disturbing, or tree removal/pruning activities shall be completed before the start of the nesting season to help preclude nesting. The nesting season for most birds and raptors in the San Francisco Bay area extends from February 1 through August 31. Preconstruction surveys (described below) are not required for construction, ground-disturbing, or tree removal/pruning activities outside the nesting period.
b. If demolition, construction, ground-disturbing, or tree removal/pruning activities occur during the nesting season (February 1 and August 31), preconstruction surveys shall be conducted as follows:
i. No more than 7 days prior to the start of demolition, construction, ground-disturbing, or tree removal/pruning activities, in order to identify any active nests with eggs or young birds on the site and surrounding area within 100 feet of construction or tree removal activities.
ii. Preconstruction surveys shall be repeated at 14-day intervals until demolition, construction, ground-disturbing, or tree removal/pruning activities have been initiated in the area, after which surveys can be stopped. As part of the preconstruction survey(s), the surveyor shall inspect all trees and other possible nesting habitats in, and immediately adjacent to, the construction areas for active nests, while ensuring that they do not disturb the nests as follows:

1. For projects that require the demolition or construction one single-family residence, ground disturbing activities affecting areas of up to 500 square feet, or the removal of up to three trees, the property owner or a tree removal contractor, if necessary, is permitted to conduct the preconstruction surveys to identify if there are any active nests. If any active nests with eggs or young birds are identified, the project applicant shall retain a qualified ornithologist or biologist to identify protective measures.

2. For any other demolition, construction and ground disturbing activity or the removal of four or more trees, a qualified ornithologist or biologist shall be retained by the project applicant to conduct the preconstruction surveys. c. If the preconstruction survey does not identify any active nests with eggs or young birds that would be affected by demolition, construction, ground-disturbing or tree removal/pruning activities, no further mitigating action is required. If an active nest containing eggs or young birds is found sufficiently close to work areas to be disturbed by these activities, their locations shall be 615
CC 05-14-2024
615 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
PLACEWORKS 4.3-9
documented, and the qualified ornithologist or biologist shall identify protective measures to be implemented under their direction until the nests no longer contain eggs or young birds. d. Protective measures may include, but are not limited to, 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 the qualified ornithologist or biologist, taking into account the species of birds nesting, their tolerance for disturbance and proximity to existing development. In general, exclusion zones shall be a minimum of 300 feet for raptors and 75 feet for passerines and other birds. The active nest within an exclusion zone shall be monitored on a weekly basis throughout the nesting season to identify signs of disturbance and confirm nesting status. The radius of an exclusion zone may be increased by the qualified ornithologist or biologist, if project activities are determined to be adversely affecting the nesting birds. Exclusion zones may be reduced by the qualified ornithologist or biologist only in consultation with California Department of Fish and Wildlife. The protection measures and buffers shall remain in effect until the young have left the nest and are foraging independently or the nest is no longer active.
e. A final report on nesting birds and raptors, including survey methodology, survey date(s), map of identified active nests (if any), and protection measures (if required), shall be prepared by the qualified ornithologist or biologist and submitted to the Director of Community Development or his or her designee, through the appropriate permit review process (e.g., demolition, construction, tree removal, etc.), and be completed to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director prior to the start of demolition, construction, ground-disturbing, or tree removal/pruning activities.
 Section 17.04.050(D)(2), Avoid Special-Status Roosting Bats During Construction Permit Requirements. This section describes the procedures for protecting special-status bats. a. For all projects that involve demolition, renovation, or re-tenanting of an abandoned or vacant building or structure, where the property owner cannot show evidence to the satisfaction of the City of Cupertino Building Inspector that the building or structure was appropriately sealed at the time the building or structure was vacated to prevent bats from roosting, the project applicant shall retain a qualified biologist to conduct preconstruction surveys of the on-site buildings or structures prior to commencing any demolition, renovation, or re-tenanting activities. A building or structure is not appropriately sealed unless seal holes that are more than 0.5 inches in diameter or cracks that are 0.25 by 1.5 inches or larger are filled or closed with suitable material such as caulking, putty, duct tape, self-expanding polyurethane foam, 0.25-inch mesh hardware cloth, 0.5-inch or smaller welded wire mesh, installing tighter-fitting screen doors, or steel wool. b. The project applicant shall comply with, and the construction contractor shall include in the applicable construction documents, the following to ensure appropriate preconstruction surveys are performed and adequate avoidance provided for any special-status roosting bats, if encountered on the site. Preconstruction surveys shall:
i. Be conducted by a qualified biologist prior to tree removal or building demolition, renovation, or re-tenanting. Note that the preconstruction survey for roosting bats is required at any time of year since there is no defined bat roosting season as there is with nesting birds.
616
CC 05-14-2024
616 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

4.3-10 APRIL 2024
ii. Be conducted no more than 14 days prior to start of tree removal or demolition, renovation, or re-tenanting.
iii. Be repeated at 14-day intervals until construction has been initiated after which surveys can be stopped, unless construction activities are suspended for more than 7 consecutive days at which point the surveys shall be reinitiated. iv. If no special-status bats are found during the survey(s), then no additional measures are warranted.
c. Protective measures shall be included in the applicable construction documents and implemented prior to issuance of permits, if any special-status bat species are encountered or for any roosts detected within the existing structures, where individual bats could be inadvertently trapped and injured or killed during demolition unless passively evicted in advance of construction activities.

Protective measures shall include:
i. If no maternity roosts are detected, adult bats can be flushed out of the structure or tree cavity using a one-way eviction door placed over the exit location for a minimum 48-hour period prior to the time tree removal or building demolition is to commence. ii. Confirmation by the qualified biologist that the one-way eviction door was effective, and that all bats have dispersed from the roost location, modifying any exclusion efforts to ensure individual bats have been successfully evicted in advance of initiating tree removal or building demolition.
iii. If a maternity roost is detected, and young are found roosting in a building identified for demolition, renovation, or re-tenanting, work shall be postponed until the young are flying free and are feeding on their own, as determined by the qualified biologist. iv. Once the qualified biologist has determined that any young bats can successfully function without the maternity roost, then the adults and young bats can be excluded from the structure to be demolished using the one-way eviction methods described above. v. Monitoring shall be provided by the qualified biologist as necessary to determine status of any roosting activity, success of any required bat exclusion, and status of any maternity roosting activity by bats, in the remote instance a maternity roost is encountered on the site.  Chapter 19.102, Glass and Lighting Standards. This chapter regulates the design and construction of buildings so that they are bird safe and reduce light pollution. The standards in this chapter reduce bird mortality from windows, specific glass features, and lighting elements, with the goals of reducing light pollution, improving bird mortality rates, and increasing bird visibility in the night sky.  Section 19.102.030, Bird-safe Development Requirements. This section outlines certain requirements that must be met for certain projects. These include Bird-safe Design Requirements, which deter the use of funneling flight paths, reflective and transparent glass, and the use of untreated glass or other transparent materials.

EXISTING CONDITIONS
Chapter 4.3, Biological Resources, of the General Plan EIR, addresses the impacts to biological resources associated with buildout of the General Plan at a program level. The setting for biological resources is described in the General Plan EIR Section 4.3.1.2, Existing Conditions. Since the certification of the General Plan EIR, the City has codified regulations equivalent to the General Plan EIR mitigation measures to reduce construction-related biological resources impacts in CMC Chapter 17.04, Standard Environmental Protection Requirements (SEPRs), as described under the Municipal Code heading in 617
CC 05-14-2024
617 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
PLACEWORKS 4.3-11
Section 4.3.1.1, Regulatory Framework. The SEPRs incorporate Mitigation Measure BIO-1 to ensure the protection of nesting raptors and other birds when in active use, as required by the federal MBTA and the CFGC, if applicable. CMC Section 17.04.050(D)(1), Avoid Nesting Birds During Construction, requires the project applicant to avoid nesting birds during construction and describes the procedures to be implemented to ensure avoidance. Thus, this mitigation measure is no longer necessary, but would still apply as a standard project requirement to all applicable projects.

4.3.2 STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Implementation of the proposed Modified Project would result in significant biological impact if it would:

Impact of the
Approved
Project (General
Plan 2040 EIR)
Impact of the
Proposed
Modified
Project
BIO-1. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plan, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

LTS/M LTS
BIO-2. 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? NI NI
BIO-3. 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?

LTS LTS
BIO-4. 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?

LTS LTS
BIO-5. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? LTS LTS BIO-6. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan?
NI NI
BIO-7. Result in a cumulatively considerable impact with respect to biological 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. The question posed in BIO-6 is no longer repeated in Chapter 4.10, Land Use and Planning, of this EA.

Key: NI = no impact; LTS = less than significant; LTS/M = less than significant with mitigation; SU = significant and unavoidable

618
CC 05-14-2024
618 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

4.3-12 APRIL 2024

4.3.3 IMPACT DISCUSSION
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 special-status 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.

As described in the General Plan EIR, potential future development and land use activities as a result of implementation of the Approved Project would occur in urbanized areas where special-status species are generally not expected to occur. The potential for occurrence of special-status species in developed areas is generally very remote in comparison to undeveloped lands with natural habitat that contain essential habitat characteristics for the range of species known from the west Cupertino vicinity.

The proposed Modified Project would include potential future development and land use activities that would also occur in already urbanized areas that are dominated by existing structures, pavement, and other impervious surfaces, and are surrounded by development where special-status species are generally not expected to occur. Furthermore, as shown on Figure 4-1, Priority Development Areas and Transit Priority Areas, of this Environmental Assessment (EA), the locations of potential future development would be concentrated on a limited number of parcels and in the form of infill/intensification on sites either already previously developed and/or underutilized, and/or in close proximity to existing residential and residential-serving development, where potential future development would have a lesser impact on biological resources.

The General Plan EIR also found that the Land Use and Community Design (LU) and Environmental Resources and Sustainability (ES) Elements contain policies and strategies that require local planning and development decisions to consider impacts that development could have on candidate, sensitive, or special-status species. 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 continue to minimize adverse effects on candidate, sensitive, or special-status species:
 Policy LU-3.5. Bird Safety. Enhance bird safety and educe bird mortality from windows, other glass features, and certain lighting elements that are known to increase the risk of bid collisions.  Strategy LU-3.6.2. Bird Safe Design Ordinance. New development and other applicable projects shall comply with the City’s Glass and Lighting Standards Orsinace, which provides Bird Safe Design regulations to reduce the potential risk of bird collisions.  Strategy LU-12.4.2. Developments near Public Space. Locate private driveways and building sites as far as possible from property boundaries adjoining public open space preserves and parks to enhance the natural open space character and protect plant and animal habitat.  Policy ES-5.2. 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 619
CC 05-14-2024
619 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
PLACEWORKS 4.3-13
preserves and ridgelines. New developments in these areas must have a harmonious landscaping plan approved prior to development. (General Plan EIR Policies 5-9 and 5-21)  Policy ES-5.3. Landscaping In and Near Natural Vegetation. Preserve and enhance existing natural vegetation, landscape features and open space when new development is proposed within existing natural areas. When development is proposed near natural vegetation, encourage the landscaping to be consistent with the palate of vegetation found in the natural vegetation. (General Plan EIR Policy 5- 10)
 Strategy ES-5.3.1. Native Plants. Continue to emphasize the planting of native, drought tolerant, pest resistant, non-invasive, climate appropriate plants and ground covers, particularly for erosion control and to prevent disturbance of the natural terrain. (General Plan EIR Strategy 4 under Policy 2-20).  Policy ES-5.6. Recreation and Wildlife. Provide open space linkages within and between properties for both recreational and wildlife activities, most specifically for the benefit of wildlife that is threatened, endangered or designated as species of special concern. (General Plan EIR Policy 5-14)  Policy ES-7.1. Natural Water Bodies and Drainage Systems. In public and private development, use Low Impact Development (LID) principles to manage stormwater by mimicking natural hydrology, minimizing grading and protecting or restoring natural drainage systems. (General Plan EIR Policy 5- 18)
 Policy ES-7.8. Natural Water Courses. Retain and restore creek beds, riparian corridors, watercourses and associated vegetation in their natural state to protect wildlife habitat and recreation potential and assist in groundwater percolation. Encourage land acquisition or dedication of such areas. (General Plan EIR Policy 5-27)
The General Plan EIR found that the Approved Project would have a have a potential adverse effect on some bird species, such as Cooper’s hawk and white-tailed kite, as they could use the remaining riparian corridors and heavily wooded areas for nesting, dispersal, and other functions when they pass through urbanized areas. Accordingly, the General Plan EIR included Mitigation Measure BIO-1 to minimize the possible loss or abandonment of nests of birds protected under the federal MBTA and CFGC. Following the certification of the General Plan EIR, the City codified CMC Section 17.04.050(D)(1), Avoid Nesting Birds During Construction, that requires the project applicant to avoid nesting birds during construction and describes the procedures to be implemented to ensure avoidance. Therefore, mandatory compliance with CMC Section 17.04.050(D)(1) as standard project requirements, would ensure that impacts would continue to be less than significant without mitigation from the adoption and implementation of the proposed Modified Project.

As with the future potential development assessed in the General Plan EIR, future potential development under the proposed Modified Project would be required to comply with applicable laws, policies, and design standards governing special-status species, as necessary. Based on these considerations, overall impacts from adoption and implementation of the proposed Modified Project would not result in new or more severe impacts to candidate, sensitive, or special-status species beyond what was evaluated in the General Plan EIR.

Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant. 620
CC 05-14-2024
620 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

4.3-14 APRIL 2024
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.

The General Plan EIR found that the Approved Project would have no impact on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community. Development and land use activities of the Approved Project would occur in urbanized areas where sensitive natural communities are absent.

As with the potential future development assessed in the General Plan EIR, potential future development under the proposed Modified Project would also occur in already urbanized areas without sensitive natural communities. Thus, overall impacts from adoption and implementation of the proposed Modified Project would not result in new or more severe impacts to riparian habitat or sensitive natural communities beyond what was evaluated in the General Plan EIR.

Significance without Mitigation: No impact.

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.

As described in the General Plan EIR, the Approved Project would occur in urbanized areas where jurisdictional waters are absent. Any indirect impacts to wetlands and jurisdictional other waters would be largely avoided through effective implementation of best management practices during construction and compliance with water quality controls.

As shown on Figure 4-1, Priority Development Areas and Transit Priority Areas, of this EA, the locations of potential future development under the proposed Modified 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 potential future development would have a lesser impact on jurisdictional waters. Additionally, potential indirect water quality-related impacts to jurisdictional waters are evaluated further in Chapter 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, of this Draft EA.

As with the future potential development assessed in the General Plan EIR, future potential development under the proposed Modified Project would be required to comply with applicable laws, policies, and design standards governing wetlands, as necessary. Based on these considerations, overall impacts from adoption and implementation of the proposed Modified Project would not result in new or more severe impacts to state or federally protected wetlands beyond what was evaluated in the General Plan EIR.

Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant. 621
CC 05-14-2024
621 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
PLACEWORKS 4.3-15
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.

As described in the General Plan EIR, potential future development and land use activities as a result of implementation of the Approved Project would occur in urbanized areas where sensitive wildlife resources and important wildlife movement corridors are no longer present because of existing development. However, wildlife species common to urban and suburban habitat could be displaced where existing structures are demolished and landscaping is removed as part of the Approved Project.

As shown on Figure 4-1, Priority Development Areas and Transit Priority Areas, of this EA, the locations of potential future development under the proposed Modified 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 in already urbanized areas that are dominated by existing structures, pavement, and other impervious surfaces, and are surrounded by development where wildlife species are generally not expected to occur.

Additionally, as described in the General Plan EIR, the species likely inhabiting the area are relatively abundant and adapted to human disturbance.

The General Plan EIR also found that the Environmental Resources and Sustainability (ES) Element contains a strategy that requires local planning and development decisions to consider impacts that development could have on the movement of native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species, migratory wildlife corridors, and nursey sites. The following General Plan 2040 strategy would also serve to provide additional habitat to minimize adverse effects on the movement of native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species, migratory wildlife corridors, and nursey sites: Strategy ES-5.3.1, Native Plants.

Continue to emphasize the planting of native, drought-tolerant, pest-resistant, non-invasive, climateappropriate plants and ground covers, particularly for erosion control and to prevent disturbance of the natural terrain. (General Plan EIR Strategy 4 under Proposed Policy 2-20).

As with the future potential development assessed in the General Plan EIR, future potential development under the proposed Modified Project would be required to comply with applicable laws, policies, and design standards governing wildlife movement, as necessary. For example, in Hillside areas, the Municipal Code allows solid board fencing on only 5,000 sq. ft. around a home and all other fencing must be open fencing to allow wildlife to pass. Based on these considerations, overall impacts from adoption and implementation of the proposed Modified Project would not result in new or more severe impacts to 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 beyond what was evaluated in the General Plan EIR.

Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant. 622
CC 05-14-2024
622 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

4.3-16 APRIL 2024
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.

As described in the General Plan EIR, the Approved Project would not conflict with any local ordinances or policies protecting biological resources. Activities as a result of implementation of the Approved Project would occur in urbanized areas where sensitive biological and wetland resources are generally considered to be absent, and no major conflicts with the relevant policies or ordinances in the Cupertino General Plan and/or Municipal Code are anticipated. Additionally, with adherence to the General Plan policies listed in Impact Discussions BIO-1 and BIO-4 of the General Plan EIR, and the Protected Tree Ordinance and Water Protection Ordinance, no conflicts with local plans and policies were anticipated.

Like the Approved Project, the proposed Modified Project would include potential future development and land use activities that would also occur in already urbanized areas that are dominated by existing structures, pavement, and other impervious surfaces. Additionally, future potential development under the proposed Modified Project would adhere to the General Plan policies and strategies listed in Impact Discussions BIO-1 and BIO-4 of this EA and local regulations described in Section 4.3.1.1, Regulatory Framework. Based on these considerations, overall impacts from adoption and implementation of the proposed Modified Project would not result in new or more severe conflicts with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources beyond what was evaluated in the General Plan EIR.

Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.

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.

The General Plan EIR found that the Approved Project was located outside the boundaries of the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan. The city is not within any other HCP or natural community conservation plan; as such, the Approved Project and the proposed Modified Project would not conflict with any such plan.

Thus, overall impacts from adoption and implementation of the proposed Modified Project would not result in new or more severe conflicts with the provisions of an adopted HCP; Natural Community Conservation Plan; or other approved local, regional, or State HCP beyond what was evaluated in the General Plan EIR.

Significance without Mitigation: No impact.
623
CC 05-14-2024
623 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
PLACEWORKS 4.3-17
BIO-7 Implementation of the proposed Modified Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact with respect to biological resources.

As described in the General Plan EIR, the geographic scope of the cumulative analysis for biological resources considers the surrounding incorporated and unincorporated lands, and the region. Potential future development and land use activities as a result of implementation of the Approved Project would occur in urbanized areas, thus avoiding or diminishing effects on biological resources. With implementation of the General Plan EIR Mitigation Measure BIO-1, the Approved Project would not make a significant contribution to cumulative impacts to biological resources.

The impacts of potential future development on biological resources tend to be site-specific, and the overall cumulative effects would depend on the degree to which significant vegetation and wildlife resources are protected on a particular site. This includes preservation of well-developed native vegetation (e.g., native grasslands, oak woodlands, riparian woodland, and chaparral), populations of special-status plant or animal species, and wetland features (e.g., coastal salt marsh, freshwater marsh and seeps, riparian corridors, and drainages). Further, site evaluations would be required for future projects, where appropriate, to determine the presence of special-status species, nesting birds, sensitive natural communities, regulated waters, and wildlife movement corridors. These biological resource assessments would serve to ensure that important biological resources are identified, protected, and properly managed, and to prevent any significant adverse development-related impacts, including future potential development from the proposed Modified Project.

Additionally, like in the Approved Project, increased future potential development potential in the Study Area is anticipated to predominantly occur in existing urbanized areas. Potential future development that could occur elsewhere in the region, outside of the Study Area, would also likely occur in urbanized areas, minimizing cumulative impacts to biological resources. Further, future potential development under the proposed Modified Project and other projects would be required to comply with applicable laws, policies, and design standards governing biological resources, as necessary. Therefore, the proposed Modified Project would not result in new or more severe cumulatively considerable impacts to biological resources beyond what was evaluated in the General Plan EIR.

Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant. 624
CC 05-14-2024
624 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

4.3-18 APRIL 2024
This page has been intentionally left blank.

625
CC 05-14-2024
625 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

CULTURAL AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
PLACEWORKS 4.4-1

4.4 CULTURAL AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
This chapter describes the potential impacts to cultural and tribal cultural resources 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 impacts to cultural and tribal cultural resources, and identifies General Plan 2040 policies and/or strategies that could minimize any potentially significant impacts.

4.4.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

TERMINOLOGY
The following are definitions for terms used throughout this chapter.  Cultural Resource. This term is used to describe several different types of properties: pre-contact (prehistoric) and historic archaeological sites, buildings, objects, structures, and districts or any other physical evidence associated with human activity considered important to a culture or a community for scientific, traditional, or religious reasons.
 Historic Property. Federal regulations (36 Code of Federal Regulation [CFR] 800) define a historic property as any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in, or eligible for inclusion in, the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). This term includes artifacts, records, and remains that are related to and located within such properties. The term also includes properties of traditional religious and cultural importance to Native American tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations and that meet NRHP criteria.
 Historical Resource. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15064.5(a) define a historical resource as a resource listed in the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) or determined to be eligible for listing in the CRHR by the State Historical Resources Commission, a resource included in a local register of Historical Resources, or identified as significant in a Historical Resource survey meeting the requirements of Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5024.1(g), or any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript that a lead agency determines to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California.  Unique Archaeological Resource. CEQA defines this term as an archaeological artifact, object, or site about which it can be clearly demonstrated that, without merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it meets any of the following criteria:
 Contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions and there is a demonstrable public interest in that information.
 Has a special and particular quality, such as being the oldest of its type or the best available example of its type.
 Is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person.
626
CC 05-14-2024
626 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

CULTURAL AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES

4.4-2 APRIL 2024
 Tribal Cultural Resource. CEQA defines tribal cultural resources as sites, features, places, cultural landscapes (geographically defined in terms of the size and scope), sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the CRHR; and/or included in a local register of historical resources; and/or a resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant.

REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
Federal Regulations
National Historic Preservation Act
The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 defines the responsibilities of federal agencies to protect and preserve historic properties and established the National Register of Historic Places (National Register) as the official designation of historical resources, including districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects. Sites less than 50 years in age, unless of exceptional importance, are not eligible for the National Register. Listing in the National Register does not entail specific protection for a property, but project effects on properties listed or eligible for listing in the National Register must be evaluated under CEQA. For a property to be eligible for listing in the National Register, it must be significant and possess integrity. According to the National Register criteria for evaluation,1 a property is significant in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, or culture if it is:

A. Associated with events that made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; B. Associated with the lives of significant persons in our past; C. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or D. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in history or prehistory.

Archaeological Resources Protection Act
The Archaeological Resources Protection Act (United States Code, Title 16, Sections 470aa–mm) became law on October 31, 1979, and has been amended four times. It regulates the protection of archaeological resources and sites that are on federal and Indian lands.

Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act
The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 (United States Code, Title 25, Sections 3001 et seq.) protects Native American remains, including Native American graves on federal and tribal lands, and recognizes tribal authority over the treatment of unmarked graves. This act prohibits the selling of Native American remains and provides guidelines for the return of Native American human 1 Code of Federal Regulations, 36 CFR Part 60.4.
627
CC 05-14-2024
627 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

CULTURAL AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
PLACEWORKS 4.4-3
remains and cultural objects from any collection receiving federal funding, such as museums, universities, or governments. Noncompliance with this act can result in civil and criminal penalties.

State Regulations
California Health and Safety Code
Health and Safety Code Section 7052 states that the disturbance of Native American cemeteries is a felony. Section 7050.5(b) of the California Health and Safety Code specifies protocol when human remains are discovered during activities involving ground disturbance. If human remains are discovered or identified in any location other than a dedicated cemetery, there should be no further disturbance or excavation nearby until the county coroner has determined the area is not a crime scene that warrants further investigation into the cause of death and made recommendations to the persons responsible for the work in the manner provided in PRC Section 5097.98 (the California Native American Historical, Cultural, and Sacred Sites Act). If the coroner determines that the remains are not subject to his or her authority and recognizes or has reason to believe the human remains are those of Native American, he or she shall contact, by telephone within 24 hours, the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC).

California Public Resources Code
Archaeological and historical sites are protected under a wide variety of State policies and regulations in the PRC. In addition, cultural resources are recognized as nonrenewable resources and receive protection under the PRC and CEQA. California PRC Sections 5097.9–5097.991 provides protection to Native American historical and cultural resources, and sacred sites and identifies the powers and duties of the NAHC. It also requires notification to descendants of discoveries of Native American human remains and provides for treatment and disposition of human remains and associated grave goods.

California Historical Building Code
The California Historical Building Code (CCR, Title 24, Part 8) provides regulations for permitting repairs, alterations, and additions for the preservation, rehabilitation, relocation, reconstruction, change of use, or continued use of historical buildings, structures, and properties determined by any level of government as qualifying as a historical resource. A historical resource is defined in Sections 18950 to 18961 of Division 13, Part 2.7 of the Health and Safety Code, and subject to rules and regulations in the California Historical Building Code.

California Register of Historic Resources
The California Register of Historic Resources (California Register) establishes a list of properties to be protected from substantial adverse change (PRC Section 5024.1). A historical resource may be listed in the California Register if it is historically or archaeologically significant, or is significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, or cultural annals of California, and meets any of the following criteria:
 Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage.
628
CC 05-14-2024
628 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

CULTURAL AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES

4.4-4 APRIL 2024
 Is associated with the lives of persons important in California’s past.  Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction; represents the work of an important creative individual; or possesses high artistic value.  Has yielded or is likely to yield information important in prehistory or history.

The California Register includes properties that are listed or have been formally determined eligible for listing in the National Register, State Historical Landmarks, and eligible Points of Historical Interest. Other potential resources require nomination for inclusion in the California Register.

Senate Bill 18
Senate Bill 18 (SB 18) was signed into law in September 2004 and went into effect on March 1, 2005. It places requirements on local governments for developments in or near “traditional tribal cultural places” (TTCP). Pursuant to SB 18, the law requires local jurisdictions to provide opportunities for involvement of California Native American tribes in the land planning process for the purpose of preserving TTCPs. The Final Guidelines recommend that the NAHC provide written information as soon as possible but no later than 30 days after receiving a request to inform the lead agency if the proposed project is determined to be in proximity to a TTCP and another 90 days for tribes to respond to a local government if they want to consult to determine whether the project would have an adverse impact on the TTCP. There is no statutory limit on the consultation duration. Forty-five days before the action is publicly considered by the local government council, the local government refers action to agencies, following the CEQA public review time frame. The CEQA public distribution list may include tribes listed by the NAHC who have requested consultation, or it may not.

SB 18 is triggered before the adoption, revision, amendment, or update of a city or county general plan.

Although SB 18 does not specifically mention consultation or notice requirements for adoption or amendment of specific plans, the Final Tribal Guidelines advises that SB 18 requirements extend to specific plans as well, because State planning law requires local governments to use the same process for amendment or adoption of specific plans as general plans (defined in Government Code Section 65453).

In addition, SB 18 provides a new definition of TTCPs requiring a traditional association of the site with Native American traditional beliefs, cultural practices, or ceremonies, or the site must be shown to actually have been used for activities related to traditional beliefs, cultural practices, or ceremonies (previously, the site was defined to require only an association with traditional beliefs, practices, lifeways, and ceremonial activities). SB 18 law also amended Civil Code Section 815.3 and adds California Native American tribes to the list of entities that can acquire and hold conservation easements for the purpose of protecting their cultural places.

Native American Historic Resource Protection Act
The Native American Historic Resource Protection Act, commonly known by its legislative bill number, Assembly Bill (AB) 52, passed in 2014 and amended CEQA to address California Native American tribal concerns regarding how cultural resources of importance to tribes are treated under CEQA and created the new TCR category. CEQA identifies a TCR as a separate and distinct category of resource, separate from a historical or archaeological resource. CEQA specifies that a project that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a TCR (as defined in CEQA Statute or PRC Section 21074[a]) is a 629
CC 05-14-2024
629 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

CULTURAL AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
PLACEWORKS 4.4-5
project that may have a significant effect on the environment. To help determine whether a project may have such an effect, the PRC requires a lead agency to consult with any California Native American tribe that requests consultation and is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the proposed project. According to the act, tribes may have expertise in tribal history and “tribal knowledge about land and TCRs at issue should be included in environmental assessments for projects that may have a significant impact on those resources.”
CEQA Section 21074.3(a) defines a TCR as a site, feature, place, or cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of size and scope, sacred place, and object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that is either included or eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historic Resources or included in a local register of historical resources, or if the City of Cupertino, acting as the lead agency, supported by substantial evidence, chooses at its discretion to treat the resource as a TCR.

Because these criteria also meet the definition of a historical resource under CEQA, a TCR may also require additional consideration as a historical resource. TCRs may or may not exhibit archaeological, cultural, or physical indicators.

CEQA Section 21080.3.2 provides that as part of the tribal consultation process, parties could propose mitigation measures. If the California Native American tribe requests consultation to include project alternatives, mitigation measures, or significant effects, the consultation would be required to cover those topics. CEQA Section 21082.3 provides that any mitigation measures agreed on during this consultation “shall be recommended for inclusion in the environmental document and in an adopted mitigation monitoring program” if determined to avoid or lessen a significant impact on TCRs.

Assembly Bill 168
AB 168 was signed in 2020 and extends the responsibility of a development proponent to consult with Native American tribes to streamlined ministerial approvals for affordable multifamily housing developments under SB 35. A development with streamlined ministerial approval under SB 35 is not subject to CEQA, allowing for such developments to occur without going through a CEQA review or screening process to determine if they would affect TCRs.

AB 168 requires a development proponent to submit notice of its intent to apply for streamlined approval to the local government prior to the actual application submittal. The local government is then required to provide formal notice to each California Native American tribe that is culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the proposed development and to engage in a scoping consultation regarding the potential effects the proposed development could have on a potential TCR (California Government Code Section 65913.4(b)). The scoping consultation must commence within 30 days after the proponent submits a notice of intent to apply for ministerial approval and conclude before the proponent can submit the application.

AB 168 deems a project ineligible for the streamlined, ministerial approval process and requires it be subject to CEQA if:

A. The site of the proposed development is a TCR that is on a national, state, tribal, or local historic register list;
630
CC 05-14-2024
630 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

CULTURAL AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES

4.4-6 APRIL 2024
B. The local government and the California Native American tribe do not agree that no potential TCR would be affected by the proposed development; or
C. The local government and California Native American tribe find that a potential TCR could be affected by the proposed development and the parties do not document an enforceable agreement regarding the methods, measures, and conditions for treatment of those TCRs, as provided.

Local Regulations
General Plan 2040
The proposed Land Use and Community Design (LU) Element of the General Plan 2040 contains goals, policies, and strategies that require local planning and development decisions to consider impacts to cultural and tribal cultural resources. Applicable policies and strategies that would minimize potential adverse impacts on cultural and tribal cultural resources are identified in Section 4.4.3, Impact Discussion.

Municipal Code
The Cupertino Municipal Code (CMC) includes various directives to minimize adverse impacts to cultural and tribal cultural resources in Cupertino. The CMC is organized by title, chapter, and section. Most provisions related to cultural and tribal cultural resources are included in Title 17, Environmental Regulations, and Title 19, Zoning, as follows:
 Chapter 17.04, Standard Environmental Protection Requirements. The purpose of this chapter is to identify standard environmental protection requirements that all construction projects must meet, including, but not limited to, environmental mitigation measures identified in any environmental documents required as part of a General Plan update. This chapter includes specific requirements for the protection of cultural and tribal cultural resources.  Section 17.04.050(E), Cultural Resources Permit Requirements. This section describes the procedures for the protection of cultural and tribal cultural resources.

1. Protect Archaeological Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources: For all projects requiring ground-disturbing activities on land with no known archaeological or tribal cultural resources that has not been previously disturbed and/or where ground-disturbing activities would occur at a greater depth or affect a greater area than previously disturbed, the following shall be required:
a. Areas with No Known Cultural Resources. For all projects within areas where there are no known cultural resources, prior to soil disturbance, the project applicant shall provide written verification, including the materials provided to contractors and construction crews, to the City confirming that contractors and construction crews have been notified of basic archaeological site indicators, the potential for discovery of archaeological resources, laws pertaining to these resources, and procedures for protecting these resources as follows:
i. Basic archaeological site indicators that may include, but are not limited to, darker than surrounding soils of a friable nature; evidence of fires (ash, charcoal, fire affected rock or earth); concentrations of stone, bone, or shellfish; artifacts of stone, bone, or shellfish; evidence of living surfaces (e.g., floors); and burials, either human or animal. 631
CC 05-14-2024
631 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

CULTURAL AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
PLACEWORKS 4.4-7
ii. The potential for undiscovered archaeological resources or tribal cultural resources on site.
iii. The laws protecting these resources and associated penalties, including, but not limited to, the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990, Public Resources Code Section 5097, and California Health and Safety Code Section 7050 and Section 7052.
iv. The protection procedures to follow should construction crews discover cultural resources during project-related earthwork, include the following:

1. All soil disturbing work within 25 feet of the find shall cease.

2. The project applicant shall retain a qualified archaeologist to provide and implement a plan for survey, subsurface investigation, as needed, to define the deposit, and assessment of the remainder of the site within the project area to determine whether the resource is significant and would be affected by the project.

3. Any potential archaeological or tribal cultural resources found during construction activities shall be recorded on appropriate California Department of Parks and Recreation forms by a qualified archaeologist. If the resource is a tribal cultural resource, the consulting archaeologist shall consult with the appropriate tribe, as determined by the Native American Heritage Commission, to evaluate the significance of the resource and to recommend appropriate and feasible avoidance, testing, preservation or mitigation measures, in light of factors such as the significance of the find, proposed project design, costs, and other considerations. The archeologist shall perform this evaluation in consultation with the tribe.
b. Areas with Known Cultural Resources. For all projects within areas of known cultural resources as documented in the 2015 General Plan EIR Table 4.4-2, Cultural Resources in the Project Study Area and Vicinity, as subsequently revised, supplemented, or replaced by the City, and the archaeological or tribal cultural resources cannot be avoided, in addition to the requirements in Section E.1.a for all construction projects with grounddisturbing activities, the following additional actions shall be implemented prior to ground disturbance:
i. The project applicant shall retain a qualified archaeologist to conduct a subsurface investigation of the project site, and to ascertain the extent of the deposit of any buried archaeological materials relative to the project’s area of potential effects, in consultation with a tribal representative as applicable. The archaeologist shall prepare a site record and file it with the California Historical Resource Information System and the City of Cupertino.
ii. If the resource extends into the project’s area of potential effects as determined by the archaeologist, the resource shall be evaluated by a qualified archaeologist to determine if the resource is eligible for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources. If the qualified archaeologist determines that the resource is not eligible, no further action is required unless there is a discovery of additional resources during construction (as required above for all construction projects with ground-disturbing activities). If the qualified archaeologist determines that the resource is eligible, the qualified archaeologist shall identify ways to minimize the effect which the project applicant shall implement. A written report of the results of investigations and 632
CC 05-14-2024
632 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

CULTURAL AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES

4.4-8 APRIL 2024
mitigations shall be prepared by the qualified archaeologist and filed with the California Historic Resources Information System Northwest Information Center and the City of Cupertino.

2. Protect Human Remains and Native American Burials. The project applicant shall comply with California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98.
a. In the event of discovering human remains during construction activities, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site within a 100-foot radius of the remains, or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains. b. The Santa Clara County Coroner shall be notified immediately and shall make a determination as to whether the remains are Native American. c. If the Santa Clara County Coroner determines that the remains are not subject to his authority, he shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) within 24 hours. d. The NAHC shall attempt to identify descendants (Most Likely Descendant) of the deceased Native American.
e. The Most Likely Descendant has 48 hours following access to the project site to make recommendations or preferences regarding the disposition of the remains. If the Most Likely Descendant does not make recommendations within 48 hours after being allowed access to the project site, the owner shall, with appropriate dignity, reinter the remains in an area of the property secure from further disturbance and provide documentation about this determination and the location of the remains to the NAHC and the City of Cupertino.

Alternatively, if the owner does not accept the Most Likely Descendant’s recommendations, the owner or the descendent may request mediation by the NAHC. Construction shall halt until the mediation has concluded.
 Title 19, Zoning. Besides the General Plan, 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 assures 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 criteria for new development near historic buildings and districts.

EXISTING CONDITIONS
Chapter 4.4, Cultural Resources, of the General Plan EIR, addresses the impacts to cultural and tribal cultural resources associated with buildout of the General Plan at a program level. The setting for cultural and tribal cultural resources is described in the General Plan EIR Section 4.4.1.2, Existing Conditions. Since the certification of the General Plan EIR in 2015, impacts to tribal cultural resources have been added to the standards of significance.

4.4.2 STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Implementation of the proposed Modified Project would result in significant cultural and tribal cultural resources impact if it would:

Impact of the
Approved
Project (General
Plan 2040 EIR)
Impact of the
Proposed
Modified
Project
CUL-1. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5? LTS LTS
633
CC 05-14-2024
633 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

CULTURAL AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
PLACEWORKS 4.4-9
Implementation of the proposed Modified Project would result in significant cultural and tribal cultural resources impact if it would:

Impact of the
Approved
Project (General
Plan 2040 EIR)
Impact of the
Proposed
Modified
Project
CUL-2. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5? LTS LTS CUL-3. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries? LTS LTS
CUL-4. 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 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?

N/A LTS
CUL-5. Result in a cumulatively considerable impact with respect to cultural and tribal cultural 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. CUL-4 regarding tribal cultural resources was not included in the General Plan EIR and impacts to unique paleontological resources or sites, or unique geological features are now addressed in GEO-6 in Chapter 4.6, Geology and Soils, of this EA.

Key: NI = no impact; LTS = less than significant; LTS/M = less than significant with mitigation; SU = significant and unavoidable; N/A = not a standard of significance in the General Plan EIR.

4.4.3 IMPACT DISCUSSION
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.

The General Plan EIR identified several historical resources within the boundaries of the Approved Project that could be impacted by future development under the Approved Project. Potential impacts to identified historic resources could be from demolition of the resource, inappropriate modification (using incompatible materials, designs, or construction techniques), and incompatible new construction that denigrate established architectural context of the historical resource. However, the General Plan EIR referenced General Plan policies, in addition to the federal and State laws, that would minimize the potential impacts to historical resources and ensure future development under the Approved Project would not cause a substantially adverse change in the significance of a historical resource.

The proposed Modified Project would include potential future development and land use activities within the same boundaries as the Approved Project. Furthermore, as shown on Figure 4-1, Priority Development Areas and Transit Priority Areas, of this Environmental Assessment (EA), the locations of potential future 634
CC 05-14-2024
634 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

CULTURAL AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES

4.4-10 APRIL 2024
development under the proposed Modified Project would be in similar areas as those of the Approved Project.

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 that development could have on historic resources. Like the Approved Project, the following existing General Plan 2040 policies, and updated policies as part of the proposed Modified Project, would also serve to minimize potential adverse impacts on historic resources:
 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)  Policy LU-6.2. Historic Sites. Projects on Historic Sites shall meet the Secretary of Interior Standards for Treatment of Historic Properties. (General Plan EIR Policy 2-66)  Policy LU-6.3. Historic Sites, Commemorative Sites and Community Landmarks. Projects on Historic Sites, Commemorative Sites and Community Landmarks shall provide a plaque, reader board and/ or other educational tools on the site to explain the historic significance of the resource. The plaque shall include the city seal, name of resource, date it was built, a written description and photograph. The plaque shall be placed in a location where the public can view the information. (General Plan EIR Policies 2-66, 2-67, and 2-68)  Policy LU-6.4. Public Access. Coordinate with property owners of public and quasi-public sites to allow public access of Historic and Commemorative Sires to foster public awareness and education. Private property owners will be highly encouraged, but not required to provide public access to Historic and Commemorative Sites. (General Plan EIR Policy 2-66)  Policy LU-6.5. Historic Mention Sites. These are sites outside the City’s jurisdiction that have contributed to the City’s history. Work with agencies that have jurisdiction over the historical resource to encourage adaptive reuse and rehabilitation and provide public access and plaques to foster public awareness and education. (General Plan EIR Policies 2-66 and 2-69)  Policy LU- 6.6. Incentives for Preservation of Historic Resources. Utilize a variety of techniques to serve as incentives to foster the preservation and rehabilitation of Historic Resources including:

1. Allow flexible interpretation of the zoning ordinance not essential to public health and safety.

This could include land use, parking requirements and/ or setback requirements.

2. Use the California Historical Building Codes standards for rehabilitation of historic structures.

3. Tax rebates (Milles Act or Local tax rebates).

4. Financial incentives such as grants/ loans to assist rehabilitation efforts. (General Plan EIR Policy 2-70)
Since certification of the General Plan EIR, there have not been any new historical resources added to the city. The policies listed would minimize the potential impacts to historical resources. As with the development assessed in the General Plan EIR, potential new development under the proposed Modified Project would be required to comply with applicable laws, policies, and design standards governing historic resources, as necessary. Based on these considerations, overall impacts from adoption and 635
CC 05-14-2024
635 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

CULTURAL AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
PLACEWORKS 4.4-11
implementation of the proposed Modified Project would not result in new or more severe impacts on historical resources beyond what was evaluated in the General Plan EIR.

Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.

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.

The General Plan EIR found that although the locations identified as potential for future development would be concentrated on sites and in areas either already developed and/or in close proximity to existing residential, where development would have a lesser impact on historical archaeological resources, the potential remains that archaeological deposits could be discovered because project components would result in development on, or within the vicinity of, several identified cultural resources. Ground-disturbing activities could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical archaeological resource. However, the General Plan included a policy that would protect archaeologically sensitive areas and would provide for the identification of archaeological deposits prior to actions that may disturb such deposits and make impacts less than significant.

The proposed Modified Project would include potential future development and land use activities in the same boundaries as the Approved Project. Furthermore, as shown on Figure 4-1, Priority Development Areas and Transit Priority Areas, of this EA, the locations of potential future development under the proposed Modified Project would be in similar areas as those of the Approved Project. Ground-disturbing activities would still have the potential to impact unrecorded Native American prehistoric archaeological sites and other historical archaeological features. However, following the certification of the General Plan EIR, the City codified CMC Section 17.04.050(E), Cultural Resources Permit Requirements, that describes the procedures for the protection of cultural and tribal cultural resources, including archaeological resources. Therefore, mandatory compliance with CMC Section 17.04.050(E) as a standard project requirement would ensure that impacts would continue to be less than significant without mitigation from the adoption and implementation of the proposed Modified Project.

As with the development assessed in the General Plan EIR, development under the proposed Modified Project would be required to comply with applicable laws, policies, and design standards governing archaeological resources, as necessary. Based on these considerations, overall impacts from adoption and implementation of the proposed Modified Project would not result in new or more severe impacts to archaeological resources beyond what was evaluated in the General Plan EIR.

Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant. 636
CC 05-14-2024
636 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

CULTURAL AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES

4.4-12 APRIL 2024
CUL-3 Implementation of the proposed Modified Project would not disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries.

The General Plan EIR concluded that human remains associated with pre-contact archaeological deposits could exist in the Approved Project Study Area and could be encountered at the time potential future development would occur. The associated ground-disturbing activities, such as site grading and trenching for utilities, have the potential to disturb human remains interred outside of formal cemeteries. However, any human remains encountered during ground-disturbing activities associated with future development under implementation of the Approved Project would be subject to federal, State, and local regulations, such as the California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, PRC Section 5097.98, and CCR Section 15064.5(e) and the General Plan policy that protects Native American burial sites. Therefore, while the potential for discovery or disturbance of any human remains during construction activities associated with the Approved Project is possible, the policies and regulations included in the General Plan EIR would minimize the impacts to less than significant.

The proposed Modified Project would include potential future development and land use activities within the same boundaries as the Approved Project. Furthermore, as shown on Figure 4-1, Priority Development Areas and Transit Priority Areas, of this EA, the locations of potential future development under the proposed Modified Project would be in similar areas as those of the Approved Project.

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 that development could have on human remains.

Ground-disturbing activities still have the potential to impact human remains. However, following the certification of the General Plan EIR, the City codified CMC Section 17.04.050(E), Cultural Resources Permit Requirements, that describes the procedures for the protection of cultural and tribal cultural resources. Therefore, mandatory compliance with CMC Section 17.04.050(E) would ensure that impacts would continue to be less than significant without mitigation from the adoption and implementation of the proposed Modified Project.

As with the future potential development assessed in the General Plan EIR, future potential development under the proposed Modified Project would be required to comply with applicable laws, policies, and design standards governing human remains, as necessary. Based on these considerations, overall impacts from adoption and implementation of the proposed Modified Project would not result in new or more severe impacts to human remains beyond what was evaluated in the General Plan EIR.

Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant. 637
CC 05-14-2024
637 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

CULTURAL AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
PLACEWORKS 4.4-13
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 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.

While the standards regarding tribal cultural resources were adopted by the California Natural Resource Agency in July 2016, after the certification of the General Plan EIR, as described throughout this chapter, the General Plan EIR addressed impacts to cultural resources associated with the Approved Project.

Additionally, the cultural resources study prepared for the General Plan EIR consisted of archival research at the Northwest Information Center at Sonoma State University, examination of the library and files, field inspection, and contact with the Native American community. The cultural resources study addressed impacts associated with archaeological resources, including those of Native Americans.

The proposed Modified Project would include potential future development and land use activities in the same boundaries as the Approved Project. Furthermore, as shown on Figure 4-1, Priority Development Areas and Transit Priority Areas, of this EA, the locations of potential future development under the proposed Modified Project would be in similar areas as those of the Approved Project. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 21080.3.1 (AB 52), the City provided notification of determination that a project application was complete and provided an opportunity for comments to two members of the Tamien Nation on March 27, 2023: Quirina Luna Geary, Chairwoman and Johnathan Costillas, Tribal Cultural Resource Officer (See Appendix C, Tribal Consultation Correspondence).

Additionally, Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65352.3-5 (SB 18), the City requested a list of local Native American representatives as potentially having local knowledge from the NAHC in September 2023. The NAHC responded and provided contact information for 15 Native American tribal representatives, which are listed below. The City submitted letters, shown in Appendix C, in December 2023 to provide an opportunity for the listed Native American tribes to participate in local land use decisions at an early planning stage, for the purpose of protecting or mitigating impacts to cultural places.  Ed Ketchum, Vice-Chairperson of the Amah Mutsun Tribal Band  Valentin Lopez, Chairperson of the Amah Mutsun Tribal Band  Irene Zwierlein, Chairperson of the Amah Mutsun Tribal Band of Mission San Juan Bautista  Ann Marie Sayers, Chairperson of the Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of Costanoan  Kanyon Sayers-Roods, Most Likely Descendent (MLD) of the Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of Costanoan 638
CC 05-14-2024
638 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

CULTURAL AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES

4.4-14 APRIL 2024
 Monica Arellano, Vice Chairwoman of the Muwekma Ohlone Indian Tribe of the SF Bay Area  Charlene Nijmeh, Chairperson of the Muwekma Ohlone Indian Tribe of the SF Bay Area  Timothy Perez, North Valley Yokuts Tribe
 Katherine Perez, Chairperson of the North Valley Yokuts Tribe  Lillian Camarena, Secretary of the Tamien Nation
 Johnathan Wasaka Costillas, THPO of the Tamien Nation  Quirina Luna Geary, Chairperson of the Tamien Nation
 Andrew Galvan, Chairperson of the Ohlone Indian Tribe  Vincent Medina, Tribal Consultant for the Ohlone Indian Tribe  Kenneth Woodrow, Chairperson of the Wuksachi Indian Tribe/Eshom Valley Band No responses were received at the time of the publication of this EA. The City remains open to consultation with tribal representatives. In addition, the City requested a Sacred Lands File search, which was completed by NAHC Cultural Resources Analyst, Cody Champagne, on October 23, 2023, with negative results.

Following the certification of the General Plan EIR, the City codified CMC Section 17.04.050(E), Cultural Resources Permit Requirements, that describes the procedures for the protection of cultural and tribal cultural resources. Therefore, mandatory compliance with CMC Section 17.04.050(E), would ensure that impacts would continue to be less than significant without mitigation from the adoption and implementation of the proposed Modified Project.

As with the future potential development assessed in the General Plan EIR, future potential development under the proposed Modified Project would be required to comply with applicable laws, policies, and design standards governing tribal cultural resources, as necessary. Based on these considerations, overall impacts from adoption and implementation of the proposed Modified Project would not result in new or more severe impacts to tribal cultural resources beyond what was evaluated in the General Plan EIR.

Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.

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

The General Plan EIR concluded that potential future development permitted under the Approved Project, in conjunction with buildout of the city and the region, has the potential to cumulatively impact historical resources. Such impacts could result from more intensive land uses, incompatible site designs that impact the historical integrity of nearby historical buildings and districts, and demolition of historical resources.

Further, development in the Approved Project Study Area also has the potential to adversely affect archaeological resources and human remains through their destruction or disturbance. However, the General Plan policies and strategies, and mandatory regulation would minimize impacts to such resources that would occur from development and land use changes under the Approved Project. 639
CC 05-14-2024
639 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

CULTURAL AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
PLACEWORKS 4.4-15
Like the Approved Project, the proposed Modified Project has the same potential to cumulatively impact historical resources since the Study Area and known resources have remained the same. The General Plan policies in place to protect cultural resources described in the previous impact discussions and CMC Section 17.04.050(E) would also help to reduce impacts to cultural and tribal cultural resources.

Further, future potential development under the proposed Modified Project and other projects would be required to comply with applicable laws, policies, and design standards governing cultural and tribal cultural resources, as necessary. Therefore, the proposed Modified Project would not result in new or more severe cumulatively considerable impacts to cultural and tribal cultural resources beyond what was evaluated in the General Plan EIR.

Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant. 640
CC 05-14-2024
640 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

CULTURAL AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES

4.4-16 APRIL 2024
This page has been intentionally left blank.
641
CC 05-14-2024
641 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENERGY
PLACEWORKS 4.5-1

4.5 ENERGY
This chapter describes the potential energy impacts 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 energy impacts, and identifies General Plan 2040 policies that could minimize any potentially significant impacts.

4.5.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
Federal Regulations
Federal Energy Policy and Conservation Act
The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 was established in response to the 1973 oil crisis. The act created the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, established vehicle fuel economy standards, and prohibited the export of United States crude oil (with a few limited exceptions). It also created Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards for passenger cars starting in model year 1978. The CAFE standards are updated periodically to account for changes in vehicle technologies, driver behavior, and/or driving conditions.

The federal government issued new CAFE standards in 2012 for model years 2017 to 2025 that required a fleet average of 54.5 miles per gallon (MPG) for model year 2025. However, on March 30, 2020, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) finalized an updated CAFE and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions standards for passenger cars and light trucks and established new standards, covering model years 2021 through 2026, known as the Safer Affordable Fuel Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Final Rule for Model Years 2021 through 2026. Under SAFE, the fuel economy standards will increase 1.5 percent per year compared to the 5 percent per year under the CAFE standards established in 2012. Overall, SAFE requires a fleet average of 40.4 MPG for model year 2026 vehicles. On March 31, 2022, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration finalized new fuel standards, which will increase fuel efficiency 8 percent annually for model years 2024 to 2025 and 10 percent annually for model year 2026. Overall, the new CAFE standards require a fleet average of 49 MPG for passenger vehicles and light trucks for model year 2026, which will be a 10 MPG increase relative to model year 2021.1 Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007
The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (Public Law 110-140) seeks to provide the nation with greater energy independence and security by increasing the production of clean renewable fuels; improving vehicle fuel economy; and increasing the efficiency of products, buildings, and vehicles. It also 1 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, April 1, 2022, USDOT Announces New Vehicle Fuel Economy Standards for Model Year 2024-2026, https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/usdot-announces-new-vehicle-fuel-economy-standards-modelyear-2024-2026, accessed January 26, 2024. 642
CC 05-14-2024
642 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENERGY

4.5-2 APRIL 2024
seeks to improve the energy performance of the federal government. The act sets increased CAFE Standards; the Renewable Fuel Standard; appliance energy-efficiency standards; building energy-efficiency standards; and accelerated research and development tasks on renewable energy sources (e.g., solar energy, geothermal energy, and marine and hydrokinetic renewable energy technologies), carbon capture, and sequestration.
2 Energy Policy Act of 2005
Passed by Congress in July 2005, the Energy Policy Act includes a comprehensive set of provisions to address energy issues. This Act includes tax incentives for energy conservation improvements in commercial and residential buildings, fossil fuel production and clean coal facilities, and construction and operation of nuclear power plants, among other things. Subsidies are also included for geothermal, wind energy, and other alternative energy producers.

National Energy Policy
Established in 2001 by the National Energy Policy Development Group, the National Energy Policy is designed to help the private sector and state and local governments promote dependable, affordable, and environmentally sound production and distribution of energy for the future. Key issues addressed by the energy policy are energy conservation, repair and expansion of energy infrastructure, and ways of increasing energy supplies while protecting the environment.

Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act of 1968
The Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act of 1968 authorizes the United States Department of Transportation to regulate pipeline transportation of flammable, toxic, or corrosive natural gas and other gases as well as the transportation and storage of liquefied natural gas. The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration within the United States Department of Transportation develops and enforces regulations for the safe, reliable, and environmentally sound operation of the nation's 2.6-million-mile pipeline transportation system.

State Regulations
Warren-Alquist Act
Established in 1974, the Warren-Alquist Act created the California Energy Commission (CEC) in response to the energy crisis of the early 1970s and the state’s unsustainable growing demand for energy resources. The CEC’s core responsibilities include advancing State energy policy, encouraging energy efficiency, certifying thermal power plants, investing in energy innovation, developing renewable energy, transforming transportation, and preparing for energy emergencies. The Warren-Alquist Act is updated annually to address current energy needs and issues, and its latest edition was in November 2023. 2 Authenticated U.S. Government Information, 2007. One Hundred Tenth Congress of the United States of America, H.R. 6, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-110hr6enr/pdf/BILLS-110hr6enr.pdf, accessed January 26, 2024. 643
CC 05-14-2024
643 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENERGY
PLACEWORKS 4.5-3
California Energy Commission
The California Energy Commission (CEC) was created in 1974 under the Warren-Alquist Act as the State’s principal energy planning organization in order to meet the energy challenges facing the state in response to the 1973 oil embargo. The CEC is charged with six basic responsibilities when designing state energy policy:
 Forecast statewide electricity needs.
 License power plants to meet those needs.
 Promote energy conservation and efficiency measures.
 Develop renewable energy resources and alternative energy technologies.  Promote research, development, and demonstration.
 Plan for and direct the state’s response to energy emergencies.

California Public Utilities Commission
In September 2008, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) adopted the Long-Term Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan, which provides a framework for energy efficiency in California through the year 2020 and beyond. It articulates a long-term vision, as well as goals for each economic sector, identifying specific near-term, mid-term, and long-term strategies to assist in achieving these goals. This Plan sets forth the following four goals, known as Big Bold Energy Efficiency Strategies, to achieve significant reductions in energy demand:
 All new residential construction in California will be zero net energy by 2030;  All new commercial construction in California will be zero net energy by 2030;  Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning (HVAC) will be transformed to ensure that its energy performance is optimal for California’s climate; and
 All eligible low-income customers will be given the opportunity to participate in the low-income energy efficiency program by 2020.

The CPUC and CEC have adopted the following goals to achieve zero net energy levels by 2030 in the commercial sector:
 Goal 1: New construction will increasingly embrace zero net energy performance (including clean, distributed generation), reaching 100 percent penetration of new starts in 2030.  Goal 2: 50 percent of existing buildings will be retrofit to zero net energy by 2030 through achievement of deep levels of energy efficiency and with the addition of clean distributed generation.  Goal 3: Transform the commercial lighting market through technological advancement and innovative utility initiatives.

Renewable Portfolio: Carbon Neutrality Regulations
Senate Bills 1078, 107, X1-2, and Executive Order S-14-08 The California Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) was established in 2002 under Senate Bill (SB) 1078 and was amended in 2006, 2011, and 2018. The RPS program requires investor-owned utilities, electric service providers, and community choice aggregators to increase the use of eligible renewable energy resources to 33 percent of total procurement by 2020. Initially under the RPS, certain retail sellers of 644
CC 05-14-2024
644 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENERGY

4.5-4 APRIL 2024
electricity were required to increase the amount of renewable energy each year by at least 1 percent in order to reach at least 20 percent by December 30, 2010. Executive Order S 14 08 was signed in November 2008, which expanded the state’s Renewable Energy Standard to 33 percent renewable power by 2020. This standard was adopted by the California legislature in 2011 (SB X1-2). The California Public Utilities Commission is required to provide quarterly progress reports on progress toward RPS goals. This has accelerated the development of renewable energy projects throughout the state. For year 2022, the three largest retail energy utilities provided an average of 48.4 percent of their supplies from renewable energy sources. Community choice aggregators provided an average of 52 percent of its supplies from renewable sources.3
Senate Bills 350 and 100
SB 350 was signed on October 7, 2015, which expands the RPS by establishing a goal of 50 percent of the total electricity sold to retail customers in California per year by December 31, 2030. In addition, SB 350 includes the goal to double the energy efficiency savings in electricity and natural gas final end uses (such as heating, cooling, lighting, or class of energy uses upon which an energy efficiency program is focused) of retail customers through energy conservation and efficiency. The bill also requires the CPUC, in consultation with the CEC, to establish efficiency targets for electrical and gas corporations consistent with this goal. SB 350 also provides for the transformation of the California Independent System Operator into a regional organization to promote the development of regional electricity transmission markets in the western states and to improve the access of consumers served by the California Independent System Operator to those markets, pursuant to a specified process.

On September 10, 2018, SB 100 was signed to replace the SB 350 requirements. Under SB 100, the RPS for public owned facilities and retail sellers consist of 44 percent renewable energy by 2024, 52 percent by 2027, and 60 percent by 2030. Additionally, SB 100 also established a new RPS requirement of 50 percent by 2026. Furthermore, the bill also establishes an overall State policy that eligible renewable energy resources and zero-carbon resources supply 100 percent of all retail sales of electricity to California enduse customers and 100 percent of electricity procured to serve all State agencies by December 31, 2045.

Under the bill, the State cannot increase carbon emissions elsewhere in the western grid or allow resource shuffling to achieve the 100 percent carbon-free electricity target.

Senate Bill 1020
SB 1020 was signed into law on September 16, 2022. It requires renewable energy and zero-carbon resources to supply 90 percent of all retail electricity sales by 2035 and 95 percent by 2040. Additionally, SB 1020 requires all state agencies to procure 100 percent of electricity from renewable energy and zerocarbon resources by 2035. 3 California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). 2023, May. 2023 Padilla Report: Costs and Savings for the RPS Program (Public Utilities Code Section 913.3), https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/-/media/cpuc-website/industries-andtopics/documents/energy/rps/2023/2023-padilla-report---final.pdf, accessed February 2, 2024. 645
CC 05-14-2024
645 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENERGY
PLACEWORKS 4.5-5
Energy-Efficiency Regulations
Appliance Efficiency Regulations
California’s Appliance Efficiency Regulations contain energy performance, energy design, water performance, and water design standards for appliances (including refrigerators, ice makers, vending machines, freezers, water heaters, fans, boilers, washing machines, dryers, air conditioners, pool equipment, and plumbing fittings) that are sold or offered for sale in California (California Code of Regulations Title 20, Parts 1600–1608). These standards are updated regularly to allow consideration of new energy efficiency technologies and methods.4
California Building Energy Code: Title 24, Part 6, Energy Efficiency Standards Energy conservation standards for new residential and non-residential buildings were adopted by the California Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission (now the CEC) in June 1977 and most recently revised in 2022 (California Code of Regulations Title 24, Part 6). Title 24 requires the design of building shells and building components to conserve energy periodically to allow for consideration and possible incorporation of new energy efficiency technologies and methods. The 2022 standards became effective and replaced the 2019 standards on January 1, 2023.

The Energy Code contains mandatory requirements, which are required for all new development and include standards covering space conditioning, water heating, cooking and furnace equipment, building insulation, lighting controls, electrical distribution, and solar readiness. In addition to the mandatory requirements, for a new development to demonstrate compliance with the Energy Code, it must demonstrate compliance with either the Prescriptive Approach or Performance Approach. The Prescriptive Approach contains various prescribed features, such as solar water heaters, solar panel arrays, and battery storage, depending on the building occupancy types and location. For instance, the singlefamily and low-rise (3 or fewer habitable stories) multi-family residential occupancy types would require a photovoltaic (solar) system but no battery storage under the prescriptive pathway, while high-rise (greater than 3 habitable stories) multi-family residential, grocery, office, financial institution, unleased tenant space, retail, school, warehouse, auditorium, convention center, hotel, motel, library, medical office building/clinic, restaurant, and theater occupancy types would require both solar and battery storage systems under the Prescriptive Approach.

Under the Prescriptive Approach, a new development’s building design is called the “Standard Design Building,” which represents the energy efficiency performance of that project should it include all prescribed features (e.g., solar, battery storage) with no additional energy efficiency features beyond what is required at minimum under the mandatory requirements and prescriptive pathway. A project may instead demonstrate compliance with the Energy Code using the Performance Approach without including prescriptive features like solar or battery storage; however, that building design must match or exceed the energy efficiency performance of the Standard Design Building—that is, what the building’s energy efficiency performance would be if it were to include solar and battery storage. For example, if a 4 California Energy Commission, 2017, 2016 Appliance Efficiency Regulations, https://pdf4pro.com/cdn/2016-applianceefficiency-regulations-5104f7.pdf, accessed January 26, 2024. 646
CC 05-14-2024
646 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENERGY

4.5-6 APRIL 2024
project would be required to include solar and battery storage under the Prescriptive Approach, it can instead choose to comply with the Performance Approach and not include solar and battery storage so long as it can demonstrate that it would achieve the same energy efficiency performance as if solar and battery storage were included, as applicable.

California Building Code: Title 24, Part 11, Green Building Standards On July 17, 2008, the California Building Standards Commission adopted the nation’s first green building standards. The California Green Building Standards Code (24 CCR, Part 11, known as “CALGreen”) was adopted as part of the California Building Standards Code (CBSC). It includes mandatory requirements for new residential and nonresidential buildings throughout California. CALGreen is intended to (1) reduce GHG emissions from buildings; (2) promote environmentally responsible, cost-effective, healthier places to live and work; (3) reduce energy and water consumption; and (4) respond to the directives by the Governor. The mandatory provisions of CALGreen became effective January 1, 2011, and were last updated in 2022. The 2022 CALGreen update, which was approved as part of 2022 Energy Code, became effective on January 1, 2023, and provides updates to the residential and non-residential voluntary measures. The next update to CALGreen—the intervening cycle update—will take effect starting July 1, 2024.

Overall, the code is established to reduce construction waste, make buildings more efficient in the use of materials and energy, and reduce environmental impact during and after construction. CALGreen contains requirements for construction site selection, stormwater control during construction, construction waste reduction, indoor water use reduction, material selection, natural resource conservation, site irrigation conservation, and more. The code provides for design options allowing the designer to determine how best to achieve compliance for a given site or building condition. The code also requires building commissioning, which is a process for verifying that all building systems (e.g., heating and cooling equipment and lighting systems) are functioning at their maximum efficiency. 2006 Appliance Efficiency Regulations
The 2006 Appliance Efficiency Regulations (20 CCR Sections 1601 through 1608) were adopted by the CEC on October 11, 2006, and approved by the California Office of Administrative Law on December 14, 2006.

The regulations include standards for both federally regulated appliances and non–federally regulated appliances. They contain energy performance, energy design, water performance, and water design standards for appliances (including refrigerators, ice makers, vending machines, freezers, water heaters, fans, boilers, washing machines, dryers, air conditioners, pool equipment, and plumbing fittings) that are sold or offered for sale in California (California Code of Regulations Title 20, Parts 1600–1608). These standards are updated regularly to allow consideration of new energy efficiency technologies and methods.
647
CC 05-14-2024
647 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENERGY
PLACEWORKS 4.5-7
Off-road Equipment and Transportation-Related Regulations Assembly Bill 1493
California vehicle GHG emission standards were enacted under AB 1493 (Pavley I). Pavley I is a clean-car standard that reduces GHG emissions from new passenger vehicles (light-duty auto to medium-duty vehicles) from 2009 through 2016 and is anticipated to reduce GHG emissions from new passenger vehicles by 30 percent in 2016. California implements the Pavley I standards through a waiver granted to California by the EPA. In 2012, the EPA issued a Final Rulemaking that sets even more stringent fuel economy and GHG emissions standards for model year 2017 through 2025 light-duty vehicles (see also the discussion on the update to the CAFE standards described previously in the "Federal Regulations” section). In January 2012, the California Air Resources Board approved the Pavley Advanced Clean Cars program (formerly known as Pavley II) for model years 2017 through 2025. The program combines the control of smog, soot, and GHGs and requirements for greater numbers of zero-emission vehicles into a single package of standards. Under California’s Advanced Clean Car program, by 2025, new automobiles will emit 34 percent fewer global warming gases and 75 percent fewer smog-forming emissions.5 Title 13, Chapter 9, Article 4.8, Section 2449
Section 2449 of the California Code of Regulations, Title 13, Chapter 9, Article 4.8 was adopted on May 2, 2008, that limits non-essential idling of fleets to no more than five consecutive minutes at any location.

This idling restriction applies to all vehicles in California with a diesel-fueled or alternative diesel-fueled off-road engine, unless a waiver provides sufficient justification that such idling is necessary.

Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act
In 2008, the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act, commonly known by its legislative bill number (SB 375) was adopted to connect the GHG emissions reductions targets established in the 2008 Scoping Plan for the transportation sector to local land use decisions that affect travel behavior. Its intent is to reduce GHG emissions from light-duty trucks and automobiles (excludes emissions associated with goods movement) by aligning regional long-range transportation plans, investments, and housing allocations to local land use planning to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and vehicle trips. Specifically, SB 375 required CARB to establish GHG emissions reduction targets for each of the 18 metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs). The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) is the metropolitan planning organization (MPO) for the Bay Area region, which includes the city of Cupertino. Pursuant to the recommendations of the Regional Transportation Advisory Committee (RTAC), CARB adopted per capita reduction targets for each of the MPOs rather than a total magnitude reduction target. 5 California Air Resources Board, January 18, 2017, California’s Advanced Clean Cars Midterm Review, https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020-01/ACC%20MTR%20Summary_Ac.pdf, accessed January 26, 2024. 648
CC 05-14-2024
648 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENERGY

4.5-8 APRIL 2024
Executive Order N-79-20
On September 23, 2020, Executive Order N-79-20 was issued, which sets a time frame for the transition to zero-emissions (ZE) passenger vehicles and trucks in addition to off-road equipment. It directs CARB to develop and propose the following:
 Passenger vehicle and truck regulations requiring increasing volumes of new ZEVs (zero-emission vehicles) sold in California toward the target of 100 percent of in-state sales by 2035.  Medium- and heavy-duty vehicle regulations requiring increasing volumes of new ZE trucks and buses sold and operated in California toward the target of 100 percent of the fleet transitioning to ZEVs by 2045 everywhere feasible, and for all drayage trucks to be ZE by 2035.  Strategies to achieve 100 percent zero emissions from all off-road vehicles and equipment operations in California by 2035, in cooperation with other State agencies, the EPA, and local air districts.

On August 25, 2022, CARB adopted the Advanced Clean Cars II (ACC II) regulations that codifies the EO goal of 100 percent of in-state sales of new passenger vehicles and trucks be ZE by 2035. Starting in the year 2026, ACC II requires that 35 percent of new vehicles sold be ZEVs or plug-in hybrids.

Advanced Clean Fleets Regulation
In April 2023, CARB released the Advanced Clean Fleets (ACF) regulation to accelerate the transition to zero-emission medium- and heavy-duty vehicles.6 In conjunction with the Advanced Clean Trucks (ACT) regulation, the ACF regulations helps to ensure that medium- and heavy-duty ZEVs are brought to the market, by requiring certain fleets to purchase ZEVs. The ACF ZEV phase-in approach which provides initial focus where the best fleet electrification opportunities exist, sets clear targets for regulated fleets to make a full conversion to ZEVs, and creates a catalyst to accelerate development of a heavy-duty public infrastructure network.

The ACF regulations covers four main elements:
 Manufacturer sales mandate. Manufacturers may sell only zero-emission medium- and heavy-duty vehicles starting in 2036.
 Drayage fleets. Beginning January 1, 2024, trucks must be registered in the CARB Online System to conduct drayage activities in California. Non-zero-emission “legacy” drayage trucks may register in the CARB Online System through December 31, 2023. Legacy drayage trucks can continue to operate through their minimum useful life. Beginning January 1, 2024, only zero-emission drayage trucks may register in the CARB Online System. All drayage trucks entering seaports and intermodal railyards would be required to be zero-emission by 2035.
 High-priority and federal fleets. High-priority and federal fleets must comply with the Model Year Schedule or may elect to use the optional ZEV Milestones Option to phase-in ZEVs into their fleets:
6 California Air Resources Board. 2024. Advanced Clean Fleets Regulation. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/ourwork/programs/advanced-clean-fleets/about, accessed January 26, 2024. 649
CC 05-14-2024
649 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENERGY
PLACEWORKS 4.5-9
 Model Year Schedule: Fleets must purchase only ZEVs beginning 2024 and, starting January 1, 2025, must remove internal combustion engine vehicles at the end of their useful life as specified in the regulation.
 ZEV Milestones Option (Optional): Instead of the Model Year Schedule, fleets may elect to meet ZEV targets as a percentage of the total fleet starting with vehicle types that are most suitable for electrification.
 State and local agencies. State and local government fleets, including city, county, special district, and State agency fleets, would be required to ensure 50 percent of vehicle purchases are zero-emission beginning in 2024 and 100 percent of vehicle purchases are zero-emission by 2027. Small government fleets (those with 10 or fewer vehicles) and those in designated counties would start their ZEV purchases beginning in 2027. Alternately, State and local government fleet owners may elect to meet ZEV targets using the ZEV Milestones Option. State and local government fleets may purchase either ZEVs or near-ZEVs, or a combination of ZEVs and near-ZEVs, until 2035. Starting in 2035, only ZEVs will meet the requirements.

The ACF regulations would also establish requirements that transform the medium- and heavy-duty vehicle sector and demonstrate independent utility through achievement of the following objectives:
 Achieve criteria and GHG emissions reductions consistent with the goals identified in the State Implementation Plan (SIP) Strategy and Scoping Plan.
 Provide emissions reductions in disadvantaged communities (DAC), thereby supporting the implementation of Assembly Bill (AB) 617 (Garcia, C., Chapter 136, Statutes of 2017).  Support the goals of Executive Order N-79-20 which calls for accelerated ZEV deployment with these targets:
 100 percent ZE drayage by 2035
 100 percent ZE trucks and buses where feasible by 2045  Ensure requirements, such as ZEV deployment schedules and related infrastructure build-out, are technologically feasible, cost-effective, and support market conditions.  Lead the transition away from petroleum fuels and towards electric drivetrains.  Contribute towards achieving carbon neutrality in California pursuant to Senate Bill (SB) 100, and in accordance with Executive Order B-55-18.
 Mindfully set requirements to allow time for public ZE infrastructure buildout for smaller fleets or for regional haul applications who would be reliant on a regional network of public chargers.  Ensure manufacturers and fleets work together to place ZEVs in service suitably and successfully as market expands.
 Establish a fair and level playing field among fleet owners.  Craft the Proposed Modified Project in a way that ensures institutional capacity for CARB to manage, implement, and enforce requirements.

Energy Storage
California has set ambitious long-term goals for energy storage beyond 2026 to support its clean energy and climate goals. The state aims to reach 100 percent carbon-free electricity by 2045, which will require significant investment in renewable energy sources like wind and solar, as well as energy storage technologies to balance the variability of these sources. 650
CC 05-14-2024
650 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENERGY

4.5-10 APRIL 2024
The California Independent System Operator (CAISO) has a total energy storage capacity of more than 3,160 megawatts (MW) as of June 2022.7 This includes both large-scale and distributed energy storage systems, such as batteries, pumped hydroelectric storage, and thermal storage. CAISO is responsible for managing the electricity grid for much of California, and it has set a target of adding 3,300 MW of additional energy storage capacity by 2024 to support the integration of more renewable energy sources like wind and solar. As part of SB 100, load serving entities (LSEs) were required to procure no less than

1.3 gigawatts (GW) of energy storage capacity by 2020, and 3 GW by 2030. Additionally, the CPUC has established a target of 15 GW of energy storage capacity by 2030.8 The Integrated Resource Plan (IRP)
CAISO develops a coordinated grid management plan to integrate the generation and storage capacities of LSEs, called the Integrated Resource Plan (IRP). The IRP is a comprehensive planning document that outlines CAISO’s forecasts for electricity demand, supply, and transmission needs over a 20-year planning horizon, as well as its strategies for integrating renewable energy resources and other grid services to meet those needs. The plan is developed in collaboration with LSEs, regulators, and other stakeholders, and is updated periodically to reflect changes in the energy landscape and evolving policy goals. Overall, the IRP plays a critical role in ensuring the reliability and resilience of California’s electricity grid as the state continues to transition to a cleaner and more sustainable energy system.

When an individual Battery Energy Storage (BES) facility or generation infrastructure (i.e., solar panels) comes online in California, it is typically included in the IRP through a process known as the Interconnection Queue. The Interconnection Queue is managed by the CAISO, which oversees the operation of the State’s electricity grid.

The Interconnection Queue
The Interconnection Queue is an application process that functions as a waiting list of proposed electricity generation and storage projects that are seeking to connect to the grid. When a new BES facility or generation infrastructure is proposed, the developer applies to CAISO to request an interconnection to the grid. CAISO evaluates the application to ensure that the facility meets technical and operational requirements, such as voltage regulation and frequency response, and that it can be integrated effectively into the grid.

Once the BES facility or generation infrastructure is approved by CAISO, it is assigned a point of interconnection on the grid, and its output is added to the IRP as a resource that can provide electricity and other grid services, such as frequency regulation or ramping support. The facility is then dispatched 7 California Independent System Operator, June 14, 2022, “A golden age of energy storage,” http://www.caiso.com/about/Pages/Blog/Posts/A-golden-age-of-energy-storage.aspx, accessed January 26, 2024. 8 California Public Utilities Commission, November 13, 2023, Draft 2023 Integrated Energy Policy Report, https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/reports/integrated-energy-policy-report/2023-integrated-energy-policy-report, accessed January 26, 2024.
651
CC 05-14-2024
651 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENERGY
PLACEWORKS 4.5-11
by CAISO based on its bids into the day-ahead and real-time electricity markets, and its output is used to help balance supply and demand on the grid in real-time.

Overall, the Interconnection Queue is an important mechanism for integrating new BES facilities and other electricity resources into the California grid, and for ensuring that the grid remains reliable and resilient as the state continues to transition to a cleaner and more sustainable energy system.

Regional Regulations
Plan Bay Area 2050
The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) adopted Plan Bay Area 2050 on October 21, 2021.9 Plan Bay Area 2050 provides transportation and environmental strategies to continue to meet the regional transportation-related GHG reduction goals of SB 375. Under the Plan Bay Area 2050 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.10 To achieve MTC’s/ABAG’s sustainable vision for the Bay Area, the Plan Bay Area land use concept plan for the region concentrates most new population and employment growth in the region in Priority Development Areas (PDAs). PDAs are transit-oriented, infill development opportunity areas within existing communities. An overarching goal of the regional plan is to concentrate development in areas where there are existing services and infrastructure rather than allocate new growth to outlying areas where substantial transportation investments would be necessary to achieve the per capita passenger vehicle, VMT, and associated GHG emissions reductions. In Cupertino, there are four TPAs and two PDAs, the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority City Cores, Corridors & Station Areas, and South DeAnza.11,12 9 Association of Bay Area Governments/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 January 26, 2024.
10 Association of Bay Area Governments/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 January 26, 2024.
11 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 26, 2024. 12 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 26, 2024. 652
CC 05-14-2024
652 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENERGY

4.5-12 APRIL 2024
Bay Area Air Quality Management District Clean Air Plan BAAQMD adopted the 2017 Clean Air Plan, Spare the Air, Cool the Climate (Clean Air Plan) on April 19, 2017. 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 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:
 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.13
A comprehensive multipollutant control strategy has been developed to be implemented in the next 3 to 5 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, toxic air contaminants, 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. Overall, the proposed control strategy is based on the following 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.

Local Regulations
General Plan 2040
The Housing (HE), Environmental Resources and Sustainability (ES), and Infrastructure (INF) Elements of the General Plan 2040 contain goals, policies, and strategies that require local planning and development decisions to consider impacts to energy. Applicable policies and strategies that would minimize potential adverse energy impacts are identified in Section 4.5.3, Impact Discussion. 13 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), 2017, Spare the Air: Cool the Climate, Final 2017 Clean Air Plan, https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/plans/2017-clean-air-plan/attachment-a_-proposed-final-capvol-1-pdf.pdf?la=en, accessed January 26, 2024. 653
CC 05-14-2024
653 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENERGY
PLACEWORKS 4.5-13
Municipal Code
The Cupertino Municipal Code (CMC) includes various directives to minimize adverse energy impacts from development in Cupertino. The CMC is organized by title, chapter, and section. Most provisions related to energy use and conservation are included in Title 16, Buildings and Construction, as follows:
 Chapter 16.16, Electrical Code. Adopts the 2022 California Electrical Code as the rules, regulations, and standards within the City as to all matters except as modified or amended in the CMC.  Chapter 16.32, Energy Code. Adopts the 2022 edition of the California Energy Code and all of 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 16.58, Green Building Code. Adopts the 2022 edition of the California Green Building Standards Code and includes local amendments regarding the local water and efficient landscape ordinance, electric vehicle charging, and space design for different types of new construction.  Section 16.58.400, Electrical Vehicle (EV) Charging - Residential. Outlines the requirements and installation process of EV chargers in residential areas.

Cupertino Climate Action Plan
Adopted in August 2022, the City of Cupertino 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. 14 The CAP 2.0 allows City decision-makers and the community to understand the sources and magnitude of local GHG emissions and identifies a strategy, reduction measures, and implementation actions the City will use to achieve targets consistent with State recommendations of 15 percent below 2005 emissions levels by 2020, 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, it also details strategies for Cupertino to prepare for and mitigate approaching risks from climate change.

EXISTING CONDITIONS
The General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) did not specifically analyze energy because it was approved prior to the 2019 amendments to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, which incorporated subdivision (b) to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162.2. While certain energy impacts standards, such as the current 2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards and Senate Bill 100, were adopted after the certification of the General Plan EIR, Chapter 4.14, Utilities and Services Systems, of the General Plan EIR addressed energy impacts associated with buildout of the General Plan 2040 at a program level. The setting for energy is described in detail in General Plan EIR Section 4.14.4.1, Environmental Setting.
14 City of Cupertino, 2022, August, Climate Action 2.0, https://www.cupertino.org/home/showpublisheddocument/31683/637964240923930000, accessed on January 26, 2024. 654
CC 05-14-2024
654 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENERGY

4.5-14 APRIL 2024
Silicon Valley Clean Energy
Since the certification of the General Plan EIR a new energy service provider has formed, Silicon Valley Clean Energy (SVCE), which provides electricity through geothermal, solar power and storage, wind generation, and long duration storage to its service area. The service area includes Cupertino as well as 10 other jurisdictions, including Campbell, Gilroy, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Milpitas, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill, Mountain View, Saratoga, Sunnyvale, and unincorporated Santa Clara County.

Customers are automatically enrolled in SVCE but have the option to opt out of SVCE renewable energy sources and receive their energy service from the Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E). PG&E is responsible for maintaining transmission lines, handling customer billing, and responding to new service requests and emergencies within the SVCE service area.

Pacific Gas and Electric Company
Electricity
PG&E is a publicly traded utility company which generates, purchases, and transmits energy and natural gas under contract with the CPUC. PG&E’s service territory is 70,000 square miles, roughly extending north to Eureka, south to Bakersfield, west to the Pacific Ocean, and east to the Sierra Nevada mountain range. PG&E’s electricity distribution system consists of 106,681 circuit-miles of electric distribution lines and 18,466 circuit-miles of interconnected transmission lines.15 PG&E owns and maintains above-ground networks of electric transmission and distribution facilities throughout the EIR Study Area. In 2022, approximately 39 percent of PG&E’s energy generated came from renewable resources including biopower, geothermal, small hydroelectric, solar, and wind power.16 PG&E electricity is generated by a combination of sources such as coal-fired power plants, nuclear power plants, and hydro-electric dams, as well as newer sources of energy, such as wind turbines and photovoltaic plants, also known as solar farms. The bulk electric grid (collectively referred to as “The Grid”) is a network of high-voltage transmission lines, linked to power plants within the PG&E system. The distribution system, comprised of lower voltage secondary lines, is at the street and neighborhood level, and consists of overhead or underground distribution lines, transformers, and individual service “drops” that connect to the individual customer.

Natural Gas
PG&E gas transmission pipeline systems serve approximately 4.5 million gas customers in northern and central California.
17 The system is operated under an inspection and monitoring program. The system 15 Pacific Gas and Electric Company, 2024, Company profile. https://www.pge.com/en_US/about-pge/companyinformation/profile/profile.page, accessed January 26, 2024. 16 Pacific Gas & Electric Company, 2023, Key Sustainability Indicators, https://www.pgecorp.com/assets/pgecorp/localized/en/sustainability/corporate-responsibilitysustainability/reports/2023/sustainability/key-sustainability-indicators/#fnm1c, accessed January 26, 2024. 17 Pacific Gas and Electric Company, 2024. Company profile. https://www.pge.com/en_US/about-pge/companyinformation/profile/profile.page, accessed January 26, 2024. 655
CC 05-14-2024
655 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENERGY
PLACEWORKS 4.5-15
operates in real time on a 24-hour basis, and includes leak inspections, surveys, and patrols of the pipelines. PG&E also adopted Pipeline 2020 program, which aims to modernize critical pipeline infrastructure, expand the use of automatic or remotely operated shut-off valves, catalyze development of next-generation inspection technologies, develop industry-leading best practices, and enhance public safety partnerships with local communities, public officials, and first responders. Total natural gas consumption in PG&E’s service area was 449,302,071,200 kilo-BTU (KBTU) for 2021.18 PG&E is the sole provider for natural gas services to the City.

Fuel Consumption
California is among the top producers of petroleum in the country, with crude oil pipelines throughout the state connecting to oil refineries in the Los Angeles, the San Francisco Bay, and the Central Valley regions.

In addition to producing petroleum, California is also one of the top consumers of fuel for transportation.

With this sector accounting for approximately 35 percent of California’s total energy demand in 2020, amounting to approximately 2,355.5 trillion BTUs.19 In addition, in 2020, California’s transportation sector consumed approximately 433 million barrels of petroleum fuels.20 According to the California Energy Commission, California’s 2019 fuel sales were approximately 15,365 million gallons of gasoline and 1,756 million gallons of diesel.21 In Santa Clara County, approximately 713 million gallons of gasoline and 66 million gallons of diesel fuel were sold in 2019.22

4.5.2 STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Implementation of the proposed Modified Project would result in significant energy impact if it would:

Impact of the
Approved
Project (General
Plan 2040 EIR)
Impact of the
Proposed
Modified
Project
ENE-1. Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?

N/A LTS
ENE-2. Conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? N/A LTS
ENE-3. 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?

LTS LTS
ENE-4. Result in a cumulatively considerable impact with respect to energy resources? N/A LTS 18 California Energy Commission, 2024, Gas Consumption by Planning Area. http://www.ecdms.energy.ca.gov/gasbyplan.aspx, accessed January 26, 2024. 19 United States Energy Information Administration, 2021, Table F35: Total Energy Consumption, Price, and Expenditure Estimates, 2021, https://www.eia.gov/state/seds/sep_fuel/html/pdf/fuel_te.pdf, accessed January 26, 2024. 20 United States Energy Information Administration, 2021, Table F16: Total Petroleum Consumption Estimates, 2021, https://www.eia.gov/state/seds/sep_fuel/html/fuel_use_pa.html, accessed January 26, 2024. 21 California Energy Commission, 2023, California Retail Fuel Outlet Annual Reporting (CEC-A15) Results, h https://www.energy.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2023-08/2010-2022%20CEC-A15%20Results%20and%20Analysis%20ADA.xlsx, accessed January 26, 2024.
22 California Energy Commission, 2023, California Retail Fuel Outlet Annual Reporting (CEC-A15) Results, h https://www.energy.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2023-08/2010-2022%20CEC-A15%20Results%20and%20Analysis%20ADA.xlsx, accessed January 26, 2024.
656
CC 05-14-2024
656 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENERGY

4.5-16 APRIL 2024
Implementation of the proposed Modified Project would result in significant energy impact if it would:

Impact of the
Approved
Project (General
Plan 2040 EIR)
Impact of the
Proposed
Modified
Project
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. Energy has been added as a separate impact category to Appendix G, thus this EA analyzes the current energy questions in addition to ENE-3, which was included in the General Plan EIR as UTIL-11. In the General Plan EIR, energy impacts were evaluated in Chapter 4.15, Utilities and Service Systems.

Key: NI = no impact; LTS = less than significant; LTS/M = less than significant with mitigation; SU = significant and unavoidable; N/A = not a standard of significance in the General Plan EIR.

4.5.3 IMPACT DISCUSSION

METHODOLOGY
To determine whether the proposed Modified Project would result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, this analysis uses the guidance provided in Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines and the analytical precedent set by League to Save Lake Tahoe Mountain etc. v. County of Placer (2022) (75 Cal.App.5th 63, 164-168).

According to Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines, the goal of conserving energy is translated to include decreasing overall per-capita energy consumption; decreasing reliance on fossil fuels, such as coal, natural gas, and oil; and increasing reliance on renewable energy sources. In League to Save Lake Tahoe Mountain etc. v. County of Placer (2022) (75 Cal.App.5th 63, 164-168), the Appellate Court concluded that the analysis of wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary energy consumption was not adequate because it did not consider whether additional renewable energy features could be added to the project.

The proposed Modified Project would be considered to result in a potentially significant impact if it would result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources. Considering the guidance provided by Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines and the Appellate Court decision in League to Save Lake Tahoe Mountain etc. v. County of Placer (2022) (75 Cal.App.5th 63, 164-168), the proposed Modified Project would be considered to result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources if it would conflict with the following energy conservation goals:
 Decreasing overall per-capita energy consumption;
 Decreasing reliance on fossil fuels such as coal, natural gas, or oil; and  Increasing reliance on renewable energy sources.

The following is a summary of the assumptions used for this energy analysis:
 On-Road Transportation. Fuel use was based on the daily vehicle trips and VMT provided for cumulative conditions and cumulative conditions with project implementation provided by Fehr and Peers in the City (see Chapter 4.14, Transportation, of this EA). Saturday and Sunday trip generation and VMT were calculated from the ratio CalEEMod default Saturday and Sunday trip rates to the weekday rate. All vehicle trips represented in the emissions modeling were assigned to be 100- percent primary, meaning no trip distance or generation discounts were applied for pass-by or diverted trips to provide a conservative emissions estimate. 657
CC 05-14-2024
657 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENERGY
PLACEWORKS 4.5-17
Energy (Natural Gas and Electricity). Based on the housing density data from Table 3-4, Housing Element (2023-2031) Opportunity Sites: Residential, and Table 3-5, Housing Element (2023-2031) Opportunity Sites: Commercial/Residential (Mixed Use), in Chapter 3, Project Description, of this EA, the proposed Modified Project would result in 3,312 net new residential units. 23 All new housing units have been assigned to “Apartments Low-Rise”, “Apartments Mid-Rise”, Condos/Townhouse”, and “Single-Family Housing” categories. Emissions associated with natural gas and electricity use for residential land uses in the City were modeled based on CalEEMod default data for year 2031. 24 While the proposed Modified Project would have a buildout horizon year of 2040, the updates to the General Plan included in the proposed Modified Project in part is in response to the current Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) cycle, which has a horizon of 2031. Therefore, a buildout year of 2031 was used in emissions and energy consumption estimates for a conservative assessment and efficiencies are expected to improve through 2040 and the 3,312 net new residential units are identified for the RHNA cycle through 2031.

ENE-1 Implementation of the proposed Modified Project would not result in a potentially significant environmental impact from wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during project construction or operation.

The General Plan EIR did not specifically analyze energy because it was approved prior to the 2019 amendments to the CEQA Guidelines to incorporate CEQA Guidelines Section 15162.2(b). However, as described previously, energy impacts associated with buildout of the General Plan 2040 at a program level were analyzed in Chapter 4.14, Utilities and Services Systems, of the General Plan EIR, and were found to be less than significant.

Short-Term Construction Impacts
Potential future development projects facilitated by the proposed Modified Project would create temporary demands for electricity during construction. Natural gas is not generally required to power construction equipment, and therefore is not anticipated during construction activity. It is anticipated that most electric-powered construction equipment would be hand tools (e.g., power drills, table saws, compressors) and lighting, which would result in minimal electricity usage during construction activities.

Future potential development projects under both the Approved Project and proposed Modified Project would also temporarily increase demands for energy associated with transportation and off-road equipment operation. Transportation energy use depends on the type and number of vehicle trips, VMT, fuel efficiency of vehicles, and travel mode. Energy use during construction would come from the transport and use of construction equipment, delivery vehicles and haul trucks, and construction 23 Modeling assumed 3,317 new residential units within the City for consistency with the transportation analysis. 24 While energy use is based off of year 2031 for consistency with the Housing Element planning period, the proposed Modified project would have an implementation year of 2040. 658
CC 05-14-2024
658 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENERGY

4.5-18 APRIL 2024
employee vehicles that would use diesel fuel or gasoline. The use of energy resources by these vehicles would fluctuate according to the construction activity and would be temporary. It is anticipated that most off-road construction equipment, such as those used during demolition and grading, would be gas or diesel powered. In addition, all operation of construction equipment would cease after completion of project construction. Furthermore, the construction contractors would be required to minimize nonessential idling of construction equipment during construction, in accordance with the California Code of Regulations Title 13, Chapter 9, Article 4.8, Section 2449. Such required practices would limit wasteful and unnecessary energy consumption. Future potential development in the Study Area under the Approved Project would be similar to potential future development under the proposed Modified Project. Overall, there would be no unusual project characteristics anticipated under the proposed Modified Project that would necessitate the use of construction equipment that would be less energy efficient than at comparable construction sites in other parts of California. Therefore, short-term construction activities that occur as a result of implementation of the proposed Modified Project would not result in inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary fuel consumption during construction activities compared to the Approved Project. The proposed Modified Project would not result in new impacts or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to the General Plan EIR.

Long-Term Impacts During Operation
Operation of potential future development accommodated under the proposed Modified Project would create additional demands for electricity and natural gas compared to the Approved Project. Operational use of electricity and natural gas would include heating, cooling, and ventilation of buildings; water heating; operation of electrical systems; use of on-site equipment and appliances; lighting; and charging electric vehicles. Land uses accommodated under the proposed Modified Project would also result in additional demands for transportation fuels (e.g., gasoline, diesel, compressed natural gas, and electricity) associated with on-road vehicles. Electricity, natural gas, and transportation fuel consumption estimates during operation of the proposed Modified Project are presented in Table 4.5-1, Proposed Modified Project Energy Consumption.

TABLE 4.5-1 PROPOSED MODIFIED PROJECT ENERGY CONSUMPTION Energy Resource Annual Energy Consumption
a
Building – Electricity b 11,636,361
Building – Natural Gas c 37,527,747
Transportation – Electricity b 2,110,930
Transportation – Natural Gas d 981
Transportation – Diesel d 35,719
Transportation – Gasoline d 1,723,451
Notes:
a. While energy use is based off of year 2031 for consistency with the Housing Element planning period, the proposed Modified Project would have an implementation year of 2040.
b. Energy resource is expressed in kilowatt-hours (kWh). c. Energy resource is expressed in kilo-British thermal units (kBTU). d. Diesel, compressed natural gas (CNG), and gasoline fuels are expressed in gallons. Electric vehicles are expressed in kilowatt-hours (kWh).

Source: CalEEMod Output; EMFAC 2021 Version 1.0.2; Appendix B to this EA. 659
CC 05-14-2024
659 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENERGY
PLACEWORKS 4.5-19
As shown in Table 4.5-1, Proposed Modified Project Energy Consumption, the maximum 2040 buildout of up to 3,31225 new units under the proposed Modified Project would result in the annual consumption of an estimated 11,636,361 kWh of electricity, 37,527,747 BTUs of natural gas, 35,719 gallons of diesel transportation fuel, 981 gallons of CNG transportation fuel, and 1,723,451 gallons of gasoline transportation fuel. Considering that the introduction of up to 3,312 new units could accommodate up to 9,737 new residents, the proposed Modified Project is anticipated to result in 1,412 kWh of electricity, 3,854 BTUs of natural gas, 3.7 gallons of diesel fuel, 0.1 gallons of CNG fuel, and 117 gallons of gasoline fuel per capita.

Decreasing Overall Per-Capita Energy Consumption
While the electricity and natural gas demand for the Study Area is expected to increase compared to the Approved Project because the new energy consumption estimates shown in Table 4.5-1, Proposed Modified Project Energy Consumption, account for new units beyond the City’s current housing supply, developments accommodated under the proposed Modified Project would be required to comply with the most current versions of the Building Energy Efficiency Standards and CALGreen. Compliance with these regulations would contribute to reducing the building-related energy demands shown in Table 4.5- 1, Proposed Modified Project Energy Consumption. Newly constructed and redeveloped buildings that comply with these standards would generally have greater energy efficiency than existing buildings. In addition, not all units envisioned by the proposed Modified Project would be constructed under the current California Building Code cycle and would be subject to future iterations of CALGreen and other related building codes. It is anticipated that each update to the Building Energy Efficiency Standards and CALGreen would result in greater building-related per-capita energy efficiency and move closer toward buildings achieving zero net energy.

In addition to the Building Energy Efficiency Standards and CALGreen, the proposed Modified Project Housing (HE), Environmental Resources and Sustainability (ES), and Infrastructure (INF) Elements contain policies and strategies that require local planning and development decisions to consider impacts that potential future development could have energy. 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 increase energy efficiency and reduce wasteful, inefficient use of energy resources.  Strategy HE-1.3.5. Encourage Mixed-Use Projects and Residential in Commercial Zones. The City will incentivize development of residential units in mixed-use projects that include affordable units (at least 20 percent), by providing incentives, which will include, but are not limited to:
 Priority project processing
 Delay payment of development impact or permit fees for affordable units  Flexibility in development standards, such as parking, setbacks, and landscaping requirements  Support grant application requests for funding made by developers for infrastructure upgrades.
25 Modeling assumed 3,317 new residential units in the City for consistency with the transportation analysis. 660
CC 05-14-2024
660 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENERGY

4.5-20 APRIL 2024
 Assist developers of 100 percent affordable housing developments with securing additional financing.
 Strategy HE-2.3.12. Live/Work Units. Encourage the development or conversion of affordable live/workspace units to reduce displacement of residents and employees, specifically when replacing older strip mall type developments along busier streets (e.g., S. De Anza Boulevard and Stevens Creek Boulevard) to preserve the more urban and mixed-use character of the street. This would allow the street frontage to remain commercial use while the residential portion of the units would be located towards the rear of the site or in upper floors.

The City will also help to market the Homeownership Assistance Programs offered by Housing Trust Silicon Valley (HTSV) in an effort to expand affordable homeownership options.  Policy HE-4.1. Energy and Water Conservation. Encourage energy and water conservation in all existing and new residential development.
 Strategy HE-4.1.1. Enforcement of Title 24. The City will continue to enforce Title 24 requirements for energy conservation and will evaluate using some of the other suggestions as identified in the Environmental Resources/Sustainability Element.
 Strategy HE-4.1.2. Sustainable Practices. The City will continue to implement the Landscape Ordinance for water conservation and the Green Building Ordinance (adopted in 2013) that applies primarily to new residential and nonresidential development, additions, renovations, and tenant improvements of 10 or more units. 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 10 units to exceed the minimum requirements of the California Green Building Code. The 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.  Strategy HE-4.1.3. Sustainable, Energy-Efficient Housing. The City will work with and support housing developers to develop sustainable, energy-efficient housing. Such development should include solar panels, green roofs, energy-efficient lighting, and other features that aim toward carbon-neutral impacts while lowering energy costs.
 Policy ES-1.1. Principles of Sustainability. Incorporate principles of sustainability into Cupertino’s planning, infrastructure, and development process in order to improve the environment, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and meet the needs of the community without compromising the needs of future generations.
 Strategy ES-1.1.1. Climate Action Plan (CAP). Adopt, implement, and maintain a Climate Action Plan to attain greenhouse gas emission targets consistent with state law and regional requirements. This qualified greenhouse gas emissions reduction plan, by BAAQMD’s definition, will allow for future project CEQA streamlining and will identify measures to:
 Reduce energy use through conservation and efficiency.  Reduce fossil fuel use through multi-modal and alternative transportation.  Maximize use of and, where feasible, install renewable energy resources. 661
CC 05-14-2024
661 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENERGY
PLACEWORKS 4.5-21
 Policy ES-2.1. Conservation and Efficient Use of Energy Resources. Encourage the maximum feasible conservation and efficient use of electrical power and natural gas resources for new and existing residences, businesses, industrial and public uses.
 Strategy ES-2.1.1. Coordination. Continue to evaluate and revise, as necessary, applicable City plans, codes, and procedures for inclusion of Federal, State, and regional requirements and conservation targets.
 Strategy ES-2.1.2. Comprehensive Energy Management. Prepare and implement a comprehensive energy management plan for all applicable municipal facilities and equipment to achieve the energy goals established in the City’s Climate Action Plan. Track the City’s energy use and report findings as part of the Climate Action Plan reporting schedule. Embed this plan into the City’s Environmentally Preferable Procurement Policy to ensure measures are achieved through all future procurement and construction practices.
 Strategy ES-2.1.3. Energy Efficient Replacements. Continue to use life cycle cost analysis to identify City assets for replacement with more energy efficient technology. Utilize available tools to benchmark and showcase City energy efficiency achievements (i.e., EPA Portfolio Manager, statewide Green Business Program).
 Strategy ES-2.1.4. Incentive Program. Consider incentive programs for projects that exceed mandatory requirements and promote incentives from state, county, and federal governments for improving energy efficiency and expanding renewable energy installations.  Strategy ES-2.1.6. Alternate Energy Sources. Promote and increase the use of alternate and renewable energy resources for the entire community through effective policies, programs, and incentives.  Strategy ES-2.1.7. Energy Co-Generation Systems. Encourage the use of energy co-generation systems through the provision of an awareness program targeting the larger commercial and industrial users and public facilities.
 Strategy ES-2.1.8. Energy Audits and Financing. Continue to offer and leverage regional partners’ programs to conduct energy audits and/or subvention programs for homes, commercial, industrial and City facilities, and recommend improvements that lead to energy and cost savings opportunities for participants and encourage adoption of alternative energy technologies. Encourage energy audits to include emerging online and applications-based energy analytics and diagnostic tools. Share residential and commercial energy efficiency and renewable energy financing tools through outreach events and civic media assets.
 Strategy ES-2.1.10. Community Choice Energy. Collaborate with regional partners to evaluate feasibility for development of a Community Choice Energy Program.  Policy ES-3.1. Green Building Design. Set standards for the design and construction of energy and resource conserving/efficient building.
 Strategy ES-3.1.1. Green Building Program. Periodically review and revise the City’s Green Building ordinance to ensure alignment with CALGreen requirements for all major private and public buildings projects that ensure reduction in energy and water use for new development through site selection and building design.
662
CC 05-14-2024
662 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENERGY

4.5-22 APRIL 2024
 Strategy ES-3.1.2. Staff Training. Continue to train appropriate City staff in the design principles, costs, and benefits of sustainable building and landscape design. Encourage City staff to attend external trainings on these topics and attain relevant program certifications (e.g., Green Point Rater, Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design (LEED) Accredited Professional).  Strategy ES-3.1.3. Green Buildings Informational Seminars. Conduct and/or participate in Green Building informational seminars and workshops for members of the design and construction industry, land development, real estate sales, lending institutions, landscaping and design, the building maintenance industry and prospective project applicants.  Strategy ES-3.1.4. Green Building Demonstration. Pursue municipal facility retrofits, through a Green Capital Improvement Program (CIP), and new construction projects that exceed CALGreen and achieve third-party certification criteria (e.g., LEED, Living Building Challenge, Zero Net Energy) as a means of creating demonstration spaces for developer and community enrichment.  Strategy ES- 4.2.2. Home Occupations. Review and consider expanding the allowable home-based businesses in residentially zoned properties to reduce the need to commute to work.  Policy INF-6.1. Telecommunications Master Plan. Maintain and update a Telecommunications Master Plan with regulations and guidelines for wireless and emerging technologies.  Policy INF-6.2. Coordination. Coordinate with providers to improve access and delivery of services to businesses and homes.
 Strategy INF-6.2.1. Facility Upgrades. When possible, require service providers to upgrade existing facilities as part of permit or lease renewals. Encourage use of newer technologies that allow the facility components to be reduced in size or improve screening or camouflaging.  Strategy INF-6.2.2. Improved Access. Work with providers to expand service to areas that are not served by telecommunications technologies.
 Strategy INF-6.2.4. Agency and Private Facilities. Encourage the installation of communications infrastructure in facilities owned by other public agencies and private development.  Strategy INF-6.2.5. Communications Infrastructure. Support the extension and access to telecommunications infrastructure such as fiber optic cables.  Policy INF-6.3. Emerging Technologies. Encourage new and innovative technologies and partner with providers to provide the community with access to these services.  Strategy INF-6.3.1. Strategic Technology Plan. Create and update a Strategic Technology Plan for the City to improve service efficiency.

Additionally, fuel efficiency of vehicles during the buildout year of 2040 would, on average, improve compared to vehicle fuel efficiencies experienced under the Approved Project, thereby resulting in a lower per-capita fuel consumption in 2040 assuming travel distances, travel modes, and trip rates remain the same. The improvement in fuel efficiency would be attributable to regulatory compliance (e.g., CAFE standards), resulting in new cars that are more fuel efficient and the attrition of older, less fuel-efficient vehicles. The CAFE standards are not directly applicable to residents or land use development projects, but to car manufacturers. Thus, City residents do not have direct control in determining the fuel efficiency of vehicles manufactured and that are made available. However, compliance with the CAFE standards by car manufacturers would ensure that vehicles produced in future years have greater fuel efficiency and 663
CC 05-14-2024
663 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENERGY
PLACEWORKS 4.5-23
would generally result in an overall benefit of reducing fuel usage by providing the population of the city with more fuel-efficient vehicle options. Considering the proposed Modified Project would result in future potential development, which on average would have the same or greater energy-efficient designs than current structures and those under the Approved Project, and vehicle fuel efficiencies would improve year over year through the buildout year of 2040, the proposed Modified Project is anticipated to result in a decrease in overall per-capita energy consumption in 2040. As such, the proposed Modified Project would be consistent with this energy conservation criterion. The proposed Modified Project would not result in new impacts or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to the General Plan EIR.

Decreasing Reliance on Fossil Fuels
The proposed Modified Project would conflict with this criterion if it did not take steps to decrease the reliance on fossil fuels. New and replacement buildings in compliance with CALGreen standards would generally have greater energy efficiency than existing buildings. In addition, not all future potential development under the proposed Modified Project would be constructed under the current California Building Code cycle and would be subject to future iterations of CALGreen and other related building codes. It is anticipated that each update to the Building Energy Efficiency Standards and CALGreen would result in greater building-related per-capita energy efficiency and move closer toward buildings achieving zero net energy. The new energy-efficiency building standards would result in a decrease in per unit or per-capita natural gas consumption for space and water heating.

In addition to the Building Energy Efficiency Standards and CALGreen, the proposed Modified Project Housing (HE), and Land Use and Community Design (LU) Elements contain policies and strategies that require local planning and development decisions to consider impacts that potential future development could have energy. 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 increase energy efficiency and reduce wasteful, inefficient use of energy resources.  Strategy HE-1.3.5. Encourage Mixed-Use Projects and Residential in Commercial Zones. The City will incentivize development of residential units in mixed-use projects that include affordable units (more than 20 percent), by providing incentives, which will include, but are not limited to:
 Priority project processing
 Delay payment of development impact or permit fees for affordable units  Flexibility in development standards, such as parking, setbacks, and landscaping requirements  Support developers with infrastructure upgrades in the way of grant applications for funding.  Assist developers of 100 percent affordable housing developments with securing additional financing.
 Strategy HE-2.3.12. Live/Work Units. Encourage the development or conversion of affordable live/workspace units to reduce displacement of residents and employees, specifically when replacing older strip mall type developments along busier streets (e.g., S. De Anza Boulevard and Stevens Creek Boulevard) to preserve the more urban and mixed-use character of the street. This would allow the street frontage to remain commercial use while the residential portion of the units would be located towards the rear of the site or in upper floors. The City will also help to market the Homeownership Assistance Programs offered by Housing Trust Silicon Valley (HTSV) in an effort to expand affordable homeownership options.
664
CC 05-14-2024
664 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENERGY

4.5-24 APRIL 2024
 Strategy HE-4.1.1. Enforcement of Title 24. The City will continue to enforce Title 24 requirements for energy conservation and will evaluate using some of the other suggestions as identified in the Environmental Resources/Sustainability Element.
 Strategy HE-4.1.2. Sustainable Practices. The City will continue to implement the Landscape Ordinance for water conservation and the Green Building Ordinance (adopted in 2013) that applies primarily to new residential and nonresidential development, additions, renovations, and tenant improvements of 10 or more units. 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 10 units to exceed the minimum requirements of the California Green Building Code. The 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.  Strategy HE-4.1.3. Sustainable, Energy-Efficient Housing. The City will work with and support housing developers to develop sustainable, energy-efficient housing. Such development should include solar panels, green roofs, energy-efficient lighting, and other features that aim toward carbon-neutral impacts while lowering energy costs.
 Policy HE-4.1. Energy and Water Conservation. Encourage energy and water conservation in all existing and new residential development.
 Policy LU-1.1. Land Use and Transportation. Focus higher land use intensities and densities within a half-mile of public transit service, and along major corridors.  Policy LU-3.1. Site Planning. Ensure that project sites are planned appropriately to create a network of connected internal streets that improve pedestrian and bicycle access, provide public open space and building layouts that support city goals related to streetscape character for various Planning Areas and corridors.

The proposed Modified Project also envisions new residential development throughout the Study Area, which would be required to install rooftop solar if seeking compliance with the prescriptive method of the Energy Code. New single-family residences would be required to comply with Title 24, Part 6, Subchapter 8, Section 150.1(c)14 and new multifamily residences would be required to comply with Title 24, Part 6, Subchapter 11, Section 170.2(f), of the 2022 California Building Code to include rooftop solar systems.

Compliance with these codes would decrease overall reliance on fossil fuels for electricity generation as some on-site electricity consumption could be satisfied with on-site electricity generation.

Moreover, as previously discussed, fuel efficiency of vehicles during the buildout year of 2040 would on average improve compared to vehicle fuel efficiencies experienced under the Approved Project. In addition to regulatory compliance that would contribute to more fuel-efficient vehicles and less per-capita demand in fuels, the General Plan EIR also found that Land Use and Community Design (LU), Environmental Resources and Sustainability Elements (ES), and Mobility (M) Elements contain policies and strategies that require local planning and development decisions to consider impacts that potential future development could have related to VMT. 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, 665
CC 05-14-2024
665 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENERGY
PLACEWORKS 4.5-25
would contribute to minimizing overall VMT and fuel consumption, and thus incrementally decreasing dependance on fossil fuels for transportation energy needs.  Policy LU-1.1. Land Use and Transportation. Focus higher land use intensities and densities within a half-mile of public transit service, and along major corridors. (General Plan EIR Policy 4-7)  Policy LU- 3.1. Site Planning. Ensure that project sites are planned appropriately to create a network of connected internal streets that improve pedestrian and bicycle access, provide public open space and building layouts that support city goals related to streetscape character for various Planning Areas and corridors. (General Plan EIR Policy 4-4)
 Policy M-1.1. Regional Transportation Planning. Participate in regional transportation planning processes to develop programs consistent with the goals and policies of Cupertino’s General Plan and to minimize adverse impacts on the City’s circulation system. Work with neighboring cities to address regional transportation and land use issues of mutual interest.  Policy M-3.1. Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. Adopt and maintain a Bicycle and Pedestrian master plan, which outlines policies and improvements to streets, extension of trails, and pathways to create a safe way for people of all ages to bike and walk on a daily basis.  Policy M-4.8: Micro-Transit. Continue to support a local micro-transit option, such as the Silicon Valley Hopper or similar service.
 Policy M-8.1. Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Promote transportation policies that help to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
 Strategy M-8.1.3. TDM Ordinance. Develop and adopt a TDM ordinance to reduce vehicle trips with specific implementation actions for all development projects and a monitoring and reporting program to ensure implementation.
 Policy M-8.3. Transportation Systems Management (TSM) Programs. Employ TSM strategies to improve efficiency of the transportation infrastructure including strategic right-of-way improvements intelligent transportation systems and optimization of signal timing to coordinate traffic flow.  Policy M-9.2. Reduced Travel Demand. Promote effective TDM programs for existing and new development.
 Strategy ES-2.1.9. Energy Efficient Transportation Modes. Continue to encourage fuel-efficient transportation modes such as alternative fuel vehicles, driverless vehicles, public transit, car and van pooling, community and regional shuttle systems, car and bike sharing programs, sage routes to schools, commuter benefits, and pedestrian and bicycle paths through infrastructure investment, development incentives, and community education. (General Plan EIR Policy 4-3)  Strategy ES-4.2.2. Home Occupations. Review and consider expanding the allowable home-based businesses in residentially zoned properties to reduce the need to commute to work.

For a complete list of policies and strategies aimed at reducing VMT, please see Impact Discussion TRANS2, in Chapter 4.14, Transportation, of this EA. Considering these policies and strategies and those in Chapter 4.14, the proposed Modified Project would result in potential future development consisting of up to 3,312 dwelling units that would be designed to be compliant with the California Building Code, thereby reducing reliance on fossil fuels for space and water heating. Additionally, the proposed Modified Project would result in population growth that would result in subsequent increases in transportation 666
CC 05-14-2024
666 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENERGY

4.5-26 APRIL 2024
energy demand; however, with improving fuel-efficiency standards year over year through the buildout year of 2040 and compliance with the EV charging infrastructure requirements in the California Building Code, the proposed Modified Project would reduce reliance on fossil fuels for transportation energy demand on average. Therefore, the proposed Modified Project would be considered consistent with this energy conservation criterion, similar to the Approved Project. The proposed Modified Project would not result in new impacts or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to the General Plan EIR.

Increasing Reliance on Renewable Energy Sources
New potential future development in the form of single-family residences under both the Approved Project and proposed Modified project would be required to comply with Title 24, Part 6, Subchapter 8, Section 150.1(c)(14) and new multifamily residences would be required to comply with Title 24, Part 6, Subchapter 11, Section 170.2(f), of the 2022 California Building Code, which may include rooftop solar systems depending on the Energy Code compliance method taken by the individual project. Compliance with these codes would directly increase overall reliance on renewable energy sources for electricity generation. Moreover, compliance with the EV charging infrastructure requirements in CALGreen would increase availability for electricity for transportation energy demand. As electricity consumed in California is required to meet the increasing renewable energy mix requirements under the State’s RPS and accelerated by SB 100, greater proportions of electricity consumed potential future development and for transportation energy demand under the proposed Modified Project would continue to be sourced from renewable energy sources. Furthermore, future potential development facilitated by the proposed Modified Project would be automatically enrolled in SVCE service, which provides more renewablesourced electricity services in addition to those provided by PG&E. While future potential development would have the option to opt-out back into PG&E service, SVCE would automatically enroll future residents accommodated by the proposed Modified Project into their minimum 44.9 percent renewable “SVCE GreenStart” electricity service.26 As future potential residents have the option to choose an electricity service that relies on renewable sources more for electricity generation than what is minimally required under the State’s RPS, and considering that both electricity service providers for the Study Area would provide incrementally greater and greater proportions of renewably sourced electricity to city residents, future potential development under the proposed Modified Project would result in an overall increase in reliance on renewable energy sources. As such, the proposed Modified Project would be consistent with this energy conservation criterion.

Considering the above analysis demonstrating that the proposed Modified Project would result in an overall decrease in energy consumption per capita, decrease in reliance on fossil fuels, and increase in renewable energy sources, the proposed Modified Project would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources. As such, the proposed Modified Project would not result in new impacts or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to the General Plan EIR.

Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant. 26 Silicon Valley Clean Energy (SVCE). 2024, January 26 (accessed). 2022 Power Mix (Residential). https://svcleanenergy.org/wp-content/uploads/PCL-Residential-Tech_ADA.pdf 667
CC 05-14-2024
667 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENERGY
PLACEWORKS 4.5-27
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.

The General Plan EIR did not specifically analyze Approved Project consistency with renewable energy or energy-efficiency plans because it was approved prior to the 2019 amendments to the CEQA Guidelines to incorporate CEQA Guidelines Section 15162.2(b).

California Renewables Portfolio Standard Program
The state’s electricity grid is transitioning to renewable energy under California’s RPS program. Renewable sources of electricity include wind, small hydropower, solar, geothermal, biomass, and biogas. In general, California has RPS requirements of 33 percent renewable energy by 2020 (SB X1-2), 40 percent by 2024 (SB 350), 50 percent by 2026 (SB 100), 60 percent by 2030 (SB 100), and 100 percent by 2045 (SB 100). SB 100 also establishes RPS requirements for publicly owned utilities that consist of 44 percent renewable energy by 2024, 52 percent by 2027, and 60 percent by 2030. The statewide RPS requirements do not directly apply to individual development projects, but to utilities and energy providers such as PG&E and SVCE, whose compliance with RPS requirements would contribute to the State of California objective of transitioning to renewable energy. For the City of Cupertino, California’s Community Choice Aggregation (CCA) law (AB 117, 2002)27 requires SVCE to become the default provider of electric generation for customers in its service area and operate as an opt-out program. Even if customers in the Study Area were to opt-out of the SVCE GreenStart program, and therefore receive all their electricity from PG&E, 38.3 percent of PG&E’s electricity is generated from renewable energy.28 Both electricity providers would be required to be consistent with the statewide RPS requirements.

Future potential development under the proposed Modified Project would be required to comply with the current and future iterations of the Building Energy Efficiency Standards and CALGreen. Furthermore, as described for Impact Discussion ENE-1, the proposed Modified Project would implement Housing Element policies that would support the statewide goal of transitioning the electricity grid to renewable sources.

The net increase in energy demand associated with implementation of the proposed Modified Project would be within the service capabilities of SVCE and PG&E and would not impede their ability to implement California’s renewable energy goals. Therefore, similar to the Approved Project, implementation of the proposed Modified Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of California’s RPS program. The proposed Modified Project would not result in new impacts or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to the General Plan EIR. 27 California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), 2024, January 31 (accessed). Community Choice Aggregation, https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/consumer-support/consumer-programs-and-services/electrical-energy-and-energyefficiency/community-choice-aggregation-and-direct-access-/cca-regulatory-information 28 Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E). 2024, January 26 (accessed). 2022 Power Mix. https://www.pge.com/content/dam/pge/docs/account/billing-and-assistance/bill-inserts/1023-Power-Content-Label.pdf 668
CC 05-14-2024
668 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENERGY

4.5-28 APRIL 2024
Cupertino Climate Action Plan
The Cupertino Climate Action Plan 2.0 (CAP 2.0) is a strategic planning document that identifies sources of GHG emissions in the city’s limits; presents current and future emissions estimates; identifies a GHG reduction target for future years; and presents strategic goals, measures, and actions to reduce emissions from the energy, transportation, land use, water, solid waste, and green infrastructure sectors.29 Pursuant to the CAP 2.0, projects are considered consistent with the CAP 2.0 if they do not conflict with the required GHG reduction measures contained in the CAP.

In compliance with CMC Section 17.04, Standard Environmental Protection Requirements, the future potential development under the proposed Modified Project must complete a consistency checklist with the City’s CAP for review and approval by the City Environment and Sustainability Department prior to issuance of the first permit. A project consistency matrix with the adopted energy-reduction measures are shown in Table 4.5-2, Cupertino Climate Action Plan 2.0 Consistency Matrix. As described here, implementation of the proposed Modified Project would be required to be consistent with the applicable energy-related measures of the CAP 2.0. Therefore, the proposed Modified Project would not conflict or obstruct implementation of the City’s CAP. The proposed Modified Project would not result in new impacts or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to the General Plan EIR.

TABLE 4.5-2 CUPERTINO CLIMATE ACTION PLAN 2.0 CONSISTENCY MATRIX Applicable Proposed Measure Consistency
Measure BE-1 Reduce non-SVCE usage
rate to 2 percent for residential and 10
percent for commercial by 2030 and
maintain through 2040.

Consistent. Future potential development under the proposed Modified Project would comply with the current California Building and Energy Efficiency Standards to reduce energy consumptions.

Measure BE-4 Require new residential and
commercial development to be all-electric
at time of construction.

Consistent. The City of Cupertino requires all newly constructed buildings to be AllElectric Buildings and has adopted the California Energy Code (CMC Chapter 16.32).

Therefore, the proposed Modified Project would comply with this measure.

Measure TR-1 Develop and implement an
Active Transportation Plan to achieve 15
percent of active transportation mode
share by 2030 and 23 percent by 2040.

Consistent. As stated in Chapter 4.14, Transportation, of this EA, the proposed Modified Project would not include modifications to the roadway, bicycle, or pedestrian network. In addition, like the Approved Project, the proposed Modified Project would also be consistent with the City of Cupertino’s Pedestrian Transportation Plan with Pedestrian Guidelines and Bicycle Transportation Plan.

The proposed Modified Project would also continue to implement the policies and strategies of the Approved Project to encourage active transportation throughout the Study Area, and is most exemplified through Policy M-3.1, Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, which would see to the adoption and maintenance of a Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan to create a safe way for citizens to bike and walk on a daily basis. Other policies include Policy LU- 3.1, Site Planning, which would ensure project sites are planned so that there is a network of connected streets to improve pedestrian and bicycle access; Strategy LU-8.3.3, Infrastructure and Streetscape Improvements, which would encourage redevelopment of areas throughout the city to be pedestrian oriented; Strategy LU-19.1.7, Existing Streets, which would improve Stevens Creek Boulevard and Wolfe Road to become more 29 City of Cupertino, 2015, January. Climate Action Plan. https://www.cupertino.org/home/showpublisheddocument/9605/636280426123030000. 669
CC 05-14-2024
669 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENERGY
PLACEWORKS 4.5-29
TABLE 4.5-2 CUPERTINO CLIMATE ACTION PLAN 2.0 CONSISTENCY MATRIX Applicable Proposed Measure Consistency
bike and pedestrian-friendly; as well as Policy M-1.3, Regional Trail Development, to implement best practices on streets to reduce speeds to accommodate alternative modes of transportation. Compliance with these policies and strategies would reduce fuel consumption and reliance on fossil fuels in the Study Area.

Measure TR-2 Implement public and
shared transit programs to achieve 29
percent of public transit mode share by
2030 and maintain through 2040.

Consistent. As described in Section 4.14, Transportation, of this EA, the proposed Modified Project would implement strategies and policies such as Policy LU-1.1, Land Use and Transportation, which would concentrate higher land use intensities within a half-mile of public transit services, and Policies LU-20.2, Streetscape and Connectivity for North Vallco Park Special Area, and LU-21.3, Streetscape and Connectivity for North De Anza Special Area, which would improve transit connections for future roadway improvements and specifically for North Vallco Park and North De Anza. These policies would also include Policy M-4.4, Transit Facilities with New Development, which would ensure that all future potential development would include amenities to support public transit and space for transit vehicles.

Compliance with these policies and strategies would reduce fuel consumption and reliance on fossil fuels throughout the Study Area. As such, the proposed Modified Project would not conflict with implementation of this measure.

Measure TR-3 Increase zero-emission
vehicle (ZEV) adoption to 35 percent for
passenger vehicles and 20 percent for
commercial vehicles by 2030 and 100
percent for all vehicles by 2040.

Consistent. Implementation of the proposed Modified Project would result in an increase in land use intensity throughout the Study Area that has access to existing transportation infrastructure and services. Future potential development under the proposed Modified Project would comply with the CALGreen requirements for electric vehicle (EV) charging stations. In addition, as seen in Chapter 3, Project Description, of this EA, Cupertino is served by Via-Cupertino Shuttle (Via), an appbased ride-sharing program that provides transportation anywhere inside the city.

Via plans to expand into Santa Clara with electric cars in the coming years, which would support Measure TR-3. Compliance with this measure would reduce reliance on fossil fuels throughout the Study Area and would promote use of renewable energy. The proposed Modified Project would not conflict with implementation of this measure.

Measure TR-4 Re-focus transportation
infrastructure away from single occupancy
gasoline vehicles to support the
bicycle/pedestrian, public transit, and ZEV
goals of Measures TR-1, TR-2, and TR-3.

Consistent. The proposed Modified Project would implement policies and strategies to encourage active transportation throughout the Study Area, such as through redevelopment of areas to be pedestrian oriented or connecting streets to improve pedestrian and bicycle access. In addition, future potential development under the proposed Modified Project would concentrate higher land use intensities near public transit services, which could reduce the need for single-occupancy trips for gasoline-fueled vehicles. Furthermore, as seen in Chapter 3, Project Description, of this EA, Cupertino is served by Via-Cupertino Shuttle (Via), an app-based ride sharing program that provides transportation anywhere inside the city. Via plans to expand into Santa Clara with electric cars in the coming years, which would support Measure TR-4. Compliance with this measure would reduce fuel consumption and reliance on fossil fuels throughout the Study Area and would promote use of renewable energy. The proposed Modified Project would not conflict with implementation of this measure.

Source: Cupertino, City of. 2022, August 16. City of Cupertino, Climate Action Plan 2.0. https://www.cupertino.org/home/showpublisheddocument/31683/637964240923930000.

Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant. 670
CC 05-14-2024
670 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENERGY

4.5-30 APRIL 2024
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.

Electrical service to the Study Area would be provided by SVCE and PG&E through connections to existing electrical lines and infrastructure. As shown in Table 4.5-1, Proposed Modified Project Energy Consumption, electricity use in the Study Area would increase by an estimated 13,747,291 kWh per year through implementation of the proposed Modified Project. In addition, natural gas use in the Study Area would increase by an estimated 37,527,747 kBTU per year through implementation of the proposed Modified Project. Considering that the introduction of up to 3,312 new units could accommodate an estimated 9,737 new residents, the proposed Modified Project is anticipated to result in 1,412 kWh of electricity use or 3,854 kBTU of natural gas per capita. This is conservative as future potential residential development in the Study Area would be subject to the CMC’s all-electric requirements.

These energy consumption rates are modest increases when considered in the context of SVCE’s and PG&E’s service territories. The increase in electricity usage for the Study Area is approximately 0.1 percent of PG&E’s projected energy supply in 2035, and the increase in natural gas consumption for the Study Area is less than 0.06 percent of PG&E’s natural gas supply. 30 PG&E also states that there would be
sufficient electrical and natural gas supplies to cover its service area in 2035.

In addition, potential future development under both the Approved Project and proposed Modified Project would be required to comply with the current and future updates to the California Energy Code and the CALGreen Code, which would contribute to reducing energy demands. Future potential development would also use new energy-efficient appliances and equipment, pursuant to the Appliance Efficiency Regulations, which would ensure the use of efficient electricity and natural gas consumption.

New and replacement buildings in compliance with these standards would have greater energy efficiency than existing buildings. In addition, the sites identified by the proposed Modified Project are in urbanized areas that are served by existing high-volume energy transmission infrastructure.

Moreover, the latest California Building Standards Code and CALGreen requirements include rooftop solar systems and passive energy-efficiency designs to reduce potential wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of electricity. Rooftop solar systems, if applicable to the individual project design, would reduce the amount of overall electricity consumed that is transported through the State’s electricity grid, reducing the amount of electricity lost in transmission. Regarding electricity that would be drawn from the grid, electricity utility compliance with the State’s RPS program under SB 100 would ensure that the proportion of electricity that is sourced from renewable and carbon-free sources—and consumed by individual future potential development projects under the proposed Modified Project—increases until it must be 100 percent in 2045. Compliance with the California Building Standards Code and CALGreen and utility compliance with SB 100 ultimately result in incremental shifts away from reliance on fossil fuels and toward a greater reliance on renewable energy sources. Overall, implementation of the proposed Modified Project would result in greater energy-efficiency designs for new buildings and would result in 30 PG&E’s projected energy supplies for electricity and natural gas do not extend beyond 2035. 671
CC 05-14-2024
671 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENERGY
PLACEWORKS 4.5-31
more homes in the Study Area using electricity that is generated on-site. Therefore, the proposed Modified Project electricity and natural gas consumption is not expected to result in the need for new or expanded energy supply facilities, and this impact would be less than significant. The proposed Modified Project would therefore not result in new impacts or a substantial increase in magnitude of cumulative impacts compared to the General Plan EIR.

Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.

ENE-4 Implementation of the proposed Modified Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact with respect to energy.

The area considered for cumulative impacts to electricity and natural gas supplies are the service areas of PG&E as well as SVCE. Other projects in the PG&E and SVCE service areas would be required to comply with the Building Energy Efficiency Standards and CALGreen, which would contribute to minimizing wasteful energy consumption and promoting renewable energy sources. As described under Impact Discussion ENE-1, energy consumption resulting from implementation of the proposed Modified Project would not be considered inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary. Implementation of the proposed Modified Project would therefore not contribute to any cumulative energy impacts when considered together with cumulative development projects and would not be cumulatively considerable. The proposed Modified Project would therefore not result in new impacts or a substantial increase in magnitude of cumulative impacts compared to the General Plan EIR.

Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant. 672
CC 05-14-2024
672 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENERGY

4.5-32 APRIL 2024
This page has been intentionally left blank.
673
CC 05-14-2024
673 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

GEOLOGY & SOILS
PLACEWORKS 4.6-1

4.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
This chapter describes the potential impacts to geology and soils 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 geology and soils impacts, and identifies General Plan 2040 policies and/or strategies that could minimize any potentially significant impacts.

4.6.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
Federal Regulations
The federal Paleontological Resources Preservation Act of 2002 limits the collection of vertebrate fossils and other rare and scientifically significant fossils to qualified researchers who have obtained a permit from the appropriate state or federal agency. Additionally, it specifies these researchers must agree to donate any materials recovered to recognized public institutions, where they will remain accessible to the public and to other researchers. This act incorporates key findings of a report, Fossils on Federal Land and Indian Lands, issued by the Secretary of the Interior in 2000, that establishes that most vertebrate fossils and some invertebrate and plant fossils are considered rare resources.1 State Regulations
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act
The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act was passed in 1972 to mitigate the hazard of surface fault rupture to structures used for human occupancy.2 The main purpose of the act is to prevent the construction of buildings used for human occupancy on top of active faults. This act only addresses the hazard of surface fault rupture—not other earthquake hazards such as earthquake-induced liquefaction or landslides. The act requires the State Geologist to establish regulatory zones (known as Earthquake Fault Zones or Alquist-Priolo Zones) around surface traces of active faults and to issue appropriate maps. The maps, which are developed using existing United States Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute quadrangle map bases, are then distributed to all affected cities, counties, and State agencies for their use in planning and controlling new or renewed construction. Generally, construction within 50 feet of an active fault zone is prohibited.
1 U.S. Department of the Interior, May 2000, Fossils on Federal & Indian Lands, Report of the Secretary of the Interior, accessed September 30, 2022, https://www.blm.gov/sites/blm.gov/files/programs_paleontology_quick%20links_ Assessment%20of%20Fossil%20Management%20on%20Federal%20%26%20Indian%20Lands%2C%20May%202000.pdf. 2 California Department of Conservation, 2023, Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, accessed January 25, 2024, https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/alquist-priolo.
674
CC 05-14-2024
674 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

GEOLOGY & SOILS

4.6-2 APRIL 2024
Seismic Hazards Mapping Act
The Seismic Hazards Mapping Act, which was passed in 1990, addresses seismic hazards such as liquefaction and seismically induced landslides.3 Under this act, seismic hazard zones are mapped by the State Geologist to assist local governments in land use planning. Section 2691(c) of this act states that “it is necessary to identify and map seismic hazard zones in order for cities and counties to adequately prepare the safety element of their general plans and to encourage land use management policies and regulations to reduce and mitigate those hazards to protect public health and safety.” Section 2697(a) of the act states that “cities and counties shall require, prior to the approval of a project located in a seismic hazard zone, a geotechnical report defining and delineating any seismic hazard.” California Building Code
The State of California provides a minimum standard for building design through Title 24, Part 2, of the California Code of Regulations (CCR), commonly referred to as the “California Building Code” (CBC). The CBC is updated every three years. It is generally adopted jurisdiction by jurisdiction, subject to further modification based on local conditions. The City of Cupertino regularly adopts each new CBC update under the Cupertino Municipal Code (CMC) Chapter 16.04, Building Code. These codes provide minimum standards to protect property and public safety by regulating the design and construction of excavations, foundations, building frames, retaining walls, and other building elements to mitigate the effects of seismic shaking and adverse soil conditions. They also regulate grading activities, including drainage and erosion control.

California Environmental Quality Act
Paleontological resources are afforded protection under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

The Society of Vertebrate Paleontology has set significance criteria for paleontological resources.4 Most practicing professional vertebrate paleontologists adhere closely to the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology’s assessment, mitigation, and monitoring requirements as specifically provided in its standard guidelines. Most State regulatory agencies with paleontological laws, ordinances, regulations, and standards accept and use the professional standards set by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology.

California Public Resources Code Section 5097
California Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5097.5 prohibits the destruction or removal of any paleontological site or feature from public lands without the permission of the jurisdictional agency. 3 California Department of Conservation, 2023, Seismic Hazards Mapping Act, https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/hazards/seismic-hazards-mapping-act, accessed January 25, 2024. 4 Society of Vertebrate Paleontology, 2010, Standard Procedures for the Assessment and Mitigation of Adverse Impacts to Paleontological Resources, https://vertpaleo.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/SVP_Impact_Mitigation_Guidelines.pdf, accessed January 25, 2024.
675
CC 05-14-2024
675 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

GEOLOGY & SOILS
PLACEWORKS 4.6-3
California Penal Code Section 622.5
The California Penal Code Section 622.5 details the penalties for damage or removal of paleontological resources, whether from private or public lands.

Regional Regulations
The purpose of hazard mitigation planning is to reduce the loss of life and property by minimizing the impact of disasters. The Santa Clara County Operational Area Hazard Mitigation Plan (Local Hazard Mitigation Plan), adopted in 2017, provides an assessment of natural hazards in the county and a set of short-term mitigation actions to reduce or eliminate the long-term risk to people and property from these hazards. Currently the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan is being updated to become the Santa Clara County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP). The MJHMP has an annex (chapter) dedicated to Cupertino and provides a city-specific assessment of hazards and vulnerabilities as well as mitigation actions items for Cupertino specifically.

The MJHMP must be reviewed and approved by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) every five years to maintain eligibility for disaster relief funding. As part of this process, the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services reviews all local hazard mitigation plans in accordance with the Disaster Management Act of 2000 regulations, and coordinates with local jurisdictions to ensure compliance with FEMA’s Local Mitigation Plan Review Guide.

Local Regulations
General Plan 2040
The Land Use and Community Design (LU), Environmental Resources and Sustainability (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 impacts to geology and soils. Applicable policies and strategies that would minimize potential adverse impacts to soils and geologic resources are identified in Section 4.6.3, Impact Discussion. While not a policy or strategy, Health and Safety Element Table HS-3, Acceptable Exposure to Risk Related to Various Land Uses, and Table HS-4, Technical Investigations Required based on Acceptable Risk describe when and the level of complexity of geotechnical review is required.

Municipal Code
The CMC includes various directives to minimize adverse impacts to geology and soils in Cupertino. The CMC is organized by title, chapter, and section. Most provisions related to geology and soils are in Title 15, Water and Sewage; Title 16, Buildings and Construction; Title 18, Subdivisions; and Title 19, Zoning.  Chapter 15.20, Sewage Disposal Systems. Establishes standards for the approval, installation, and operation of individual on-site sewage disposal systems consistent with the standards of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board as set out by the Santa Clara County Environmental Health Services and adopted by the Cupertino City Council.
676
CC 05-14-2024
676 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

GEOLOGY & SOILS

4.6-4 APRIL 2024
 Chapter 16.04, Building Code. Adopts the 2022 CBC as the rules, regulations, and standards within the City as to all matters except as modified or amended in the CMC. The CBC includes requirements for geotechnical reports at the discretion of the building official.  Chapter 18.04, General Provisions. Implements the Subdivision Map Act to protect the community to the maximum extent from excessive stormwater runoff, wanton destruction of trees, increased soil erosion, earth movement, earthquake hazards, and other geological hazards. Applicants who are proposing subdivisions within the Study Area must submit geotechnical reports before getting City approval on the final map. Problems of drainage are to be resolved in such a manner as to provide substantial security against excessive runoff or flooding, earth movements, and excessive erosion.  Chapter 19.40, Residential Hillsides (RHS) Zones. Section 19.40.050, Site Development Regulations, describes the regulations for the development plans in Residential Hillside (RHS) zones. Created to protect public and private lands from erosion, earth movement, and flooding, it establishes minimum standards and requirements relating to land grading, excavations and fills, and removal of major vegetation, including the preparation of geotechnical reports. The Site Development Regulations also set the standards for development on or near steep slopes in order to minimize the risk of personal injury, damage to property, and impact on water quality from potential landslides, erosion, earth creep, stormwater runoff, and other hazards associated with hillside areas of the city, as well as preserves existing topographical forms, open spaces, habitat areas and visual resources from encroachment by new hillside development. Site development planning applications may require an erosion and sediment control plan and control measures.

EXISTING CONDITIONS
The setting for geology and soils resources is described in the General Plan EIR Section 4.5.1.2, Existing Conditions. There have not been any changes or additions to the existing conditions for geology and soils since the certification of the General Plan EIR in 2014.

4.6.2 STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Implementation of the proposed Modified Project would result in significant geology and soils impact if it would:

Impact of the
Approved
Project (General
Plan 2040 EIR)
Impact of the
Proposed
Modified
Project
GEO-1. 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?
LTS

LTS

GEO-2. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? LTS LTS GEO-3. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?

LTS LTS
GEO-4. 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? LTS LTS 677
CC 05-14-2024
677 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

GEOLOGY & SOILS
PLACEWORKS 4.6-5
Implementation of the proposed Modified Project would result in significant geology and soils impact if it would:

Impact of the
Approved
Project (General
Plan 2040 EIR)
Impact of the
Proposed
Modified
Project
GEO-5. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?
NI NI
GEO-6. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? LTS LTS
GEO-7. Result in a cumulatively considerable impact to geology and soils? 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. GEO-6, regarding unique paleontological resources or sites, or unique geological features was included in Chapter 4.4, Cultural Resources, of the General Plan EIR.

Key: NI = no impact; LTS = less than significant; LTS/M = less than significant with mitigation; SU = significant and unavoidable

4.6.3 IMPACT DISCUSSION
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) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault; ii) Strong seismic ground shaking; iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction; iv) Landslides, mudslides, or other similar hazards.

As described in the General Plan EIR, only one Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone has been mapped in the Study Area—namely, the zone that flanks the San Andreas Fault in the most southwestern part of the Study Area. In the event of a large, magnitude (MW) 6.7 or greater seismic event, much of the Study Area is projected to experience “strong” ground shaking, with the most intense shaking forecast for the northwest part of the Study Area.5 Additionally, the potential for seismically induced liquefaction is low and limited to narrow areas that flank natural drainages along Stevens, Regnart, and Calabazas Creeks.

Furthermore, potential future residential developed under the proposed Modified Project is in the mostly flat and low landslide susceptibility areas of the Study Area. As described in the General Plan EIR, compliance with building codes and regulations and General Plan 2040 policies would minimize impacts involving 1) rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault; 2) strong seismic ground shaking; 3) seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction; and 4) landslides, mudslides, or similar hazards. 5 Association of Bay Area Governments, 2020, MTC/ABAG Hazard Viewer Map, accessed January 25, 2024, https://mtc.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=4a6f3f1259df42eab29b35dfcd086fc8. 678
CC 05-14-2024
678 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

GEOLOGY & SOILS

4.6-6 APRIL 2024
The proposed Modified Project would also include potential future development and land use activities that 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 near existing residential and residential-serving development, as shown on Figure 3-3, Housing Element (2023-2031) Opportunity Sites, of Chapter 3, Project Description, of this EA. These sites would be in similar areas as future potential development under both the Approved Project and proposed Modified Project, outside of Alquist-Priolo Fault Zones and in low landslide and liquefaction susceptible areas.

The General Plan EIR also found that the Health and Safety (HS) Element contains policies and strategies that require local planning and development decisions to consider impacts that development could have on geologic and seismic processes in the area. 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 geologic processes:
 Strategy HS-1.1.1. Monitoring and Budgeting. Monitor and evaluate the success of the LHMP, including local strategies provided in the Cupertino Annex Section 11. Working with Santa Clara County, ensure that strategies are prioritized and implemented through the Capital Improvement Program and provide adequate budget for on-going programs and department operations. (General Plan EIR Strategy 1 under Policy 6-1)
 Strategy HS-1.1.2. Mitigation Incorporation. Ensure that mitigation actions identified in the LHMP are being incorporated into upcoming City sponsored projects, where appropriate. (General Plan EIR Strategy 2 under Policy 6-1)
 Policy HS- 5.1. Seismic And Geologic Review Process. Evaluate new development proposals within mapped potential hazard zones using a formal seismic/ geologic review process. Use Table HS- 3 (from the General Plan) of this Element to determine the level of review required. (General Plan EIR Policy 6-2)
 Strategy HS-5.1.1. Geotechnical and Structural Analysis. Require any site with a slope exceeding 10 percent to reference the Landslide Hazard Potential Zone maps of the State of California for all required geotechnical and structural analysis. (General Plan EIR Strategy 1 under Policy 6-2)  Strategy HS-5.1.2. Residential Upgrades. Require that any residential facility, that is being increased more than 50 percent assessed value or physical size, conform to all provisions of the current building code throughout the entire structure. Owners of residential buildings with known structural defects, such as un-reinforced garage openings, “soft first story” construction, unbolted foundations, or inadequate sheer walls are encouraged to take steps to remedy the problem and bring their buildings up to the current building code. (General Plan EIR Strategy 2 under Policy 6-2)  Strategy HS-5.1.3. Geologic Review. Continue to implement and update geologic review procedures for Geologic Reports required by the Municipal Code through the development review process. (General Plan EIR Strategy 3 under Policy 6-2)
 Policy HS- 5.2. Public Education on Seismic Safety. Reinforce the existing public education programs to help residents minimize hazards resulting from earthquakes. (General Plan EIR Policy 6-3)  Strategy HS-5.2.1. Covenant on Seismic Risk. Require developers to record a covenant to tell future residents in high-risk areas about the risk and inform them that more information is in City Hall 679
CC 05-14-2024
679 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

GEOLOGY & SOILS
PLACEWORKS 4.6-7
records. This is in addition to the State requirement that information on the geological report is recorded on the face of subdivision maps. (General Plan EIR Strategy 1 under Policy 6-3)  Strategy HS-5.2.2. Emergency Preparedness. Publish and promote emergency preparedness activities and drills. Use the City social media, and the website to provide safety tips that may include identifying and correcting household hazards, knowing how and when to turn off utilities, helping family members protect themselves during and after an earthquake, recommending neighborhood preparation activities, and advising residents to maintain an emergency supply kit containing first- aid supplies, food, drinking water and battery operated radios and flashlights. (General Plan EIR Strategy 2 under Policy 6-3)
 Strategy HS-5.2.3. Neighborhood Response Groups. Encourage participation in Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) training. Train neighborhood groups to care for themselves during disasters.

Actively assist in neighborhood drills and safety exercises to increase participation and build community support. (General Plan EIR Strategy 3 under Policy 6-3)  Strategy HS- 5.2.4. Dependent Populations. As part of community- wide efforts, actively cooperate with State agencies that oversee facilities for persons with disabilities and those with access and functional needs, to ensure that such facilities conform to all health and safety requirements, including emergency planning, training, exercises and employee education. (General Plan EIR Strategy 4 under Policy 6-3)
 Strategy HS- 5.2.5. Foreign Language Emergency Information. Obtain translated emergency preparedness materials and make them available to appropriate foreign language populations. (General Plan EIR Strategy 5 under Policy 6-3)
As with the development assessed under the Approved Project, development under the proposed Modified Project would be required to comply with applicable State and local laws, policies, and design standards governing development near faults, as necessary. Based on these considerations, overall impacts from adoption and implementation of the proposed Modified Project would not result in new or more severe impacts involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault; strong seismic ground shaking; seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction; and landslides, mudslides, or similar hazards beyond what was evaluated in the General Plan EIR.

Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.

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

The General Plan EIR found that substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil during construction could undermine structures and minor slopes and could be a concern during buildout of the Approved Project.

As described in the General Plan EIR, in the east and central parts of the Study Area, the dominant soil types include soils of the Urban Land-Flaskan, Urban-Land Stevens Creek, and Urban Land-Botella complexes generally formed on slopes of 0 to 2 percent. Soils in the western and southwestern parts of 680
CC 05-14-2024
680 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

GEOLOGY & SOILS

4.6-8 APRIL 2024
the Study Area largely consist of soils of the Literr-Urban Land-Merbeth and Merbeth-Literr complex formed on slopes of 5 to 30 percent. In almost all instances, these soils are reportedly deep and well drained and typified by low runoff. Soils in the vicinity of Cupertino are known to be expansive in places.6 However, compliance with existing regulatory requirements, such as implementation of grading erosion control measures as specified in the CMC, would reduce impacts from erosion and the loss of topsoil.

The proposed Modified Project would also include potential future development and land use activities that 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, as shown on Figure 3-3, Housing Element (2023-2031) Opportunity Sites.

These would be in similar areas as those under the Approved Project.

The General Plan EIR also found that the Land Use and Community Design (LU), Environmental Resources and Sustainability (ES), and the Health and Safety (HS) Elements contain policies and strategies that require local planning and development decisions to consider impacts development could have on soil erosion and the loss of topsoil in the area. 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 to soil erosion and the loss of topsoil Project:
 Strategy LU-12.3.1. Grading. Follow natural land contours and avoid mass grading of sites during construction, especially in flood hazard or geologically sensitive areas. Grading hillside sites not large, flat areas shall be avoided.
 Policy ES-5.3. Landscaping In and Near Natural Vegetation. Preserve and enhance existing natural vegetation, landscape features and open space when new development is proposed within existing natural areas. When development is proposed near natural vegetation, encourage the landscaping to be consistent with the palate of vegetation found in the natural vegetation. (General Plan EIR Policy 5- 10)
 Policy ES-7.2. Reduction of Impervious Surfaces. Minimize stormwater runoff and erosion impacts resulting from development and use low impact development (LID) designs to treat stormwater or recharge groundwater. (General Plan EIR Policy 5-19)
 Strategy ES-7.2.2. Pervious Walkways and Driveways. Encourage the use of pervious materials for walkways and driveways. If used on public or quasi- public property, mobility and access for the disabled should take precedence. (General Plan EIR Strategy 2 under Policy 7.2)  Strategy ES-7.2.3. Maximize Infiltration. Minimize impervious surface areas, and maximize on-site filtration and the use of on-site retention facilities. (General Plan EIR Strategy 3 under Policy 7.2)  Policy HS-7.5. Hillside Grading. Restrict the extent and timing of hillside grading operations to April through October except as otherwise allowed by the City. Require performance bonds during the remaining time to guarantee the repair of any erosion damage. Require planting of graded slopes as soon as practical after grading is complete. (General Plan EIR Policy 6-47) 6 UC Davis Soil Resource Laboratory, 2023, California Soil Resource Lab, Online Soil Survey, accessed on January 25, 2024, http://casoilresource.lawr.ucdavis.edu/soilweb/.
681
CC 05-14-2024
681 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

GEOLOGY & SOILS
PLACEWORKS 4.6-9
As with the future potential development assessed under the Approved Project, development under the proposed Modified Project would be required to comply with applicable State and local laws, policies, and design standards governing soil erosion and loss of topsoil, as necessary. Based on these considerations, overall impacts from implementation of the proposed Modified Project would not result in new or more severe soil erosion or loss of topsoil beyond what was evaluated in the General Plan EIR.

Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.

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 off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse.

As described in the General Plan EIR, unstable geologic units are known to be present in the Study Area.

Expansive soils are typically very fine grained with a high to very high percentage of clay, typically montmorillonite, smectite, or bentonite clay, though the shrink-swell potential at a given project under the Approved Project may be highly site-specific, requiring careful geotechnical investigation prior to project design and construction. However, development under the Approved Project would not occur in areas at risk of seismically induced liquefaction because these areas are limited to land flanking natural drainages along Stevens, Regnart, and Calabazas Creeks.

Similar to the Approved Project, the proposed Modified Project would also include potential future development and land use activities that 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, as shown on Figure 3-3, Housing Element (2023-2031) Opportunity Sites
As with future potential development under the Approved Project, development under the proposed Modified Project would be required to comply with applicable State and local laws, policies, and design standards governing unstable soils, as necessary. Based on these considerations, overall impacts from adoption and implementation of the proposed Modified Project would not result in new or more severe unstable soils as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse beyond what was evaluated in the General Plan EIR.

Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.

GEO-4 The proposed Modified Project would not be implemented 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.

As described in the General Plan EIR, expansive soils (denoted by soils with high linear extensibility and plasticity index) are most prevalent in the northeast part of the Study Area, as shown on Figure 4.5-1, Geologic Map, in the General Plan EIR. However, compliance with CBC regulations—requirements for seismic safety, excavation, foundations, retaining walls, site demolition, grading, drainage, and erosion 682
CC 05-14-2024
682 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

GEOLOGY & SOILS

4.6-10 APRIL 2024
control—would minimize risk to life or property from expansive soil for potential future development under the Approved Project.

Similar to the Approved Project, the proposed Modified Project would also include potential future development and land use activities that 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, as shown on Figure 3-3, Housing Element (2023-2031) Opportunity Sites.

The General Plan EIR also found that the Health and Safety (HS) Element contains policies and strategies that would serve to minimize potential adverse impacts on geologic processes, including General Plan 2040 Policies HS-1.1, Regional Hazard Risk Reduction Planning: Coordinate with Santa Clara County and local agencies to implement the Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) for Santa Clara County. (General Plan EIR Policy 6-1). Also relevant were Policies HS-5.1 and HS-5.2 and the supporting strategies described in Impact Discussion GEO-1. Similar to the Approved Project, these policies and strategies, coupled with the CBC regulations identified in the General Plan EIR, would ensure that potential future development permitted under the proposed Modified Project would minimize impacts to life or property due to expansive soils.

Additionally, as with the future potential development under the Approved Project, future potential development under the proposed Modified Project would be required to comply with applicable State and local laws, policies, and design standards governing expansive soil, as necessary. Based on these considerations, overall impacts from adoption and implementation of the proposed Modified Project would not result in new or more severe impacts from expansive soil beyond what was evaluated in the General Plan EIR.

Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.

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

The General Plan EIR found that future development under the Approved Project would not require the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. Wastewater would be discharged into the existing public sanitary sewer system in the city, served by the Cupertino Sanitary District, whose systems capture and convey wastewater to the San Jose/Santa Clara Water Pollution Control Plant where the wastewater is cleaned and recycled. Future potential development under the proposed Modified Project would also not require the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. Thus, overall impacts from adoption and implementation of the proposed Modified Project would not result in new or more severe impacts to soils supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems beyond what was evaluated in the General Plan EIR.

Significance without Mitigation: No impact.
683
CC 05-14-2024
683 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

GEOLOGY & SOILS
PLACEWORKS 4.6-11
GEO-6 Implementation of the proposed Modified Project would not directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature.

At the time the General Plan EIR was certified, this threshold of significance was in the Cultural Resources chapter, and this impact discussion is CULT-3 in Section 4.4.3, Impact Discussion, of the General Plan EIR.

The General Plan EIR found that though no paleontological resources have been identified within the Study Area, the presence of Pleistocene deposits that are known to contain fossils indicates that the overall Study Area could contain paleontological resources. However, compliance with applicable laws, regulations, and General Plan policies would minimize impacts to unique paleontological resources.

Similar to the Approved Project, the proposed Modified Project would include potential future development and land use activities within the same boundaries as the Approved Project. Furthermore, as shown on Figure 3-3, Housing Element (2023-2031) Opportunity Sites, of this EA, the locations of potential future development under the proposed Modified Project would be in similar disturbed and/or developed areas as those of the Approved Project.

As with future potential development under the Approved Project, development under the proposed Modified Project would be required to comply with applicable federal, State, and local laws, policies, and design standards governing unique paleontological resources, as necessary. Based on these considerations, overall impacts from adoption and implementation of the proposed Modified Project would not result in new or more severe impacts to unique paleontological resources beyond what was evaluated in the General Plan EIR.

Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.

GEO-7 Implementation of the proposed Modified Project would not result in cumulatively considerable impact with respect to geology and soils.

As described in the General Plan EIR, potential cumulative geological impacts could arise from a combination of the development of the Approved Project together with future development in the immediate vicinity of the adjoining jurisdictions. Only regional faults have been mapped by the State of California within the Study Area, thus the risk of primary fault rupture to occupied buildings is low.

Additionally, as described in the General Plan EIR, compliance with building code requirements would reduce cumulative, development-related impacts under the Approved Projectrelated to seismically induced ground shaking, liquefaction, landslides, and expansive soils.

The impacts to potential future development from seismic and geologic hazards tend to be site specific, and the overall cumulative effects would be dependent on site-specific geologic studies. Like the Approved Project, the proposed Modified Project has the same potential for cumulative impact on geology and soils since the Study Area is the same. Additionally, General Plan 2040 policies and strategies to protect cultural resources—described in Impact Discussions GEO-1, GEO-2, and GEO-4 and CMC Section 17.04.050(E)—would reduce impacts to geology and soils under both the Approved Project and proposed Modified Project.
684
CC 05-14-2024
684 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

GEOLOGY & SOILS

4.6-12 APRIL 2024
Further, development under the proposed Modified Project and other projects would be required to comply with applicable federal and State laws, policies, and design standards governing geology and soils, as necessary. Therefore, the proposed Modified Project would not result in new or more severe cumulatively considerable impacts to geology and soils beyond what was evaluated in the General Plan EIR.

Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant. 685
CC 05-14-2024
685 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
PLACEWORKS 4.7-1

4.7 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
This chapter describes the potential impacts to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions 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 GHG impacts, and identifies General Plan 2040 policies that could minimize any potentially significant impacts.

4.7.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

4.7.1.1 GREENHOUSE GASES AND CLIMATE CHANGE
Scientists have concluded that human activities are contributing to global climate change by adding large amounts of heat-trapping gases, known as GHGs, to the atmosphere. The primary source of these GHGs is fossil fuel use. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has identified four major GHGs— water vapor, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and ozone (O3)—that are the likely cause of an increase in global average temperatures observed in the 20th and 21st centuries. Other GHGs identified by the IPCC that contribute to global warming to a lesser extent are nitrous oxide (N2O), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and chlorofluorocarbons. 1,2 The major GHGs are briefly described below.
 Carbon dioxide (CO2) enters the atmosphere through the burning of fossil fuels (oil, natural gas, and coal), solid waste, trees and wood products, and respiration, and also as a result of other chemical reactions (e.g., manufacture of cement). Carbon dioxide is removed from the atmosphere (i.e., sequestered) when it is absorbed by plants as part of the biological carbon cycle.

Methane (CH4) is emitted during the production and transport of coal, natural gas, and oil. Methane emissions also result from livestock, and other agricultural practices, and from the decay of organic waste in landfills and water treatment facilities. Additionally, methane is the largest component of natural gas, used to fuel appliances.3
 Nitrous oxide (N2O) is emitted during agricultural and industrial activities as well as during the combustion of fossil fuels and solid waste.
1 Water vapor (H2O) is the strongest GHG and the most variable in its phases (vapor, cloud droplets, ice crystals). However, water vapor is not considered a pollutant, but part of the feedback loop rather than a primary cause of change. 2 Black carbon contributes to climate change both directly, by absorbing sunlight, and indirectly, by depositing on snow (making it melt faster) and by interacting with clouds and affecting cloud formation. Black carbon is the most strongly lightabsorbing component of particulate matter (PM) emitted from burning fuels such as coal, diesel, and biomass. The share of black carbon emissions from transportation is dropping rapidly and is expected to continue to do so between now and 2030 as a result of California’s air quality programs. The remaining black carbon emissions will come largely from woodstoves/fireplaces, off-road applications, and industrial/commercial combustion. However, state and national GHG inventories do not include black carbon due to ongoing work resolving the precise global warming potential of black carbon. Guidance for CEQA documents does not yet include black carbon.
3 U.S. Energy Information Administration. 2022. “Natural Gas Explained” accessed April 19, 2024 at https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/natural-gas/.
686
CC 05-14-2024
686 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

4.7-2 APRIL 2024
GHGs are dependent on the lifetime, or persistence, of the gas molecule in the atmosphere. Some GHGs have a stronger greenhouse effect than others. These are referred to as high Global Warming Potential (GWP) gases. The GWP of applicable GHG emissions are shown in Table 4.7-1, Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Their Relative Global Warming Potential Compared to CO2. The GWP is used to convert GHGs to CO2- equivalence (CO2e) to show the relative potential that different GHGs retain infrared radiation in the atmosphere and contribute to the greenhouse effect. For example, under IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) GWP values for methane (CH4), a project that generates 10 metric tons (MT) of CH4 would be equivalent to 280 MT of CO2.

TABLE 4.7-1 GHG EMISSIONS AND THEIR RELATIVE GLOBAL WARMING POTENTIAL COMPARED TO CO2 GHGs
Fourth Assessment Report
Global Warming
Potential Relative to CO2
a

Fifth Assessment Report
Global Warming
Potential Relative to CO2
a

Sixth Assessment Report
Global Warming
Potential Relative to CO2
a

Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 1 1 1
Methane (CH4) b 25 28 30
Nitrous Oxide (N2O) 298 265 273
Notes: The IPCC published updated GWP values in its Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) that reflect new information on atmospheric lifetimes of GHGs and an improved calculation of the radiative forcing of CO2. However, GWP values identified in AR4 are used in CalEEMod. Therefore, this analysis utilizes AR4 GWP values.
a. Based on 100-year time horizon of the GWP of the air pollutant compared to CO2. b. The methane GWP includes direct effects and indirect effects due to the production of tropospheric ozone and stratospheric water vapor. The indirect effect due to the production of CO2 is not included.

Sources: IPCC 2007, 2013, and 2022.

Human Influence on Climate Change
For approximately 1,000 years before the Industrial Revolution, the amount of GHGs in the atmosphere remained relatively constant. During the 20th century, however, scientists observed a rapid change in the climate and the quantity of climate change pollutants in the Earth’s atmosphere that is attributable to human activities.

The recent Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) summarizes the latest scientific consensus on climate change. It finds that atmospheric concentrations of CO2 have increased by 50 percent since the industrial revolution and continue to increase at a rate of two parts per million each year. By the 2030s, and no later than 2040, the world will exceed 1.5 degrees Celsius (°C) warming.
4 These recent changes in the quantity and concentration of climate change pollutants far exceed the extremes of the ice ages, and the global mean temperature is warming at a rate that cannot be explained by natural causes alone. Human activities are directly altering the chemical composition of the atmosphere through the buildup of GHG emissions. 5 In the past, gradual changes in
the earth’s temperature changed the distribution of species, availability of water, etc. Human activities are 4 California Air Resources Board, December 2022, Draft 2022 Scoping Plan, https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2023- 04/2022-sp.pdf, accessed January 23, 2024.
5 California Environmental Protection Agency, Climate Action Team, March 2006, Climate Action Team Report to Governor Schwarzenegger and the Legislature, http://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/ucldc-nuxeo-ref-media/0bdec21c-ca2b-4f4d-9e11- 35935ac4cf5f, accessed January 23, 2024.
687
CC 05-14-2024
687 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
PLACEWORKS 4.7-3
accelerating this process so that environmental impacts associated with climate change no longer occur in a geologic time frame but within a human lifetime.6
Like the variability in the projections of the expected increase in global surface temperatures, the environmental consequences of gradual changes in the Earth’s temperature are hard to predict.

Projections of climate change depend heavily upon future human activity. Therefore, climate models are based on different emission scenarios that account for historical trends in emissions and on observations of the climate record that assess the human influence of the trend and projections for extreme weather events. On a local level, the Study Area is likely to experience the following trends due to an increase in global GHG emissions:
 Increase in annual average minimum and maximum temperatures.  Increase in the number of extreme heat days.
 Increase in the frequency and intensity of both heavy rainfall and drought conditions.  Increase in mean high tide levels and bayshore flooding.

Increase in secondary effects of warmer temperatures and severe rainfall, including wildfires, landslides, vector-borne illnesses, and poor air quality.

4.7.1.2 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
This section summarizes key federal, State, regional, and local regulations and programs related to GHG emissions resulting from the proposed Modified Project.

Federal Regulations
United State Environmental Protection Agency
The US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) announced on December 7, 2009, that GHG emissions threaten the public health and welfare of the American people and that GHG emissions from on-road vehicles contribute to that threat. The EPA’s final findings respond to the 2007 U.S. Supreme Court decision that GHG emissions fit within the Clean Air Act definition of air pollutants. The findings do not impose any emission reduction requirements but allow the EPA to finalize the GHG standards proposed in 2009 for new light-duty vehicles as part of the joint rulemaking with the Department of Transportation.7 To regulate GHGs from passenger vehicles, the USEPA was required to issue an endangerment finding. The finding identified emissions of six key GHGs—CO2, CH4, N2O, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and SF6—that have been the subject of scrutiny and intense analysis for decades by scientists in the United States and around the world. The first three are applicable to the project’s GHG emissions inventory 6 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007, Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007, Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability, https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/ar4_wg2_full_report.pdf, accessed January 23, 2024. 7 US Environmental Protection Agency, December 2009, EPA: Greenhouse Gases Threaten Public Health and the Environment. Science overwhelmingly shows greenhouse gas concentrations at unprecedented levels due to human activity. https://archive.epa.gov/epapages/newsroom_archive/newsreleases/08d11a451131bca585257685005bf252.html. 688
CC 05-14-2024
688 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

4.7-4 APRIL 2024
because they constitute the majority of GHG emissions and, according to guidance by the BAAQMD, are the GHG emissions that should be evaluated as part of a project’s GHG emissions inventory.

In response to the endangerment finding, the EPA issued the Mandatory Reporting of GHG Rule in 2009 that requires substantial emitters of GHG emissions (large stationary sources, etc.) to report GHG emissions data. Facilities that emit 25,000 MT or more of CO2e per year are required to submit an annual report.

Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards (2017 to 2026) The federal government issued new Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards in 2012 for model years 2017 to 2025, which required a fleet average of 54.5 miles per gallon (MPG) in 2025. However, on March 30, 2020, the EPA finalized an updated CAFE and GHG emissions standards for passenger cars and light trucks and established new standards covering model years 2021 through 2026, known as the Safer Affordable Fuel Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Final Rule for Model Years 2021 to 2026. Under SAFE, the fuel economy standards will increase 1.5 percent per year compared to the 5 percent per year under the CAFE standards established in 2012. Overall, SAFE requires a fleet average of 40.4 MPG for model year 2026 vehicles (85 Federal Register 24174 [April 30, 2020]).8 On December 21, 2021, under the direction of Executive Order (EO) 13990, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) repealed SAFE Vehicles Rule Part One, which had preempted state and local laws related to fuel economy standards. In addition, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) announced new proposed fuel standards on March 31, 2022. Fuel efficiency under the new standards proposed will increase 8 percent annually for model years 2024 to 2025 and 10 percent annual for model year 2026. Overall, the new CAFE standards require a fleet average of 49 MPG for passenger vehicles and light trucks for model year 2026, which would be a 10 MPG increase relative to model year 2021.9
State Regulations
Current State of California guidance and goals for reductions in GHG emissions are generally embodied in Executive Order (EO) S-03-05, EO B-30-15, EO B-55-18, Assembly Bill (AB) 32 , AB 1279, Senate Bill (SB) 32, and SB 375.

Executive Order S-03-05
EO S-03-05 was signed June 1, 2005, and set the following GHG reduction targets for the state:
 2000 levels by 2010
 1990 levels by 2020
8Environmental Protection Agency, April 2020, 85 Federal Register 24174, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2020- 04-30/pdf/2020-06967.pdf, accessed on February 2, 2024. 9 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, April 1, 2022, USDOT Announces New Vehicle Fuel Economy Standards for Model year 2024-2026. https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/usdot-announces-new-vehicle-fuel-economy-standards-modelyear-2024-2026, accessed on January 23, 2024. 689
CC 05-14-2024
689 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
PLACEWORKS 4.7-5
 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050
Assembly Bill 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act (2006) AB 32 was passed by the California state legislature on August 31, 2006, to place the state on a course toward reducing its contribution of GHG emissions. AB 32 follows the 2020 tier of emissions reduction targets established in EO S-03-05. CARB prepared the 2008 Scoping Plan to outline a plan to achieve the GHG emissions reduction targets of AB 32.

Executive Order B-30-15
EO B-30-15, signed April 29, 2015, set a goal of reducing GHG emissions in the state to 40 percent of 1990 levels by year 2030. Executive Order B-30-15 also directed CARB to update the Scoping Plan to quantify the 2030 GHG reduction goal for the state and requires State agencies to implement measures to meet the interim 2030 goal as well as the long-term goal for 2050 in EO S-03-05. It also requires the Natural Resources Agency to conduct triennial updates of the California Adaptation Strategy in order to ensure climate change is accounted for in state planning and investment decisions.

Senate Bill 32 and Assembly Bill 197
In September 2016, SB 32 and AB 197 were signed into law, making the executive order goal for year 2030 into a statewide mandated legislative target. AB 197 established a joint legislative committee on climate change policies and requires the CARB to prioritize direct emissions reductions rather than the marketbased cap-and-trade program for large stationary, mobile, and other sources.

Executive Order B-55-18
EO B-55-18, signed September 10, 2018, sets a goal “to achieve carbon neutrality as soon as possible, and no later than 2045, and achieve and maintain net negative emissions thereafter.” Executive Order B-55-18 directs CARB to work with relevant state agencies to ensure future Scoping Plans identify and recommend measures to achieve the carbon neutrality goal. The goal of carbon neutrality by 2045 is in addition to other statewide goals, meaning not only should emissions be reduced to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050, but that, by no later than 2045, the remaining emissions be offset by equivalent net removals of CO2e from the atmosphere, including through sequestration in forests, soils, and other natural landscapes.

CARB adopted the 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality (2022 Scoping Plan) on December 15, 2022, which lays out a path to achieve carbon neutrality by 2045 or earlier and to reduce the State’s anthropogenic GHG emissions.10 The Scoping Plan was updated to address the carbon neutrality goals of EO B-55-18 (described below) and the ambitious GHG reduction target as directed by AB 1279. Previous Scoping Plans focused on specific GHG reduction targets for our industrial, energy, and transportation sectors—to meet 1990 levels by 2020, and then the more aggressive 40 percent below that for the 2030 target. This plan expands upon earlier Scoping Plans with a target of reducing anthropogenic emissions to 10 California Air Resources Board, December 2022, 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality, https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-12/2022-sp.pdf, accessed January 23, 2024. 690
CC 05-14-2024
690 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

4.7-6 APRIL 2024
85 percent below 1990 levels by 2045. Carbon neutrality takes it one step further by expanding actions to capture and store carbon including through natural and working lands and mechanical technologies, while drastically reducing anthropogenic sources of carbon pollution at the same time.

The path forward was informed by the recent Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) of the IPCC and the measures would achieve 85 percent below 1990 levels by 2045 in accordance AB 1279. CARB’s 2022 Scoping Plan identifies strategies as shown in Table 4.7-2, Priority Strategies for Local Government Climate Action Plans, that would be most impactful at the local level for ensuring substantial process towards the State’s carbon neutrality goals.

TABLE 4.7-2 PRIORITY STRATEGIES FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT CLIMATE ACTION PLANS Priority Area Priority Strategies
Transportation
Electrification
Convert local government fleets to zero-emission vehicles (ZEV) and provide EV charging at public sites.

Create a jurisdiction-specific ZEV ecosystem to support deployment of ZEVs statewide (such as building standards that exceed state building codes, permit streamlining, infrastructure siting, consumer education, preferential parking policies, and ZEV readiness plans).

VMT Reduction
Reduce or eliminate minimum parking standards.

Implement Complete Streets policies and investments, consistent with general plan circulation element requirements.

Increase access to public transit by increasing density of development near transit, improving transit service by increasing service frequency, creating bus priority lanes, reducing, or eliminating fares, microtransit, etc.

Increase public access to clean mobility options by planning for and investing in electric shuttles, bike share, car share, and walking.

Implement parking pricing or transportation demand management pricing strategies.

Amend zoning or development codes to enable mixed-use, walkable, transit-oriented, and compact infill development (such as increasing allowable density of the neighborhood).

Preserve natural and working lands by implementing land use policies that guide development toward infill areas and do not convert “greenfield” land to urban uses (e.g., green belts, strategic conservation easements)
Building
Decarbonization
Adopt all-electric new construction reach codes for residential and commercial uses.

Adopt policies and incentive programs to implement energy efficiency retrofits for existing buildings, such as weatherization, lighting upgrades, and replacing energy-intensive appliances and equipment with more efficient systems (such as Energy Star-rated equipment and equipment controllers).

Adopt policies and incentive programs to electrify all appliances and equipment in existing buildings such as appliance rebates, existing building reach codes, or time of sale electrification ordinances.

Facilitate deployment of renewable energy production and distribution and energy storage on privately owned land uses (e.g., permit streamlining, information sharing) Deploy renewable energy production and energy storage directly in new public projects and on existing public facilities (e.g., solar photovoltaic systems on rooftops of municipal buildings and on canopies in public parking lots, battery storage systems in municipal buildings).

Source: California Air Resources Board, 2022, Draft 2022 Scoping Plan, https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/ab-32-climate-change-scopingplan/2022-scoping-plan-documents, accessed May 23, 2023.

For residential development projects, CARB recommends this first approach to demonstrate that these land use development projects are aligned with State climate goals based on the attributes of land use development that reduce operational GHG emissions while simultaneously advancing fair housing.

Attributes that accommodate growth in a manner consistent with the GHG and equity goals of SB 32 have all the following attributes:
691
CC 05-14-2024
691 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
PLACEWORKS 4.7-7
Transportation Electrification
 Provide EV charging infrastructure that, at a minimum, meets the most ambitious voluntary standards in the California Green Building Standards Code at the time of project approval.

VMT Reduction
 Is located on infill sites that are surrounded by existing urban uses and reuses or redevelops previously undeveloped or underutilized land that is presently served by existing utilities and essential public services (e.g., transit, streets, water, sewer).  Does not result in the loss or conversion of the State’s natural and working lands;  Consists of transit-supportive densities (minimum of 20 residential dwelling units/acre), or is in proximity to existing transit stops (within a half mile), or satisfies more detailed and stringent criteria specified in the region’s Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS);  Reduces parking requirements by:
 Eliminating parking requirements or including maximum allowable parking ratios (i.e., the ratio of parking spaces to residential units or square feet); or  Providing residential parking supply at a ratio of <1 parking space per dwelling unit; or  For multifamily residential development, requiring parking costs to be unbundled from costs to rent or own a residential unit.
 At least 20 percent of the units are affordable to lower-income residents;  Result in no net loss of existing affordable units.

Building Decarbonization
 Use all electric appliances without any natural gas connections and does not use propane or other fossil fuels for space heating, water heating, or indoor cooking.

The second approach to project-level alignment with State climate goals is net zero GHG emissions. The third approach to demonstrating project-level alignment with State climate goals is to align with GHG thresholds of significance, which many local air quality management (AQMDs) and air pollution control districts (APCDs) have developed or adopted.11
Assembly Bill 1279
AB 1279, signed into law in September 2022, codified the carbon neutrality targets of EO B-55-18 for year 2045 and sets a new legislative target for year 2045 of 85 percent below 1990 levels for anthropogenic GHG emissions. CARB will be required to update the Scoping Plan to identify and recommend measures to achieve the net-zero and GHG emissions-reduction goals.

Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act
11 California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2022, December. 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality, https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-12/2022-sp.pdf, accessed January 23, 2024. 692
CC 05-14-2024
692 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

4.7-8 APRIL 2024
The Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act, commonly known by its legislative bill number (SB 375), was adopted in 2008 to connect the GHG emissions reduction targets established in the 2008 Scoping Plan for the transportation sector to local land use decisions that affect travel behavior. Its intent is to reduce GHG emissions from light-duty trucks and automobiles (excludes emissions associated with goods movement) by aligning regional long-range transportation plans, investments, and housing allocations to local land use planning to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and vehicle trips. Specifically, SB 375 required CARB to establish GHG emissions reduction targets for each of the 18 metropolitan planning organizations (MPO). Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) is the MPO for the San Francisco Bay region, which includes Napa, Marin, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Alameda, Sonoma, Solano, and Contra Costa counties. Pursuant to the recommendations of the Regional Transportation Advisory Committee, CARB adopted per capita reduction targets for each of the MPOs rather than a total magnitude reduction target.

CARB is required to update the targets for the MPOs every eight years. In June 2017, CARB released updated targets and technical methodology, and released another update in February 2018, which became effective in October 2018. All Sustainable Community Strategies (SCSs) adopted after October 1, 2018, are subject to these new targets. The updated targets consider the need to further reduce VMT, as identified in the 2017 Scoping Plan Update, while balancing the need for additional and more flexible revenue sources to incentivize positive planning and action toward sustainable communities. Like the 2010 targets, the updated SB 375 targets are in units of percent per capita reduction in GHG emissions from automobiles and light trucks compared to 2005. This excludes reductions anticipated from implementation of state technology and fuels strategies and any potential future state strategies such as statewide road user pricing. The proposed targets call for greater per-capita GHG emission reductions from SB 375 than are currently in place, which for 2035 translates into proposed targets that either match or exceed the emission reduction levels in the MPOs’ currently adopted sustainable communities strategies (SCS). As proposed, CARB staff’s proposed targets would result in an additional reduction of over 8 MMTCO2e in 2035 compared to the current targets.12 Transportation Sector Specific Regulations
Assembly Bill 1493
California vehicle GHG emission standards were enacted under AB 1493 (Pavley I). Pavley I is a clean-car standard that reduces GHG emissions from new passenger vehicles (light-duty auto to medium-duty vehicles). California implements the Pavley I standards through a waiver granted to California by the EPA.

In 2012, the EPA issued a Final Rulemaking that sets even more stringent fuel economy and GHG emissions standards for model years 2017 through 2025 light-duty vehicles. (See also the previous discussion in federal regulations under “Update to Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards [2017 to 2026].”)
12 California Air Resources Board (CARB), February 2018, Proposed Update to the SB 375 Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Targets. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020-06/SB375_Updated_Final_Target_Staff_Report_2018.pdf. 693
CC 05-14-2024
693 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
PLACEWORKS 4.7-9
In January 2012, CARB approved the Advanced Clean Cars program (formerly known as Pavley II) for model years 2017 through 2025. The program combines the control of smog, soot, and GHGs with requirements for greater numbers of ZE vehicles into a single package of standards. Under California’s Advanced Clean Car program, by 2025 new automobiles will emit 34 percent less GHG emissions and 75 percent less smog-forming emissions.

Advanced Clean Fleets and Advanced Clean Trucks
In April 2023, CARB adopted the Advanced Clean Cars II rule (AC II), which requires all new passenger vehicles, trucks, and SUVs sold in California to be zero emissions by 2035. The regulation amends the Zero-emission Vehicle Regulation to require an increasing number of zero-emission vehicles to support the 2020 EO N-79-20 and amends the Low-emission Vehicle Regulations to include increasingly stringent standards for gasoline cars and heavier passenger trucks to continue to reduce smog-forming emissions.

This rule will substantially reduce air pollutants that threaten public health and would further develop the zero-emission vehicle market starting with the 2026 model year.

In April 2023, CARB approved the Advanced Clean Fleets, which requires a phased-in transition toward zero-emission medium-and-heavy duty vehicles. Under the new rule, fleet owners operating vehicles for private services (such as Postal Service, state, and local government fleets) will begin their transition toward zero-emission vehicles starting in 2024. The rule also requires an end to combustion truck sales in 2036 and follows the 2020 adoption of the Advanced Clean Trucks rule, which put in place a requirement for manufacturers to increase the sale of zero-emission trucks.

Executive Order S-01-07
On January 18, 2007, the State set a new Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) for transportation fuels sold in the state. EO S 01 07 set a declining standard for GHG emissions measured in CO2e gram per unit of fuel energy sold in California. The LCFS requires a reduction of 2.5 percent in the carbon intensity of California’s transportation fuels by 2015 and a reduction of at least 10 percent by 2020. The standard applied to refiners, blenders, producers, and importers of transportation fuels, and used market-based mechanisms to allow these providers to choose the most economically feasible methods for reducing emissions during the “fuel cycle.”
Executive Order B-16-2012
On March 23, 2012, the State identified that CARB, the California Energy Commission (CEC), the Public Utilities Commission, and other relevant agencies worked with the Plug-in Electric Vehicle Collaborative and the California Fuel Cell Partnership to establish benchmarks to accommodate ZE vehicles in major metropolitan areas, including infrastructure to support them (e.g., electric vehicle [EV] charging stations).

EO B 16-2012 also directed the number of ZE vehicles in California’s state vehicle fleet to increase through the normal course of fleet replacement so that at least 10 percent of fleet purchases of light-duty vehicles are ZE by 2015 and at least 25 percent by 2020. The executive order also established a target for the transportation sector of reducing GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels. 694
CC 05-14-2024
694 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

4.7-10 APRIL 2024
Executive Order N-79-20
On September 23, 2020, EO N-79-20 was signed into law, whose goal is that 100 percent of in-state sales of new passenger cars and trucks will be ZE by 2035. Additionally, the fleet goals for trucks are that 100 percent of drayage trucks are ZE by 2035, and 100 percent of medium- and heavy-duty vehicles in the state are ZE by 2045, where feasible. The EO’s goal for the state is to transition to 100 percent ZE off-road vehicles and equipment by 2035, where feasible.

Renewables Portfolio: Carbon Neutrality Regulations
Senate Bills 1078, 107, and X1-2 and Executive Order S 14 08 A major component of California’s Renewable Energy Program is the renewables portfolio standard (RPS) established under SB 1078 (Sher) and 107 (Simitian). Under the RPS, certain retail sellers of electricity were required to increase the amount of renewable energy each year by at least 1 percent in order to reach at least 20 percent by December 30, 2010. EO S-14-08, signed in November 2008, expanded the state’s renewable energy standard to 33 percent renewable power by 2020. This standard was adopted by the legislature in 2011 (SB X1-2). Renewable sources of electricity include wind, small hydropower, solar, geothermal, biomass, and biogas. The increase in renewable sources for electricity production decreases indirect GHG emissions from development projects because electricity production from renewable sources is generally considered carbon neutral.

Senate Bill 350
Senate Bill 350 (de Leon) was signed into law in September 2015 and establishes tiered increases to the RPS—40 percent by 2024, 45 percent by 2027, and 50 percent by 2030. SB 350 also sets a new goal to double the energy-efficiency savings in electricity and natural gas through energy efficiency and conservation measures.

Senate Bill 100
On September 10, 2018, SB 100 was signed into law. Under SB 100, the RPS for public-owned facilities and retail sellers consists of 44 percent renewable energy by 2024, 52 percent by 2027, and 60 percent by 2030. SB 100 also established a new RPS requirement of 50 percent by 2026. Furthermore, the bill establishes an overall state policy that eligible renewable energy resources and zero-carbon resources supply 100 percent of all retail sales of electricity to California end-use customers and 100 percent of electricity procured to serve all state agencies by December 31, 2045. Under the bill, the state cannot increase carbon emissions elsewhere in the western grid or allow resource shuffling to achieve the 100 percent carbon-free electricity target.

Senate Bill 1020
SB 1020 was signed into law on September 16, 2022. SB 1020 provides interim RPS targets (90 percent renewable energy by 2035 and 95 percent renewable energy by 2040) and requires renewable energy and zero-carbon resources to reach 100 percent clean electricity by 2045. 695
CC 05-14-2024
695 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
PLACEWORKS 4.7-11
Energy-Efficiency Regulations
California Building Code: Building Energy-Efficiency Standards Energy conservation standards for new residential and nonresidential buildings were adopted by the California Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission (now the CEC) in June 1977 (Title 24, Part 6, of the California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Title 24 requires the design of building shells and building components to conserve energy. The standards are updated periodically to allow for the consideration and possible incorporation of new energy efficiency technologies and methods.

The 2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards were adopted on August 11, 2021, and went into effect on January 1, 2023. The 2022 standards encourage efficient electric heat pumps, establish electric-ready requirements for new homes, expand solar photovoltaic and battery storage standards, strengthen ventilation standards, and more. The 2022 standards require mixed-fuel single-family homes to be electric-ready to accommodate replacement of gas appliances with electric appliances. In addition, the standards also include prescriptive photovoltaic system and battery requirements for high-rise, multifamily buildings (i.e., more than three stories) and noncommercial buildings such as hotels, offices, medical offices, restaurants, retail stores, schools, warehouses, theaters, and convention centers.13 California Building Code: CALGreen
On July 17, 2008, the California Building Standards Commission adopted the nation’s first green building standards. The California Green Building Standards Code (24 CCR, Part 11, known as “CALGreen”) was adopted as part of the California Building Standards Code. CALGreen established planning and design standards for sustainable site development, energy efficiency (in excess of the California Energy Code requirements), water conservation, material conservation, and internal air contaminants. The mandatory provisions of CALGreen became effective January 1, 2011, and were last updated in 2022. The 2022 CALGreen standards became effective on January 1, 2023. 2006 Appliance Efficiency Regulations
The 2006 Appliance Efficiency Regulations (20 CCR Sections 1601–1608) were adopted by the CEC on October 11, 2006, and approved by the California Office of Administrative Law on December 14, 2006.

The regulations include standards for both federally regulated appliances and non–federally regulated appliances. Though these regulations are now often viewed as “business as usual,” they exceed the standards imposed by all other states, and they reduce GHG emissions by reducing energy demand. 13 California Energy Commission (CEC), May 2021, Amendments to the Building Energy Efficiency Standards (2022 Energy Code) Draft Environmental Report. https://www.energy.ca.gov/publications/2021/environmental-impact-report-amendmentsbuilding-efficiency-standards-2022-energy. 696
CC 05-14-2024
696 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

4.7-12 APRIL 2024
Solid Waste Diversion Regulations
Assembly Bill 939: Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 California’s Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939, Public Resources Code Section 40050 et seq.) set a requirement for cities and counties throughout the state to divert 50 percent of all solid waste from landfills by January 1, 2000, through source reduction, recycling, and composting. In 2008, the requirements were modified to reflect a per capita requirement rather than tonnage. To help achieve this, the Act requires that each city and county prepare and submit a source reduction and recycling element.

AB 939 also established the goal for all California counties to provide at least 15 years of ongoing landfill capacity.

Assembly Bill 341
AB 341 (Chapter 476, Statutes of 2011) increased the statewide goal for waste diversion to 75 percent by 2020 and requires recycling of waste from commercial and multifamily residential land uses. Section 5.408 of CALGreen also requires that at least 65 percent of the nonhazardous construction and demolition waste from nonresidential construction operations be recycled and/or salvaged for reuse.

Assembly Bill 1327
The California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Access Act (AB 1327, Public Resources Code Section 42900 et seq.) requires areas to be set aside for collecting and loading recyclable materials in development projects. The act requires the California Integrated Waste Management Board to develop a model ordinance for adoption by any local agency requiring adequate areas for collection and loading of recyclable materials as part of development projects. Local agencies are required to adopt the model or an ordinance of their own.

Assembly Bill 1826
In October of 2014, AB 1826 was signed into law requiring businesses to recycle their organic waste on and after April 1, 2016, depending on the amount of waste they generate per week. This law also requires that on and after January 1, 2016, local jurisdictions across the state implement an organic waste recycling program to divert organic waste generated by businesses and multifamily residential dwellings with five or more units. Organic waste means food waste, green waste, landscape and pruning waste, nonhazardous wood waste, and food-soiled paper waste that is mixed with food waste.

Water Efficiency Regulations
Senate Bill X7-7
The 20x2020 Water Conservation Plan was issued by the Department of Water Resources (DWR) in 2010 pursuant to Senate Bill 7, which was adopted during the 7th Extraordinary Session of 2009 to 2010 and therefore dubbed “SB X7-7.” SB X7-7 mandated urban water conservation and authorized the DWR to prepare a plan implementing urban water conservation requirement (20x2020 Water Conservation Plan).

In addition, it required agricultural water providers to prepare agricultural water management plans, 697
CC 05-14-2024
697 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
PLACEWORKS 4.7-13
measure water deliveries to customers, and implement other efficiency measures. SB X7-7 required urban water providers to adopt a water conservation target of a 20 percent reduction in urban per-capita water use by 2020 compared to 2005 baseline use.

Assembly Bill 1881: Water Conservation in Landscaping Act The Water Conservation in Landscaping Act of 2006 (AB 1881) requires local agencies to adopt the updated DWR model water efficient landscape ordinance or an equivalent by 2015. AB 1881 also requires the CEC to consult with the DWR to adopt, by regulation, performance standards and labeling requirements for landscape irrigation equipment, including irrigation controllers, moisture sensors, emission devices, and valves, to reduce the wasteful, uneconomic, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy or water.

Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Reduction Strategy
On September 19, 2016, SB 1383 was signed into law to supplement the GHG reduction strategies in the Scoping Plan to consider short-lived climate pollutants, including black carbon and methane. Black carbon is the light-absorbing component of fine particulate matter produced during the incomplete combustion of fuels. SB 1383 required CARB, no later than January 1, 2018, to approve and begin implementing a comprehensive strategy to reduce emissions of short-lived climate pollutants to achieve a reduction in methane by 40 percent, hydrofluorocarbon gases by 40 percent, and anthropogenic black carbon by 50 percent below 2013 levels by 2030. The bill also established targets for reducing organic waste in landfills.

On March 14, 2017, CARB adopted the Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Reduction Strategy, which identifies the state’s approach to reducing anthropogenic and biogenic sources of short-lived climate pollutants.

Anthropogenic sources of black carbon include on- and off-road transportation, residential wood burning, fuel combustion (charbroiling), and industrial processes. According to CARB, ambient levels of black carbon in California are 90 percent lower than in the early 1960s, despite the tripling of diesel fuel use.14 In-use on-road rules were expected to reduce black carbon emissions from on-road sources by 80 percent between 2000 and 2020.

Regional Regulations
Plan Bay Area: Strategy for a Sustainable Region
MTC and Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) adopted Plan Bay Area 2050 on October 21, 2021.15 Plan Bay Area 2050 provides transportation and environmental strategies to continue to meet the regional transportation-related GHG reduction goals of SB 375. Under the Plan Bay Area 2050 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 14 California Air Resources Board (CARB). March 2017. Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Reduction Strategy. https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/shortlived/shortlived.htm.
15 Association of Bay Area Governments/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 January 23, 2024.
698
CC 05-14-2024
698 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

4.7-14 APRIL 2024
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.16 To achieve MTC’s/ABAG’s sustainable vision for the Bay Area, the Plan Bay Area land use concept plan for the region concentrates the majority of new population and employment growth in the region in Priority Development Areas (PDAs). PDAs are transit-oriented, infill development opportunity areas within existing communities. An overarching goal of the regional plan is to concentrate development in areas where there are existing services and infrastructure rather than allocate new growth to outlying areas where substantial transportation investments would be necessary to achieve the per capita passenger vehicle, VMT, and associated GHG emissions reductions. In Cupertino, there are four TPAs and two PDAs, the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority City Cores, Corridors & Station Areas, and South DeAnza. 17,18 Bay Area Clean Air Plan
BAAQMD adopted the 2017 Clean Air Plan, Spare the Air, Cool the Climate on April 19, 2017. 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 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:
 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.
19 A comprehensive multipollutant control strategy has been 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, toxic air contaminants, 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) 16 Association of Bay Area Governments/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 January 23, 2024.
17 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 18 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. 19 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2017, Spare the Air: Cool the Climate, Final 2017 Clean Air Plan, https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/plans/2017-clean-air-plan/attachment-a_-proposed-final-capvol-1-pdf.pdf?la=en, accessed January 23, 2024. 699
CC 05-14-2024
699 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
PLACEWORKS 4.7-15
natural and working lands; (6) waste management; (7) water; and (8) super-GHG pollutants. Overall, the proposed control strategy is based on the following 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.

Bay Area Commuter Benefits Program
Under Air District Regulation 14, Model Source Emissions Reduction Measures, Rule 1, Bay Area Commuter Benefits Program, employers with 50 or more full-time employees within the BAAQMD are required to register and offer commuter benefits to employees. In partnership with the BAAQMD and the MTC, the rule’s purpose is to improve air quality, reduce GHG emissions, and decrease the Bay Area’s traffic congestion by encouraging employees to use alternative commute modes, such as transit, vanpool, carpool, bicycling, and walking. The benefits program allows employees to choose from one of four commuter benefit options including a pre-tax benefit, employer-provided subsidy, employer-provided transit, and alternative commute benefit.

Local Regulations
General Plan 2040
The Land Use and Community Design (LU), Housing (HE), Mobility (M), Environmental Resources and Sustainability (ES), and Infrastructure (INF) Elements of the General Plan 2040 contain goals, policies, and strategies that require local planning and development decisions to consider impacts from GHG emissions. Applicable policies and strategies that would minimize potential adverse impacts from GHG emissions are identified in Section 4.7.3, Impact Discussion.

Municipal Code
The Cupertino Municipal Code (CMC) includes various directives to minimize GHG emissions. The CMC is organized by title, chapter, and section. Most provisions related to reducing GHG emissions are included in Title 6, Franchises, Title 14, Streets, Sidewalks and Landscaping, Title 16, Buildings and Construction, and Title 17, Environmental Regulations, 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 700
CC 05-14-2024
700 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

4.7-16 APRIL 2024
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. 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 16.28, Expedited Permit Process for Small Rooftop Solar Systems and Electric Vehicle Charging Systems. This chapter streamlines rooftop solar permitting processes that complies with the Solar Rights Act and AB 2188. The Ordinance encourages the use of solar systems by removing unreasonable barriers, minimizing costs to property owners and the City, and expanding the ability of property owners to install solar energy systems.
 Chapter 16.32, Energy Code. Adopts the 2022 edition of the California Energy Code and each and all of 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 16.58, Green Building Code. Adopts the 2022 edition of the California Green Building Standards Code and includes local amendments regarding the local water and efficient landscape ordinance, electric vehicle charging, and space design for different types of new construction.  Section 16.58.400, Electrical Vehicle (EV) Charging – Residential. Outlines the requirements and installation process of EV chargers in residential areas.

Chapter 16.72, Recycling and Salvaging of Construction and Demolition Debris. Requires the recycling of 65 percent of construction and demolition debris to help the City reduce landfill waste, foster resource conservation, and help the City meet and exceed an overall diversion rate of 50 percent.  Section 17.04.050, Standard Environmental Protection Permit Submittals Requirements. Requires every project to implement standard environmental protection permit submittal requirements prior to the issuance of permits by the City unless they are not applicable to the project.  Section 17.04.050(C), Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy Permit Requirements. Outlines how the project applicant shall complete the City of Cupertino Climate Action Plan – Development Project Consistency Checklist, for review and approval by the City Environment and Sustainability Department prior to issuance of the first permit, to demonstrate how the project is consistent with the Cupertino Climate Action Plan, as subsequently revised, supplemented, or replaced, in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and conserve energy.

Climate Action Plan 2.0
Adopted in August 2022, the City of Cupertino 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. 20 The CAP 2.0 allows City decisionmakers and the community to understand the sources and magnitude of local GHG emissions and identifies a strategy, reduction measures, and implementation actions the City will use to achieve targets 20 City of Cupertino, 2022, August, Climate Action 2.0, https://www.cupertino.org/home/showpublisheddocument/31683/637964240923930000, accessed on January 20, 2024. 701
CC 05-14-2024
701 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
PLACEWORKS 4.7-17
consistent with State recommendations of 15 percent below 2005 emissions levels by 2020, 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, it also details strategies for Cupertino to prepare for and mitigate approaching risks from climate change.

4.7.1.3 EXISTING CONDITIONS
Chapter 4.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of the General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR), addresses the impacts to GHG emissions associated with buildout of the General Plan at a program level. The setting for GHG emissions is described in the General Plan EIR in Section 4.6.1.2, Existing Conditions.

The General Plan EIR identified that potential future development and land use activities as a result of implementation of the Approved Project would meet the 6.6 MTCO2e community-wide GHG emissions threshold for year 2020 and the 3.1 MTCO2e community-wide GHG emissions threshold for year 2040 with implementation of goals and policies that aim to reduce GHG emissions throughout the Study Area.

Therefore, the Approved Project would be consistent with the GHG reduction target of AB 32 as well as the long-term GHG reduction goal of EO S-03-05. In addition, the Approved Project would not conflict with the CARB 2008 Scoping Plan. As the Approved Project would comply with all State standards and would implement policies to ensure consistency with state and regional GHG reduction planning efforts, the Approved Project also would not conflict with ABAG/MTC’s Plan Bay Area. The Approved Project impacts would be less than significant.

Since the certification of the General Plan EIR, new policies and programs have since been adopted that have affected GHG emissions in the Study Area. One specific program that has been adopted since the adoption of the General Plan EIR is the CAP 2.0, which sets new GHG reduction targets. One of the larger targets that was address was for Cupertino to achieve carbon neutrality by 2040, which translates into reducing 108,380 MTCO2e by 2030, and 323,743 MTCO2e by 2040.21 Another plan that was adopted which affects GHGs is Plan Bay Area 2050. As described in Section 4.7.1.2, Regulatory Framework, this plan introduces PDAs and TPAs. In Cupertino, there are four TPAs and two PDAs, the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority City Cores, Corridors & Station Areas, and South DeAnza. 22,23
21 City of Cupertino, August 2022, Climate Action 2.0,
https://www.cupertino.org/home/showpublisheddocument/31683/637964240923930000, accessed on July 20, 2023. 22 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 23 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. 702
CC 05-14-2024
702 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

4.7-18 APRIL 2024
California’s GHG Sources and Relative Contribution
In 2021, the statewide GHG emissions inventory was updated for 2000 to 2019 emissions using the GWPs in IPCC’s AR4.24 Based on these GWPs, California produced 418.2 MMTCO2e GHG emissions in 2019.

California’s transportation sector was the single largest generator of GHG emissions, producing 39.7 percent of the state’s total emissions. Industrial sector emissions made up 21.1 percent, and electric power generation made up 14.1 percent of the state’s emissions inventory. Other major sectors of GHG emissions include commercial and residential buildings (10.5 percent), agriculture and forestry (7.6 percent), high GWP (4.9 percent), and recycling and waste (2.1 percent).25 Since the peak level in 2004, California’s GHG emissions have generally followed a decreasing trend. In 2016, California statewide GHG emissions dropped below the AB 32 target for year 2020 of 431 MMTCO2e and have remained below this target since then. In 2019, emissions from routine GHG-emitting activities statewide were almost 13 MMTCO2e lower than the AB 32 target for year 2020. Per capita GHG emissions in California have dropped from a 2001 peak of 14.0 MTCO2e per person to 10.5 MTCO2e per person in 2019, a 25 percent decrease.

Transportation emissions continued to decline in 2019 statewide as they had done in 2018, with even more substantial reductions due to a significant increase in renewable diesel. Since 2008, California’s electricity sector has followed an overall downward trend in emissions. In 2019, solar power generation continued its rapid growth since 2013. Emissions from high-GWP gases comprised 4.9 percent of California’s emissions in 2019. This continues the increasing trend as the gases replace ozone-depleting substances being phased out under the 1987 Montreal Protocol. Overall trends in the inventory also demonstrate that the carbon intensity of California’s economy (the amount of carbon pollution per million dollars of gross domestic product) has declined 45 percent since the 2001 peak, though the state’s gross domestic product grew 63 percent during this period.
26 4.7.2 STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Implementation of the proposed Modified Project would result in significant GHG emissions impact if it would:

Impact of the
Approved
Project (General
Plan 2040 EIR)
Impact of the
Proposed
Modified
Project
GHG-1. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? LTS SU
GHG-2. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? LTS SU GHG-3. Result in a cumulatively considerable impact with respect to GHG emissions? LTS SU Key: NI = no impact; LTS = less than significant; LTS/M = less than significant with mitigation; SU = significant and unavoidable 24 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 2013, Fifth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2013. New York:

Cambridge University Press.
25 California Air Resources Board (CARB), July 2021, California Greenhouse Gas 2000-2019 Emissions Trends and Indicators Report. https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/pubs/reports/2000_2019/ghg_inventory_trends_00-19.pdf. 26 California Air Resources Board (CARB), July 2021, California Greenhouse Gas 2000-2019 Emissions Trends and Indicators Report. https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/pubs/reports/2000_2019/ghg_inventory_trends_00-19.pdf. 703
CC 05-14-2024
703 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
PLACEWORKS 4.7-19
BAAQMD Significance Criteria
The BAAQMD’s CEQA Thresholds for Evaluating the Significance of Climate Impacts from Land Use Projects and Plans (2022) contains instructions on how to evaluate, measure, and mitigate GHG emission impacts generated from land use development projects and plans. For purposes of this analysis, the City of Cupertino is using the BAAQMD’s current GHG emission plan-level significance thresholds to evaluate the proposed Modified Project’s potential impacts related to GHG emissions.

Greenhouse Gas Emission Impacts
BAAQMD, in its Justification Report: CEQA Thresholds for Evaluating the Significance of Climate Impacts from Land Use Projects and Plans (2022) (GHG Justification Report),27 recommends the use of one of two plan-level criteria to determine the GHG emission impact resulting from a proposed plan.

A. The Plan must be consistent with a local GHG reduction strategy that meets the criteria under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5(b); or
B. The Plan must meet the State’s goals to reduce emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 and carbon neutrality by 2045.

The City’s CAP 2.0 is currently the City’s local GHG reduction strategy, which meets the criteria under State California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15183.5(b) and includes a two-step process for ensuring project consistency. Step 1 consists of an evaluation of whether the project would be consistent with the site’s General Plan land use designation and zoning designation. If a project is inconsistent with the site’s General Plan land use or zoning designations, then that project’s GHG emissions would need to be quantified and shown to be less than the emissions estimates contained the CAP. Step 2 consists of a consistency evaluation using a compliance checklist developed by the City to ensure project consistency with the CAP and its emissions targets. Because the City’s CAP 2.0 compliance checklist is intended for individual project assessments, the City’s CAP 2.0 consistency checklist is not utilized in this analysis.

The proposed Modified Project would reach full implementation in 2040, which is after the State’s 2030 emissions target and well before the State’s carbon neutrality goal in 2045 and the City’s carbon neutrality goal in 2040, and the proposed Modified Project would facilitate future potential individual projects that, if subject to CEQA, would need to go through their own CEQA environmental review. In addition, the proposed Modified Project is not a plan that encompasses the entire jurisdiction of Cupertino and instead specifically addresses the changes that have occurred to the Housing Element as part of the City’s 6th Cycle Housing Element (2023-2031), the associated amendments to Land Use and Community Design Element for internal consistency, and updates to the Cupertino Municipal Code (CMC) Title 19, Zoning, for internal consistency between the General Plan 2040 and Zoning Code. Given the lack of communitywide emissions data and how the proposed Modified Project’s resulting changes in land use patterns would 27 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2022, April. CEQA Thresholds for Evaluating the Significance of Climate Impacts from Land Use Projects and Plans. https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/ceqa/ceqathresholds-2022/justification-report-pdf.pdf?la=en . 704
CC 05-14-2024
704 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

4.7-20 APRIL 2024
affect the City’s long-term communitywide emissions inventory and reduction targets, a net zero emissions threshold is considered for the proposed Modified Project.

Net Zero Threshold
To provide a conservative analysis of the proposed Modified Project’s impacts in relation to the State’s 2045 carbon neutrality goal and the City’s 2040 carbon neutrality goal, 28 the City has identified a no net
increase threshold of zero (0 MTCO2e). Appendix D of the CARB 2022 Scoping Plan recognizes that achieving no net additional increase in GHG emissions, resulting in no contribution to GHG impacts, may be an appropriate overall objective. Therefore, the zero threshold is consistent with the State’s carbon neutrality goals under AB 1279 and provides the most conservative threshold for GHG emissions impacts under CEQA for the proposed Modified Project.

Mass Emissions and Health Effects
On December 24, 2018, in Sierra Club et al. v. County of Fresno et al. (Friant Ranch), the California Supreme Court determined that the EIR for the proposed Friant Ranch project failed to adequately analyze the project’s air quality impacts on human health. The EIR prepared for the project, which involved a master-planned retirement community in Fresno County, showed that project-related mass emissions would exceed the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District’s regional significance thresholds. In its findings, the California Supreme Court affirmed the holding of the Court of Appeal that EIRs for projects must not only identify impacts to human health, but also provide an “analysis of the correlation between the project's emissions and human health impacts” related to each criterion air pollutant that exceeds the regional significance thresholds or explain why it could not make such a connection. In general, the ruling focuses on the correlation of emissions of toxic air contaminants and criteria air pollutants and their impact to human health.

In 2009, the EPA issued an endangerment finding for six GHGs (CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, and SF6) in order to regulate GHG emissions from passenger vehicles. The endangerment finding is based on evidence that shows an increase in mortality and morbidity associated with increases in average temperatures, which increase the likelihood of heat waves and ozone levels. Though identified effects such as sea level rise and increased extreme weather can indirectly impact human health, neither the EPA nor CARB has established ambient air quality standards for GHG emissions. The State’s GHG reduction strategy outlines a path to avoid the most catastrophic effects of climate change and includes goals and objectives that are based on the State’s path toward reducing statewide cumulative GHGs as outlined in AB 32, SB 32, and AB 1279.
28 The 2022 Scoping Plan update includes statewide measures to achieve the state’s carbon neutrality goals under AB 1279, such as carbon dioxide removal, that are not applicable to local governments. Carbon neutrality goals are a “no impact” level and not a “less than significant” impact level for climate change effects. There are presently no reliable means of forecasting how future technological developments related to carbon dioxide removal may affect future emissions in a jurisdiction. Therefore, carbon neutrality targets are not directly applicable to local governments or CEQA projects to mitigate GHG emissions impacts of a proposed project.
705
CC 05-14-2024
705 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
PLACEWORKS 4.7-21
As described above, the two significance thresholds that the City uses to analyze GHG impacts are based on achieving the statewide GHG reduction goals based on a no net increase in GHG emissions (GHG-1) and consistency with policies or plans adopted to reduce GHG emissions (GHG-2). Further, because no single project is large enough to result in a measurable increase in global concentration of GHG emissions, climate change impacts of a project are considered on a cumulative basis. Without federal or State ambient air quality standards for GHG emissions, and given the cumulative nature of GHG emissions and the City’s significance thresholds that are tied to reducing the State’s cumulative GHG emissions, it is not feasible at this time to connect the project’s specific GHG emissions to the potential health impacts of climate change.

4.7.3 IMPACT DISCUSSION

METHODOLOGY
Impacts related to GHG emissions resulting from implementation (construction and operation) of the proposed Modified Project are described below. To determine the increase in emissions as a result of the proposed Modified Project, the maximum allowable residential dwelling units envisioned by the proposed Modified Project (3,312 units) were estimated by calculating the net new change from the Approved Project to the potential future development under the proposed Modified Project in 2040. Due to a lack of available information on existing housing units on sites identified to accommodate the envisioned 3,312 dwelling units through 2040, all 3,312 dwelling units are considered to be a net increase in housing supply in the city. While the proposed Modified Project would have a buildout horizon year of 2040, the updates to the General Plan included in the proposed Modified Project in part is in response to the current Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) cycle, which has a horizon of 2031. Therefore, a buildout year of 2031 was used in emissions and energy consumption estimates for a conservative assessment and efficiencies are expected to improve through 2040 and the 3,312 net new residential units are identified for the RHNA cycle through 2031.

CalEEMod Version 2022.1 was used to calculate emissions of GHG emissions associated with implementation of the proposed Modified Project (see Appendix B, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Data, of this EA). Table 3-4, Housing Element (2023-2031) Opportunity Sites: Residential, and Table 3-5, Housing Element (2023-2031) Opportunity Sites: Commercial/Residential (Mixed Use), in Chapter 3, Project Description, of this EA, identify the sites intended to accommodate the housing supply growth envisioned by the proposed Modified Project. Based on the housing density data from these tables, all new housing units have been assigned to “Apartments Low-Rise,” “Apartments Mid-Rise,” Condos/Townhouse,” and “Single-Family Housing” categories. Consistent with the Transportation Analysis prepared by Fehr & Peers for the proposed Modified Project (Appendix E), modeling for weekday rates used the daily vehicle trips and VMT provided for Approved Project cumulative conditions and cumulative conditions with project implementation. Saturday and Sunday trip generation and VMT were calculated from the ratio CalEEMod default Saturday and Sunday trip rates to the weekday rate. All vehicle trips represented in the emissions modeling were assigned to be 100-percent primary, meaning no trip distance or generation discounts were applied for pass-by or diverted trips to provide a conservative emissions estimate.
706
CC 05-14-2024
706 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

4.7-22 APRIL 2024
Consistent with the BAAQMD’s Regulation 6, Rule 3, Wood-Burning Devices, no new dwelling units modeled with CalEEMod were assumed to contain any wood-burning devices. In addition, the perdwelling unit indoor and outdoor water consumption rates as well as the solid waste generation and energy consumption rates reflect use of CalEEMod default rates.

GHG-1 Implementation of the proposed Modified Project would generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment.

As described in the General Plan EIR, potential future development and land use activities as a result of implementation of the Approved Project would meet the 6.6 MTCO2e community-wide GHG emissions threshold for year 2020 and the 3.1 MTCO2e community-wide GHG emissions threshold for year 2040 with implementation of goals and policies that aim to reduce GHG emissions throughout the Study Area.

Therefore, the Approved Project would be consistent with the GHG reduction target of AB 32 as well as the long-term GHG reduction goal of EO S-03-05. As the Approved Project would achieve the 2020 and 2035 performance criteria, the short-term and long-term GHG emissions impacts of the Approved Project were found to be less than significant.

A Housing Element does not directly result in development without additional approvals. Before any development can occur in the city, it must be analyzed for consistency with the General Plan, Zoning Code requirements, and other applicable local and State requirements; comply with the requirements of CEQA; and obtain all necessary clearances and permits.

Emissions Forecast
The proposed Modified Project guides the City’s policies to encourage housing that meets the needs of all residents in the region through 2040. The proposed Modified Project is a focused effort, with particular emphasis on compliance with state housing mandates. The GHG emissions forecast for buildout of the proposed Modified Project is shown in Table 4.7-3, Operational GHG Emissions – Housing Element Update. Potential future development of up to 3,312 new dwelling units facilitated by the proposed Modified Project result in an estimated increase of 84,142 MTCO2e GHG emissions per year. As shown therein, the increase in residential units and population associated with the proposed Modified Project results in an increase in residential building energy use, mobile emissions, solid waste, water use and wastewater generation, and refrigerant use.

TABLE 4.7-3 OPERATIONAL GHG EMISSIONS – HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Emission Source City of Cupertino GHG Emissions (MTCO2e/Year) Mobile 79,853
Area 211
Energy 3,084
Water 237
Solid Waste 753
707
CC 05-14-2024
707 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
PLACEWORKS 4.7-23
TABLE 4.7-3 OPERATIONAL GHG EMISSIONS – HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Emission Source City of Cupertino GHG Emissions (MTCO2e/Year) Refrigerants 4
Total Net Emissions 84,142
New Residents 9,737
New Resident Per Capita Emissions 8.64
Notes: Emissions may not total to 100 percent due to rounding. Emissions above represent a conservative estimate of net emissions as it does not account for the existing housing supply in the City due to a lack of available information.

Source: Appendix B, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Data, of this EA.

Because the exact conditions of sites identified to accommodate the additional housing supply envisioned by the proposed Modified Project are largely unknown, the annual GHG emissions displayed in Table 4.7-3 conservatively represent net new GHG emissions beyond existing community emissions. As such, for the purposes of this analysis, the proposed Modified Project would result in the addition of 84,142 MTCO2e per year beyond existing conditions.

It should be noted that the energy-source emissions shown in Table 4.7-3 represent new housing units that are designed as mixed-fuel, meaning they are equipped with natural gas plumbing and appliances.

While Chapter 16.32 of the CMC would require newly constructed buildings to be all-electric, with most of the code exceptions applying only to nonresidential occupancies, an all-electric building would avoid natural gas consumption but would result in greater electricity consumption. Because the site-specific details, such as square footage, orientation, and mechanical and envelope design of each new housing unit that would be accommodated by the proposed Modified Project is unknown at this time, the change in energy resource consumption resulting from compliance with Chapter 16.32 of the CMC is unknown.

Therefore, the energy-source emissions shown in Table 4.7-3, while based on the consumption of both natural gas and electricity, is used to represent total energy-source emissions even assuming development under the proposed Modified Project would be all-electric.

Moreover, as shown in Table 4.7-3, Operational GHG Emissions – Housing Element Update, the majority of annual GHG emissions generated by development facilitated by the proposed Modified Project are the result of vehicle use. Table 4.7-3 does not include reductions from State measures targeting mobile and energy sources that have been adopted to reduce GHG emissions, such as:
 The RPS requires increases in renewable electricity supplies.  The Clean Car Standards require increased fuel efficiency of on-road vehicles and decreased carbon intensity of vehicle fuels.
 The updated Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards require new buildings to achieve increased energy efficiency targets.
 The Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) mandates reduced carbon intensity of fuels used in off-road equipment.

The General Plan EIR also found that the General Plan 2040 Land Use and Community Design (LU), Housing (HE), Mobility (M), Environmental Resources and Sustainability (ES), and the Infrastructure (INF) 708
CC 05-14-2024
708 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

4.7-24 APRIL 2024
Elements contain policies and strategies that require local planning and development decisions to consider impacts that development could have related to GHG emissions. Like the Approved Project, the following existing General Plan 2040 includes policies and strategies, and updated policies and strategies as part of the proposed Modified Project, would also help minimize GHG emissions to help meet the State’s 2030 and 2045 GHG reduction targets.
 Policy LU-1.1. Land Use and Transportation. Focus higher land use intensities and densities within a half-mile of public transit service, and along major corridors. (General Plan EIR Policy 4-7)  Policy LU- 3.1. Site Planning. Ensure that project sites are planned appropriately to create a network of connected internal streets that improve pedestrian and bicycle access, provide public open space and building layouts that support city goals related to streetscape character for various Planning Areas and corridors. (General Plan EIR Policy 4-4)
 Policy LU-13.5. Land Use. The Heart of the City area allows a mix of retail, commercial, office and residential uses. Specific uses are provided in the Heart of the City Specific Plan. See Figure LU-2 for residential densities and criteria.
 Policy LU-13.6. Building Form. Buildings should be high-quality, with pedestrian-oriented and active uses along the street.
 Policy HE-1.3: Mixed-Use Development. Encourage mixed-use development near transportation facilities and employment centers.
 Policy HE-4.1. Energy And Water Conservation. Encourage energy and water conservation in all existing and new residential development.
 Strategy 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.
 Strategy HE-4.1.2. Sustainable Practices. The City will continue to implement the Landscape Ordinance for water conservation and the Green Building Ordinance (adopted in 2013) that applies primarily to new residential and nonresidential development, additions, renovations, and tenant improvements of ten or more units. 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.  Policy M-1.1. Regional Transportation Planning. Participate in regional transportation planning processes to develop programs consistent with the goals and policies of Cupertino’s General Plan and to minimize adverse impacts on the City’s circulation system. Work with neighboring cities to address regional transportation and land use issues of mutual interest.  Policy M-3.1. Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. Adopt and maintain a Bicycle and Pedestrian master plan, which outlines policies and improvements to streets, extension of trails, and pathways to create a safe way for people of all ages to bike and walk on a daily basis.  Policy M-3.8. Bicycle Parking. Require new development and redevelopment to provide public and private bicycle parking.
709
CC 05-14-2024
709 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
PLACEWORKS 4.7-25
 Policy M-4.8: Micro-Transit. Continue to support a local micro-transit option, such as the Silicon Valley Hopper or similar service.
 Policy M-8.1. Transportation. Promote transportation policies that help to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
 Strategy M-8.1.1. TSM Strategies. Employ TSM strategies to improve efficiency of the transportation infrastructure including strategic right-of-way improvements, intelligent transportation systems and optimization of signal timing to coordinate traffic flow.  Strategy M-8.1.2. Major and Large Employers. Require major and large employers, including colleges and schools, to develop and maintain TDM programs to reduce vehicle trips generated by their employees and students and develop a tracking method to monitor results.  Strategy M-8.1.3. TDM Ordinance. Develop and adopt a TDM ordinance to reduce vehicle trips with specific implementation actions for all development projects and a monitoring and reporting program to ensure implementation.
 Policy M-8.3. Alternative Fuel Charging Stations. Develop a city-wide strategy to encourage the construction of a network of public and private alternative fuel vehicle charging/ fueling stations.  Policy M-9.2. Reduced Travel Demand. Promote effective TDM programs for existing and new development.
 Policy ES-1.1. Principles of Sustainability. Incorporate principles of sustainability into Cupertino’s planning, infrastructure, and development process in order to improve the environment, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and meet the needs of the community without compromising the needs of future generations.
 Strategy ES-1.1.1. Climate Action Plan (CAP). Adopt, implement, and maintain a Climate Action Plan to attain greenhouse gas emission targets consistent with state law and regional requirements. This qualified greenhouse gas emissions reduction plan, by BAAQMD’s definition, will allow for future project CEQA streamlining and will identify measures to:
 Reduce energy use through conservation and efficiency.  Reduce fossil fuel use through multi-modal and alternative transportation.  Maximize use of and, where feasible, install renewable energy resources.  Strategy ES-1.1.2. CAP and Sustainability Strategies Implementation. Periodically review and report on the effectiveness of the measures outlined in the CAP and the strategies in this Element.

Institutionalize sustainability by developing a methodology to ensure all environmental, social and lifecycle costs are considered in project, program, policy and budget decisions.  Strategy ES-1.1.3. Climate Adaptation and Resiliency. Conduct a climate vulnerability assessment and set preparedness goals and strategies to safeguard human health and community assets susceptible to the impacts of a changing climate (e.g., increased drought, wildfires, flooding). Incorporate these into all relevant plans, including the Emergency Preparedness Plan, Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, Dam Failure Plan, Climate Action Plan, Watershed Protection Plan, and Energy Assuredness Plan.  Policy ES-1.2. Regional Growth and Transportation Coordination. Coordinate with local and regional agencies to prepare updates to regional growth plans and strategies, including the Regional Housing Allocation Needs Allocation (RHNA), One Bay Area Plan, Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS).
710
CC 05-14-2024
710 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

4.7-26 APRIL 2024
 Strategy ES-1.2.1. Local Plan Consistency with Regional Plans. Update and maintain local plans and strategies so they are consistent with One Bay Area Plan to qualify for State transportation and project CEQA streamlining.
 Policy ES-2.1. Conservation and Efficient Use of Energy Resources. Encourage the maximum feasible conservation and efficient use of electrical power and natural gas resources for new and existing residences, businesses, industrial and public uses.
 Strategy ES-2.1.1. Coordination. Continue to evaluate and revise, as necessary, applicable City plans, codes, and procedures for inclusion of Federal, State, and regional requirements and conservation targets.
 Strategy ES-2.1.2. Comprehensive Energy Management. Prepare and implement a comprehensive energy management plan for all applicable municipal facilities and equipment to achieve the energy goals established in the City’s Climate Action Plan. Track the City’s energy use and report findings as part of the Climate Action Plan reporting schedule. Embed this plan into the City’s Environmentally Preferable Procurement Policy to ensure measures are achieved through all future procurement and construction practices.
 Strategy ES-2.1.3. Energy Efficient Replacements. Continue to use life cycle cost analysis to identify City assets for replacement with more energy efficient technology. Utilize available tools to benchmark and showcase City energy efficiency achievements (i.e., EPA Portfolio Manager, statewide Green Business Program).
 Strategy ES-2.1.4. Incentive Program. Consider incentive programs for projects that exceed mandatory requirements and promote incentives from state, county, and federal governments for improving energy efficiency and expanding renewable energy installations.  Strategy ES-2.1.5. Urban Forest. Encourage the inclusion of additional shade trees, vegetated stormwater treatment and landscaping to reduce the “heat island effect” in development projects.  Strategy ES-2.1.6. Alternate Energy Sources. Promote and increase the use of alternate and renewable energy resources for the entire community through effective policies, programs, and incentives.  Strategy ES-2.1.7. Energy Co-Generation Systems. Encourage the use of energy co-generation systems through the provision of an awareness program targeting the larger commercial and industrial users and public facilities.
 Strategy ES-2.1.8. Energy Audits and Financing. Continue to offer and leverage regional partners’ programs to conduct energy audits and/or subvention programs for homes, commercial, industrial and City facilities, and recommend improvements that lead to energy and cost savings opportunities for participants and encourage adoption of alternative energy technologies. Encourage energy audits to include emerging online and applications-based energy analytics and diagnostic tools. Share residential and commercial energy efficiency and renewable energy financing tools through outreach events and civic media assets.
 Strategy ES-2.1.9. Energy Efficient Transportation Modes. Continue to encourage fuel-efficient transportation modes such as alternative fuel vehicles, driverless vehicles, public transit, car and vanpooling, community and regional shuttle systems, car and bike sharing programs, safe routes to schools, commuter benefits, and pedestrian and bicycle paths through infrastructure investment, development incentives, and community education.
 Strategy ES-2.1.10. Community Choice Energy. Collaborate with regional partners to evaluate feasibility for development of a Community Choice Energy Program. 711
CC 05-14-2024
711 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
PLACEWORKS 4.7-27
 Policy ES-3.1. Green Building Design. Set standards for the design and construction of energy and resource conserving/efficient building.
 Strategy ES-3.1.1. Green Building Program. Periodically review and revise the City’s Green Building ordinance to ensure alignment with CALGreen requirements for all major private and public buildings projects that ensure reduction in energy and water use for new development through site selection and building design.
 Strategy ES-3.1.2. Staff Training. Continue to train appropriate City staff in the design principles, costs, and benefits of sustainable building and landscape design. Encourage City staff to attend external trainings on these topics and attain relevant program certifications (e.g., Green Point Rater, Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design (LEED) Accredited Professional).  Strategy ES-3.1.3. Green Buildings Informational Seminars. Conduct and/or participate in Green Building informational seminars and workshops for members of the design and construction industry, land development, real estate sales, lending institutions, landscaping and design, the building maintenance industry and prospective project applicants.  Strategy ES-3.1.4. Green Building Demonstration. Pursue municipal facility retrofits, through a Green Capital Improvement Program (CIP), and new construction projects that exceed CALGreen and achieve third-party certification criteria (e.g., LEED, Living Building Challenge, Zero Net Energy) as a means of creating demonstration spaces for developer and community enrichment.  Strategy ES-4.2.4. Fuel-efficient Vehicles and Use. Prioritize the purchase, replacement, and ongoing use of fuel-efficient and low polluting City fleet vehicles. Update applicable policies and programs to require life cycle cost analyses and include alternative fueling infrastructure review and related funding allocations. Update the Vehicle Use Policy and pursue fleet management best practices to support fuel conservation, scheduled maintenance and fleet fuel tracking. Pursue available grant funding to offset the cost of implementing these programs.  Policy INF-2.5. Recycled Water Infrastructure Plan. for citywide access to recycled water and encourage its use.
 Strategy INF-2.5.1. Availability. Expand the availability of a recycled water system through public infrastructure projects and development review.

For a complete list of policies and strategies aimed at reducing VMT, please see Impact Discussion TRANS2, in Chapter 4.14, Transportation, of this EA. While the policies and strategies listed here and in Chapter

4.14 would reduce energy- and mobile-source GHG emissions, the proposed Modified Project would result in an estimated net new 84,142 MTCO2e per year, which would exceed the net zero threshold. As such, this impact would be potentially significant. Because the General Plan EIR concluded that the Approved Project would result in a less-than-significant impact related to GHG emissions, the proposed Modified Project would result in more severe impacts than those analyzed in the General Plan EIR.

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

Significance without Mitigation: Significant and Unavoidable. As previously stated, potential future development facilitated by the proposed Modified Project would experience emission reductions from implementation of State measures and strategies to reduce statewide GHG emissions, such as the LCFS mandate or RPS requirements. In addition, the General Plan policies and strategies of the proposed Modified Project would serve to further support potential GHG reductions for individual 712
CC 05-14-2024
712 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

4.7-28 APRIL 2024
development projects facilitated by the proposed Modified Project. Nonetheless, because emissions from the potential development under the proposed Modified Project collectively would exceed the net-zero emissions threshold, GHG emissions impacts resulting from the proposed Modified Project would be significant and unavoidable.

GHG-2 Implementation of the proposed Modified Project could conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases.

As described in the General Plan EIR, the Approved Project would achieve the AB 32 reduction targets and all new buildings would be constructed in compliance with the Building Energy Efficiency Standards and CALGreen, the Approved Project would not conflict with the CARB 2008 Scoping Plan. In addition, as the Approved Project would comply with all State standards and would implement policies to ensure consistency with State and regional GHG reduction planning efforts, the Approved Project also would not conflict with ABAG/MTC’s Plan Bay Area. The General Plan EIR, therefore, concluded that the Approved Project would result in a less-than-significant impact related to consistency with plans or policies adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions.

Applicable plans adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions include CARB’s Scoping Plan, ABAG’s/MTC’s Plan Bay Area, and the City of Cupertino CAP. A consistency analysis with these plans is presented below.

CARB Scoping Plan
Since the certification of the General Plan EIR, the CARB 2022 Scoping Plan has been adopted. The CARB 2022 Scoping Plan is applicable to State agencies but is not directly applicable to cities or counties and individual projects (i.e., the Scoping Plan does not require local jurisdictions to adopt its policies, programs, or regulations to reduce GHG emissions). However, new regulations adopted by the State agencies from the 2022 Scoping Plan result in GHG emissions reductions at the local level. So local jurisdictions benefit from reductions in transportation emissions rates, increases in water efficiency in the building and landscape codes, and other statewide actions that affect a local jurisdiction’s emissions inventory from the top down. Statewide strategies to reduce GHG emissions include the LCFS mandate and changes in the CAFE standards.

Future potential development accommodated under the proposed Modified Project would be required to adhere to the programs and regulations identified by the 2022 Scoping Plan and implemented by State, regional, and local agencies to achieve the statewide GHG reduction goals of AB 32, SB 32, and AB 1279.

Future development projects would be required to comply with these State GHG emissions reduction measures because they are statewide strategies. For example, potential future development associated with land uses accommodated by implementing the proposed Modified Project would be required to meet the CALGreen and Building Energy Efficiency Standards in effect at the time when applying for building permits. Furthermore, as described under the Impact Discussion for GHG-1, the proposed Modified Project includes General Plan policies and strategies that would help reduce GHG emissions and therefore help achieve GHG reduction goals.
713
CC 05-14-2024
713 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
PLACEWORKS 4.7-29
Though statewide efforts could provide downstream reductions at the local level, the 2022 Scoping Plan identifies three priority areas for local actions that would support and amplify the overall state efforts to reduce GHG emissions and achieve the long-term climate goals: (1) transportation electrification, (2) VMT reduction, and (3) building decarbonization. Table 4.7-4, Proposed Modified Project Consistency with Scoping Plan Priority Areas, evaluates consistency of the proposed Modified Project with these three Scoping Plan local action priorities and their attributes.

TABLE 4.7-4 PROPOSED MODIFIED PROJECT CONSISTENCY WITH SCOPING PLAN PRIORITY AREAS Priority Area Priority Area Attributes Project Consistency Transportation
Electrification
Provide EV charging infrastructure that, at a
minimum, meets the most ambitious voluntary
standards in the California Green Building
Standards Code at the time of project approval.

Inconsistent: The proposed Modified Project does
not include provisions in the Design Standards or
Design Guidelines that require compliance with the
CALGreen nonresidential voluntary Tier 2 EV
parking standards.

VMT Reduction Meets local jurisdiction adopted SB 743 threshold for VMT.

Inconsistent: As described in Chapter 4.14,
Transportation, of this EA, the proposed Modified
Project would result in increases in total VMT in the
City and would exceed the City’s threshold for VMT
reductions.

Building
Decarbonization
Use all electric appliances without any natural gas
connections and does not use propane or other
fossil fuels for space heating, water heating, or
indoor cooking.

Consistent: The proposed Modified Project would
be subject to CMC Chapter 16.32, Energy Code,
which in most cases requires newly constructed
buildings to be designed as all-electric.

Source: California Air Resources Board, December 2022, Draft 2022 Scoping Plan, https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2023-04/2022-sp.pdf, accessed January 23, 2024.

As described in Table 4.7-4, the proposed Modified Project would generally be inconsistent with the priority areas pertaining to transportation electrification. It should be noted that CMC Section 16.58.400 includes EV charging standards which currently match the Tier 2 CALGreen voluntary standards for residential development, which are currently the most ambitious voluntary EV charging standards; however, the CMC does not refer to compliance with the Tier 2 CALGreen and instead stipulates standards independent of Tier 2 CALGreen standards. Because the proposed Modified Project would facilitate individual development projects through 2040, the Tier 2 CALGreen EV charging standards, which are updated every 18 months, would continue to change and improve through the horizon of the proposed Modified Project. Therefore, Mitigation Measure GHG-2 would be required to ensure that future development facilitated by the proposed Modified Project complies with the most ambitious voluntary EV charging standards in CALGreen at the time each individual project is proposed. Thus, although the proposed Modified Project would adhere either directly or indirectly to statewide strategies, because it would not meet two of the three local action priority areas, it is considered inconsistent with the Scoping Plan. Unlike the Approved Project, implementation of the proposed Modified Project could conflict with the objectives of the CARB Scoping Plan. This impact would be potentially significant.

Plan Bay Area
Since the certification of the General Plan EIR, Plan Bay Area 2050 has been adopted. Plan Bay Area is the Bay Area’s regional transportation plan to achieve the passenger vehicle emissions reductions identified 714
CC 05-14-2024
714 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

4.7-30 APRIL 2024
under SB 375. Plan Bay Area 2050 is the current SCS for the Bay Area, which was adopted October 21, 2021.

In addition to significant transit and roadway performance investments to encourage focused growth, Plan Bay Area 2050 directs funding to neighborhood active transportation and complete streets projects, climate initiatives, lifeline transportation and access initiatives, safety programs, and PDA planning.29 In In the Study Area, there are four TPAs and two PDAs, the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority City Cores, Corridors & Station Areas, and South DeAnza. 30, 31
The proposed Modified Project would redesignate and rezone to accommodate residential development, primarily in infill locations, suitable within the Study Area to meet the City’s RHNA. Thus, the proposed Modified Project would be consistent with the overall goals of Plan Bay Area 2050 in concentrating new development in locations where there is existing infrastructure and transit. Therefore, the proposed Modified Project would not conflict with the land use concept plan in Plan Bay Area 2050 and impacts would be less than significant.

Furthermore, as described in Chapter 4.12, Population and Housing, of this EA, implementation of the proposed Modified Project would induce population and housing growth necessary to meet the population growth and housing needs in the Study Area. Therefore, the implementation of the proposed Modified Project would provide more housing for residents to both live and work in the Study Area instead of commuting to other areas, which would contribute to minimizing VMT and reducing VMT per service population. Therefore, like the Approved Project, the proposed Modified Project would not interfere with ABAG’s/MTC’s ability to implement the regional strategies in Plan Bay Area. The proposed Modified Project would not result in new impacts or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to the General Plan EIR.

Cupertino Climate Action Plan
Since the certification of the General Plan EIR, the City has adopted the Cupertino CAP 2.0. Pursuant to the CAP 2.0, future potential development projects would be considered consistent with the Cupertino CAP if they do not conflict with the required GHG reduction measures contained in the CAP. A consistency evaluation for the adopted CAP 2.0 GHG reduction measures are shown in Table 4.7-5, Cupertino Climate Action Plan 2.0 Consistency Matrix.
29 Association of Bay Area Governments/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 January 23, 2024.
30 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 31 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. 715
CC 05-14-2024
715 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
PLACEWORKS 4.7-31
TABLE 4.7-5 CUPERTINO CLIMATE ACTION PLAN 2.0 CONSISTENCY MATRIX Applicable Proposed Measure Consistency
Measure BE-1 Reduce non-SVCE usage rate to 2
percent for residential and 10 percent for
commercial by 2030 and maintain through 2040.

Consistent. Future potential development under the proposed Modified Project would comply with the current California Building and Energy Efficiency Standards to reduce energy consumptions.

Measure BE-4 Require new residential and
commercial development to be all-electric at time
of construction.

Consistent. The City of Cupertino requires all newly constructed buildings to be all-electric buildings and has adopted the California Energy Code (CMC Chapter 16.32). Therefore, the proposed Modified Project would comply with this measure.

Measure TR-1 Develop and implement an Active
Transportation Plan to achieve 15 percent of active
transportation mode share by 2030 and 23 percent
by 2040.

Consistent. As stated in Chapter 4.14, Transportation, of this EA, implementation of the proposed Modified Project would not include modifications to the roadway, bicycle, or pedestrian network. In addition, like the Approved Project, the proposed Modified Project would also be consistent with the City of Cupertino’s Pedestrian Transportation Plan with Pedestrian Guidelines and Bicycle Transportation Plan. The proposed Modified Project would also implement the policies and strategies to encourage active transportation throughout the City, and is most exemplified through Policy M-3.1, Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, which would see to the adoption and maintenance of a Bicycle and Pedestrian master plan to create a safe way for citizens to bike and walk on a daily basis. Other policies include Policy LU- 3.1, Site Planning, which would ensure project sites are planned so that there is a network of connected streets to improve pedestrian and bicycle access; Strategy LU-8.3.3, Infrastructure and Streetscape Improvements, which would encourage redevelopment of areas throughout the City to be pedestrian oriented; Strategy LU19.1.7, Existing Streets, which would improve Stevens Creek Boulevard and Wolfe Road to become more bike and pedestrian-friendly; as well as Policy M-1.3, Regional Trail Development, to implement best practices on streets to reduce speeds to accommodate for alternative modes of transportation. Compliance with these policies and strategies would reduce fuel consumption and reliance on fossil fuels throughout the Study Area.

Measure TR-2 Implement public and shared transit
programs to achieve 29 percent of public transit
mode share by 2030 and maintain through 2040.

Consistent. As described in Chapter 4.14, Transportation, of this EA, implementation of the proposed Modified Project would implement strategies and policies such as Policy LU-1.1, Land Use and Transportation, which would concentrate higher land use intensities within a half-miles of public transit services, and Policies LU-20.2, Streetscape and Connectivity for North Vallco Park Special Area, and LU21.3, Streetscape and Connectivity for North De Anza Special Area, which would improve transit connections for future roadway improvements and specifically for North Vallco Park and North De Anza.

These policies would also include Policy M-4.4, Transit Facilities With New Development, which would ensure that all future potential development would include amenities to support public transit and space for transit vehicles. Compliance with these policies and strategies would reduce fuel consumption and reliance on fossil fuels throughout the Study Area. As such, the proposed Modified Project would not conflict with implementation of this measure.

Measure TR-3 Increase zero-emission vehicle (ZEV)
adoption to 35 percent for passenger vehicles and
Consistent. Implementation of the proposed Modified Project would result in an increase in land use intensity throughout the Study Area that has access to existing transportation infrastructure and services. Future 716
CC 05-14-2024
716 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

4.7-32 APRIL 2024
TABLE 4.7-5 CUPERTINO CLIMATE ACTION PLAN 2.0 CONSISTENCY MATRIX Applicable Proposed Measure Consistency
20 percent for commercial vehicles by 2030 and
100 percent for all vehicles by 2040.
potential development under the proposed Modified Project would at least comply with the CALGreen requirements for electric vehicle (EV) charging stations. In addition, as seen in Chapter 3, Project Description, Cupertino is served by Via-Cupertino Shuttle (Via), an app-based ride sharing program that provides transportation anywhere in the city. Via plans to expand into Santa Clara with electric cars in the coming years, which would support Measure TR-3. Implementation of the proposed Modified Project would not conflict with implementation of this measure.

Measure TR-4 Re-focus transportation
infrastructure away from single occupancy gasoline
vehicles to support the bicycle/pedestrian, public
transit, and ZEV goals of Measures TR-1, TR-2, and
TR-3.

Consistent. The proposed Modified Project would implement policies and strategies to encourage active transportation throughout the Study Area, such as redevelopment of areas to be pedestrian oriented or connecting streets to improve pedestrian and bicycle access. In addition, future potential development under the proposed Modified Project would concentrate higher land use intensities near public transit services, which could reduce the need for single-occupancy trips for gasoline fueled vehicles. Furthermore, as seen in Chapter 3, Project Description, Cupertino is served by Via-Cupertino Shuttle (Via), an appbased ride sharing program that provides transportation anywhere inside the city. Via plans to expand into Santa Clara with electric cars in the coming years, which would support Measure TR-4. The proposed Modified Project would not conflict with implementation of this measure.

Measure W-1 Implement SB 1383 requirements
and reduce communitywide landfilled organics 75
percent by 2025 and inorganic waste 35 percent by
2030 and reduce all waste 90 percent by 2040.

Consistent. Future potential development throughout the Study Area under the proposed Modified Project would include compost and green waste disposal services through the City’s contracts with Recology South Bay. The materials would be collected by the City garbage waste hauler.

The proposed Modified Project would not conflict with implementation of this measure.

Measure W-2 Reduce overall waste disposed to
garbage, recycling, and compost per capita by 15
percent by 2035.

Consistent. Future potential development throughout the Study Area under the proposed Modified Project would include compost and green waste disposal services through the City’s contracts with Recology South Bay. The materials would be collected by the City garbage waste hauler.

The proposed Modified Project would not conflict with implementation of this measure.

Measure W-3 Meet or exceed the SB 1383 recycled
organics products procurement requirements and
sequester or avoid at least 0.018 MT CO2e per
person by through 2045.

Consistent. Future potential development throughout the Study Area under the proposed Modified Project would include compost and green waste disposal services through the City’s contracts with Recology South Bay. The materials would be collected by the City garbage waste hauler.

The proposed Modified Project would not conflict with implementation of this measure.

Measure WW-2 Reduce per capita water
consumption 15 percent compared to 2019 levels
by 2030 and maintain through 2040
Consistent. Implementation of the proposed Modified Project would comply with SB X7-7, which requires California to achieve a 20 percent reduction in urban per capita water use by 2020 and would implement best management practices for water conservation to achieve the City’s water conservation goals. Furthermore, future potential development under the proposed Modified Project would also comply with the Cupertino Municipal Code, in particular, Chapter 15.32, Water Conservation, which establishes water conservation measures to reduce the consumption of water, prevent water waste, and maximize the 717
CC 05-14-2024
717 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
PLACEWORKS 4.7-33
TABLE 4.7-5 CUPERTINO CLIMATE ACTION PLAN 2.0 CONSISTENCY MATRIX Applicable Proposed Measure Consistency
efficient use of water in the Study Area. All landscape zones would also be irrigated as required by the Cupertino Landscape Ordinance, and water uses would be tailored to meet CALGreen Building Standards, which requires water conservation and requires new buildings to reduce water consumption by 20 percent. The proposed Modified Project would not conflict with implementation of this measure.

Measure CS-1 Increase carbon sequestration
through tree planting by developing and
implementing an Urban Forest Management Plan.

Consistent. Future potential development under the proposed Modified Project would comply with the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program C.3 and CMC Chapter 9.18, Stormwater Pollution Prevention and Watershed Protection, to ensure ongoing compliance with the City’s municipal storm water and urban runoff requirements.

The proposed Modified Project would not conflict with implementation of this measure.

Notes: Measures BE-2 and BE-3 apply to existing development and are not applicable. Measure CS-2 is for open space projects that can sequester CO2, and therefore, is not directly applicable to the project.

Source: Cupertino, City of. 2022, August 16. City of Cupertino, Climate Action Plan 2.0. https://www.cupertino.org/home/showpublisheddocument/31683/637964240923930000 Development in Cupertino, including future potential new residences facilitated by the proposed Modified Project, would be required to adhere to City-adopted policy provisions, including those contained in the adopted CAP 2.0. Section 17.04.050(C) of CMC Chapter 17.04, Standard Environmental Protection Requirements, ensures that the provisions of the CAP 2.0 are incorporated into projects and permits as part of development review and through consistency with the Development Project Consistency Checklist.

In addition, future potential development under the proposed Modified Project would result in construction of new energy-efficient structures that achieve the most current Building and Energy Efficiency Standards to decrease GHG emissions.

In addition to the CARB 2022 Scoping Plan, Plan Bay Area 2050, and the CAP 2.0, the General Plan 2040 Land Use and Community Design (LU), Housing (HE), Mobility (M), Environmental Resources and Sustainability (ES), and the Infrastructure (INF) Elements contain the following policies and strategies that would support the reduction of GHG emissions from future potential development under both the Approved Project and the proposed Modified Project:
 Policy LU-1.1. Land Use and Transportation. Focus higher land use intensities and densities within a half-mile of public transit service, and along major corridors. (General Plan EIR Policy 4-7)  Policy LU- 3.1. Site Planning. Ensure that project sites are planned appropriately to create a network of connected internal streets that improve pedestrian and bicycle access, provide public open space and building layouts that support city goals related to streetscape character for various Planning Areas and corridors. (General Plan EIR Policy 4-4)
 Policy LU-13.5. Land Use. The Heart of the City area allows a mix of retail, commercial, office and residential uses. Specific uses are provided in the Heart of the City Specific Plan. See Figure LU-2 for residential densities and criteria.
 Policy LU-13.6. Building Form. Buildings should be high-quality, with pedestrian-oriented and active uses along the street.
718
CC 05-14-2024
718 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

4.7-34 APRIL 2024
 Policy HE-1.3: Mixed-Use Development. Encourage mixed-use development near transportation facilities and employment centers.
 Policy HE-4.1. Energy And Water Conservation. Encourage energy and water conservation in all existing and new residential development.
 Strategy 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.
 Strategy HE-4.1.2. Sustainable Practices. The City will continue to implement the Landscape Ordinance for water conservation and the Green Building Ordinance (adopted in 2013) that applies primarily to new residential and nonresidential development, additions, renovations, and tenant improvements of ten or more units. 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.  Policy M-1.1. Regional Transportation Planning. Participate in regional transportation planning processes to develop programs consistent with the goals and policies of Cupertino’s General Plan and to minimize adverse impacts on the City’s circulation system. Work with neighboring cities to address regional transportation and land use issues of mutual interest.  Policy M-3.1. Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. Adopt and maintain a Bicycle and Pedestrian master plan, which outlines policies and improvements to streets, extension of trails, and pathways to create a safe way for people of all ages to bike and walk on a daily basis.  Policy M-3.8. Bicycle Parking. Require new development and redevelopment to provide public and private bicycle parking.
 Policy M-8.1. Transportation. Promote transportation policies that help to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
 Strategy M-8.1.1. TSM Strategies. Employ TSM strategies to improve efficiency of the transportation infrastructure including strategic right-of-way improvements, intelligent transportation systems and optimization of signal timing to coordinate traffic flow.  Strategy M-8.1.2. Major and Large Employers. Require major and large employers, including colleges and schools, to develop and maintain TDM programs to reduce vehicle trips generated by their employees and students and develop a tracking method to monitor results.  Strategy M-8.1.3. TDM Ordinance. Develop and adopt a TDM ordinance to reduce vehicle trips with specific implementation actions for all development projects and a monitoring and reporting program to ensure implementation.
 Policy M-8.3. Alternative Fuel Charging Stations. Develop a city-wide strategy to encourage the construction of a network of public and private alternative fuel vehicle charging/ fueling stations.  Policy M-9.2. Reduced Travel Demand. Promote effective TDM programs for existing and new development.
 Policy ES-1.1. Principles of Sustainability. Incorporate principles of sustainability into Cupertino’s planning, infrastructure, and development process in order to improve the environment, reduce 719
CC 05-14-2024
719 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
PLACEWORKS 4.7-35
greenhouse gas emissions and meet the needs of the community without compromising the needs of future generations.
 Strategy ES-1.1.1. Climate Action Plan (CAP). Adopt, implement, and maintain a Climate Action Plan to attain greenhouse gas emission targets consistent with state law and regional requirements. This qualified greenhouse gas emissions reduction plan, by BAAQMD’s definition, will allow for future project CEQA streamlining and will identify measures to:
 Reduce energy use through conservation and efficiency.  Reduce fossil fuel use through multi-modal and alternative transportation.  Maximize use of and, where feasible, install renewable energy resources.  Strategy ES-1.1.2. CAP and Sustainability Strategies Implementation. Periodically review and report on the effectiveness of the measures outlined in the CAP and the strategies in this Element.

Institutionalize sustainability by developing a methodology to ensure all environmental, social and lifecycle costs are considered in project, program, policy and budget decisions.  Strategy ES-1.1.3. Climate Adaptation and Resiliency. Conduct a climate vulnerability assessment and set preparedness goals and strategies to safeguard human health and community assets susceptible to the impacts of a changing climate (e.g., increased drought, wildfires, flooding). Incorporate these into all relevant plans, including the Emergency Preparedness Plan, Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, Dam Failure Plan, Climate Action Plan, Watershed Protection Plan, and Energy Assuredness Plan.  Policy ES-1.2. Regional Growth and Transportation Coordination. Coordinate with local and regional agencies to prepare updates to regional growth plans and strategies, including the Regional Housing Allocation Needs Allocation (RHNA), One Bay Area Plan, Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS).
 Strategy ES-1.2.1. Local Plan Consistency with Regional Plans. Update and maintain local plans and strategies so they are consistent with One Bay Area Plan to qualify for State transportation and project CEQA streamlining.
 Policy ES-2.1. Conservation and Efficient Use of Energy Resources. Encourage the maximum feasible conservation and efficient use of electrical power and natural gas resources for new and existing residences, businesses, industrial and public uses.
 Strategy ES-2.1.1. Coordination. Continue to evaluate and revise, as necessary, applicable City plans, codes, and procedures for inclusion of Federal, State, and regional requirements and conservation targets.
 Strategy ES-2.1.2. Comprehensive Energy Management. Prepare and implement a comprehensive energy management plan for all applicable municipal facilities and equipment to achieve the energy goals established in the City’s Climate Action Plan. Track the City’s energy use and report findings as part of the Climate Action Plan reporting schedule. Embed this plan into the City’s Environmentally Preferable Procurement Policy to ensure measures are achieved through all future procurement and construction practices.
 Strategy ES-2.1.3. Energy Efficient Replacements. Continue to use life cycle cost analysis to identify City assets for replacement with more energy efficient technology. Utilize available tools to benchmark and showcase City energy efficiency achievements (i.e., EPA Portfolio Manager, statewide Green Business Program).
 Strategy ES-2.1.4. Incentive Program. Consider incentive programs for projects that exceed mandatory requirements and promote incentives from state, county, and federal governments for improving energy efficiency and expanding renewable energy installations. 720
CC 05-14-2024
720 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

4.7-36 APRIL 2024
 Strategy ES-2.1.5. Urban Forest. Encourage the inclusion of additional shade trees, vegetated stormwater treatment and landscaping to reduce the “heat island effect” in development projects.  Strategy ES-2.1.6. Alternate Energy Sources. Promote and increase the use of alternate and renewable energy resources for the entire community through effective policies, programs, and incentives.  Strategy ES-2.1.7. Energy Co-Generation Systems. Encourage the use of energy co-generation systems through the provision of an awareness program targeting the larger commercial and industrial users and public facilities.
 Strategy ES-2.1.8. Energy Audits and Financing. Continue to offer and leverage regional partners’ programs to conduct energy audits and/or subvention programs for homes, commercial, industrial and City facilities, and recommend improvements that lead to energy and cost savings opportunities for participants and encourage adoption of alternative energy technologies. Encourage energy audits to include emerging online and applications-based energy analytics and diagnostic tools. Share residential and commercial energy efficiency and renewable energy financing tools through outreach events and civic media assets.
 Strategy ES-2.1.9. Energy Efficient Transportation Modes. Continue to encourage fuel-efficient transportation modes such as alternative fuel vehicles, driverless vehicles, public transit, car and vanpooling, community and regional shuttle systems, car and bike sharing programs, safe routes to schools, commuter benefits, and pedestrian and bicycle paths through infrastructure investment, development incentives, and community education.
 Strategy ES-2.1.10. Community Choice Energy. Collaborate with regional partners to evaluate feasibility for development of a Community Choice Energy Program.  Policy ES-3.1. Green Building Design. Set standards for the design and construction of energy and resource conserving/efficient building.
 Strategy ES-3.1.1. Green Building Program. Periodically review and revise the City’s Green Building ordinance to ensure alignment with CALGreen requirements for all major private and public buildings projects that ensure reduction in energy and water use for new development through site selection and building design.
 Strategy ES-3.1.2. Staff Training. Continue to train appropriate City staff in the design principles, costs, and benefits of sustainable building and landscape design. Encourage City staff to attend external trainings on these topics and attain relevant program certifications (e.g., Green Point Rater, Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design (LEED) Accredited Professional).  Strategy ES-3.1.3. Green Buildings Informational Seminars. Conduct and/or participate in Green Building informational seminars and workshops for members of the design and construction industry, land development, real estate sales, lending institutions, landscaping and design, the building maintenance industry and prospective project applicants.  Strategy ES-3.1.4. Green Building Demonstration. Pursue municipal facility retrofits, through a Green Capital Improvement Program (CIP), and new construction projects that exceed CALGreen and achieve third-party certification criteria (e.g., LEED, Living Building Challenge, Zero Net Energy) as a means of creating demonstration spaces for developer and community enrichment.  Strategy ES-4.2.4. Fuel-efficient Vehicles and Use. Prioritize the purchase, replacement and ongoing use of fuel-efficient and low polluting City fleet vehicles. Update applicable policies and programs to require life cycle cost analyses and include alternative fueling infrastructure review and related funding allocations. Update the Vehicle Use Policy and pursue fleet management best practices to 721
CC 05-14-2024
721 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
PLACEWORKS 4.7-37
support fuel conservation, scheduled maintenance and fleet fuel tracking. Pursue available grant funding to offset the cost of implementing these programs.  Policy INF-2.5. Recycled Water Infrastructure Plan for citywide access to recycled water and encourage its use.
 Strategy INF-2.5.1. Availability. Expand the availability of a recycled water system through public infrastructure projects and development review.

Summary
While the proposed Modified Project would be consistent with the overall goals of the Plan Bay Area and the Cupertino Climate Action Plan, because the proposed Modified Project would not provide EV charging infrastructure that, at a minimum, meets the most ambitious voluntary standards in CALGreen at the time of project approval and would result in increases in total VMT in the City and would exceed the City’s threshold for VMT reductions, impacts are considered potentially significant with respect to be consistent with the CARB Scoping Plan.

Impact 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.

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.

Significance with Mitigation: Significant and Unavoidable. The proposed Modified Project has the potential to be inconsistent with the Scoping Plan priority areas. Mitigation Measure GHG-2 would be required to ensure that new parking amenities constructed as part of the proposed Modified Project meets the most ambitious voluntary electric vehicle charging standards in CALGreen, ensuring that the proposed Modified Project meets the Scoping Plan objectives for transportation electrification which would render this consistency component to a less-than-significant level. Nonetheless, as discussed in Chapter 4.14, Transportation, of this EA, the proposed Modified Project would continue to result in a substantial increase in total VMT in the city and would exceed the City’s VMT threshold.

Therefore, the proposed Modified Project remains inconsistent with the Scoping Plan priority for VMT reductions. Because the proposed Modified Project would exceed the City’s VMT threshold, the proposed Modified Project would conflict with the Scoping Plan after the incorporation of mitigation, and this impact would remain significant and unavoidable. 722
CC 05-14-2024
722 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

4.7-38 APRIL 2024
GHG-3 Implementation of the proposed Modified Project would result in a cumulatively considerable impact with respect to GHG emissions.

As stated in the General Plan EIR, the Approved Project would achieve the 2020 and 2035 performance criteria, which would ensure that the City is on a trajectory that is consistent with the statewide GHG reduction goals. In addition, the Approved Project would not conflict with the CARB 2008 Scoping Plan or ABAG/MTC’s Plan Bay Area.

The General Plan 2040 is a regulatory document that sets the framework for future growth and development. A General Plan does not directly result in development without approval. Any development in the Study Area is required to be analyzed for its conformance with the General Plan 2040, Zoning Code requirements, and other applicable local and State requirements; comply with the requirements of CEQA; and obtain all necessary clearances and permits. Future potential development under the proposed Modified Project would result in 3,312 net new residential units, which would generate an estimated additional 8.63 MTCO2e per year per capita over the Approved Project. As the proposed Modified Project would meet the population growth and housing needs in the City and would implement existing federal, State, and local strategies and policies to reduce community-wide GHG emissions, it would be consistent with ABAG/MTC’s Plan Bay Area 2050. However, because the new residential units would result in VMT which exceeds the City’s reduction target, the proposed Modified Project would have the potential to exceed the conflict with the State’s 2045 carbon neutrality goal and impacts would be potentially significant.

Impact 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.

Mitigation Measure: Implement Mitigation Measure GHG-2.

Significance with Mitigation: Significant and Unavoidable. Mitigation Measure GHG-2 would ensure that potential future development of the Housing Element sites would provide the necessary design elements that would lay a foundation to achieve carbon neutrality by 2045 and contribute their “fair share” to achieving the State’s climate goals. However, GHG emissions associated with the proposed Modified Project are considered significant because the proposed Modified Project collectively would result in emissions which exceed the no net emissions threshold and project-induced VMT would exceed the City’s reduction target. Therefore, impacts would be significant and unavoidable. 723
CC 05-14-2024
723 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
PLACEWORKS 4.8-1

4.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
This chapter describes the potential hazards and hazardous materials impacts associated with the 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 hazards and hazardous materials, and identifies General Plan 2040 policies and/or strategies that could minimize any potentially significant impacts. A description of wildland fire hazards is in Chapter

4.18, Wildfire, of this Environmental Assessment (EA).

4.8.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

4.8.1.1 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
Federal Regulations
United States Environmental Protection Agency
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is the primary federal agency that regulates hazardous materials and waste. In general, the EPA works to develop and enforce regulations that implement environmental laws enacted by Congress. The agency is responsible for researching and setting national standards for a variety of environmental programs, delegating the responsibility for issuing permits, and monitoring and enforcing compliance to states and Native American tribes. EPA programs promote handling hazardous waste safely, cleaning up contaminated land, and reducing waste volumes through such strategies as recycling. California falls under the jurisdiction of EPA Region 9. Under the authority of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and in cooperation with State and tribal partners, the EPA Region 9 Waste Management and Superfund Divisions manage programs for site environmental assessment and cleanup, hazardous and solid waste management, and underground storage tanks.

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976
Federal hazardous waste laws are generally promulgated under the RCRA, as amended by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984. These laws provide for the “cradle to grave” regulation of hazardous waste. Any business, institution, or other entity that generates hazardous waste is required to identify and track its hazardous waste from the point of generation until it is recycled, reused, or disposed.

The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) is responsible for implementing the RCRA program as well as California’s own hazardous waste laws, which are collectively known as the Hazardous Waste Control Law.

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act and the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986
Congress enacted the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), commonly known as “Superfund,” on December 11, 1980. CERCLA established prohibitions and requirements concerning closed and abandoned hazardous waste sites; provided for liability of persons 724
CC 05-14-2024
724 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

4.8-2 APRIL 2024
responsible for releases of hazardous waste at these sites; and established a trust fund to provide for cleanup when no responsible party could be identified. The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) amended the CERCLA on October 17, 1986. SARA stressed the importance of permanent remedies and innovative treatment technologies in cleaning up hazardous waste sites, required Superfund actions to consider the standards and requirements found in other State and federal environmental laws and regulations, provided new enforcement authorities and settlement tools, increased State involvement in every phase of the Superfund program, increased the focus on human health problems posed by hazardous waste sites, encouraged greater citizen participation in making decisions on how sites should be cleaned up, and increased the size of the trust fund to $8.5 billion.

The Stafford Act
The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (Stafford Act) of 1988, as amended, authorizes federal government assistance for emergencies and disasters when State and local capabilities are exceeded. The Stafford Act forms the statutory authority for most federal disaster response activities, especially as they relate to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and FEMA programs.

State Regulations
California Environmental Protection Agency
One of the primary State agencies that regulate hazardous materials is the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA). CalEPA is authorized by the EPA to enforce and implement certain federal hazardous materials laws and regulations. The California DTSC, a department of the CalEPA, protects California and its population from exposure to hazardous waste, primarily under the authority of the RCRA and the California Health and Safety Code.1 The DTSC requirements include the need for written programs and response plans, such as Hazardous Materials Management Plans. The DTSC programs include dealing with aftermath clean-ups of improper hazardous waste management; evaluation of samples taken from sites; enforcement of regulations regarding use, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials; and encouragement of pollution prevention.

Additionally, CalEPA has delegated enforcement authority to the Santa Clara County Fire Department for State law regulating hazardous waste producers or generators in Cupertino under the Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) program.
2 A CUPA is an agency of a county or city that administers several State programs regulating hazardous materials and hazardous waste. The CUPA staff review plans for new underground storage tanks (USTs); inspect UST sites during several construction phases to ensure installation standards are met; and conduct annual inspections to verify that operating requirements are met. All UST owners must possess a valid operating permit; conduct routine testing; maintain equipment; prepare an approved leak-response plan; and upgrade tank systems, as required. 1 Hazardous Substance Account, Chapter 6.5 (Section 25100 et seq.) of the Hazardous Waste Control Law, Chapter 6.8 (Section 25300 et seq.) of the Health and Safety Code.
2 County of Santa Clara Hazardous Materials Compliance Division, 2024, Programs and Services, https://hazmat.sccgov.org/programs-and-services#1849274314-1684959077, accessed January 26, 2024. 725
CC 05-14-2024
725 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
PLACEWORKS 4.8-3
California Division of Occupational Safety and Health
Like the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) at the federal level, the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (CalOSHA) is the responsible State-level agency for ensuring workplace safety. CalOSHA assumes primary responsibility for the adoption and enforcement of standards regarding workplace safety and safety practices. In the event that a work site is contaminated, a Site Safety Plan must be crafted and implemented to protect the safety of workers. Site Safety Plans establish policies, practices, and procedures to prevent the exposure of workers and members of the public to hazardous materials originating from the contaminated site or building.

California Office of Emergency Services
The California Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES) was established as part of the Governor’s Office on January 1, 2009. It was created pursuant to Assembly Bill 38, which merged the duties, powers, purposes, and responsibilities of the former Governor’s Emergency Management Agency with those of the Governor’s Office of Homeland Security. Cal OES is responsible for the coordination of overall State agency response to major disasters in support of local government. The agency is responsible for ensuring the State’s readiness to respond to and recover from all hazards—natural, human-made, emergencies, and disasters—and for assisting local governments in their emergency preparedness, response, recovery, and hazard mitigation efforts.

California Department of Transportation and California Highway Patrol The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and the California High Patrol (CHP) are the two State agencies that have primary responsibility for enforcing federal and State regulations and responding to hazardous materials transportation emergencies. Caltrans manages more than 50,000 miles of California’s highways and freeways, provides intercity rail services, permits more than 400 public-use airports and special-use hospital heliports, and works with local agencies. Caltrans is also the first responder for hazardous material spills and releases that occur on highways, freeways, and intercity rail lines.

The CHP enforces hazardous materials and hazardous waste labeling and packing regulations designed to prevent leakage and spills of materials in transit and to provide detailed information to cleanup crews in the event of an accident. Vehicle and equipment inspection, shipment preparation, container identification, and shipping documentation are all part of the responsibility of the CHP, which conducts regular inspections of licensed transporters to ensure regulatory compliance. In addition, the State of California regulates the transportation of hazardous waste originating or passing through the state.

Common carriers are licensed by the CHP, pursuant to Section 32000 of the California Vehicle Code. This section requires licensing every motor (common) carrier who transports, for a fee, more than 500 pounds of hazardous materials at one time and every carrier, if not for hire, who carries more than 1,000 pounds of hazardous material of the type requiring placards. Common carriers conduct a large portion of the business in the delivery of hazardous materials.
726
CC 05-14-2024
726 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

4.8-4 APRIL 2024
California Building Code
The State of California provides a minimum standard for building design through Title 24, Part 2, of the California Code of Regulations (CCR), commonly referred to as the California Building Code (CBC). The CBC is updated every three years. It is generally adopted on a jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction basis, subject to further modification based on local conditions. The City of Cupertino regularly adopts each new CBC update under the Cupertino Municipal Code (CMC) Chapter 16.04, Building Code. Commercial and residential buildings are plan-checked by local City and County building officials for compliance with the typical fire safety requirements of the CBC, including the installation of sprinklers in all buildings; the establishment of fire-resistance standards for fire doors and building materials; and the clearance of debris and vegetation near occupied structures in wildfire hazard areas.

California Health and Safety Code
California Health and Safety Code Chapter 6.95 and CCR Title 19, Section 2729, set out the minimum requirements for business emergency plans and chemical inventory reporting. These regulations require businesses to provide emergency response plans and procedures, training program information, and a hazardous material chemical inventory disclosing hazardous materials stored, used, or handled on site. A business that uses hazardous materials or a mixture containing hazardous materials must establish and implement a management plan if the hazardous material is handled in certain quantities.

California Department of Toxic Substances Control
DTSC takes a multipronged approach to regulating more than 100,000 entities to prevent the release of hazardous waste, clean-up contamination, and ensure hazardous waste is handled safely. They conduct inspections, provide emergency response, remove waste and update EnviroStor, DTSC’s data management system for tracking cleanup, permitting, enforcement, and investigation efforts at hazardous waste facilities and sites with known contamination or sites where there may be reasons to investigate further.

State Water Resources Control Board
The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), along with the nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards, protect California’s water quality. The SWRCB has created GeoTracker, a data management system for sites that impact, or have the potential to impact, water quality in California, with emphasis on groundwater. GeoTracker also contains records for various unregulated projects as well as permitted facilities, including Irrigated Lands, Oil and Gas production, operating Permitted USTs, and Land Disposal Sites.

California Accidental Release Prevention Program
The California Accidental Release Prevention Program (CalARP) protects people from the release of “regulated substances” into the environment. Regulated substances are chemicals that pose a major threat to public health and safety or the environment because they are highly toxic, flammable, or explosive; such substances include ammonia, chlorine gas, hydrogen, nitric acid, and propane. 727
CC 05-14-2024
727 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
PLACEWORKS 4.8-5
Businesses subject to CalARP must develop a Risk Management Plan (RMP) for handling an accidental release; the RMP ensures that businesses have the proper information to give emergency response teams if an accidental release occurs. RMPs describe impacts to public health and the environment if a regulated substance is released near schools, residential areas, hospitals, and childcare facilities. RMPs must include procedures for keeping employees and customers safe, handling regulated substances, training staff, maintaining equipment, safe storage of substances, and responding to an accidental release. 3 Regional Regulations
San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board
The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act established the SWRCB and divided the State into nine regional basins, each under the jurisdiction of a Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The San Francisco Bay RWQCB, Region 2, regulates water quality in the Study Area. The San Francisco Bay RWQCB has the authority to require groundwater investigations and/or remedial action if the quality of groundwater or surface waters of the state are threatened.

Bay Area Air Quality Management District
The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) has primary responsibility for control of air pollution from sources other than motor vehicles and consumer products. The latter are typically the responsibility of CalEPA and the California Air Resources Board. The BAAQMD is responsible for preparation of attainment plans for non-attainment criteria pollutants, control of stationary air pollutant sources, and issuance of permits for activities, including demolition and renovation activities affecting asbestos-containing materials (District Regulation 11, Rule 2) and lead (District Regulation 11, Rule 1).

Santa Clara County Operational Area Hazard Mitigation Plan The purpose of hazard mitigation planning is to reduce the loss of life and property by minimizing the impact of disasters. The Santa Clara County Operational Area Hazard Mitigation Plan (HMP) was prepared and adopted in October 2017 for the purpose of identifying, assessing, and reducing the long-term risk to life and property from hazard events. The adopted HMP was approved by FEMA. The document provides more than 344 mitigation actions for implementation by individual planning partners, including the City of Cupertino. The HMP includes a risk assessment and mitigation actions for each of the jurisdictions in the planning partnership. The Cupertino Jurisdictional Annex of the HMP provides an assessment of hazards and vulnerabilities, and a set of mitigation actions for Cupertino specifically while considering the results from the countywide effort. In the context of an HMP, mitigation is an action that reduces or eliminates long-term risk to people and property from hazards, including wildfire.

The HMP must be reviewed and approved by FEMA every five years to maintain eligibility for disaster relief funding. As part of this process, Cal OES reviews all local HMPs in accordance with the Disaster 3 San Mateo County Health, 2023, The California Accidental Release Prevention Program (CalARP), https://www.smchealth.org/cupa/calarp, accessed May 29, 2023. 728
CC 05-14-2024
728 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

4.8-6 APRIL 2024
Management Act of 2000 regulations, and coordinates with local jurisdictions to ensure compliance with FEMA’s Local Mitigation Plan Review Guide.

Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health
The routine management of hazardous materials in California is administered under the Unified Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Materials Management Program (Unified Program), and most of the City of Cupertino’s hazardous materials programs are administered and enforced under the Unified Program.4 The CalEPA has granted responsibilities to the Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health Hazardous Materials Compliance Division (HMCD) for implementation and enforcement of hazardous material regulations under the Unified Program as a CUPA. The HMCD also enforces additional hazardous materials storage requirements in accordance with the Santa Clara County Hazardous Materials Storage Ordinance and Toxic Gas Ordinance.5

Under authority from the RWQCB, the Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health implements the Local Oversight Program (LOP) to oversee the investigation and remediation of leaking underground storage tanks (LUSTs) in Santa Clara County, including the City of Cupertino.

Businesses storing hazardous materials over threshold quantities are required to submit Hazardous Materials Business Plans (HMBPs) to the HMCD. An HMBP must include measures for safe storage, transportation, use, and handling of hazardous materials. An HMBP must also include a contingency plan that describes the facility’s response procedures in the event of a hazardous materials release.

Local Regulations
General Plan 2040
The Health and Safety (HS) Element of the General Plan 2040 contains goals, policies, and strategies that require local planning and development decisions to consider impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials. Applicable policies and strategies that would minimize potential adverse impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials are identified in Section 4.8.3, Impact Discussion.

Municipal Code
The CMC includes various directives to minimize adverse impacts to hazards and hazardous materials in Cupertino. The CMC is organized by title, chapter, and section. Most provisions related to hazards and hazardous materials are included in Title 6, Franchises; Title 9, Health and Sanitation; and Title 17, Environmental Regulations:
 Chapter 6.24, Garbage, Non-Organic Recycling and Organic Waste Recycling Collection and Disposal.

Section 6.24.100, Disposal of Explosive or Hazardous Material Restrictions, states that no person shall deposit in any garbage organic waste or non-organic recycling containing any explosive, highly inflammable, or otherwise hazardous material or substance. 4 California Health and Safety Code, Chapter 6.11, Sections 25404-25404.8. 5 Santa Clara County Ordinance Code, Division B11, Chapters XIII – XIV. 729
CC 05-14-2024
729 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
PLACEWORKS 4.8-7
 Chapter 9.12, Hazardous Materials Storage. This chapter outlines the general provisions for managing and storing hazardous materials, the materials regulated, the containment standards, and requirements for hazardous materials management plans.
 Chapter 9.20, Off-Site Hazardous Waste Facilities. This chapter establishes standards for controlling the location, design, maintenance, and safety of off-site hazardous waste treatment, storage, transfer, and disposal facilities.
 Chapter 16.04, Building Code. This chapter adopts the 2022 CBC as the rules, regulations, and standards within the city as to all matters except as modified or amended in the CMC. Provisions of the CBC include ensuring proper hazardous materials storage facilities are used and appropriate permits are obtained when working with potentially hazardous materials.  Chapter 16.40, Fire Code. Adopts the 2022 edition of the California Fire Code as the rules, regulations, and standards in the city as to all matters except as modified or amended in the CMC. As stated in Section 16.40.220, Hazardous Materials – General Provisions, where required by the fire code official, facilities shall submit a Hazardous Materials Business Plan.  Chapter 17.04, Standard Environmental Protection Requirements. The purpose of this chapter is to identify standard environmental protection requirements that all construction projects must meet, including, but not limited to, environmental mitigation measures identified in any environmental documents required as part of a General Plan update.
 Section 17.04.040(B), Hazardous Materials. This section includes specific requirements for evaluating and mitigating hazardous materials.

B. Hazardous Materials. Manage Soil and/or Groundwater Contamination. Projects that involve tree removal only are not subject to this Section B. For projects that involve a change of land use (e.g., commercial to residential), development of uses that will be occupied or used by sensitive receptors, development of a net new residential unit (not including a Junior Accessory Dwelling unit or Accessory Dwelling unit), new construction of nonresidential and/or mixed-use development, or subdivisions, except as provided for in Section B.3, the project applicant shall complete Sections B.1 and B.2, as required, prior to approval of the project.

1. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment. Retain the services of a qualified environmental consultant with experience preparing Phase I Environmental Site Assessments (ESAs) to prepare a Phase I ESA in accordance with the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standards on Environmental Site Assessments, ASTM E 1527-13 (ASTM 1527-13) and in accordance with the EPA’s Standards and Practices for All Appropriate Inquiries (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 312), published November 2005, as subsequently revised, supplemented, or replaced. The goal of an ASTM Phase I ESA is to evaluate site history, existing observable conditions, current site use, and current and former uses of surrounding properties to identify the potential presence of Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs) as defined in ASTM E 1527-13, associated with the site.

If the Phase I ESA does not identify any RECs, then no further action is needed. If the Phase I ESA identifies RECs, then a Phase II ESA shall be prepared, as described in Section B.2.
730
CC 05-14-2024
730 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

4.8-8 APRIL 2024

2. Phase II Environmental Site Assessment. A Phase II ESA shall be prepared by a qualified environmental consultant and signed and stamped by a Professional Geologist or Professional Engineer hired by the project applicant. The Phase II ESA shall include the collection and analysis of samples designed to evaluate RECs identified in the Phase I ESA, in compliance with ASTM standards, and a health risk assessment to evaluate whether the RECs pose an unacceptable or potentially unacceptable health risk to future users of the site. Depending on the health risks identified in the Phase II ESA, the project applicant shall proceed as follows:
a. If the Phase II ESA identifies no unacceptable or potentially unacceptable health risk associated with the RECs, then no further action is needed. b. If the Phase II ESA identifies an unacceptable or a potentially unacceptable health risk, the requirements related to soil remediation in Section 17.04.050B shall apply.

3. Focused Phase I and II ESAs. Projects that are on sites that are known to have current or former orchards or other irrigated agricultural activities that were active in 1950 or later are assumed to contain RECs associated with organic pesticides and are required to prepare a Focused Phase I ESA that addresses only RECs other than those associated with organic pesticides. Depending on the contaminants found in the Focused Phase I ESA, the project applicant shall proceed as follows:
a. If the Focused Phase I ESA identifies no other unacceptable or potentially unacceptable health risks, then the project applicant shall prepare a Focused Phase II ESA that addresses only the potential hazards associated with organic pesticides. b. If the Focused Phase I ESA identifies RECs other than organic pesticides, then the project applicant shall prepare the Phase II ESA, as described in Section B.2 to address both the organic pesticides RECs and all other RECs.
 Section 17.04.050(B), Hazardous Materials Permit Requirements. Soil Remediation Required. If a Focused or other Phase II ESA, as required pursuant to Section 17.04.040(B)(1), identifies an unacceptable or a potentially unacceptable health risk, the project applicant shall, depending on the contaminant, contact either the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) or local Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA). The project applicant shall enter into a regulatory agency oversight program with an appropriate regulatory agency, or an established voluntary oversight program alternative with an appropriate regulatory agency, as determined by the City, and follow the regulatory agency’s recommended response actions until the agency reaches a no further action determination, prior to issuance of any permit for a project that allows ground disturbing activity.

Cupertino Emergency Operations Plan
The City of Cupertino Office of Emergency Management is responsible for coordinating agency response to disasters or other large-scale emergencies in Cupertino. The Cupertino Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) establishes policy direction for emergency planning, mitigation, response, and recovery activities within the city. The EOP addresses interagency coordination, procedures to maintain communications with County and State emergency response teams, and methods to assess the extent of damage and management of volunteers, as well as identifies the location of the Emergency Operations Center. The EOP uses the Standardized Emergency Management System as required by California Government Code 731
CC 05-14-2024
731 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
PLACEWORKS 4.8-9
Section 8607(a) for managing responses to multiagency and multi-jurisdiction emergencies in California, including those related to hazardous materials.

4.8.1.2 EXISTING CONDITIONS
Chapter 4.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of the General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR), addresses the impacts to hazardous resources associated with implementation of the Approved Project at a program level. The setting for hazards and hazardous materials is described in detail in General Plan EIR Section 4.7.1.2, Existing Conditions. The Fire Prevention division of the Santa Clara County Fire Department (SCCFD) continues to provide hazardous materials inspection, services for building construction, annual building inspection, and hazardous materials regulation. 6 Since the certification of the General Plan EIR, the City has codified regulations equivalent to the General Plan EIR Mitigation Measure HAZ-4a and HAZ-4b in CMC Chapter 17.04, Standard Environmental Protection Requirements, as described under the Municipal Code heading in Section 4.8.1.1, Regulatory Framework. CMC Section 17.04.040(B), Hazardous Materials, incorporates these mitigation measures into the CMC and requires a Phase I and II ESA to be prepared to evaluate potential residual contamination during new development. Section 17.04.050(B), Hazardous Materials Permit Requirements, requires soil remediation if a Phase II ESA identifies an unacceptable health risk on a project site.

Additionally, since the certification of the General Plan EIR, new hazardous waste sites have been identified and some of the previous hazards waste sites have become inactive or closed. Table 4.8-1, Active Hazardous Material Sites in the Study Area, identifies the active sites in the Study Area as of July 20, 2023.

TABLE 4.8-1 ACTIVE HAZARDOUS MATERIAL SITES IN THE STUDY AREA Map
ID Site Name Address Site Type Cleanup Status
DTSC EnviroStor Sites
1 Westwood Elementary School 435 Saratoga Avenue School Investigation Active 2 New Laurelwood Elementary
School
1095 & 1055 Dunford Way,
1380 Rosalia Avenue School Investigation Active
3 Cupertino Village Cleaners 10989 North Wolfe Road Voluntary Cleanup Active 4 Delia's Cleaners 7335 Bollinger Road Voluntary Cleanup Active 5 Sedgwick Elementary School
Expansion Project 10480 Finch Avenue School Cleanup Certified 6 Orchard Farm Shopping Center 6150 Bollinger Road State Response Certified Operations and
Maintenance - Land Use
Restrictions Only
7 Hewlett Packard CO 5301 Stevens Creek Blvd Non-Operating Protective Filer 8 Anderson Chevrolet Dealership
(now Whole Foods)
20955 Stevens Creek
Boulevard Evaluation Refer: 1248 Local Agency
6 Santa Clara County Fire Department, Fire Prevention, https://www.sccfd.org/fire-prevention/fire-prevention-overview/, accessed on July 19, 2023.
732
CC 05-14-2024
732 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

4.8-10 APRIL 2024
TABLE 4.8-1 ACTIVE HAZARDOUS MATERIAL SITES IN THE STUDY AREA Map
ID Site Name Address Site Type Cleanup Status
9 American Microsystems, Inc. 3800 Homestead Road State Response Refer: Regional Water Quality Control Board
10 Vallco Building 80 (now Apple) 10432 North Tantau Avenue Evaluation Refer: Regional Water Quality Control Board
11 Ampex Cupertino Facility (now
Apple) 10435 North Tantau Avenue Evaluation Refer: Regional Water Quality Control Board 12 Intersil (now Apple/Panasonic) 10910 North Tantau Avenue Federal Superfund Refer: Regional Water Quality Control Board
SWRCB GeoTracker Sites
13 19720 Stevens Creek Boulevard. 19720 Stevens Creek
Boulevard Cleanup Program Site Open - Assessment & Interim Remedial Action 14 Apple - Former HP - Wolfe Road 10900 North Wolfe Road Cleanup Program Site Open - Remediation 15 Bubb Road Property - The Driving
Machine 10100 Bubb Road Cleanup Program Site Open - Long Term Management 16 District McClellan Homes 20860 McClellan Road Cleanup Program Site Open - Site Assessment 17 East Vallco Mall Site 10123 North Wolfe Road Cleanup Program Site Open - Site Assessment 18 Intersil (DTKM) (now Apple) 10900 North Tantau Avenue Cleanup Program Site Open - Remediation - Land Use Restrictions
19 McClellan Square Cleaners 10477 South De Anza
Boulevard Cleanup Program Site Open - Assessment & Interim Remedial Action 20 Residence - 11226 Bubb Road 11226 Bubb Road Cleanup Program Site Open - Site Assessment 21 Siemens (SMI Holding Llc) (now
Kaiser) 19000 Homestead Road Cleanup Program Site Open - Remediation - Land Use Restrictions 22 Vallco Town Center 10123 North Wolfe Road Cleanup Program Site Open - Remediation Sources: Department of Toxic Substances Control, 2022, EnviroStor, https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/map/?myaddress=cupertino, accessed July 20, 2023; State Water Resources Control Board, 2022, GeoTracker, https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/, accessed July 20, 2023.

4.8.2 STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Implementation of the proposed Modified Project would result in significant hazards and hazardous materials impact if it would:

Impact of the
Approved
Project (General
Plan 2040 EIR)
Impact of the
Proposed
Modified
Project
HAZ-1. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? LTS LTS HAZ-2. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment.?

LTS LTS
HAZ-3. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 miles of an existing or proposed school? LTS/M LTS HAZ-4. 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?

LTS/M LTS
733
CC 05-14-2024
733 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
PLACEWORKS 4.8-11
Implementation of the proposed Modified Project would result in significant hazards and hazardous materials impact if it would:

Impact of the
Approved
Project (General
Plan 2040 EIR)
Impact of the
Proposed
Modified
Project
HAZ-5. 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? NI NI
HAZ-6. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? LTS LTS
HAZ-7. Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires? LTS LTS HAZ-8. Result in a cumulatively considerable impact with respect to hazards and hazardous materials? LTS/M 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. Because wildfire has been added as a separate impact category to Appendix G, this EA includes a complete description of wildfire impacts in Chapter 4.16, Wildfire, of this EA.

Key: NI = no impact; LTS = less than significant; LTS/M = less than significant with mitigation; SU = significant and unavoidable

4.8.3 IMPACT DISCUSSION
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.

As described in the General Plan EIR, commercially available hazardous materials (e.g., fuels, solvents, paints, and some consumer electronics) would be used at various new construction sites under the Approved Project and may generate small amounts of hazardous waste, but the waste would be handled in accordance with applicable federal, State, and local laws, policies, and regulations. Additionally, the Approved Project has office, commercial, and residential land uses and, therefore, would not include manufacturing or research processes that generate substantial quantities of hazardous materials.

Like the Approved Project, future potential development under the proposed Modified Project would include only residential development and would not include manufacturing or research processes that would generate substantial quantities of hazardous materials. Future potential development under the proposed Modified Project would also use commercially available hazardous materials but would be required to comply with the same federal, State, and local laws and regulations as the proposed Modified Project.

The General Plan EIR also found that the Health and Safety (HS) Element contains policies that require local planning and development decisions to consider impacts that development could have on the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Like the Approved Project, the following existing General Plan 2040 policies, and updated policies as part of the proposed Modified Project, would also serve to minimize potential adverse impacts on the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials for future potential development:
734
CC 05-14-2024
734 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

4.8-12 APRIL 2024
 Policy HS-6.1. Hazardous Materials Storage and Disposal. Require the proper storage and disposal of hazardous materials to prevent leakage, potential explosions, fire or the release of harmful fumes.

Maintain information channels to the residential and business communities about the illegality and danger of dumping hazardous material and waste in the storm drain system or in creeks. (General Plan EIR Policies 6-27 and 6-32)
 Policy HS-6.2. Proximity of Residents to Hazardous Materials. Assess future residents’ exposure to hazardous materials when new residential development or sensitive populations are proposed in existing industrial and manufacturing areas. Do not allow residential development or sensitive populations if such hazardous conditions cannot be mitigated to an acceptable level of risk. (General Plan EIR Policy 6-28)
 Policy HS-6.4. Educational Programs. Continue to encourage residents and businesses to use non- and less hazardous products, especially less toxic pest control products, to slow the generation of new reduce hazardous waste requiring disposal through the county-wide program. (General Plan EIR Policy 6-30).
 Policy HS-6.5. Hazardous Waste Disposals. Continue to support and facilitate, for residences and businesses, a convenient opportunity to properly dispose of hazardous waste. (General Plan EIR Policy 6-31).

As with the future potential development under the Approved Project, future potential development under the proposed Modified Project would be required to comply with applicable laws, policies, and design standards governing the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, as necessary.

Based on these considerations, overall impacts from adoption and implementation of the proposed Modified Project would not result in new or more severe hazards to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials beyond what was evaluated in the General Plan EIR.

Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.

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.

As described in the General Plan EIR, the Approved Project would facilitate new development, including residential, mixed-use, and commercial uses, within Cupertino. Some of the potential future development could occur on properties that are contaminated and inactive, undergoing evaluation, and/or undergoing corrective action, as indicated in Table 4.7.2, Hazardous Materials and LUST Sites, of the General Plan EIR.

Demolition of existing structures and construction of new buildings could potentially result in the release of hazardous building materials (e.g., asbestos, lead paint) into the environment. However, compliance with applicable federal, State, and local laws and regulations regarding handling of these materials and compliance with the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan and Best Management Practices, would ensure future development under the Approved Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment.
735
CC 05-14-2024
735 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
PLACEWORKS 4.8-13
Like the Approved Project, potential future development under the proposed Modified Project could occur on properties that contaminated and inactive, undergoing evaluation, and/or undergoing corrective action, as indicated in Table 4.8-1, Active Hazardous Material Sites in the Study Area. As with the future potential development under the Approved Project, future potential development under the proposed Modified Project would be required to comply with applicable laws, policies, and design standards governing the release of hazardous materials into the environment, including the General Plan 2040 policies listed under Impact Discussion HAZ-1 and compliance with the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan and Best Management Practices. Based on these considerations, overall impacts from adoption and implementation of the proposed Modified Project would not result in new or more severe hazards to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment beyond what was evaluated in the General Plan EIR.

Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.

HAZ-3 Implementation of the proposed Modified Project would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school.

As described in the General Plan EIR, several public and private schools, including preschools, elementary, middle, and high schools, are within one-quarter mile of known hazardous wastes sites that may be redeveloped as part of the Approved Project. The SCCFD and City of Cupertino Building Division coordinate the review of building permits to ensure that hazardous materials use requirements are met prior to construction, including required separation between hazardous materials and sensitive land uses, and proper hazardous materials storage facilities. Development under the Approved Project would be required by the HMCD and the City of Cupertino to store, manage, and dispose of the materials in accordance with the Unified Program. While compliance with existing regulations would reduce the potential for school children to be exposed to hazardous materials during both construction and operation from future development under the Approved Project, impacts were found to be potentially significant in the General Plan EIR. Thus, the General Plan EIR included the Mitigation Measures HAZ-4a and HAZ-4b to render these impacts to a less-than-significant level. As previously stated in Section 4.8.1.2, Existing Conditions, these mitigation measures have been codified in CMC Chapter 17.04 and apply to all potential future development in Cupertino. Specifically, Section 17.04.040(B), Hazardous Materials, includes specific requirements for evaluating and mitigating hazardous materials by requiring the preparation of a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) to evaluate site history, existing observable conditions, current site use, and current and identify Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs).

If the Phase I ESA identifies RECs, then a Phase II ESA shall be prepared to mitigate any potential impacts.

As with the General Plan Mitigation Measures HAZ-4a and HAZ-4b, the Phase II ESA could require construction at the sites with known contamination to be conducted under a project-specific Environmental Site Management Plan (ESMP) that is prepared in consultation with the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) or the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), or the Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health (DEH) as determined appropriate by the City and in compliance with the requirements of CMC Chapter 17.04. The purpose of the ESMP is to protect construction workers, the general public, the environment, and future site occupants from subsurface 736
CC 05-14-2024
736 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

4.8-14 APRIL 2024
hazardous materials previously identified at the site and to address the possibility of encountering unknown contamination or hazards in the subsurface. The ESMP shall summarize soil and groundwater analytical data collected on the project site during past investigations; identify management options for excavated soil and groundwater, if contaminated media are encountered during deep excavations; and identify monitoring, irrigation, or other wells requiring proper abandonment in compliance with local, State, and federal laws, policies, and regulations. The ESMP shall include measures for identifying, testing, and managing soil and groundwater suspected of or known to contain hazardous materials. The ESMP shall: 1) provide procedures for evaluating, handling, storing, testing, and disposing of soil and groundwater during project excavation and dewatering activities, respectively; 2) describe required worker health and safety provisions for all workers potentially exposed to hazardous materials in accordance with State and federal worker safety regulations; and 3) designate personnel responsible for implementation of the ESMP.

For those sites with potential residual contamination in soil, gas, or groundwater that are planned for redevelopment with an overlying occupied building, a vapor intrusion assessment shall be performed by a licensed environmental professional. If the results of the vapor intrusion assessment indicate the potential for significant vapor intrusion into an occupied building, project design shall include vapor controls or source removal, as appropriate, in accordance with regulatory agency requirements. Soil vapor mitigations or controls could include vapor barriers, passive venting, and/or active venting. The vapor intrusion assessment and associated vapor controls or source removal can be incorporated into the ESMP.

CMC Section 17.04.040(B), Hazardous Materials, and Section 17.04.050, Hazardous Materials Permit Requirements, would prohibit all future potential development projects under the Approved Project and Modified Project from emitting hazardous emissions or handle hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school.

Like the Approved Project, the proposed Modified Project could include potential future development on known hazardous wastes sites within one-quarter mile of a school. Thus, as with the development assessed in the General Plan EIR, potential future development under the proposed Modified Project would be required to comply with applicable laws, policies, and design standards governing the release of hazardous materials into the environment, including the General Plan 2040 policies listed under Impact Discussion HAZ-1 and CMC Sections 17.04.040 (B) and 17.04.050(B). Based on these considerations, overall impacts from adoption and implementation of the proposed Modified Project would not result in new or more severe hazards to schools through emitting hazardous emissions or handling hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste beyond what was evaluated in the General Plan EIR.

Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.

HAZ-4 Implementation of the proposed Modified Project would be 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, would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment.

Table 4.7-2, Hazardous Materials and LUST Sites, of the General Plan EIR identified the LUST sites within the Study Area. Because hazardous materials were known to be present in soil, soil gas, and/or 737
CC 05-14-2024
737 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
PLACEWORKS 4.8-15
groundwater due to past land uses at certain sites that may be redeveloped as part of the Approved Project, the direct contact, inhalation, or ingestion of hazardous materials could potentially cause adverse health effects to construction workers and future site users. The severity of health effects would depend on the contaminant(s), concentration, use of personal protective equipment during construction, and duration of exposure. The disturbance and release of hazardous materials during earthwork activities, if present, could pose a hazard to construction workers, nearby receptors, and the environment. Thus, the General Plan EIR included Mitigation Measures HAZ-4a and HAZ-4b. However, as listed under Impact Discussion HAZ-3, the intent of these mitigation measures has been codified into CMC Sections 17.04.040 (B) and 17.04.050(B), and therefore all potential future development under both the Approved Project and proposed Modified Project would be required to comply with these regulations. Like the Approved Project, the proposed Modified Project could include potential future development on known LUST sites, as shown in Table 4.7-1, Active Hazardous Material Sites in the Study Area, of this EA. Thus, as with the development assessed under the Approved Project, future potential development under the proposed Modified Project would be required to comply with applicable laws, policies, and design standards governing the release of hazardous materials into the environment, including the General Plan 2040 policies listed under Impact Discussion HAZ-1, and CMC Sections 17.04.040 (B) and 17.04.050(B). Based on these considerations, overall impacts from adoption and implementation of the proposed Modified Project would not result in new or more severe hazards to the public or the environment beyond what was evaluated in the General Plan EIR.

Significance with Mitigation: Less than significant.

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.

As described in the General Plan EIR, Cupertino is not within two miles of a public airport or within any protected airspace zones defined by the Santa Clara County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC), and there are no private airstrips or heliports listed by the Federal Aviation Administration in Cupertino. Thus, overall impacts from adoption and implementation of the proposed Modified Project would not result in new or more severe impacts that result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area due to being 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, beyond what was evaluated in the General Plan EIR.

Significance without Mitigation: No impact.
738
CC 05-14-2024
738 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

4.8-16 APRIL 2024
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.

As explained in the General Plan EIR, the City of Cupertino Emergency Management Division is responsible for coordinating agency response to disasters or other large-scale emergencies in the City of Cupertino with assistance from the Santa Clara County Office of Emergency Management and the SCCFD.

The Cupertino EOP establishes policy direction for emergency planning, mitigation, response, and recovery activities within the city. The Cupertino EOP addresses interagency coordination, procedures to maintain communications with County and State emergency response teams, and methods to assess the extent of damage and management of volunteers.

The proposed Modified Project would include potential future development and land use activities within the same boundaries as the Approved Project. Furthermore, as shown on Figure 3-3, Housing Element (2023-2031) Opportunity Sites, of this EA, the locations of potential future development under the proposed Modified Project would be in similar areas as those of the Approved Project. Future potential development under the Modified 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 near existing residential and residential-serving development in already urbanized areas. Thus, the City of Cupertino Office of Emergency Management would still be responsible for coordinating agency response to disasters or other large-scale emergencies.

The General Plan EIR also found that the Health and Safety (HS) Element contains policies and strategies that require local planning and development decisions to consider impacts that interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. 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 projects in an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan:
 Strategy HS-1.1.1. Monitoring and Budgeting. Monitor and evaluate the success of the LHMP, including local strategies provided in the Cupertino Annex Section 11). Working with Santa Clara County, ensure that strategies are prioritized and implemented through the Capital Improvement Program and provide adequate budget for on-going programs and department operations. (Strategy 1 of General Plan EIR Policy 6-1)
 Policy HS-2.1. Promote Emergency Preparedness. Distribute multi-hazard emergency preparedness information for all threats identified in the emergency plan. Information will be provided through Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR), First Aid and Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) training, lectures and seminars on emergency preparedness, publication of monthly safety articles in the Cupertino Scene, posting of information on the Emergency Preparedness website and coordination of video and printed information at the library. (General Plan EIR Policy 6-33)  Strategy HS-2.2.1. Emergency Operations Center (EOC). Review options to provide functional and seismic upgrades to the EOC facility at City Hall or explore alternative locations for the EOC. (General Plan EIR Policy 6-38)
739
CC 05-14-2024
739 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
PLACEWORKS 4.8-17
 Policy HS- 2.4. Emergency Public Information. Maintain an Emergency Public Information program to be used during emergency situations. (General Plan EIR Policy 6-39)  Policy HS-3.3. Emergency Access. Ensure adequate emergency access is provided for all new hillside development.
 Strategy HS-3.3.1. Roadway Design. Create an all-weather emergency road system to serve rural areas. (General Plan EIR Policy 6-13)
 Strategy HS- 3.3.2: Dead-End Street Access. Allow public use of private roadways during an emergency for hillside subdivisions that have dead-end public streets longer than 1,000 feet or find a secondary means of access. (General Plan EIR Policy 6-14)
 Strategy HS-3.3.3. Hillside Access Routes. Require new hillside development to have frequent grade breaks in access routes to ensure a timely response from fire personnel. (General Plan EIR Policy 6-15)  Strategy HS-3.3.4. Hillside Road Upgrades. Require new hillside development to upgrade existing access roads to meet Fire Code and City standards. (General Plan EIR Policy 6-16)  Policy HS-3.4. Private Residential Electronic Security Gates. Discourage the use of private residential electronic security gates that act as a barrier to emergency personnel. (General Plan EIR Policy 6-17)  Policy HS-7.1. Evacuation Map. Prepare and update periodically an evacuation map for the flood hazard areas and distribute it to the general public. (General Plan EIR Policy 6-42)  Policy HS-7.2. Emergency Response to Dam Failure. Ensure that Cupertino is prepared to respond to a potential dam failure.

As with the development under the Approved Project, future potential development under the proposed Modified Project would be required to comply with applicable laws, policies, and design standards governing adopted emergency response plans or emergency evacuation plans, as necessary. Based on these considerations, overall impacts from adoption and implementation of the proposed Modified Project would not result in new or more severe impacts to the implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan beyond what was evaluated in the General Plan EIR.

Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.

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.

As described in the General Plan EIR, according to CAL FIRE, there are no very high fire hazard severity zones within the Local Responsibility Areas of Cupertino. Additionally, because the development under the Approved Project would be in highly urbanized areas, away from regional open space areas, wildland fires are less likely to occur.

Like the Approved Project, potential future development under the proposed Modified Project would occur in highly developed areas, away from open spaces. Further, the General Plan EIR also found that the 740
CC 05-14-2024
740 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

4.8-18 APRIL 2024
Health and Safety (HS) Element contains policies and strategies that require local planning and development decisions to consider impacts due to wildland fires. Like the Approved Project, the following existing General Plan 2040 policies would, and updated policies as part of the proposed Modified Project, also serve to minimize potential adverse impacts on people or structures due to wildland fires:
 Policy HS-3.1. Regional Coordination. Coordinate wildland fire prevention efforts with adjacent jurisdictions. Encourage the County and the Midpeninsula Open Space District to implement measures to reduce fire hazards, including putting into effect the fire reduction policies of the County Public Safety Element, continuing efforts in fuel management, and considering the use of “green” fire break uses for open space lands. (General Plan EIR Policies 6-4, 6-5, 6-6, and 6-7)  Policy HS-3.2. Early Project Review. Involve the Fire Department in the early design stage of all projects requiring public review to assure Fire Department input and modifications as needed. (General Plan EIR Policy 6-8)
 Policy HS- 3.5. Multi-Story Buildings. Ensure that adequate fire protection is built into the design of multi-story buildings and require on-sire fire suppression materials and equipment. (General Plan EIR Policy 6-11)
As with the development under the Approved Project, future potential development under the proposed Modified Project would be required to comply with applicable laws, policies, and design standards governing fire risk, as necessary. Additionally, wildfire impacts are addressed further in Chapter 4.16, Wildfire, of this EA. Based on these considerations and the conclusions in Chapter 4.16, overall impacts from 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 beyond what was evaluated in the General Plan EIR.

Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.

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

As described in the General Plan EIR, potential cumulative hazardous impacts could arise from a combination of future potential development of the Approved Project together with the regional growth in the immediate vicinity. Development allowed by the Approved Project would not result in significant impacts from the increased use of hazardous household materials and would not interfere with the implementation of emergency response plans. In addition, potential project-level impacts associated with hazards and hazardous materials would be further reduced through compliance with General Plan policies and strategies; other local, regional, State, and federal regulations; and with implementation of CMC Sections 17.04.040 (B) and 17.04.050(B).

Similar to the Approved Project, potential future development under the proposed Modified Project would not result in significant impacts from the increased use of hazardous household materials and would not interfere with the implementation of emergency response plans. Further, future potential development under the proposed Modified Project and other projects would be required to comply with 741
CC 05-14-2024
741 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
PLACEWORKS 4.8-19
applicable laws, policies, design standards, and mitigation measures governing hazards and hazardous materials, as necessary. Therefore, the proposed Modified Project would not result in new or more severe cumulatively considerable impacts to hazards and hazardous materials beyond what was evaluated in the General Plan EIR.

Significance with Mitigation: Less than significant.
742
CC 05-14-2024
742 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

4.8-20 APRIL 2024
This page has been intentionally left blank.
743
CC 05-14-2024
743 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 4.9-1

4.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
This chapter describes the potential impacts related to hydrology and water quality that are 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 impacts related to hydrology and water quality, and identifies General Plan 2040 policies that could minimize any potentially significant impacts.

4.9.1 Environmental Setting

REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
Federal Regulations
Clean Water Act
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is the lead federal agency responsible for water quality management and the Clean Water Act (CWA) is the principal statute governing water quality. It establishes the basic structure for regulating discharges of pollutants into the waters of the United States and gives the EPA authority to implement pollution control programs. In California, the authority is delegated to the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs).

The CWA regulates direct and indirect discharge of pollutants; sets water quality standards for all contaminants in surface waters; and makes it unlawful for any person to discharge any pollutant from a point source into navigable waters unless a permit is obtained under its provisions. The CWA mandates permits for wastewater and stormwater discharges; requires states to establish site-specific water quality standards; and regulates other activities that affect water quality, such as dredging and the filling of wetlands. The CWA also provides loans for the construction of wastewater treatment plants as well as nonpoint source pollution control and estuary protection projects through the Clean Water State Revolving Fund.

Under federal law, the EPA has published water quality regulations under Volume 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). Section 303 of the CWA requires states to adopt water quality standards for all surface waters of the United States. As defined by the CWA, water quality standards consist of two elements: (1) designated beneficial uses of the water body in question and (2) criteria that protect the designated uses. Section 304(a) requires the EPA to publish advisory water quality criteria that accurately reflect the latest scientific knowledge on the kind and extent of all effects on health and welfare that may be expected from the presence of pollutants in water. Where multiple uses exist, water quality standards must protect the most sensitive use.

When water quality does not meet CWA standards and compromises designated beneficial uses of a receiving water body, Section 303(d) of the CWA requires that water body be identified and listed as “impaired.” Once a water body has been designated as impaired, a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) must be developed for the impairing pollutant(s). A TMDL is an estimate of the total load of pollutants 744
CC 05-14-2024
744 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

4.9-2 APRIL 2024
from point, nonpoint, and natural sources that a water body may receive without exceeding applicable water quality standards, with a factor of safety included. Once established, the TMDL allocates the loads among current and future pollutant sources to the water body.

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program was established by the CWA to regulate municipal and industrial discharges to surface waters of the United States, including discharges from municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s). Federal NPDES permit regulations have been established for broad categories of discharges, including point-source municipal waste discharges and nonpoint-source stormwater runoff. NPDES permits generally identify effluent and receiving water limits on allowable concentrations and/or mass emissions of pollutants contained in the discharge; prohibitions on discharges not specifically allowed under the permit; and provisions that describe required actions by the discharger, including industrial pretreatment, pollution prevention, self-monitoring, and other activities. Under the NPDES program, all facilities that discharge pollutants into waters of the U.S. are required to obtain an NPDES permit.

Requirements for stormwater discharges are also regulated under this program. In California, the NPDES permit program is administered by the SWRCB through the nine RWQCBs. The City of Cupertino lies within the jurisdiction of the San Francisco Bay RWQCB (Region 2) and is subject to the waste discharge requirements of the Phase I MS4 Permit (Order No. R2-2022-0018; NPDES No. CAS612008) that regulates stormwater discharges from the cities, towns, and agencies within Alameda County, Contra Costa County, Santa Clara County, San Mateo County, and Solano County. The City of Cupertino, in addition to the cities of Campbell, Los Altos, Milpitas, Monte Sereno, Mountain View, Palo Alto, San Jose, Santa Clara, Saratoga, and Sunnyvale; the towns of Los Altos Hills and Los Gatos; the Santa Clara Valley Water District; and Santa Clara County form the Santa Clara permittees under the MS4 permit Under Provision C.3 of the MS4 Permit, New Development and Redevelopment, the permittees use their planning authorities to include appropriate source control, site design, and storm water treatment measures in new development and redevelopment projects to address both soluble and insoluble storm water runoff pollutant discharges and prevent increases in runoff flows from new development and redevelopment projects. The goal is to be accomplished primarily through the implementation of low impact development (LID) techniques. In addition, new development or redevelopment projects that create or replace one acre or more of impervious surfaces are required to comply with hydromodification requirements specified in the C.3.g provisions of the MS4 permit. These requirements include implementing stormwater control measures such that post-development stormwater runoff rates and durations must match pre-project runoff rates and durations from 10 percent of the pre-project 2-year peak flow, up to the pre-project 10-year peak flow.

Federal Emergency Management Agency
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) administers the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) to provide subsidized flood insurance to communities that comply with FEMA regulations limiting development in floodplains. FEMA also issues Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) that identify which land areas are subject to flooding. These maps provide flood information and identify flood hazard zones in the 745
CC 05-14-2024
745 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 4.9-3
community. The design standard for flood protection is established by FEMA. FEMA’s minimum level of flood protection for new development is the 100-year flood event, also described as a flood that has a 1-in-100 chance of occurring in any given year. Under the proposed Modified Project, new housing could be placed within a 100-year floodplain.

As required by the FEMA regulations, all development constructed within the 100-year floodplain (as delineated on the FIRM) must be elevated so that the lowest floor is at or above the base flood elevation level. Local cities and counties have the authority to require the lowest floor to be at a higher elevation than the FEMA requirements to account for climate change and sea level rise. The term “development” is defined by FEMA as any human-made change to improved or unimproved real estate, including, but not limited to, buildings, other structures, mining, dredging, filling, grading, paving, excavation or drilling operations, and storage of equipment or materials. Per these regulations, if development in these areas occurs, a hydrologic and hydraulic analysis must be performed prior to the start of development and must demonstrate that the development does not cause any rise in base flood elevation levels. Following completion of any development that changes existing 100-year floodplain boundaries, the NFIP directs all participating communities to submit the appropriate hydrologic and hydraulic data to FEMA for a FIRM revision as soon as practicable, but not later than six months after such data become available.

State Regulations
Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Water Code Sections 13000 et seq.) is the basic water quality control law for California. This act established the SWRCB and divided the state into nine regional basins, each under the jurisdiction of a RWQCB. The SWRCB is the primary state agency responsible for the protection of California’s water quality and groundwater supplies. The RWQCBs carry out the regulation, protection, and administration of water quality in each region. Each regional board is required to adopt a water quality control plan or basin plan that recognizes and reflects the regional differences in existing water quality, the beneficial uses of the region’s ground and surface water, and local water quality conditions and problems. As described previously, the City of Cupertino is within the jurisdiction of the San Francisco Bay RWQCB (Region 2).

The Porter-Cologne Act also authorizes the SWRCB and RWQCBs to issue and enforce WDRs, NPDES permits, Section 401 water quality certifications, or other approvals. Other State agencies with jurisdiction over water quality regulation in California include the SWRCB’s Division of Drinking Water, which regulates public drinking water systems; the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, which regulates projects that could impact streams and rivers; and the Department of Toxic Substances Control, which oversees cleanup of hazardous waste on contaminated properties.

State Water Resources Control Board
The SWRCB has broad authority over water quality control issues in California. The SWRCB is responsible for developing statewide water quality policy and exercises the powers delegated to the State by the federal government under the CWA. It also regulates public drinking water systems, NPDES wastewater 746
CC 05-14-2024
746 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

4.9-4 APRIL 2024
discharges, water quality monitoring, water recycling programs, landfill disposal, water rights, and implements drought restrictions.

Regional authority for planning, permitting, and enforcement is delegated to the nine RWQCBs. Regional boundaries are based on watersheds and water quality requirements are based on the unique differences in climate, topography, geology, and hydrology for each watershed. Each RWQCB makes water quality decisions for its region, including setting standards, issuing waste discharge requirements, determining compliance with these requirements, and taking appropriate enforcement actions. The regional boards are required to formulate and adopt water quality control plans for all areas in the region and establish water quality objectives in the plans. The City of Cupertino is within the jurisdiction of the San Francisco Bay RWQCB (Region 2), which regulates surface water and groundwater quality in the watershed that encompasses all or part of the following counties: Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, and Sonoma.

SWRCB Construction General Permit
Construction activities that disturb one or more acres of land that could impact hydrologic resources must comply with the requirements of the newly reissued SWRCB Construction General Permit (Order WQ 2022-0057-DWQ; NPDES No. CAS000002), which was adopted on September 8, 2022, and becomes effective on September 1, 2023. Under the terms of the permit, applicants must file Permit Registration Documents (PRD) with the SWRCB prior to the start of construction. The PRDs include a Notice of Intent, risk assessment, site map, Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), annual fee, and a signed certification statement. The PRDs are submitted electronically to the SWRCB via the Stormwater Multiple Application and Report Tracking System (SMARTS) website.

Applicants must also demonstrate conformance with applicable best management practices (BMPs) and prepare a SWPPP containing a site map that shows the construction site perimeter, existing and proposed buildings, lots, roadways, stormwater collection and discharge points, general topography both before and after construction, and drainage patterns across the project site. The SWPPP must list BMPs that would be implemented to prevent soil erosion and discharge of other construction-related pollutants that could contaminate nearby water resources. Additionally, the SWPPP must contain a weekly visual monitoring program, a sampling program to ensure compliance with water quality standards, and on-site collection of samples and inspection of BMPs prior to, during, and after qualifying precipitation events. Water quality monitoring has a schedule based on the risk level of the site.

In addition, the City under Municipal Code 16.08.110 has the authority to require submittal of an interim and final Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP) for projects that require grading permits. The ESCP must describe the location and types of erosion and sediment control measures that will be implemented during the construction phase, vegetative measures such as erosion control planting and seeding, and calculation of maximum surface runoff amounts from the construction site. Projects subject to the SWRCB Construction General Permit may include the ESCP provisions within the SWPPP. 747
CC 05-14-2024
747 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 4.9-5
SWRCB Trash Amendments
On April 7, 2015, the SWRCB adopted an amendment to The Water Quality Control Plan for Ocean Waters of California to control trash. In addition, the Water Quality Control Plan for Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays, and Estuaries of California added Part 1, Trash Provisions. Together, they are collectively referred to as “the Trash Amendments.” The Trash Amendments apply to all surface waters of California and include a land-use-based compliance approach to focus trash controls on areas with high trashgeneration rates. Areas such as high density residential, industrial, commercial, mixed urban, and public transportation stations are considered priority land uses. There are two compliance tracks for Phase I and Phase II MS4 permittees:
 Track 1: Permittees must install, operate, and maintain a network of certified full capture systems in storm drains that capture runoff from priority land uses.  Track 2: Permittees must implement a plan with a combination of full capture systems, multi-benefit projects, institutional controls, and/or other treatment methods that have the same effectiveness as Track 1 methods.

The Trash Amendments provide a framework for permittees to implement their provisions. Full compliance must occur within 10 years of the permit, and permittees must also meet interim milestones such as average load reductions of 10 percent per year. The Trash Amendments require municipalities to install certified trash control systems, such as filters, on all catch basins no later than December 2, 2030.1

Sustainable Groundwater Management Act of 2014
In the midst of a major drought in 2014, a three-bill legislative package consisting of Assembly Bill (AB) 1739, Senate Bill (SB) 1168, and SB 1319, collectively known as the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA), was signed into law on September 16, 2014.2 The Governor’s signing message states “a central feature of these bills is the recognition that groundwater management in California is best accomplished locally.” Under SGMA, in groundwater basins that are designated as medium and high priority, local public agencies and groundwater sustainability agencies (GSAs) must assess conditions in their local groundwater basins and then prepare groundwater sustainability plans (GSPs).

Water Conservation in Landscaping Act of 2006
The Water Conservation in Landscaping Act includes the State of California’s Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO), which requires cities and counties to adopt landscape water conservation ordinances. The MWELO was revised in July 2015 via Executive Order B-29-15 to address the ongoing drought and to build resiliency for future droughts. State law requires all land use agencies, which includes cities and counties, to adopt a WELO that is at least as efficient as the MWELO prepared by DWR. 1 State Water Resources Quality Control Board, September 2024, Storm Water Program - Trash Implementation Program. https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/stormwater/trash_implementation.html, accessed January 12, 2024. 2 Department of Water Resources, 2024, Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA), https://water.ca.gov/programs/groundwater-management/sgma-groundwater-management, accessed January 12, 2024. 748
CC 05-14-2024
748 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

4.9-6 APRIL 2024
The 2015 revisions to the MWELO improve water savings in the landscaping sector by promoting efficient landscapes in new developments and retrofitted landscapes. The revisions increase water-efficiency standards for new and retrofitted landscapes through more efficient irrigation systems, greywater usage, and on-site stormwater capture, and by limiting the portion of landscapes that can be covered in turf.

New development projects that include landscape areas of 500 square feet or more are subject to these requirements and also rehabilitated landscape projects with an area equal to or greater than 2,500 square feet. This applies to residential, commercial, industrial, and institutional projects that require a permit, plan check, or design review.3 The City of Cupertino has adopted its own Landscape Ordinance, Chapter

14.15 of the Municipal Code, that complies with and is more stringent than the MWELO.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW)
The CDFW protects streams, water bodies, and riparian corridors through the streambed alteration agreement process under Sections 1600 to 1616 of the California Fish and Game Code. The Fish and Game Code stipulates that it is “unlawful to substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow or substantially change the bed, channel or bank of any river, stream or lake” without notifying the CDFW, incorporating necessary mitigation, and obtaining a streambed alteration agreement. CDFW’s jurisdiction extends to the top of banks and often includes the outer edge of riparian vegetation.

Regional Regulations
San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board
As stated previously, the City of Cupertino is within the jurisdiction of the San Francisco Bay RWQCB (Region 2). The San Francisco Bay RWQCB addresses region-wide water quality issues through the creation and triennial update of the Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay Basin (Basin Plan). The Basin Plan was adopted in 1993 and most recently amended in 2023. The Basin Plan designates beneficial uses, establishes water quality objectives, and contains implementation programs and policies to achieve those objectives for all waters designated in the Basin Plan.4 The San Francisco Bay RWQCB also administers the MS4 permit for Santa Clara County and the municipalities within the county, including the City of Cupertino.

Regional Stormwater MS4 Permit
Municipal stormwater discharge in the City of Cupertino is subject to the Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) of the MS4 Permit (Order No. R2-2022-0018 and NPDES Permit No. CAS612008). Provision C.3 of the MRP requirements applies to all new development that create or replace 5,000 square feet of impervious surfaces and single-family homes that create and/or replace 10,000 square feet of impervious surface. Provision C.3 of the MS4 Permit also mandates that new development and redevelopment projects must: (1) incorporate site design, source control, and stormwater treatment on-site; (2) minimize the discharge of pollutants in stormwater runoff and non-stormwater discharge; and (3) minimize the rate 3 California Code of Regulations, Title 23, Division 2, Chapter 2.7, Section 490.1, Applicability. 4 San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, 2024, Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the San Francisco Bay Basin, https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/sanfranciscobay/basin_planning.html, accessed January 11, 2024. 749
CC 05-14-2024
749 of 1197
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 4.9-7
and volume of stormwater runoff under post-development conditions. Low-impact development (LID) methods are the primary mechanisms for implementing such controls.

New development projects must design and construct stormwater treatment systems that capture a percentage of the flow rate or volume from a specified storm event based on the sizing criteria described in the C.3 provisions of the MRP. The treatment systems use LID measures that include rainwater harvesting and reuse, infiltration, evapotranspiration, and biotreatment/bioretention.

In order to comply with Provision C.3 of the MS4 Permit, regulated projects would be required to submit a Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP) and a completed Provision C.3 Data Form with building plans, to be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department. The SWMP must be prepared under the direction of and certified by a licensed and qualified professional, which includes civil engineers, architects, or landscape architects.

Santa Clara Valley Water District (Valley Water)
The Santa Clara Valley Water District, also known as Valley Water, is a water resources agency responsible for balancing flood protection needs with the protection of natural watercourses and habitat in the Santa Clara Valley. Founded in 1929, the SCVWD serves all of Santa Clara County, including 15 cities and 2 million residents, provides wholesale water supply, groundwater management, operates three water treatment plants and a recycled water purification center, manages ten dams and water reservoirs and 400 acres of groundwater recharge ponds, and provides flood protection along the creeks and rivers in the county.

The Safe, Clean Water and Natural Flood Protection Program was first approved by voters in Santa Clara County in 2000 and renewed in November 2020 and creates a countywide special parcel tax to fund projects that deliver safe, clean water, natural flood protection, and environmental stewardship to all communities within the county. The six priorities are to:5  Ensure a safe, reliable water supply
 Reduce toxins, hazard, and contaminants in our waterways  Protect our water supply and dams from earthquakes and other natural disasters  Restore wildlife habitat and provide open space
 Provide flood protection to homes, businesses, schools, streets, and highways  Support public health and public safety for our community.