Cities Index.
Exhibit GPA-6 - App G - Environmental Assessment

Cupertino City Council
May 14, 2024

Document
Exhibit GPA-6 - App G - Environmental Assessment
Meeting
May 14, 2024
Body
Cupertino City Council
Original file
36.6 MB
Text extracted from the city's file for reading and search. Open the original on legistar.granicus.com. That file is the official record.

Appendix G: General Plan 2040
and Zoning Code Amendments
Environmental Assessment
for the City of Cupertino
April 2024

Appendix G: General Plan 2040
and Zoning Code Amendments
Environmental Assessment
for the City of Cupertino
April 2024
ORANGE COUNTY • BAY AREA • SACRAMENTO • CENTRAL COAST • LOS ANGELES • INLAND EMPIRE PLACEWORKS.COM
Prepared by: PlaceWorks
2040 Bancroft Way, Suite 400
Berkeley, California 94704
t 510.848.3815

PLACEWORKS i
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................ 1-1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ........................................................................................ 4.7-1 GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

TABLE OF CONTENTS
ii APRIL 202 4

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

APPENDICES
Appendix A: Notice of Preparation and Scoping Comments Appendix B: Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Data Appendix C: Tribal Consultation Correspondence
Appendix D: Noise Data
Appendix E: Transportation Analysis

GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

TABLE OF CONTENTS
PLACEWORKS iii

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

GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

TABLE OF CONTENTS
iv APRIL 202 4

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

CITY OF CUPERTINO

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

GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

TABLE OF CONTENTS
vi APRIL 202 4
This page has been intentionally left blank

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

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

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

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

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

CITY OF CUPERTINO

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

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

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

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

CITY OF CUPERTINO

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CITY OF CUPERTINO

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

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

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

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

In this case, the proposed Modified Project that is the subject of this EA consists of a long-term plan and set of regulatory changes that would be implemented over time as policy documents and regulations guiding future development activities and City actions. No specific development projects are proposed as part of the proposed Modified Project. Therefore, this EA presents a program-level evaluation of the potential environmental effects of the adoption and implementation of the proposed Modified Project.

GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

INTRODUCTION
PLACEWORKS 1-5

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

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

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

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

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

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

GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

INTRODUCTION
1-6 APRIL 2024
This page has been intentionally left blank.

PLACEWORKS 2-1

2. Executive Summary

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

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

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

1 California Government Code Section 65300.

GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

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

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

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

CITY OF CUPERTINO

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

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

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

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

2 CEQA Guidelines Section 15093.

GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2-4 APRIL 2024

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

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

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

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

CITY OF CUPERTINO

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

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

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

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

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

GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2-6 APRIL 2024

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

Chapter 5, Alternatives to the Proposed Modified Project, of this EA, includes a complete description of these alternatives. As described in Chapter 5, Alternative B is the Environmentally Superior Alternative pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6.

GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
PLACEWORKS 2-7

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

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

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

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

GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

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

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

GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
N/A = Not Applicable; LTS = Less Than Significant; LTS/M = Less Than Significant with Mitigation; SU = Significant and Unavoi dable

PLACEWORKS 2-9
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Standard of Significance Question or Impact Statement General Plan 2040 Policies and Strategies and Required Mitigation Measures
Proposed Modified Project Policies and Strategies and
Required Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance

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

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

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

Policies LU-6.1 and ES-5.3

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

LTS

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

N/A N/A LTS

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

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

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

Policies LU-3.3, LU-6.1, LU-6.7, LU-12.3, and ES-5.3
Strategies LU-3.3.1, LU-12.4.1, and LU-13.7.5
Policies LU-3.3, LU-6.1, LU-6.7, LU-12.3, LU-12.4, LU-

13.7, LU-20.6, LU-27.8, ES-5.3, and RPC-3.1
Strategies LU-3.3.1, LU-12.4.1, LU-13.7.5, and LU-

19.3.10 LTS

N/A N/A

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

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

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

17.04.050(A), Standard Environmental Protection
Requirements Air Quality Permit Requirements,
therefore, compliance with the CMC is required to
mitigate impacts.

GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
N/A = Not Applicable; LTS = Less Than Significant; LTS/M = Less Than Significant with Mitigation; SU = Significant and Unavoi dable

2-10 APRIL 2024
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Standard of Significance Question or Impact Statement General Plan 2040 Policies and Strategies and Required Mitigation Measures
Proposed Modified Project Policies and Strategies and
Required Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
projects that could generate emissions in excess of
the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s
(BAAQMDs) current significance thresholds during
construction, as determined by project-level
environmental review, when applicable, to implement
the current BAAQMD construction mitigation
measures (e.g. Table 8-3 of the BAAQMD CEQA
Guidelines) or any construction mitigation measures
subsequently adopted by the BAAQMD.

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

Policies ES-4.2 and ES- 4.3
Strategy ES-4.1.3
Policies ES-4.1, ES- 4.2, and ES-4.3
Strategies ES-4.1.1, ES-4.1.2, ES-4.1.3, ES- 4.2.1, ES-

4.2.2, ES- 4.2.23, ES- 4.2.4, ES- 4.2.5, ES- 4.3.1, and ES-

4.3.2 SU

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

Policies LU-1.1, LU-3.1, LU- 20.2, LU-21.3, LU- 21.4,
LU-24.2, M-1.3, M-3.6, M-4.4, ES- 4.2, and HS-6.2
Strategies LU-19.2.2, LU-27.1.1, M-5.1.1, and M-9.3.2
Policies LU-1.1, LU-3.1, LU- 20.2, LU-21.3, LU- 21.4, LU-

24.2, M-1.3, M-3.6, M-4.4, ES- 4.2, and HS-6.2
Strategies LU-19.2.2, LU-27.1.1, M-5.1.1, M-9.3.2, and
ES- 4.1.1
SU
General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures AQ-4a:

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

GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
N/A = Not Applicable; LTS = Less Than Significant; LTS/M = Less Than Significant with Mitigation; SU = Significant and Unavoi dable

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

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

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

Policy ES- 4.2
Strategies LU- 27.1.1, ES- 4.2.1, ES- 4.2.2, ES- 4.2.3, ES-4.2.4, and ES-4.2.5
Policy ES- 4.2
Strategies LU- 27.1.1, ES- 4.2.1, ES- 4.2.2, ES- 4.2.3, ES-

4.2.4, and ES-4.2.5
LTS

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

Policies LU-1.1, LU-3.1, LU- 20.2, LU-21.3, LU- 21.4,
LU-24.2, M-1.1, M-1.3, M-3.6, M-4.4, ES- 4.2, ES-

4.3and HS-6.2
Strategies LU-19.2.2, LU-27.1.1, M-5.1.1, M-9.3.2, ES-

4.1.3, ES- 4.2.1, ES- 4.2.2, ES- 4.2.3, ES-4.2.4, and ES-

4.2.5 Policies LU-1.1, LU-3.1, LU- 20.2, LU-21.3, LU- 21.4, LU-

24.2, M-1.1, M-1.3, M-3.6, M-4.4, ES-4.1, ES- 4.2, ES-

4.3and HS-6.2
Strategies LU-19.2.2, LU-27.1.1, M-5.1.1, M-9.3.2, ES-

4.1.1, ES-4.1.2, ES-4.1.3, ES- 4.2.1, ES-4.2.2, ES- 4.2.3, ES- 4.2.4, ES- 4.2.5, ES- 4.3.1, and ES-4.3.2
SU
Implement General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures AQ-
2a, AQ-2b, and AQ-4a

General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures AQ-2a and AQ-
2b have been incorporated into CMC Section

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

CITY OF CUPERTINO

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
N/A = Not Applicable; LTS = Less Than Significant; LTS/M = Less Than Significant with Mitigation; SU = Significant and Unavoi dable

2-12 APRIL 2024
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Standard of Significance Question or Impact Statement General Plan 2040 Policies and Strategies and Required Mitigation Measures
Proposed Modified Project Policies and Strategies and
Required Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
the CMC is required to mitigate impacts.

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (BIO)
BIO-1: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not have a substantial adverse effect,
either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or 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.

Policies ES-5.2, ES-5.3, ES-5.6, ES-7.1, and ES-7.8
Strategy ES-5.3.1
Policies LU-3.5, ES-5.2, ES-5.3, ES-5.6, ES-7.1, and ES-

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

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

GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
N/A = Not Applicable; LTS = Less Than Significant; LTS/M = Less Than Significant with Mitigation; SU = Significant and Unavoi dable

PLACEWORKS 2-13
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Standard of Significance Question or Impact Statement General Plan 2040 Policies and Strategies and Required Mitigation Measures
Proposed Modified Project Policies and Strategies and
Required Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
passerines and other birds. The active nest within an
exclusion zone shall be monitored on a weekly basis
throughout the nesting season to identify signs of
disturbance and confirm nesting status. The radius of
an exclusion zone may be increased by the qualified
biologist if project activities are determined to be
adversely affecting the nesting birds. Exclusion zones
may be reduced by the qualified biologist only in
consultation with California Department of Fish and
Wildlife. The protection measures shall remain in
effect until the young have left the nest and are
foraging independently or the nest is no longer active.

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

N/A N/A NI

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

N/A N/A LTS

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

Strategy ES-5.3.1 Strategy ES-5.3.1 LTS

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

Policies ES-5.2, ES-5.3, ES-5.6, ES-7.1, and ES-7.8
Strategy ES-5.3.1
Policies LU-3.5, ES-5.2, ES-5.3, ES-5.6, ES-7.1, and ES-

7.8 Strategies LU-3.6.2, LU-12.4.2, and ES-5.3.1
LTS

N/A N/A
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
N/A = Not Applicable; LTS = Less Than Significant; LTS/M = Less Than Significant with Mitigation; SU = Significant and Unavoi dable

2-14 APRIL 2024
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Standard of Significance Question or Impact Statement General Plan 2040 Policies and Strategies and Required Mitigation Measures
Proposed Modified Project Policies and Strategies and
Required Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
BIO-6: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not conflict with the provisions of an
adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or State habitat conservation plan

N/A N/A NI

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

Policies ES-5.2, ES-5.3, ES-5.6, ES-7.1, and ES-7.8
Strategy ES-5.3.1
Policies LU-3.5, ES-5.2, ES-5.3, ES-5.6, ES-7.1, and ES-

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

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

Policies LU-6.1, LU-6.2, LU-6.3, LU-6.4, LU-6.5, and LU-

6.6 Policies LU-6.1, LU-6.2, LU-6.3, LU-6.4, LU-6.5, and LU-

6.6 LTS

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

N/A N/A LTS

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

N/A N/A LTS

N/A N/A
CUL-4: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not cause a substantial adverse change
in the significance of a Tribal Cultural Resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the
landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American Tribe, and that is: (i) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of
Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical

N/A N/A LTS

N/A N/A
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
N/A = Not Applicable; LTS = Less Than Significant; LTS/M = Less Than Significant with Mitigation; SU = Significant and Unavoi dable

PLACEWORKS 2-15
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Standard of Significance Question or Impact Statement General Plan 2040 Policies and Strategies and Required Mitigation Measures
Proposed Modified Project Policies and Strategies and
Required Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section
5020.1(k), or (ii) A resource determined by the lead
agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial
evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in Public Resources Code Section 5024.1(c). In applying the criteria set forth in Public Resources Code Section 5024.1(c) for the purposes of this paragraph, the lead
agency shall consider the significance to a California
Native American tribe.

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

Policies LU-6.1, LU-6.2, LU-6.3, LU-6.4, LU-6.5, and LU-

6.6 Policies LU-6.1, LU-6.2, LU-6.3, LU-6.4, LU-6.5, and LU-

6.6 LTS

N/A N/A

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

N/A Policies HE-4.1, LU-1.1, LU-3.1, M-1.1, M-3.1, M-4.8, M-

8.1, M-8.3, M-9.2, ES-1.1, ES-1.2, ES-3.1, INF-6.1, INF-

6.2, and INF-6.3
Strategies HE- 1.3.5, HE- 2.3.12, HE-4.1.1, HE-4.1.2, HE-

4.1.3, M-8.1.3 ES- 1.1.1, ES-2.1.1, ES-2.12, ES-2.1.3, ES-

2.1.4, ES- 2.1.6, ES-2.1.7, ES-2.1.8, ES-2.1.9, ES-2.1.10, ES-3.1.1, ES-3.1.2, ES-3.1.3, ES-3.1.4, ES-4.2.2, INF-

6.2.1, INF-6.2.2., INF-6.2.4, INF-6.2.5, and INF-6.3.1
LTS

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

N/A N/A LTS

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

N/A N/A LTS

N/A N/A
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
N/A = Not Applicable; LTS = Less Than Significant; LTS/M = Less Than Significant with Mitigation; SU = Significant and Unavoi dable

2-16 APRIL 2024
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Standard of Significance Question or Impact Statement General Plan 2040 Policies and Strategies and Required Mitigation Measures
Proposed Modified Project Policies and Strategies and
Required Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
ENE-4: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact with respect to energy resources.

N/A Policies HE-4.1, LU-1.1, LU-3.1, M-1.1, M-3.1, M-4.8, M-

8.1, M-8.3, M-9.2, ES-1.1, ES-1.2, ES-3.1, INF-6.1, INF-

6.2, and INF-6.3
Strategies HE- 1.3.5, HE- 2.3.12, HE-4.1.1, HE-4.1.2, HE-

4.1.3, M-8.1.3 ES- 1.1.1, ES-2.1.1, ES-2.12, ES-2.1.3, ES-

2.1.4, ES- 2.1.6, ES-2.1.7, ES-2.1.8, ES-2.1.9, ES-2.1.10, ES-3.1.1, ES-3.1.2, ES-3.1.3, ES-3.1.4, ES-4.2.2, INF-

6.2.1, INF-6.2.2., INF-6.2.4, INF-6.2.5, and INF-6.3.1
LTS

N/A N/A

GEOLOGY AND SOILS (GEO)
GEO-1: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving:

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

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

iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction.
iv) Landslides, mudslides, or other similar hazards.

Policies HS-5.1 and HS-5.2
Strategies HS-1.1.1, HS-1.1.2, HS-5.1.1, HS-5.1.2, HS-

5.1.3, HS-5.2.1, HS-5.2.2, HS-5.2.3, HS-5.2.4, and HS-

5.2.5 Policies HS-5.1 and HS-5.2
Strategies HS-1.1.1, HS-1.1.2, HS-5.1.1, HS-5.1.2, HS-

5.1.3, HS-5.2.1, HS-5.2.2, HS-5.2.3, HS-5.2.4, and HS-

5.2.5 LTS

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

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

N/A N/A LTS

N/A N/A
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
N/A = Not Applicable; LTS = Less Than Significant; LTS/M = Less Than Significant with Mitigation; SU = Significant and Unavoi dable

PLACEWORKS 2-17
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Standard of Significance Question or Impact Statement General Plan 2040 Policies and Strategies and Required Mitigation Measures
Proposed Modified Project Policies and Strategies and
Required Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
GEO-4: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not be located on expansive soil, as
defined by Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code
(1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property.

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

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

N/A N/A NI

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

N/A N/A LTS

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

Policies ES-5.3, ES-7.2, ES-7.5, HS-1.1, HS-5.1 and HS-

5.2 Strategies LU-12.3.1, ES-7.2.3, HS-1.1.1, HS-1.1.2, HS-

5.1.1, HS-5.1.2, HS-5.1.3, HS-5.2.1, HS-5.2.2, HS-5.2.3, HS-5.2.4, and HS-5.2.5
Policies ES-5.3, ES-7.2, ES-7.5, HS-1.1, HS-5.1 and HS-

5.2 Strategies LU-12.3.1, ES-7.2.3, HS-1.1.1, HS-1.1.2, HS-

5.1.1, HS-5.1.2, HS-5.1.3, HS-5.2.1, HS-5.2.2, HS-5.2.3, HS-5.2.4, and HS-5.2.5
LTS

N/A N/A

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

Policies LU-1.1, LU-3.1, LU-13.5, LU-13.6, HE-1.3, M-

1.1, M-3.1, M-3.8, M-8.3, M-8.6, M-9.2, ES-1.1, ES-1.2, ES-2.1, ES-3.1, and INF-2.5
Strategies HE-4.1.1, HE-4.1.2, ES-1.1.1, ES-1.1.2, ES-

1.1.3, ES-1.2.1, ES-2.1.1, ES-2.1.1, ES-2.1.3, ES-2.1.4, ES-2.1.6, ES-2.1.8, ES-2.1.9, ES-2.1.10, ES-3.1.1, ES-

3.1.2, ES-3.1.3, ES-3.1.4, ES-4.2.4, and INF-2.5.1
Policies LU-1.1, LU-3.1, LU-13.5, LU-13.6, HE-1.3, M-

1.1, M-3.1, M-3.8, M-4.8, M-8.1, M-8.3, M-9.2, ES-1.1,
ES-1.2, ES-2.1, ES-3.1, and INF-2.5
Strategies HE-4.1.1, HE-4.1.2, M-8.1.1, M-8.1.2, M-

8.1.3, ES-1.1.1, ES-1.1.2, ES-1.1.3, ES-1.2.1, ES-2.1.1, ES-2.1.1, ES-2.1.2, ES-2.1.3, ES-2.1.4, ES-2.1.5, ES-2.1.6, ES-2.1.7, ES-2.1.8, ES-2.1.9, ES-2.1.10, ES-3.1.1, ES-

3.1.2, ES-3.1.3, ES-3.1.4, ES-4.2.4, and INF-2.5.1
SU

N/A N/A
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
N/A = Not Applicable; LTS = Less Than Significant; LTS/M = Less Than Significant with Mitigation; SU = Significant and Unavoi dable

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

Policies LU-1.1, LU-3.1, LU-13.5, LU-13.6, HE-1.3, HE-

4.1, M-1.1, M-3.1, M-3.8, M-8.3, M-8.6, ES-1.1, ES-1.2, ES-2.1, ES-3.1, and INF-2.5
Strategies HE-4.1.1, HE-4.1.2, ES-1.1.1, ES-1.1.2, ES-

1.1.3, ES-1.2.1, ES-2.1.2, ES-2.1.3, ES-2.1.4, ES-2.1.6, ES-2.1.7, ES-2.1.8, ES-2.1.9, ES-2.1.10, ES-3.1.1, ES-

3.1.2, ES-3.1.3, ES-3.1.4, ES-4.2.4, and INF-2.5.1
Policies LU-1.1, LU-3.1, LU-13.5, LU-13.6, HE-1.3, HE-

4.1, M-1.1, M-3.1, M-3.8, M-8.1, M-8.3, ES-1.1, ES-1.2, ES-2.1, ES-3.1, and INF-2.5
Strategies HE-4.1.1, HE-4.1.2, M-8.1.1, M-8.1.2, M-

8.1.3, ES-1.1.1, ES-1.1.2, ES-1.1.3, ES-1.2.1, ES-2.1.1, ES-2.1.1, ES-2.1.2, ES-2.1.3, ES-2.1.4, ES-2.1.5, ES-2.1.6, ES-2.1.7, ES-2.1.8, ES-2.1.9, ES-2.1.10, ES-3.1.1, ES-

3.1.2, ES-3.1.3, ES-3.1.4, ES-4.2.4, and INF-2.5.1
SU
N/A EA Mitigation Measure GHG-2: Future development
projects in the City of Cupertino shall comply with the voluntary Tier 2 electric vehicle charging standards
under the California Green Building Standards Code
(CALGreen) version that is applicable at the time of
permit applications and shall illustrate compliance with Tier 2 CALGreen electric vehicle charging standards on
the site plans submitted to the City of Cupertino
Planning Department.

Additionally, the City of
Cupertino shall amend the Chapter 17.04, Standard
Environmental Protection Requirements, of the
Cupertino Municipal Code (CMC) to require that new
parking amenities included in individual development
projects install electric vehicle spaces in compliance
with the voluntary Tier 2 standards under the
CALGreen version that is applicable at the time of
permit applications. The amended CMC shall require
that all site plans submitted to the City of Cupertino
Planning Department shall illustrate compliance with
Tier 2 CALGreen electric vehicle charging standards.

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

N/A N/A SU
N/A Implement EA Mitigation Measure GHG-2.

GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
N/A = Not Applicable; LTS = Less Than Significant; LTS/M = Less Than Significant with Mitigation; SU = Significant and Unavoi dable

PLACEWORKS 2-19
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Standard of Significance Question or Impact Statement General Plan 2040 Policies and Strategies and Required Mitigation Measures
Proposed Modified Project Policies and Strategies and
Required Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance

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

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

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

N/A N/A LTS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
N/A = Not Applicable; LTS = Less Than Significant; LTS/M = Less Than Significant with Mitigation; SU = Significant and Unavoi dable

2-20 APRIL 2024
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Standard of Significance Question or Impact Statement General Plan 2040 Policies and Strategies and Required Mitigation Measures
Proposed Modified Project Policies and Strategies and
Required Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
contaminated media are encountered during deep
excavations; and identify monitoring, irrigation, or
other wells requiring proper abandonment in
compliance with local, State, and federal laws,
policies, and regulations.

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

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

GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
N/A = Not Applicable; LTS = Less Than Significant; LTS/M = Less Than Significant with Mitigation; SU = Significant and Unavoi dable

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

N/A N/A NI

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

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

7.2 Strategies HS-1.1.1, HS-2.2.1, HS-3.3.1, HS-3.3.3, and HS-3.3.4
LTS

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

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

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

Policies HS-2.1, HS-2.4, HS-3.1, HS-3.2,HS-3.3, HS-3.4, HS-3.5, HS-6.1, HS-6.2, HS-6.4, HS-6.5, HS-7.1, and HS-

7.2 Strategies HS-1.1.1, HS-2.2.1, HS-3.3.1, HS-3.3.3, and HS-3.3.4
Policies HS-2.1, HS-2.4, HS-3.1, HS-3.2,HS-3.3, HS-3.4, HS-3.5, HS-6.1, HS-6.2, HS-6.4, HS-6.5, HS-7.1, and HS-

7.2 Strategies HS-1.1.1, HS-2.2.1, HS-3.3.1, HS-3.3.3, and HS-3.3.4
LTS
Implement General Plan Mitigation Measures HAZ-4a:
and HAZ-4b.

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

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

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

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

Policies ES-7.1, ES-7.2, ES-7.3, and ES-7.5
Strategies ES-5.3.1, ES-7.2.2, ES-7.3.2, and ES-7.4.1
Policies ES-5.1, ES-5.2, ES-5.3, ES-7.1, ES-7.2, ES-7.3, ES-

7.4, ES-7.5, ES-7.6, and ES-7.8
Strategies ES-5.1.1, ES-5.1.2, ES-5.2.1, ES-5.3.2, ES-

5.6.1, ES-7.1.1, ES-7.2.1, ES-7.2.2, ES-7.2.3, ES-7.3.1, ES-7.3.2, ES-7.4.1, ES-7.4.2, ES-7.4.3, and ES-7.8.1
LTS

N/A N/A
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
N/A = Not Applicable; LTS = Less Than Significant; LTS/M = Less Than Significant with Mitigation; SU = Significant and Unavoi dable

2-22 APRIL 2024
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Standard of Significance Question or Impact Statement General Plan 2040 Policies and Strategies and Required Mitigation Measures
Proposed Modified Project Policies and Strategies and
Required Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
HYD-2: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not substantially decrease groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge such that the project may impede sustainable
groundwater management of the basin.

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

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

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

Policies HS-1.1, HS-1.2, and HS-7.2
Strategies HS-1.1.3, HS-1.2.1, HS-1.2.2, and HS-7.2.2
Policies HS-1.1, HS-1.2, HS-7.1, HS-7.2, HS-7.3, and HS-

7.4 Strategies HS-1.1.1, HS-1.1.2, HS-1.1.3, HS-1.2.1, HS-

1.2.2, HS-7.2.1, HS-7.2.2, HS-7.4.1, HS-7.4.2, HS-7.4.3 LTS

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

N/A N/A LTS

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

N/A N/A LTS

N/A N/A
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
N/A = Not Applicable; LTS = Less Than Significant; LTS/M = Less Than Significant with Mitigation; SU = Significant and Unavoi dable

PLACEWORKS 2-23
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Standard of Significance Question or Impact Statement General Plan 2040 Policies and Strategies and Required Mitigation Measures
Proposed Modified Project Policies and Strategies and
Required Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance

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

Policies LU-23.1, LU-25.1, LU-25.2, LU-27.1, LU-27.7,
M-2.2, M-3.2, HS-8.5, and RPC-2.4
Strategies LU-1.3.2, LU-3.3.8, LU-8.3.3, LU-27.1.1, LU-

27.1.3, M-3.5.1, and M-3.5.2
Policies LU-4.1, LU-13.1, LU-23.1, LU-25.1, LU-25.2, LU-

27.1, LU-27.7, M-2.2, M-3.2, HS-8.5, and RPC-2.4
Strategies LU-1.3.2, LU-3.3.8, LU-8.3.3, LU-27.1.1, LU-

27.1.3, M-3.5.1, and M-3.5.2
LTS

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

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

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

N/A N/A LTS

N/A N/A

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

Policies LU-27.8, HS-8.1, HS-8.3, HS-8.4, HS-8.5, HS-

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

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

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

N/A N/A NI

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

N/A N/A LTS

N/A N/A
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
N/A = Not Applicable; LTS = Less Than Significant; LTS/M = Less Than Significant with Mitigation; SU = Significant and Unavoi dable

2-24 APRIL 2024
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Standard of Significance Question or Impact Statement General Plan 2040 Policies and Strategies and Required Mitigation Measures
Proposed Modified Project Policies and Strategies and
Required Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance

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

Policies LU-1.6, LU-5.3, LU-18.2, LU-23.1, LU-25.1, LU-

27.1, LU-27.2, LU-27.6, HE-1.1, HE-1.2, HE-1.3, HE-2.1, HE-2.2, HE-2.3, HE-3.1, HE-3.2, HE-3.3, HE-4.1, HE-6.1, M-2.2, M-2.4, M-9.1, M-9.3, ES-1.2, INF-2.4,and RPC-

2.4 Strategies LU-1.4.2, LU-3.3.8, LU-9.1.3, LU-13.7.3, LU-

27.1.1, LU-27.1.4, LU-27.6.1, HE-1.3.2, ES-1.2.1, INF-

1.1.2, and INF-1.4.2
Policies LU-1.6, LU-5.3, LU-18.2, LU-23.1, LU-25.1, LU-

27.1, LU-27.2, LU-27.6, HE-1.1, HE-1.2, HE-1.3, HE-2.1, HE-2.2, HE-2.3, HE-3.1, HE-3.2, HE-3.3, HE-4.1, HE-6.1, M-2.2, M-2.4, M-9.1, M-9.3, ES-1.2, INF-2.4,and RPC-

2.4 Strategies LU-1.3.2, LU-3.3.8, LU-9.1.3, LU-13.7.3, LU-

27.1.1, LU-27.1.4, LU-27.6.1, HE-1.3.2, ES-1.2.1, INF-

1.1.2, and INF-1.4.2
LTS

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

N/A N/A LTS

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

N/A N/A LTS

N/A N/A

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

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

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

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

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

N/A N/A
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
N/A = Not Applicable; LTS = Less Than Significant; LTS/M = Less Than Significant with Mitigation; SU = Significant and Unavoi dable

PLACEWORKS 2-25
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Standard of Significance Question or Impact Statement General Plan 2040 Policies and Strategies and Required Mitigation Measures
Proposed Modified Project Policies and Strategies and
Required Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
PS-4: Implementation of the proposed Modified Project
would not result in significant cumulative impacts with respect to police protection services.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

N/A N/A
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
N/A = Not Applicable; LTS = Less Than Significant; LTS/M = Less Than Significant with Mitigation; SU = Significant and Unavoi dable

2-26 APRIL 2024
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Standard of Significance Question or Impact Statement General Plan 2040 Policies and Strategies and Required Mitigation Measures
Proposed Modified Project Policies and Strategies and
Required Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
PS-11: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not result in significant cumulative
impacts with respect to parks.

Policies LU-7.1, RPC-1.1, RPC-1.2, RPC-2.4, and RPC-

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

N/A N/A

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

Policies LU-1.1, LU-3.1, LU-13.1, LU-20.2, LU-21.3, LU-

21.4, LU-24.2, M-1.1, M-1.2, M-1.3, M-1.4, M-3.1, M-

3.6, M-4.4, M-7.1, M-8.1, and M-9.2
Strategies LU-8.3.3, LU-12.5.1, LU-13.7.4, LU-19.2.2,
LU-25.4.2, M-5.1.1, M-9.3.2, and ES-2.1.9
Policies LU-1.1, LU-3.1, LU-13.1, LU-20.2, LU-21.3, LU-

21.4, LU-24.2, M-1.1, M-1.3, M-3.1, M-3.2, M-3.3, M3-
4, M-3.5, M-3.6, M3.7, M-3.8, M-4.1, M-4.2, M-4.3, M-

4.4, M-4.5, M-4.6, M-4.7, M-4.8, M-5.1, M-7.1, M-8.1,
M-8.2, M-9.2, M-10.1, M-10.3, and ES-1.2.

Strategies LU-8.3.3, LU-12.5.1, LU-13.7.4, LU-19.2.2,
LU-25.4.2, M-5.1.1, M-8.1.1, M-8.1.2, M-8.1.3, M-8.2.1, M-8.2.2, M-8.2.3, M-8.2.4, M-9.3.2, ES-1.2.1, and ES-

2.1.9 LTS
General Plan EIR Mitigation Measure TRAF-1 was
required for impacts related to level of service (LOS), which is no longer a threshold under CEQA.

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

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

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

Policies LU-20.2, LU-21.3, LU-21.4, LU-24.2, M-2.2, M-

3.5, M-3.6, M-7.2, and HS-3.2
Strategies HS-3.3.3 and HS-8.7.2
Policies LU-20.2, LU-21.3, LU-21.4, LU-24.2, M-2.2, M-

3.5, M-3.6, M-7.2, and HS-3.2
Strategies HS-3.3.3 and HS-8.7.2
LTS

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

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

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

Policies LU-1.1, LU-3.1, LU-13.1, LU-20.2, LU-21.3, LU-

21.4, LU-24.2, M-1.1, M-1.2, M-1.3, M-1.4, M-3.1, M-

3.6, M-4.4, M-7.1, M-8.1, M-9.2, HS-2.2, HS-2.4, HS-

3.2, HS-3.3, HS-3.4, HS-3.5, HS-3.6, and HS-7.1
Policies LU-1.1, LU-3.1, LU-13.1, LU-20.2, LU-21.3, LU-

21.4, LU-24.2, M-1.1, M-1.3, M-1.4, M-3.1, M-3.6, M-

4.4, M-4.8, M-7.1, M-8.1, M-8.2, M-9.2, ES-1.2, HS-2.2, HS-2.4, HS-3.2, HS-3.3, HS-3.4, HS-3.5, HS-3.6, and HS- SU
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
N/A = Not Applicable; LTS = Less Than Significant; LTS/M = Less Than Significant with Mitigation; SU = Significant and Unavoi dable

PLACEWORKS 2-27
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Standard of Significance Question or Impact Statement General Plan 2040 Policies and Strategies and Required Mitigation Measures
Proposed Modified Project Policies and Strategies and
Required Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
Strategies LU-8.3.3, LU-12.5.1, LU-13.7.4, LU-19.2.2,
LU-25.4.2, M-5.1.1, M-9.3.2, HS-3.3.2, HS-3.3.3, HS-

8.7.2, and ES-2.1.9

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

N/A

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

Policies ES-1.1 and ES-7.9
Strategy ES-7.9.1
Policies ES-1.1, ES-3.1, ES-7.6, ES-7.9, ES-7.10, ES-7.11, INF-1.1, INF-1.2, INF-1.3, INF-1.4, INF-2.5, INF-3.1, and INF-3.2
Strategies ES-1.1.1, ES-1.1.3, ES-3.1.1, ES 3.1.2, ES-

3.1.3, ES-3.1.4, ES-7.8.1, ES-7.9.1, ES-7.10.1, ES-7.10.2, ES-7.11.1, ES-7.11.2, ES-7.11.3, ES-7.11.4, ES-7.11.5,
ES-7.11.6, ES-7.11.7, INF-1.1.1, INF-1.1.2, INF-1.1.3,
INF-1.4.1, INF-1.4.2, INF-1.4.3, INF-2.5.1, INF-2.5.2, INF-

2.5.3, and INF-3.1.1
LTS

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

Policies ES-1.1 and ES-7.9
Strategy ES-7.9.1
Policies ES-1.1, ES-3.1, ES-7.6, ES-7.9, ES-7.10, ES-7.11, INF-1.1, INF-1.2, INF-1.3, INF-1.4, INF-2.5, INF-3.1, and INF-3.2
Strategies ES-1.1.1, ES-1.1.3, ES-3.1.1, ES 3.1.2, ES-

3.1.3, ES-3.1.4, ES-7.8.1, ES-7.9.1, ES-7.10.1, ES-7.10.2, ES-7.11.1, ES-7.11.2, ES-7.11.3, ES-7.11.4, ES-7.11.5,
ES-7.11.6, ES-7.11.7, INF-1.1.1, INF-1.1.2, INF-1.1.3,
INF-1.4.1, INF-1.4.2, INF-1.4.3, INF-2.5.1, INF-2.5.2, INF-

2.5.3, and INF-3.1.1
LTS

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

N/A N/A LTS

N/A N/A
UTIL-4: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not require or result in the construction of new wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of which would
Policy ES-7.7
Strategy INF-5.1.2
Policies ES-7.7, INF-1.1, INF-1.2, INF-1.3, INF-1.4, INF-

5.1, and INF-5.2
Strategies INF-1.1.1, INF-1.1.2, INF-1.1.3, INF-1.4.1,
INF-1.4.2, INF-1.4.3, INF-5.1.1, and INF-5.1.2
LTS
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
N/A = Not Applicable; LTS = Less Than Significant; LTS/M = Less Than Significant with Mitigation; SU = Significant and Unavoi dable

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

Policy ES-7.7
Strategy INF-5.1.2
Policies ES-7.7, INF-1.1, INF-1.2, INF-1.3, INF-1.4, INF-

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

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

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

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

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

GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
N/A = Not Applicable; LTS = Less Than Significant; LTS/M = Less Than Significant with Mitigation; SU = Significant and Unavoi dable

PLACEWORKS 2-29
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Standard of Significance Question or Impact Statement General Plan 2040 Policies and Strategies and Required Mitigation Measures
Proposed Modified Project Policies and Strategies and
Required Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
UTIL-6: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact with respect to wastewater services.

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

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

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

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

Policies ES-7.2 and ES-7.4
Strategy ES-7.2.3
Policies ES-7.1, ES-7.2, ES-7.3, ES-7.4, and ES-7.5
Strategies ES-7.1.1, ES-7.2.1, ES-7.2.2, ES-7.2.3, ES-

7.3.1, ES-7.4.1, ES-7.4.2, ES-7.4.3, and ES-7.8.1
LTS

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

Policies ES-7.2 and ES-7.4
Strategy ES-7.2.3
Policies ES-7.1, ES-7.2, ES-7.3, ES-7.4, and ES-7.5
Strategies ES-7.1.1, ES-7.2.1, ES-7.2.2, ES-7.2.3, ES-

7.3.1, ES-7.4.1, ES-7.4.2, ES-7.4.3, and ES-7.8.1
LTS

N/A N/A
UTIL-9: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not generate solid waste in excess of
State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals.

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

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

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

N/A
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
N/A = Not Applicable; LTS = Less Than Significant; LTS/M = Less Than Significant with Mitigation; SU = Significant and Unavoi dable

2-30 APRIL 2024
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Standard of Significance Question or Impact Statement General Plan 2040 Policies and Strategies and Required Mitigation Measures
Proposed Modified Project Policies and Strategies and
Required Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
UTIL-11: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not result in cumulatively considerable
impact with respect to solid waste.

N/A N/A LTS
Implement General Plan EIR Mitigation Measure UTIL-

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

Policies ES-1.1, ES-2.1, and ES-3.1
Strategies ES-2.1.2, ES-2.1.3, ES-2.1.4, ES-2.1.7, ES-

2.1.8, and ES-3.1.1
Policies ES-1.1, ES-2.1, ES-3.1, INF-6.1, INF-6.2, and INF-

6.3 Strategies ES-1.1.1, ES-2.1.1, ES-2.1.2, ES-2.1.3, ES-

2.1.4, ES-2.1.6, ES-2.1.7, ES-2.1.8, ES-2.1.10, ES-3.1.1, ES-3.1.2, ES-3.1.3, ES-3.1.4, INF-6.2.1, INF-6.2.2, INF-

6.2.3, INF-6.2.4, INF-6.2.5, and INF-6.3.1
LTS

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

Policies ES-1.1, ES-2.1, and ES-3.1
Strategies ES-2.1.2, ES-2.1.3, ES-2.1.4, ES-2.1.7, ES-

2.1.8, and ES-3.1.1
Policies ES-1.1, ES-2.1, ES-3.1, INF-6.1, INF-6.2, and INF-

6.3 Strategies ES-1.1.1, ES-2.1.1, ES-2.1.2, ES-2.1.3, ES-

2.1.4, ES-2.1.6, ES-2.1.7, ES-2.1.8, ES-2.1.10, ES-3.1.1, ES-3.1.2, ES-3.1.3, ES-3.1.4, INF-6.2.1, INF-6.2.2, INF-

6.2.3, INF-6.2.4, INF-6.2.5, and INF-6.3.1
LTS

N/A N/A

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

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

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

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

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

N/A N/A LTS

N/A N/A
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
N/A = Not Applicable; LTS = Less Than Significant; LTS/M = Less Than Significant with Mitigation; SU = Significant and Unavoi dable

PLACEWORKS 2-31
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Standard of Significance Question or Impact Statement General Plan 2040 Policies and Strategies and Required Mitigation Measures
Proposed Modified Project Policies and Strategies and
Required Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
FIRE-4: Implementation of the proposed Modified
Project would not expose people or structures to
significant risks, including downslope or downstream
flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes.

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

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

N/A N/A LTS

N/A N/A

GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
N/A = Not Applicable; LTS = Less Than Significant; LTS/M = Less Than Significant with Mitigation; SU = Significant and Unavoi dable

2-32 APRIL 2024
This page has been intentionally left blank.

PLACEWORKS 3-1

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

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

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

3.1 BACKGROUND
Every city and county in California is required to have an adopted comprehensive long-range general plan for the physical development of the county or city and, in some cases, land outside the city or county boundaries.
3 It is the community’s overarching policy document that defines a vision for future change and sets the “ground rules” for locating and designing new projects that enhance the character of the community, expanding the local economy, conserving and preserving environmental resources, improving public services and safety, minimizing hazards, and fostering community health. The General Plan, which includes a vision, guiding principles, goals, policies, and strategies, functions as the City’s primary land use

1 Government Code Section 65300.5 (internal consistency). 2 Government Code Section 65860 (vertical consistency). 3 California Government Code Section 65300.

GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRO N MENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

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

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

State law requires consistency between and within general plan elements.4 The City’s General Plan Land Use Map is integrated with the City’s Zoning Map, which shows the parcel-specific delineation of the zoning districts throughout the city and depicts permitted and conditionally permitted uses. A parcel’s zoning district stems directly from its General Plan land use designation, with the zoning district acting to implement the General Plan by refining the specific uses and development standards for that parcel. State law requires that the zoning ordinance be consistent with the General Plan. 5 The General Plan 2040 was adopted in December 2014 and included a horizon year of 2040. Since 2015, several amendments to the General Plan have occurred. These are shown in Table 3-1, Amendments to the General Plan 2040.

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

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

March 3, 2020 c
General Plan Table LU-1, Citywide Development Allocation Between 2014-2040, was updated to increase the buildout of hotel rooms in the Homestead Special Area from 126 to 281 and citywide from 1,614 to 1,769 to accommodate a hotel in the North Vallco Special Area. Table LU-1 was also updated to show an additional 155 hotel rooms available in the Homestead Special Area and 653 hotel rooms available citywide. Figure LU-2, Community Form Diagram, was updated to increase the maximum height for the De Anza Hotel project site from 45 to 85 feet and allow a change to the required setback to height ratio (slope line) along North De Anza Boulevard for the De Anza Hotel project site from the required 1:1 (Figure LU-4, Vallco Shopping District Allowable Land Uses, of the General Plan).

4 California Government Code Section 65300.5 (internal consistency). 5 California Government Code Section 65860 (vertical consistency).

GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

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

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

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

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

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

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

The proposed Modified Project is described in detail in Section 3.7.1, General Plan 2040 Amendments, Section 3.7.3, Zoning Code Amendments, and Section 3.8, Buildout Projections.

GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRO N MENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3-4

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

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

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

3.5 PLANNING PROCESS SUMMARY
The proposed updates to the Housing Element, Land Use and Community Design Element, Mobility Element, and the Zoning Code involved public outreach efforts. The planning process began in October 2021 with the proposed Housing Element when the first community workshop was held to inform the public about the update and collect input from the community and the location and type of housing that is best suited for Cupertino. Throughout the preparation for the public draft of the Housing Element, nine community workshops and meetings were held both in person and virtually. These events were given in a variety of formats, some centered around a panel of individuals while others were informal “pop-up” events.

6 Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, 2023, February 17 (accessed). Bus Routes, https://www.vta.org/go/routes. 7 Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, 2023, February 17 (accessed). Route 523, https://www.vta.org/go/routes/rapid-523.
8 Via-Cupertino Shuttle, https://www.cupertino.org/our-city/departments/public-works/transportation- mobility/community-shuttle, accessed on February 17, 2023.

Stevens Creek
County Park
Rancho San
Antonio OSP
Fremont
Older OSP
Picchetti
Ranch
OSP
Monte
Bello OSP
Saratoga
Gap OSP
Stevens
Creek
Reservoir
Miller Ave
Hollenbeck Ave
Payne Ave
S
B
e
r
n
a
r
d
o
A
v
e
W C a m p b e l l A v e
Doyle Rd
P
i e
r
c
e
R
d

J
o
h
n
s
o
n
A
v
e
S
M
a
r
y
A
v
e

S
a
r
a
t
o
g
a
S
u
n
n
y
v
a
l
e
R
d
Stevens Creek Blvd
Mccoy Ave
Quito Rd
E Homestead Rd
S
B
l
a
n
e
y
A
v
e
Bollinger Rd
S
D
e
A
n
z
a
B
l
v
d
Homestead Rd
Cox Ave
Hamilton Ave

P
o
m
e
r
o
y
A
v
e

F
o
o
t h
il
l
E
x
p
y
N Stelling Rd
Prospect Rd
W Homestead Rd
W i l l i a m s R d
B e n t o n S
t
Kiely Blvd

L
a
w
r
e
n
c
e
E
x
p
y
Mcclellan Rd
S Wolfe Rd
P r u n e r i d g e A v e
N
D
e
A
n
z
a
B
l
v
d
Bubb Rd
N
W
o
l
f
e
R
d
N
B
l
a
n
e
y
A
v
e
Moorpark Ave

S
a
r
a
t
o
g
a
A
v
e
S Stelling Rd

S
a
n
T
o
m
a
s
E
x
p
y

S
t
e
v
e
n
s
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
d
280
85 Saratoga
Los Altos
Hills
Los Altos
Cupertino
Loyola
Sunnyvale
Santa Clara
Campbell
San Jose
Figure 3-1
Regional and Vicinity Map
Source: ESRI, 2022; City of Cupertino, 2023; PlaceWorks, 2023. 0 0.5 10.25
Miles

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

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

ALAMEDA COUNTY

SAN MATEO
COUNTY

SANTA CLARA
COUNTY

SANTA CRUZ
COUNTY
County Boundaries
City Limit
Sphere of Influence
Urban Service Area
Creeks and Waterways
Parks and Open Space
Stevens Creek
County Park
Rancho San
Antonio OSP
Fremont
Older OSP
Picchetti
Ranch
OSP
Monte
Bello OSP
Saratoga
Gap OSP
Stevens
Creek
Reservoir
Miller Ave
H o m e s t e a d
R
d
Hollenbeck Ave
Payne Ave
S
B
e
r
n
a
r
d
o
A
v
e
Doyle Rd

J
o
h
n
s
o
n
A
v
e
S Stelling Rd
S
M
a
r
y
A
v
e
Stevens Creek Blvd
Mccoy Ave
Saratoga Ave
E Homestead Rd
Bollinger Rd
S
D
e
A
n
z
a
B
l
v
d
P r u n e r i d g e A v e
Cox Ave
W i l l i a m s R d
B e n t o n S t
Moorpark Ave

H
a
m
i l t o n A v e

P
o
m
e
r
o
y
A
v
e

F
o
o
t
h
i l l
E
x
p
y
N Stelling Rd
Prospect Rd
W Homestead Rd

L
a
w
r
e
n
c
e
E
x
p
y

K
i
e
l
y
B
l
v
d
S Wolfe Rd
Quito Rd
Mcclellan Rd
N
F
o
o
t
h
i
l
l
B
l
v
d

P
i e
r
c
e
R
d
N
D
e
A
n
z
a
B
l
v
d
Bubb Rd
N
W
o
l
f
e
R
d
N
B
l
a
n
e
y
A
v
e

S
a
r
a
t
o
g
a
S
u
n
n
y
v
a
l
e
R
d

M
o
u n t E d
e
n
R d

S
t
e
v
e
n
s
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
d
280
85 HOMESTEAD VILLA

NEIGHBORHOOD

JOLLYMAN

NEIGHBORHOOD

GARDEN GATE

NEIGHBORHOOD

NORTH BLANEY

NEIGHBORHOOD
RANCHO

RINCONADA

NEIGHBORHOOD

SOUTH BLANEY

NEIGHBORHOOD

FAIR GROVE

NEIGHBORHOOD

CRESTON-PHARLAP

NEIGHBORHOOD

OAK VALLEY

NEIGHBORHOOD

MONTA VISTA
SOUTH

NEIGHBORHOOD

INSPIRATION

HEIGHTS

NEIGHBORHOOD

MONTA VISTA
NORTH

NEIGHBORHOOD
Figure 3-2
Study Area
Source: ESRI, 2022; ABAG, 2022; City of Cupertino, 2023; PlaceWorks, 2023. 0 0.5 10.25
Miles

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

CITY OF CUPERTINO
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT City Limit
Study Area
Sphere of Influence
Urban Service Area
Creeks and Waterways
Parks and Open Space
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

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

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

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

GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRO N MENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

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

3.7 PROJECT COMPONENTS

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

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

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

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

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

CITY OF CUPERTINO

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

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

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

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

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

Source: Association of Bay Area Governments, 2021; California Department of Housing and Community Development Income Levels, 2022.

GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRO N MENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

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

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

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

Pipeline Projects
The City identified nine sites, listed in Table 3-3, Pipeline Projects, that are currently in the permitting or construction process and account for 2,119 dwelling units to meet the RHNA. Pipeline projects are those that have the highest likelihood of being constructed within the eight-year Housing Element cycle. These projects have received planning entitlements, so that the primary permit needed prior to construction is a building permit.
10 Some of these sites have already received building permits. These sites count towards the RHNA but are not evaluated as net new housing in this EA.

9 California Government Code Sections 65580 through 65589.8 10 Engage Cupertino, 2023, February 23 (accessed). Housing Site Information, https://engagecupertino.org/available- housing-sites.

GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

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

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

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

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

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

CITY OF CUPERTINO

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

3-12 APRIL 2024

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

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

CITY OF CUPERTINO

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

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

CITY OF CUPERTINO

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

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

Source: City of Cupertino, 2023.

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

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

CITY OF CUPERTINO

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

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

CITY OF CUPERTINO

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

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

CITY OF CUPERTINO

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

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

Source: City of Cupertino, 2023.

GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

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

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

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

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

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

TABLE 3-7 HOUSING ELEMENT 2023-2031 SITE INVENTORY
Housing Inventory Category Regional Housing Needs Allocation with Buffer Pipeline Projects 2,119
ADUs 192
Residential Only 1,928
Commercial/Residential (Mixed Use) 1,772
Total 6,011
Sources: City of Cupertino, 2014; PlaceWorks, 2023.

GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3-20

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

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

Including updating the map figures.

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

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

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

GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3.7.2 HEART OF THE CITY SPECIFIC PLAN
The Heart of the City Specific Plan provides the development standards and design guidelines for the Heart of the City area. The proposed Modified Project would update the Heart of the City Specific Plan to ensure consistency between the proposed Housing Element, Land Use and Community Design Element, and Zoning Code amendments, including the Zoning Map. This would not include updates to design guidelines.

GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

PLACEWORKS

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

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

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

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

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

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

GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

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

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

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

GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

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

0.25 0.5
Mies

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

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

Source: ESRI, 2022; ABAG, 2022; City of Cupertino, 2023; PlaceWorks, 2023.

Figure 3-5
Housing Opportunity Sites: Zoning District Changes
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

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

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

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

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

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

CITY OF CUPERTINO

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

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

3.9 INTENDED USES OF THE EA
This EA is intended to review potential environmental impacts associated with the adoption and implementation of the proposed Modified Project and determine corresponding mitigation measures, as necessary. This EA is a program-level evaluation and does not evaluate the impacts of specific, individual developments that may be allowed under the proposed Modified Project. Each specific future project will conduct separate approval and environmental review processes pursuant to City procedures and CEQA, if required, to secure the necessary discretionary development permits. Therefore, while subsequent environmental review may be tiered off the analysis provided in this EA, this EA is not intended to address impacts of individual projects. Subsequent projects will be reviewed by the City for consistency with the proposed Modified Project and this EA, which will be appended to the General Plan 2040 pursuant to Government Code Section 65759. Projects successive to this EA include, but are not limited to, the following:

 Updates to utility infrastructure master plans, such as the water, wastewater, and stormwater master plans.
 Issuance of permits and other approvals necessary for implementation of the proposed Modified Project.
 Development plan approvals, such as tentative maps, variances, conditional use permits, and other land use permits.
 Development of hazard mitigation or adaptation programs.  Permit issuance and other approvals necessary for public and private development projects.  Development agreement processes and approvals.

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

CITY OF CUPERTINO

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

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

4.1 Aesthetics (AES)

4.2 Air Quality (AIR)

4.3 Biological Resources (BIO)

4.4 Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources (CUL)

4.5 Energy (ENE)

4.6 Geology and Soils (GEO)

4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHG)

4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials (HAZ)

4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality (HYD)

4.10 Land Use and Planning (LU)

4.11 Noise (NOI)

4.12 Population and Housing (POP)

4.13 Public Services and Recreation (PS)

4.14 Transportation (TRANS)

4.15 Utilities and Service Systems (UTIL)

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

GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4-2 APRIL 2024

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

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

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

INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE
Pertinent documents relating to this EA are cited in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15148 or have been incorporated by reference in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15150, which encourages incorporation by reference as a means of reducing redundancy and the length of environmental reports. The following documents are hereby incorporated by reference. Information in these documents is used for various sections of this EA.

1 California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, Section 15064(b).

GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
PLACEWORKS 4-3

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

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

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

CITY OF CUPERTINO

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

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

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

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

CITY OF CUPERTINO

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

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

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

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

CITY OF CUPERTINO

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

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

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

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

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

This EA includes substantive General Plan 2040 policy and strategy changes, which includes the addition, removal, or functional revisions (i.e., not purely semantic) to the text in ways that have the potential to result in a physical impact on the environment. Chapters 4.1 through 4.16 of this EA include an analysis of how substantive policy changes may result in adverse physical changes to the environment. Amended and new policies collectively reflect the changes to the current General Plan 2040. The proposed goals, policies, and strategies were reviewed for their adequacy in reducing and/or avoiding impacts to the environment that could occur from future development in the city. The proposed Modified Project goals,

2 Cupertino General Plan Community Vision 2015 – 2040, adopted by council on May 19, 2015, per Resolution No. 15-042 GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

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

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

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

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

Transportation and environmental strategies that support active and shared modes, combined with a transit-supportive land use pattern, are forecasted to lower the share of Bay Area residents that drive to work alone from over 50 percent in 2015 to 36 percent in 2050. GHG emissions from transportation would decrease significantly as a result of these transportation and land use changes, and the Bay Area would meet the State mandate of a 19 percent reduction in per-capita emissions by 2035 — but only if all strategies are implemented.
4 Strategies to reduce GHG emissions include focusing housing and commercial construction in walkable, transit-accessible places; investing in transit and active transportation; and shifting the location of jobs to encourage shorter commutes. As part of the implementing framework for Plan Bay Area, Priority Development Areas (PDAs) and Transit Priority Areas (TPAs) are identified as areas where concentrated development can have beneficial environmental effects and reduce adverse environmental impacts. The Study Area includes the Santa Clara Valley Transportation

3 Association of Bay Area Governments and Metropolitan Transportation Commission, 2021, October, Plan Bay Area 2050, https://www.planbayarea.org/sites/default/files/documents/Plan_Bay_Area_2050_October_2021.pdf, accessed May 25, 2023. 4 Association of Bay Area Governments and Metropolitan Transportation Commission, 2021, October, Plan Bay Area 2050, https://www.planbayarea.org/sites/default/files/documents/Plan_Bay_Area_2050_October_2021.pdf, accessed June 21, 2023.

GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

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

PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT AREAS
A PDA is a place that has convenient public transit service, often referred to as “transit-oriented,” that is prioritized by local governments, such as Cupertino, for housing, jobs, and services in existing communities. PDAs are created and planned by local governments, which nominate eligible areas to ABAG for adoption.5 The PDAs identified throughout the Bay Area in Plan Bay Area 2050 were projected to accommodate 72 percent (or 985,000 units) of new housing and 48 percent (or 679,000) of new jobs in the region from the 2015 baseline.6 Development in PDAs leverage existing infrastructure and therefore can minimize development in greenfield (undeveloped) areas and maximize growth in transit-rich communities to help lower vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and consequently reduce GHG emissions, air quality pollutants, and noise from vehicles with internal combustion engines dependent on fossil fuels and reduce wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources. Additionally, due to the location, infill development in PDAs results in fewer impacts related to agricultural, forestry, mineral, archaeological, and biological resources, energy, geology and soils, hydrology and water quality, and wildfire. Impacts related to concentrated development in the PDAs is described throughout this EA and specific quantified impacts are described in Chapter 4.2, Air Quality; Chapter 4.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions; and Chapter 4.14, Transportation, of this EA. Certain potential future residential or mixed-use residential projects and projects in PDAs that meet defined criteria in the CEQA Guidelines may be eligible for CEQA streamlining. For example, while not exclusive to PDAs, due to their urban setting, development in a PDA is more likely to qualify for a CEQA Guidelines Section 15332, Infill Development Projects, Class 32 Categorical Exemption.

5 Cupertino’s PDA was designated by VTA as part of their Cores, Corridors and Station Areas program. The PDA was affirmed by the City in June 2012, and again in 2019, since the PDA boundaries align, for the most part, with the City’s Heart of the City Specific Plan area, which was envisioned as the core of the city where much of the City’s growth/change is anticipated to occur. 6 Metropolitan Transportation Commission and Association of Bay Area Governments, October 2021, Plan Bay Area 2050, https://www.planbayarea.org/sites/default/files/documents/Plan_Bay_Area_2050_October_2021.pdf, accessed January 23, 2024.

GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4-10 APRIL 2024

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

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

Accordingly, transportation impacts related to VMT from potential future development in the TPA that meets the specific criteria, are presumed to be less than significant. Transportation impacts consistent with the required VMT standard are described in Chapter 4.14, Transportation, of this EA.  Aesthetic and Parking Impacts. PRC Section 21099(d)(1), states, “Aesthetic and parking impacts of a residential, mixed-use residential, or employment center project on an infill site located within a TPA shall not be considered significant impacts on the environment.” Accordingly, these topics are no

7 Association of Bay Area Governments and Metropolitan Transportation Commission, Plan Bay Area 2050: Regional Growth Framework Update – Overview of Existing and Updated Geographies, https://www.planbayarea.org/sites/default/files/pdfs_referenced/2019_Regional_Growth_Framework_Update_- _Whats_Changed_1.pdf, accessed January 23, 2024.
8 Association of Bay Area Governments and Metropolitan Transportation Commission, https://opendata.mtc.ca.gov/datasets/MTC::transit-stops-major-2021/explore?location=37.323167%2C-122.009494%2C14.00 accessed on March 5, 2024.
9 A project in a transit priority area is referred to as a transit priority project (TPP).

GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

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

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

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

4.16, Wildfire, of this EA.

10 California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (2015) 62 Cal.4th 369.

GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4-12 APRIL 2024

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For example, in assessing macro-scale air quality impacts, all development within the air basin contributes to regional emissions of criteria pollutants, and basin-wide projections of emissions are the best tool for determining the cumulative impact. In assessing aesthetic impacts, on the other hand, only development in the local area of change would contribute to a cumulative visual effect since the area of change is only visible in its vicinity.

GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

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

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

GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

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

GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

AESTHETICS
PLACEWORKS 4.1-1

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

4.1.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

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

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

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

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

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

GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

AESTHETICS

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

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

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

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

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

Municipal Code
The CMC includes various directives to minimize adverse impacts to visual resources in Cupertino. The CMC is organized by title, chapter, and section. Most provisions related to aesthetics and visual character are included in Title 1, General Provisions; Title 14, Street, Sidewalks and Landscaping; Title 18, Subdivision Regulations; and Title 19, Zoning, as follows:

GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

AESTHETICS
PLACEWORKS 4.1-3
 Title 1, General Provisions. This title establishes the adoption and general terms of the CMC.  Chapter 1.09, Nuisance Abatement. This chapter addresses nuisance abatement and includes provisions aimed at protecting the visual quality of the community. This chapter defines aspects that constitute a nuisance, including “a condition that diminishes property values and degrades the quality of life within the city.” This chapter requires proper maintenance of buildings and property and the abatement of visual nuisances to ensure the protection of public health and safety.  Title 14, Street, Sidewalks and Landscaping. This title provides development standards related to aesthetics, such as street improvements, encroachments, and use of the rights-of-way, landscaping, and undergrounding utilities in the city.
 Chapter 14.8, Protected Tree Ordinance. This ordinance outlines the importance of protected trees to the community, and measures to preserve these trees. Actions that are prohibited through this ordinance are deliberately causing damage to any protected trees and removing any protected trees in any zoning district without first obtaining a tree removal permit as required by Section 14.18.110 unless a permit is not required per Section 14.18.150. This ordinance also outlines Heritage Tree Designations and how this designation can only be initiated by the owner of property on which the tree is located unless the tree is on public or quasi-public property. After designation, the heritage tree shall be added to the heritage tree list and a heritage tree identification tag will be added and placed by the City. Removals of heritage trees is also addressed in this ch apter.

 Title 18, Subdivision Regulations. This title establishes the standards that regulate and control the division of land in Cupertino for the preservation of public safety and general welfare. The ordinance provides standards to support orderly growth and development, ensure appropriate design and construction, promote and protect open space, offer adequate traffic circulation, and install necessary infrastructure.
 Title 19, Zoning. The zoning code is the primary tool that shapes the form and character of physical development in Cupertino. This title establishes comprehensive zoning regulations for the city and ensures the orderly and beneficial development of the city, attains a desirable balance of residential and employment opportunities, and promotes efficient urban design and arrangement. The zoning code sets forth the standards requiring architectural and site review and stipulating aesthetic criteria for new development.
 Chapter 19.48, Fences. This chapter regulates the location and height of fences and vegetation in all zoning districts.
 Chapter 19.102, Glass and Lighting Standards. This chapter regulates the design and construction of structures and accessory elements in all zoning districts to protect the natural environment, particularly enhancing bird-safety and reducing light pollution. Section 19.102.030, Bird-safe Development Requirements, provides guidelines on glazing and indoor and outdoor light to help protect birds. Section 19.102.040, Outdoor Lighting Requirements, describes outdoor lighting regulations and requirements to minimize light pollution and impact on the dark sky.  Chapter 19.104, Signs. This chapter regulates the appearance and placement of signs to maintain the aesthetic of the city while providing information to the public.  Chapter 19.168, Architectural and Site Review. This chapter provides an orderly process to review architectural and site designs of buildings, structures, signs, lighting, and landscaping for prescribed types of land development within the city to promote the goals and objectives contained in the GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

AESTHETICS

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

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

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

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

Future potential development in this area would be required to comply with the applicable design

1 See Figure LU-2 of Chapter 3 of the General Plan.

GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

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

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

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

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

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

CITY OF CUPERTINO

AESTHETICS

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

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

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

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

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

As described in the General Plan EIR, scenic vistas are generally interpreted as long-range views, while scenic corridors are made up of short-, middle-, and long-range views. The General Plan EIR considered the westward views of the foothills and ridgelines of the Santa Cruz Mountains as scenic vistas and the Caltrans-designated segment of Interstate 280 (I-280) from Santa Clara County line on the west to I-880 on the east as an eligible State Scenic Highway “scenic corridor .” Please note that the impacts to the State- designated scenic corridor are described under impact discussion AES-2.

2 Population is calculated applying the City’s generation rate used in the General Plan EIR of 2.94 persons per household (2,952 dwelling units x 2.94 persons per unit = 7,620 additional population).

GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

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

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

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

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

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

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

CITY OF CUPERTINO

AESTHETICS

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

Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.

GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

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

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

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

As described under impact discussion AES-1, the General Plan EIR found that the Land Use and Community Design (LU); Recreation, Parks, and Community Service (RPC); and Environmental Resources and Sustainability (ES) Elements contain policies and strategies that require local planning and development decisions to consider impacts to scenic vistas/corridors, including I-280, from potential new development. Additional policies and strategies that require local planning and development decisions to consider impacts to scenic resources include:
 Policy LU- 6.1. Historic Preservation. Maintain and update an inventory of historically significant structures and sites in order to protect resources and promote awareness of the city’s history in the following four categories: Historic Sites, Commemorative Sites, Community Landmarks and Historic Mention Sites (General Plan Figure LU-3). (General Plan EIR Policy 2-71)  Strategy LU-19.3.10. Trees. Retain trees along the Interstate 280, Wolfe Road, and Stevens Creek Boulevard to the extent feasible, when new developments are proposed.

3 California Department of Transportation website, Officially Designated State Scenic Highways, https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8e8057116f1aacaa, accessed September 6, 2023.

GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

AESTHETICS

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

Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.

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

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

Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.

GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

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

Light pollution refers to all forms of unwanted light in the night sky, including glare, light trespass, sky glow, and over-lighting. Views of the night sky are an important part of the natural environment. Excessive light and glare can be visually disruptive to humans and nocturnal animal species. Although there is considerable development in Cupertino, commercial development is concentrated near highways, in the Heart of the City Special Area, and along major arterials. Generally, light pollution takes form through street lighting along major streets and highways and nighttime illumination of commercial buildings, shopping centers, and industrial buildings. Nighttime illumination and glare impacts are the effects of a development’s exterior lighting on adjoining uses and areas. Light and glare impacts are determined through a comparison of the existing light sources with the proposed lighting plan or policies.

As described in the General Plan EIR, the Study Area currently contains many existing sources of nighttime illumination, including street and parking area lights, security lighting, and exterior lighting on existing residential, commercial, and institutional buildings, as well as traffic on SR-85 and I-280. As stated in the General Plan EIR, despite the new and expanded sources of nighttime illumination and glare from the Approved Project, potential future development over the buildout horizon of the General Plan 2040 with heights ranging from 30 to 160 feet was not expected to generate a substantial increase in light and glare.

The General Plan EIR found that besides general guidelines that require lighting that is context-sensitive in style and intensity, all potential new development in Cupertino would also have to comply with the General Plan 2040 policies and CMC provisions that ensure new land uses do not generate excessive light levels.

After the certification of the General Plan EIR, the City adopted the Bird Safe and Dark Sky Ordinance into CMC Chapter 19.102. The ordinance regulates the design and construction of structures and accessory components in all zoning districts to protect the natural environment, particularly enhancing bird- safety and reducing light pollution by establishing regulations to reduce light pollution. Potential future development under the proposed Modified Project would be required to follow these standards.

The General Plan EIR also found that the Land Use and Community Design (LU) Element contains policies that require local planning and development decisions to consider impacts from light and glare. Like the Approved Project, the following existing General Plan 2040 policies and strategy, and updated policies and strategy as part of the proposed Modified Project, would also serve to minimize potential adverse impacts from light and glare.
 Policy LU-3.5. Light Pollution. Reduce light pollution and other adverse effects associated with night lighting from street and urban uses.
 Strategy LU-3.5.1. Dark Sky Ordinance. New development and other applicable projects shall comply with the City’s Glass and Lighting Standards Ordinance, which provides Dark Sky regulations to reduce light pollution.
 Policy LU-20.6. Neighborhood Buffers. Provide building transitions, setbacks and/or landscaping to buffer development from adjoining single-family residential uses.

GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

AESTHETICS

4.1-12 APRIL 2024
 Policy LU-27.8. Protection. Protect residential neighborhoods from noise, traffic, light, glare, odors, and visually intrusive effects from more intense development with landscape buffers, site and building design, setbacks, and other appropriate measures.

Additionally, the preservation of mature trees with substantial tree canopies, as described in CMC Chapter

14.8, Protected Tree Ordinance, would diffuse the overall amount of light generated by new development and glare generated by windows of multistory buildings. Furthermore, because the areas of potential growth are largely developed, the lighting associated with the proposed Modified Project would not substantially increase nighttime light and glare within the Study Area or its surroundings compared to the Approved Project.

Potential future development under the proposed Modified Project, same as the Approved Project, would occur on a limited number of parcels and in the form of infill/intensification on sites either already developed and/or underutilized, and/or in close proximity to existing residential and residential-serving development, where future development would have lesser light and glare impacts. Potential future development under the proposed Modified Project would be subject to the same regulatory setting as that of the Approved Project, including the City’s General Plan policies that require reducing light and glare spillover from future development to surrounding land uses by buffering new development with landscaping and trees and CMC Section 19.102.040, Outdoor Lighting Requirements, to minimize impact on the dark sky. Accordingly, overall impacts related to light and glare would not result in new or more severe impacts beyond what was evaluated in the General Plan EIR.

Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.

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

The General Plan EIR considers growth projected by the General Plan in the Cupertino city limit and Sphere of Influence (SOI), in combination with impacts from projected growth in the rest of Santa Clara County and the surrounding region, as forecast by the Association of Bay Area of Governments (ABAG) and found that because of the developed nature of the Study Area, future development would not negatively impact the visual character of the city. Because of the developed nature of the projected areas of growth in Cupertino, future development under the proposed Modified Project, in combination with other new development, would not negatively impact the visual character of the city or the surrounding communities. Furthermore, the proposed Modified Project would not constitute a significant adverse impact, when compared to the Approved Project, because future potential development and redevelopment within the Study Area is anticipated to occur as growth occurs.

The General Plan 2040 policies and strategies listed in impact discussions AES-1, AES-2, and AES-4 would not cause adverse physical changes that could create aesthetic impacts in Cupertino. Individual potential future developments would continue to be subject to General Plan policies and strategies and the CMC provisions related to aesthetics, including potential project-level design review requirements. Additionally, similar to the Approved Project, as part of the approval process, potential future development as a result of implementation of the proposed Modified Project would be subject to architectural, environmental, GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

AESTHETICS
PLACEWORKS 4.1-13
and site design review, as applicable, to ensure that the development is aesthetically pleasing and compatible with adjoining land uses. With the development review mechanisms in place, approved future potential development under the proposed Modified Project would not create substantial impacts to visual resources in Cupertino or the surrounding communities, when compared to the Approved Project.

Therefore, the proposed Modified Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact to aesthetic resources and cumulative impacts would continue to be less than significant. Overall cumulative aesthetics impacts would not result in new or more severe impacts to aesthetics resources beyond what was evaluated in the General Plan EIR.

Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.

GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

AESTHETICS

4.1-14 APRIL 2024
This page has been intentionally left blank.

GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

AIR QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 4.2-1

4.2 AIR QUALITY
This chapter describes the potential impacts to air quality associated with the adoption and implementation of the proposed Modified Project. This chapter describes the regulatory framework and baseline conditions, identifies criteria used to determine impact significance, provides an analysis of the potential air quality impacts, and identifies General Plan 2040 policies and/or strategies that could minimize any potentially significant impacts.

4.2.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

AIR POLLUTANTS OF CONCERN
Criteria Air Pollutants
The pollutants emitted into the ambient air by stationary and mobile sources are categorized as primary and/or secondary pollutants. Primary air pollutants are emitted directly from sources. Carbon monoxide (CO), volatile organic compounds (VOC), nitrogen oxides (NOX), sulfur dioxide (SO2), coarse inhalable particulate matter (PM10), fine inhalable particulate matter (PM2.5), and lead (Pb) are primary air pollutants. Of these, CO, SO2, NOX, PM10, and PM2.5 are “criteria air pollutants,” which means that Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS) have been established for them. VOC and NOX are criteria pollutant precursors that form secondary criteria air pollutants through chemical and photochemical reactions in the atmosphere. Ozone (O3) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) are the principal secondary pollutants. Table

4.2-1, Criteria Air Pollutant Health Effects Summary, summarizes the potential health effects associated with the criteria air pollutants.

TABLE 4.2-1 CRITERIA AIR POLLUTANT HEALTH EFFECTS SUMMARY Pollutant Health Effects Examples of Sources
Carbon Monoxide (CO)
Chest pain in heart patients, Headaches,
nausea, Reduced mental alertness
Death at very high levels
Any source that burns fuel such as cars, trucks,
construction and farming equipment, and
residential heaters and stoves
Ozone (O3)
Cough, chest tightness, Difficulty taking a deep
breath, Worsened asthma symptoms
Lung inflammation
Atmospheric reaction of organic gases with
nitrogen oxides in sunlight
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) Increased response to allergens, Aggravation of respiratory illness
Same as carbon monoxide sources
Particulate Matter
(PM10 and PM2.5)
Hospitalizations for worsened heart diseases,
Emergency room visits for asthma, Premature
death
Cars and trucks (particularly diesels),
Fireplaces and woodstoves, Windblown dust
from overlays, agriculture, and construction
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)
Aggravation of respiratory disease
(e.g., asthma and emphysema)
Reduced lung function
Combustion of sulfur-containing fossil fuels,
smelting of sulfur-bearing metal ores, and
industrial processes
Lead (Pb) Behavioral and learning disabilities in children, Nervous system impairment
Contaminated soil
Source: California Air Resources Board, 2024, Common Air Pollutants: Air Pollution and Health, https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/common-air- pollutants, accessed January 29, 2024; South Coast Air Quality Management District, May 6, 2005, Guidance Document for Addressing Air Quality Issues in General Plans and Local Planning, http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/planning/air-quality-guidance/complete-guidance-document.pdf, accessed January 29, 2024.

GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

AIR QUALITY

4.2-2 APRIL 2024
A description of each of the primary and secondary criteria air pollutants and their known health effects is presented below.
 Carbon Monoxide (CO) is a colorless, odorless gas produced by incomplete combustion of carbon substances, such as gasoline or diesel fuel. CO is a primary criteria air pollutant. CO concentrations tend to be the highest during winter mornings with little to no wind, when surface-based inversions trap the pollutant at ground levels. The highest ambient CO concentrations are generally found near traffic-congested corridors and intersections. When inhaled at high concentrations, CO combines with hemoglobin in the blood and reduces its oxygen-carrying capacity. This results in reduced oxygen reaching the brain, heart, and other body tissues. This condition is especially critical for people with cardiovascular diseases, chronic lung disease, or anemia, as well as for fetuses. Even healthy people exposed to high CO concentrations can experience headaches, dizziness, fatigue, unconsciousness, and even death.  Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) are a by-product of fuel combustion and contribute to the formation of ground-level O3, PM10, and PM2.5. The two major forms of NOX are nitric oxide (NO) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2). NO is a colorless, odorless gas formed from atmospheric nitrogen and oxygen when combustion takes place under high temperature and/or high pressure. The principal form of NOX produced by combustion is NO, but NO reacts quickly with oxygen to form NO2, creating the mixture of NO and NO2 commonly called NOX. NO2 is an acute irritant and more injurious than NO in equal concentrations. At atmospheric concentrations, however, NO2 is only potentially irritating. NO is a colorless, odorless gas formed from atmospheric nitrogen and oxygen when combustion takes place under high temperature and/or high pressure. NO2 acts as an acute irritant and in equal concentrations is more injurious than NO. At atmospheric concentrations, however, NO2 is only potentially irritating. There is some indication of a relationship between NO2 and chronic pulmonary fibrosis. Some increase in bronchitis in children (2 and 3 years old) has also been observed at concentrations below 0.3 parts per million (ppm).  Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) is a colorless, pungent, irritating gas formed by the combustion of sulfurous fossil fuels. It enters the atmosphere as a result of burning high-sulfur-content fuel oils and coal and chemical processes at plants and refineries. Gasoline and natural gas have very low sulfur content and do not release significant quantities of SO2. When sulfur dioxide forms sulfates (SO4) in the atmosphere, together these pollutants are referred to as sulfur oxides (SOX). Thus, SO2 is both a primary and secondary criteria air pollutant. At sufficiently high concentrations, SO2 may irritate the upper respiratory tract. Current scientific evidence links short-term exposures to SO2, ranging from 5 minutes to 24 hours, with an array of adverse respiratory effects, including bronchoconstriction and increased asthma symptoms. These effects are particularly adverse for asthmatics at elevated ventilation rates (e.g., while exercising or playing) at lower concentrations and when combined with particulates, SO2 may do greater harm by injuring lung tissue.  Suspended Particulate Matter (PM10 and PM2.5) consists of finely divided solids or liquids such as soot, dust, aerosols, fumes, and mists. In the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB or Air Basin), most particulate matter is caused by combustion, factories, construction, grading, GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

AIR QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 4.2-3
demolition, agricultural activities, and motor vehicles. Two forms of fine particulates are now recognized and regulated. Inhalable coarse particles, or PM10, include particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 microns (i.e., 10 millionths of a meter or 0.0004 inch) or less.

Inhalable fine particles, or PM

2.5, have an aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 microns or less (i.e.,

2.5 millionths of a meter or 0.0001 inch). Diesel particulate matter (DPM) is also classified as a carcinogen. Extended exposure to particulate matter can increase the risk of chronic respiratory disease. PM10 bypasses the body’s natural filtration system more easily than larger particles and can lodge deep in the lungs. The EPA scientific review concluded that PM2.5 penetrates even more deeply into the lungs, and this is more likely to contribute to health effects—at concentrations well below current PM10 standards. These health effects include premature death in people with heart or lung disease, nonfatal heart attacks, irregular heartbeat, aggravated asthma, decreased lung function, and increased respiratory symptoms (e.g., irritation of the airways, coughing, or difficulty breathing). Motor vehicles are currently responsible for about half of particulates in the SFBAAB. Wood burning in fireplaces and stoves is another large source of fine particulates.  Ozone (O3) is a key ingredient of “smog” and is a gas that is formed when ROGs and NOX, both by- products of internal combustion engine exhaust, undergo photochemical reactions in sunlight. O3 is a secondary criteria air pollutant. O3 concentrations are generally highest during the summer months when direct sunlight, light winds, and warm temperatures create favorable conditions for its formation. O
3 poses a health threat to those who already suffer from respiratory diseases as well as to healthy people. Breathing O3 can trigger a variety of health problems, including chest pain, coughing, throat irritation, and congestion. It can worsen bronchitis, emphysema, and asthma; reduce lung function; and inflame the linings of the lungs. Besides causing shortness of breath, it can aggravate existing respiratory diseases such as asthma, bronchitis, and emphysema.

Chronic exposure to high ozone levels can permanently damage lung tissue. O 3 can also damage
plants and trees and materials such as rubber and fabrics.  Reactive Organic Gases (ROGs)/Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) are compounds composed primarily of hydrogen and carbon atoms. Internal combustion associated with motor vehicle usage is the major source of ROGs. Other sources of ROGs include evaporative emissions from paints and solvents, the application of asphalt paving, and the use of household consumer products such as aerosols. Adverse effects on human health are not caused directly by ROGs, but rather by reactions of ROGs to form secondary pollutants such as O3. There are no AAQS established for ROGs. However, because they contribute to the formation of O3, the BAAQMD has established a significance threshold for this pollutant.  Lead (Pb) is a metal found naturally in the environment as well as in manufactured products. The major sources of lead emissions have historically been mobile and industrial sources. As a result of the phasing out of leaded gasoline, metal processing is currently the primary source of lead emissions. The highest levels of lead in the air are generally found near lead smelters. Other stationary sources are waste incinerators, utilities, and lead-acid battery manufacturers. Because GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

AIR QUALITY

4.2-4 APRIL 2024
emissions of lead are found only in projects that are permitted by the BAAQMD, lead is not an air quality of concern for the Approved Project or proposed Modified Project.

Toxic Air Contaminants
The California Health and Safety Code defines a toxic air contaminant (TAC) as “an air pollutant which may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or in serious illness, or which may pose a present or potential hazard to human health.” A substance that is listed as a hazardous air pollutant pursuant to Section 112(b) of the federal Clean Air Act (42 US Code Section 7412[b]) is a toxic air contaminant. People exposed to toxic air pollutants at sufficient concentrations and durations may have an increased chance of getting cancer or experiencing other serious health effects. These health effects can include damage to the immune system, as well as neurological, reproductive (e.g., reduced fertility), developmental, respiratory, and other health problems.
1 CARB has identified over 200 substances and groups of substances as TACs.2 Additionally, CARB has implemented control measures for several compounds that pose high risks and show potential for effective control measures. Most of the estimated health risks from TACs can be attributed to relatively few compounds. The most important compounds are particulate matter from diesel-fueled engines.

In 1998, CARB identified Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM) as a TAC. Previously, the individual chemical compounds in diesel exhaust were considered TACs. Almost all diesel exhaust particles are 10 microns or less in diameter. Because of their extremely small size, these particles can be inhaled and eventually trapped in the bronchial and alveolar regions of the lungs. According to the BAAQMD, PM emitted from diesel engines contributes to more than 85 percent of the cancer risk in the SFBAAB. Cancer risk from TACs is highest near major DPM sources.3
Because placement of sensitive land uses falls outside CARB’s jurisdiction, CARB developed and approved the Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective (2005) to address the siting of sensitive land uses in the vicinity of freeways, distribution centers, rail yards, ports, refineries, chrome- plating facilities, dry cleaners, and gasoline-dispensing facilities. This guidance document was developed to assess compatibility and associated health risks when placing sensitive receptors near existing pollution sources. CARB’s recommendations on the siting of new sensitive land uses identified in Table 4.2-2, CARB Recommendations for Siting New Sensitive Land Uses, are based on a compilation of recent studies that evaluated data on the adverse health effects from proximity to air pollution sources.

1 United States Environmental Protection Agency, updated November 2023, Health and Environmental Effects of Hazardous Air Pollutants, https://www.epa.gov/haps/health-and-environmental-effects-hazardous-air-pollutants, accessed January 29, 2024.
2 California Air Resources Board, 2022, CARB Identified Toxic Air Contaminants. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/carb-identified-toxic-air-contaminants, accessed January 29, 2024. 3 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, April 2014, Improving Air Quality & Health in Bay Area Communities, Community Air Risk Evaluation Program Retrospective & Path Forward (2004-2013), https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/Files/Planning%20and%20Research/CARE%20Program/Documents/CARE_Retrospective_Apri l2014.ashx?la=en, accessed January 29, 2024.

GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

AIR QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 4.2-5
TABLE 4.2-2 CARB RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SITTING NEW SENSITIVE LAND USES Source/Category Advisory Recommendations
Freeways and High-Traffic Roads Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 500 feet of a freeway, urban roads with 100,000 vehicles per day, or rural roads with 50,000 vehicles per day.

Distribution Centers
Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 1,000 feet of a distribution center (that accommodates more than 100 trucks per day, more than 40 trucks with operating transport refrigeration units [TRUs] per day, or where TRU unit operations exceed 300 hours per week).

Rail Yards Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 1,000 feet of a major service and maintenance rail yard.

Ports
Avoid siting of new sensitive land uses immediately downwind of ports in the most heavily impacted zones. Consult local air districts or the CARB on the status of pending analyses of health risks.

Refineries
Avoid siting new sensitive land uses immediately downwind of petroleum refineries.

Consult with local air districts and other local agencies to determine an appropriate separation.

Chrome Platers Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 1,000 feet of a chrome plater.

Dry Cleaners Using Perchloroethylene
Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 300 feet of any dry cleaning operation.

For operations with two or more machines, provide 500 feet. For operations with 3 or more machines, consult with the local air district. Do not site new sensitive land uses in the same building with perc dry cleaning operations.

Gasoline Dispensing Facilities
Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 300 feet of a large gas station (defined as a facility with a throughput of 3.6 million gallons per year or greater). A 50 foot separation is recommended for typical gas dispensing facilities.

Source: California Air Resources Board, April 2005, Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective, https://files.ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/221458-6/attachment/UNr-g159CW-r0G4DR8q6daNdAKT3RJTd8gGQCfz4wqFfl- eNdZNQEqjf8tfls1x6Gsae7YqpXwtFIZBd0, accessed January 29, 2024.

The key observation in these studies is that proximity to air pollution sources substantially increases both exposure and the potential for adverse health effects. There are three carcinogenic TACs that constitute the majority of the known health risks from motor vehicle traffic: DPM from trucks, benzene, and 1,3- butadiene from passenger vehicles.

In 2017, CARB provided a supplemental technical advisory to the handbook for near-roadway air pollution exposure, Strategies to Reduce Air Pollution Exposure Near High-Volume Roadways. Strategies include practices and technologies that reduce traffic emissions, increase dispersion of traffic pollution (or the dilution of pollution in the air), or remove pollution from the air.

REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
Federal, State, and local air districts have passed laws and regulations intended to control and enhance air quality. Land use in the Study Area is subject to the rules and regulations imposed by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), California Air Resources Board (CARB), the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA), and Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD).

AAQS have been adopted at federal and state levels for criteria air pollutants. In addition, both the federal and state governments regulate the release of TACs. Cupertino is in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB) and is subject to the rules and regulations imposed by BAAQMD, the national AAQS adopted by GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

AIR QUALITY

4.2-6 APRIL 2024
the EPA, and the California AAQS adopted by CARB. The regulatory framework applicable to future potential development under the proposed Modified Project is summarized below.

Federal and State Regulations
Ambient Air Quality Standards
The Clean Air Act was passed in 1963 by the United States Congress and has been amended several times.

The 1970 Clean Air Act amendments strengthened previous legislation and laid the foundation for the regulatory scheme of the 1970s and 1980s. In 1977, Congress again added several provisions, including nonattainment requirements for areas not meeting National AAQS and the Prevention of Significant Deterioration program. The 1990 amendments represent the latest in a series of federal efforts to regulate the protection of air quality in the United States. The Clean Air Act allows states to adopt more stringent standards or to include other pollution species. The California Clean Air Act, signed into law in 1988, requires all areas of the state to achieve and maintain the California AAQS by the earliest practical date. The California AAQS tends to be more restrictive than the National AAQS, based on even greater health and welfare concerns.

Both California and the federal government have established health based AAQS for seven air pollutants, which are shown in Table 4.2-3, Ambient Air Quality Standards for Criteria Pollutants. These National AAQS and California AAQS are the levels of air quality considered to provide a margin of safety in the protection of the public health and welfare. They are designed to protect “sensitive receptors” most susceptible to further respiratory distress, such as asthmatics, the elderly, very young children, people already weakened by other disease or illness, and persons engaged in strenuous work or exercise. Healthy adults can tolerate occasional exposure to air pollutant concentrations considerably above these minimum standards before adverse effects are observed. California has also adopted a host of other regulations that reduce criteria pollutant emissions, including:
4  Assembly Bill (AB) 1493: Pavley Fuel Efficiency Standards.  Heavy-Duty (Tractor-Trailer) GHG Regulation.
 Advanced Clean Cars Regulation.
 Advanced Clean Fleets Regulation.
 Senate Bill (SB) 1078 and SB 107: Renewables Portfolio Standards.  Title 20 California Code of Regulations (CCR): Appliance Energy Efficiency Standards.  Title 24, Part 6, CCR: Building Energy Efficiency Standards.  Title 24, Part 11, CCR: Green Building Standards Code.

4 See Chapter 4.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of this Draft EA for a description of regulations that reduce emissions including Assembly Bill 32, also known as the Global Warming Solutions Act, Senate Bill 375, also known as the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act. See Chapter 4.14, Transportation, of this Draft EIR for a description on Senate Bill 743, and how it relates to reducing vehicle miles traveled or “VMT.” GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

AIR QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 4.2-7
TABLE 4.2-3 AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS FOR CRITERIA POLLUTANTS Pollutant
Averaging
Time
California
Standard a
Federal Primary
Standard b Major Pollutant Sources
Ozone (O3) c
1 hour 0.09 ppm *
Motor vehicles, paints, coatings, and solvents.
8 hours 0.070 ppm 0.070 ppm
Carbon Monoxide
(CO)
1 hour 20 ppm 35 ppm Internal combustion engines, primarily gasoline- powered motor vehicles. 8 hours 9.0 ppm 9 ppm
Nitrogen Dioxide
(NO
2)
Annual
Arithmetic Mean 0.030 ppm 0.053 ppm Motor vehicles, petroleum-refining operations, industrial sources, aircraft, ships, and railroads.
1 hour 0.18 ppm 0.100 ppm
Sulfur Dioxide
(SO2)
Annual
Arithmetic Mean * 0.030 ppm
Fuel combustion, chemical plants, sulfur recovery
plants, and metal processing.
1 hour 0.25 ppm 0.075 ppm
24 hours 0.04 ppm 0.14 ppm
Respirable Coarse
Particulate
Matter
(PM10)
Annual
Arithmetic Mean 20 µg/m3 * Dust and fume-producing construction, industrial, and agricultural operations, combustion,
atmospheric photochemical reactions, and natural
activities (e.g., wind-raised dust and ocean sprays). 24 hours 50 µg/m3 150 µg/m3 Respirable Fine
Particulate
Matter
(PM2.5) d
Annual
Arithmetic Mean 12 µg/m3 12 µg/m3 Dust and fume-producing construction, industrial, and agricultural operations, combustion,
atmospheric photochemical reactions, and natural
activities (e.g., wind-raised dust and ocean sprays). 24 hours * 35 µg/m3 Lead (Pb)
30-Day Average 1.5 µg/m3 *
Present source: lead smelters, battery
manufacturing & recycling facilities. Past source:
combustion of leaded gasoline.

Calendar Quarter * 1.5 µg/m3
Rolling 3-Month
Average * 0.15 µg/m3
Sulfates (SO4) e 24 hours 25 µg/m3 * Industrial processes.

Visibility Reducing
Particles 8 hours
ExCo =0.23/km
visibility of 10≥
miles
No Federal
Standard
Visibility-reducing particles consist of suspended
particulate matter, which is a complex mixture of
tiny particles that consists of dry solid fragments,
solid cores with liquid coatings, and small droplets
of liquid. These particles vary greatly in shape, size
and chemical composition, and can be made up of
many different materials such as metals, soot, soil,
dust, and salt.

Hydrogen Sulfide 1 hour 0.03 ppm No Federal
Standard
Hydrogen sulfide (H2S) is a colorless gas with the
odor of rotten eggs. It is formed during bacterial
decomposition of sulfur-containing organic
substances. Also, it can be present in sewer gas
and some natural gas, and can be emitted as the
result of geothermal energy exploitation.

Vinyl Chloride 24 hours 0.01 ppm No Federal
Standard
Vinyl chloride (chloroethene), a chlorinated
hydrocarbon, is a colorless gas with a mild, sweet
odor. Most vinyl chloride is used to make polyvinyl
GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

AIR QUALITY

4.2-8 APRIL 2024
TABLE 4.2-3 AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS FOR CRITERIA POLLUTANTS Pollutant
Averaging
Time
California
Standard a
Federal Primary
Standard b Major Pollutant Sources
chloride (PVC) plastic and vinyl products. Vinyl
chloride has been detected near landfills, sewage
plants, and hazardous waste sites, due to microbial
breakdown of chlorinated solvents.

Notes: ppm: parts per million; μg/m3: micrograms per cubic meter; *Standard has not been established for this pollutant/duration by this entity. a. California standards for O3, CO (except 8-hour Lake Tahoe), SO2 (1 and 24 hour), NO2, and particulate matter (PM10, PM2.5, and visibility reducing particles), are values that are not to be exceeded. All others are not to be equaled or exceeded. California ambient air quality standards are listed in the Table of Standards in Section 70200 of Title 17 of the California Code of Regulations. b. National standards (other than O3, PM, and those based on annual arithmetic mean) are not to be exceeded more than once a year. The O3 standard is attained when the fourth highest 8-hour concentration measured at each site in a year, averaged over three years, is equal to or less than the standard. For PM10, the 24-hour standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with a 24-hour average concentration above 150 µg/m3 is equal to or less than one. For PM2.5, the 24-hour standard is attained when 98 percent of the daily concentrations, averaged over 3 years, are equal to or less than the standard.
c. On October 1, 2015, the national 8-hour ozone primary and secondary standards were lowered from 0.075 to 0.070 ppm. d. On December 14, 2012, the national annual PM2.5 primary standard was lowered from 15 μg/m3 to 12.0 µg/m3. The existing national 24-hour PM2.5 standards (primary and secondary) were retained at 35 µg/m3, as was the annual secondary standard of 15 µg/m3. The existing 24-hour PM10 standards (primary and secondary) of 150 µg/m3 also were retained. The form of the annual primary and secondary standards is the annual mean, averaged over 3 years.
e. On June 2, 2010, a new 1-hour SO2 standard was established and the existing 24-hour and annual primary standards were revoked. The 1-hour national standard is in units of parts per billion (ppb). California standards are in units of parts per million (ppm). To directly compare the 1-hour national standard to the California standard the units can be converted to ppm. In this case, the national standard of 75 ppb is identical to 0.075 ppm.

Source: California Air Resources Board, March 2017, Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Reduction Strategy, https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020- 07/final_SLCP_strategy.pdf, accessed January 29, 2024.

Tanner Air Toxics Act and Air Toxics “Hot Spot” Information and Assessment Act Public exposure to TACs is a significant environmental health issue in California. In 1983, the California Legislature enacted a program to identify the health effects of TACs and reduce exposure to these contaminants to protect public health. A substance that is listed as a hazardous air pollutant pursuant to Section 112(b) of the federal Clean Air Act (42 United States Code Section 7412[b]) is a toxic air contaminant. Under State law, CalEPA, acting through CARB, is authorized to identify a substance as a TAC if it is an air pollutant that may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or serious illness, or may pose a present or potential hazard to human health.

California regulates TACs primarily through Assembly Bill (AB) 1807 (Tanner Air Toxics Act) and AB 2588 (Air Toxics “Hot Spot” Information and Assessment Act of 1987). AB 1807 sets up a formal procedure for CARB to designate substances as TACs. Once a TAC is identified, CARB adopts an “airborne toxics control measure” for sources that emit designated TACs. If there is a safe threshold for a substance (i.e., a point below which there is no toxic effect), the airborne toxics control measure must reduce exposure to below that threshold. If there is no safe threshold, the airborne toxics control measure must incorporate toxics best available control technology to minimize emissions. To date, CARB has established formal control measures for 11 TACs that are identified as having no safe threshold.

Under AB 2588, TAC emissions from individual facilities are quantified and prioritized by the air quality management district or air pollution control district. High priority facilities 5 are required to perform a

5 Each district is responsible for establishing the prioritization score threshold at which facilities are required to prepare a health risk assessment. In the Bay Area, facilities that generate a cancer risk of greater or equal to 10 in a million and a non- GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

AIR QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 4.2-9
health risk assessment, and if specific thresholds are exceeded, are required to communicate the results to the public through notices and public meetings. CARB has promulgated the following specific rules to limit TAC emissions:
 13 CCR Chapter 10 Section 2485: Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Limit Diesel-Fueled Commercial Motor Vehicle Idling. Restricts on-road diesel-powered commercial motor vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating of greater than 10,000 pounds from idling more than five minutes.  13 CCR Chapter 10 Section 2480: Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Limit School Bus Idling and Idling at Schools. Restricts a school bus or transit bus from idling for more than five minutes when within 100 feet of a school.
 13 CCR Section 2477 and Article 8: Airborne Toxic Control Measure for In-Use Diesel-Fueled Transport Refrigeration Units (TRU) and TRU Generator Sets and Facilities Where TRUs Operate. Regulations established to control emissions associated with diesel-powered TRUs.

Regional Regulations
Bay Area Air Quality Management District
BAAQMD is the agency responsible for ensuring that the National and California AAQS are attained and maintained in the SFBAAB. Air quality conditions in the SFBAAB have improved significantly since BAAQMD was created in 1955.6 BAAQMD prepares air quality management plans (AQMP) to attain ambient air quality standards in the SFBAAB. BAAQMD prepares ozone attainment plans for the National O3 standard and clean air plans for the California O3 standard BAAQMD prepares these air quality management plans in coordination with Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) to ensure consistent assumptions about regional growth. 2017 Clean Air Plan
BAAQMD adopted the 2017 Clean Air Plan, Spare the Air, Cool the Climate (2017 Clean Air Plan) on April 19, 2017, making it the most recently adopted comprehensive plan. The 2017 Clean Air Plan incorporates significant new scientific data, primarily in the form of updated emissions inventories, ambient measurements, new meteorological episodes, and new air quality modeling tools. The 2017 Clean Air Plan serves as an update to the adopted Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan and continues to provide the framework for SFBAAB to achieve attainment of the California and National AAQS. The 2017 Clean Air Plan updates the Bay Area’s ozone plan, which is based on the “all feasible measures” approach to meet the requirements of the California Clean Air Act. Additionally, it sets a goal of reducing health risk impacts to local communities by 20 percent between 2015 and 2020. Furthermore the 2017 Clean Air Plan also lays the groundwork for reducing GHG emissions in the Bay Area to meet the State’s 2030 GHG reduction

cancer chronic or acute risk greater or equal to 10 in a million are high priority facilities. Types of facilities that have the potential to generate risks of this level include refineries, other heavy industrial manufacturing/industrial processes, and fueling stations. 6 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, April 2023, California Environmental Quality Act: Air Quality Guidelines, https://www.baaqmd.gov/plans-and-climate/california-environmental-quality-act-ceqa/updated-ceqa-guidelines, accessed January 29, 2024.

GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

AIR QUALITY

4.2-10 APRIL 2024
target and 2050 GHG reduction goal. It also includes a vision for the Bay Area in a post-carbon year 2050 that encompasses the following: 7
 Construct buildings that are energy efficient and powered by renewable energy.  Walk, bicycle, and use public transit for the majority of trips and use electric-powered autonomous public transit fleets.
 Incubate and produce clean energy technologies.
 Live a low-carbon lifestyle by purchasing low-carbon foods and goods in addition to recycling and putting organic waste to productive use.

A multipollutant control strategy was developed to be implemented in the next three to five years to address public health and climate change and to set a pathway to achieve the 2050 vision. The control strategy includes 85 control measures to reduce emissions of ozone, particulate matter, TACs, and GHG from a full range of emission sources. These control measures cover the following sectors: 1) stationary (industrial) sources; 2) transportation; 3) energy; 4) agriculture; 5) natural and working lands; 6) waste management; 7) water; and 8) super-GHG pollutants. The control strategy includes these key priorities:
 Reduce emissions of criteria air pollutants and toxic air contaminants from all key sources.  Reduce emissions of “super-GHGs” such as methane, black carbon, and fluorinated gases.  Decrease demand for fossil fuels (gasoline, diesel, and natural gas).  Increase efficiency of the energy and transportation systems.  Reduce demand for vehicle travel and high-carbon goods and services.  Decarbonize the energy system.
 Make the electricity supply carbon-free.
 Electrify the transportation and building sectors.

Community Air Risk Evaluation (CARE) Program
The BAAQMD Community Air Risk Evaluation program was initiated in 2004 to evaluate and reduce health risks associated with exposure to outdoor TACs in the Bay Area, primarily DPM. The last update to this program was conducted in 2014. Based on findings of the 2014 report, DPM was found to account for approximately 85 percent of the cancer risk from airborne toxics. Carcinogenic compounds from gasoline- powered cars and light duty trucks were also identified as significant cancer risks: 1,3-butadiene contributed 4 percent of the cancer risk-weighted emissions and benzene contributed 3 percent.

Collectively, five compounds—DPM, 1,3-butadiene, benzene, formaldehyde, and acetaldehyde—were found to be responsible for more than 90 percent of the cancer risk attributed to emissions. All these compounds are associated with emissions from internal combustion engines. The most important sources of cancer risk–weighted emissions were combustion-related sources of DPM, including on-road mobile sources (31 percent), construction equipment (29 percent), and ships and harbor craft (13 percent).

Overall, cancer risk from TACs dropped by more than 50 percent between 2005 and 2015, when emissions inputs accounted for State diesel regulations and other reductions. 8 7 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, April 19, 2017, Final 2017 Clean Air Plan, Spare the Air, Cool the Climate: A Blueprint for Clean Air and Climate Protection in the Bay Area, https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and- research/plans/2017-clean-air-plan/attachment-a_-proposed-final-cap-vol-1-pdf.pdf?la=en, accessed January 29, 2024. 8 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, April 2014, Improving Air Quality & Health in Bay Area Communities, Community Air Risk Evaluation Program Retrospective & Path Forward (2004-2013), GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

AIR QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 4.2-11
The major contributor to acute and chronic noncancer health effects in the SFBAAB is acrolein (C3H4O).

Major sources of acrolein are on-road mobile sources and aircraft near freeways and commercial and military airports.9 Currently CARB does not have certified emission factors or an analytical test method for acrolein. Since the appropriate tools needed to implement and enforce acrolein emission limits are not available, BAAQMD does not conduct health risk screening analyses for acrolein emissions.10 Air District Rules and Regulations
Regulation 7, Odorous Substances
Sources of objectionable odors may occur within the Study Area. BAAQMD’s Regulation 7, Odorous Substances, places general limitations on odorous substances and specific emission limitations on certain odorous compounds. Odors are also regulated under BAAQMD Regulation 1, Rule 1-301, Public Nuisance, which states that “no person shall discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or the public; or which endangers the comfort, repose, health or safety of any such persons or the public, or which causes, or has a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property.” Under BAAQMD ’s Rule 1-301, a facility that receives three or more violation notices within a 30-day period can be declared a public nuisance.

Naturally Occurring Asbestos Program
To reduce public exposure to naturally occurring asbestos, BAAQMD places Airborne Toxic Control Measures to regulate all construction, maintenance, grading, and mining activities that could potentially produce dust containing naturally occurring asbestos.11 The Naturally Occurring Asbestos Program also requires the best available dust mitigation measures to be followed to reduce exposure to airborne asbestos.
12 https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/Files/Planning%20and%20Research/CARE%20Program/Documents/CARE_Retrospective_Apri l2014.ashx?la=en, accessed January 29, 2024.
9 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, April 2014, Improving Air Quality & Health in Bay Area Communities, Community Air Risk Evaluation Program Retrospective & Path Forward (2004-2013), https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/Files/Planning%20and%20Research/CARE%20Program/Documents/CARE_Retrospective_Apri l2014.ashx?la=en, accessed January 29, 2024.
10 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, January 2010, Air Toxics NSR Program Health Risk Screening Analysis (HSRA) Guidelines, http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/Files/Engineering/Air%20Toxics%20Programs/hrsa_guidelines.ashx, accessed January 29, 2024.
11 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2023, Naturally Occurring Asbestos. https://www.baaqmd.gov/permits/asbestos/naturally-occuring-asbestos, accessed January 29, 2024. 12 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2018, Compliance Advisory, Naturally Occurring Asbestos Program Fee Change. https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/compliance-and-enforcement/advisories/asbestos-atcm/noa-compliance-advisory- 2019_final-pdf.pdf?la=en, accessed May 25, 2023.

GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

AIR QUALITY

4.2-12 APRIL 2024
Other Air District Regulations
In addition to the plans and programs described above, BAAQMD administers several specific regulations on various sources of pollutant emissions that would apply to potential future development constructed, including:
 Regulation 2, Rule 2, New Source Review
 Regulation 2, Rule 5, New Source Review of Toxic Air Contaminants  Regulation 6, Rule 1, General Requirements
 Regulation 6, Rule 2, Commercial Cooking Equipment
 Regulation 8, Rule 3, Architectural Coatings
 Regulation 8, Rule 4, General Solvent and Surface Coatings Operations  Regulation 8, Rule 7, Gasoline Dispensing Facilities
 Regulation 11, Rule 2, Asbestos, Demolition, Renovation and Manufacturing  Regulation 11, Rule 18, Reduction of Risk from Air Toxic Emissions at Existing Facilities Valley Transportation Authority
The Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) is the congestion management agency for Santa Clara County.

VTA is tasked with developing a comprehensive transportation improvement program among local jurisdictions to reduce traffic congestion and improve land use decision making and air quality plans. VTA’s latest congestion management program (CMP) is the Congestion Management Program Document, adopted December 2021.13 VTA’s countywide transportation model must be consistent with the regional transportation model developed by the MTC with ABAG data. The countywide transportation model is used to help evaluate cumulative transportation impacts of local land use decisions on the CMP system.

Plan Bay Area
MTC and ABAG adopted Plan Bay Area on October 21, 2021.14 Plan Bay Area provides transportation and environmental strategies to continue to meet the regional transportation related GHG reduction goals of SB 375. Strategies to reduce GHG emissions include focusing housing and commercial construction in walkable, transit-accessible places; investing in transit and active transportation; and shifting the location of jobs to encourage shorter commutes. As part of the implementing framework for Plan Bay Area, local governments have identified Priority Development Areas (PDAs) and Transit Priority Areas (TPAs) to focus growth. As described in Chapter 4, Environmental Analysis, of this EA, PDAs are transit-oriented, infill development opportunity areas within existing communities. TPAs are half-mile buffers surrounding major transit stops or terminals. As shown on Figure 4-1, Priority Development Area and Transit Priority Areas, of

13 Valley Transportation Authority, December 2021, Congestion Management Program (CMP) Document, https://www.vta.org/sites/default/files/2022-01/2021CMPDocumentV2_Reduced.pdf, accessed January 29, 2024. 14 Association of Bay Area Governments and Metropolitan Transportation Commission, October 2021, Plan Bay Area 2050, https://www.planbayarea.org/sites/default/files/documents/Plan_Bay_Area_2050_October_2021.pdf, accessed January 29, 2024.

GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

AIR QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 4.2-13
this EA, there are four TPAs and two PDAs, the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority City Cores, Corridors & Station Areas, and South DeAnza.15,16
Nitrogen Oxides from Natural Gas-Fired Furnaces, Boilers, and Water Heaters BAAQMD adopted amendments to Regulation 9, Inorganic Gaseous Pollutants, Rule 4, Nitrogen Oxides from Natural Gas-Fired Furnaces (Rule 9-4) and Rule 6, Nitrogen Oxides Emissions from Natural Gas-Fired Boilers and Water Heaters (Rule 9-6). Space- and water-heating appliances generate a large portion of nitrogen oxide (NOX) emissions from sources in the Bay Area. NOX are a key criteria pollutant as a precursor to ozone and secondary particulate matter (PM) formation. The amendments would require more stringent NOX emission standards for space- and water-heating appliances within BAAQMD’s jurisdiction starting in year 2023 and would substantially reduce NOX emissions from these appliances commonly found in single-family homes and commercial applications. The amendments to Rules 9-4 and 9-6 include the following elements:
 Sales and installation of smaller water heaters and boilers (below 75,000 BTU/hour) must be zero emission, starting in 2027.
 Sales and installation of furnaces (heat input rate less than 175,000 BTU/hour) must be zero emission starting in 2029.
 Sales of larger water heaters and boilers (between 75,000 and 2 million BTU/hour) must be zero emission starting in 2031.
 Existing appliances can remain in operation, but the rule would apply once they need replacement.

Local Regulations
General Plan 2040
The Mobility (M), Environmental Resources (ES), and Health and Safety (HS) Elements of the General Plan 2040 contain goals, policies, and strategies that require local planning and development decisions to consider air quality impacts. Applicable policies and strategies that would minimize potential adverse impacts to air quality are identified in Section 4.2.3, Impact Discussion.

Climate Action Plan
Adopted in August 2022, the City of Cupertino Climate Action Plan (CAP 2.0) is an updated roadmap of specific actions to reduce GHG emissions, achieve the City’s target of carbon neutrality by 2040, and increase community resilience, and capacity to adapt to the impacts of climate change. 17 The CAP 2.0
allows City decision-makers and the community to understand the sources and magnitude of local GHG

15 Metropolitan Transportation Commission, Transit Priority Areas (2021), 2024, https://opendata.mtc.ca.gov/datasets/MTC::transit-priority-areas-2021-1/explore?location=37.328339%2C- 122.044206%2C14.00, accessed on January 20, 2024
16 Metropolitan Transportation Commission, Priority Development Areas – Plan Bay Area 2050, 2024, https://opendata.mtc.ca.gov/datasets/priority-development-areas-plan-bay-area-2050/explore?location=37.319615%2C- 122.033008%2C14.71, accessed on January 20, 2024.
17 City of Cupertino, August 2022, Climate Action 2.0,
https://www.cupertino.org/home/showpublisheddocument/31683/637964240923930000, accessed on January 29, 2024.

GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

AIR QUALITY

4.2-14 APRIL 2024
emissions and identifies a strategy, reduction measures, and implementation actions the City will use to achieve targets consistent with State recommendations of 4.3 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2e) per person by 2030 and 1.2 MTCO2e per person by 2050. The CAP 2.0 adopted in 2022 updated and expanded the City’s goals from the 2015 CAP , including strategies for Cupertino to prepare for and mitigate approaching risks from climate change.

Municipal Code
The Cupertino Municipal Code (CMC) includes various directives to minimize adverse impacts to local and regional air quality. The CMC is organized by title, chapter, and section. Most provisions related to air quality are included in Title 6, Franchises, Title 14, Street, Sidewalks and Landscaping, Title 16, Buildings and Construction, Title 17, Environmental Regulations, and Title 19, Zoning, as follows:
 Chapter 6.24, Garbage, Non-Organic Recycling and Organic Waste Recycling Collection and Disposal.

This chapter includes Section 6.24.037, Mandatory Organic Waste Disposal Reduction, which includes a list of requirements for organic waste generators, in compliance with state recycling laws, and state organic recycling laws.
 Chapter 14.02, Transportation Impact Fee Program. This chapter recognizes that there will be additional demand on the City’s existing transportation infrastructure and therefore created the Transportation Impact Fee Program to generate revenue that the City can use as a funding source for the costs of the transportation improvements required to serve new development.  Chapter 14.18, Protected Trees. This chapter protects, preserves, and replenishes healthy and valuable trees in the city for the health and welfare of residents and to counteract air pollutants and maintain climatic balances, among reasons.
 Chapter 16.32, Energy Code. Adopts the 2022 edition of the California Energy Code and each and all the regulations, provisions, conditions and terms of the code and requires newly constructed buildings in the City to be all-electric, with varying exceptions for non-residential occupancies.  Chapter 16.72, Recycling and Salvaging of Construction and Demolition Debris. This chapter requires projects to recycle or divert at least sixty-five percent (65 percent), or meet the amounts, criteria and requirements specified in the applicable California Green Building Standards Code, whichever is more restrictive, of all materials generated for discard by the project. This helps the City reduce landfill waste, foster resource conservation, and meet and exceed an overall waste diversion rate of 50 percent.
 Section 17.04.040, Standard Environmental Protection Technical Report Submittal Requirements. This section requires project applicants to submit technical reports for air quality and hazardous materials which are subject to review and approval prior to the approval of the project.

Air Quality Technical Report Requirements

1. Control Diesel Particulate Matter from Non-Residential Projects During Operation. Applicants for new non-residential land uses within the city that either have the potential to generate 100 or more diesel truck trips per day or have 40 or more trucks with operating diesel-powered Transport Refrigeration Units (TRUs), and are within 1,000 feet of a sensitive land use (e.g., GENERAL PLAN 2040 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF CUPERTINO

AIR QUALITY
PLACEWORKS 4.2-15
residential, schools, hospitals, nursing homes), as measured from the property line of the project to the property line of the nearest sensitive use, shall:
a. Prepare and submit an operational Health Risk Assessment (HRA) for approval by the City prior to approval of the project.
b. The HRA shall be prepared in accordance with policies and procedures of the State Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD).
c. If the HRA shows that the incremental cancer risk exceeds ten in one million (10E-06), PM2.5 concentrations exceed 0.3 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3), or the appropriate noncancer hazard index exceeds 1.0, the project applicant shall be required to identify and demonstrate that Best Available Control Technologies for Toxics (T-BACTs) are capable of reducing potential cancer and noncancer risks to an acceptable level, including appropriate enforcement mechanisms.
d. T-BACTs identified in the HRA shall be indicated in the appropriate applicable construction document prior to approval of the project. T-BACTs may include the following measures from BAAQMD’s Planning Healthy Places Guidebook but are not limited to:
i. Restricting nonessential idling on-site to no more than two minutes. ii. Providing electric charging capable truck trailer spaces to accommodate Zero Emissions (ZE) Trucks.
iii. Providing electric charging capable warehousing docks to accommodate ZE Transport Refrigeration Units (TRUs).
iv. Requiring use of Near Zero Emissions (NZE) or ZE equipment (e.g., yard trucks and forklifts) and/or vehicles.
v. Restricting offsite truck travel through the creation of truck routes.

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), PM

2.5 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 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 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 construction- related 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 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 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.

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 O
3 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-a nd-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 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 Jose- Jackson 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.

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.

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.

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.

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 PM

2.5 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.

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.

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 per- dwelling 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.

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 quality- related 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.

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 site- specific 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 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.

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.

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.

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 d evelopment under the proposed Modified Project would be reviewed based on current General Plan 2040 p olicies , 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 d evelopment under the proposed Modified Project would be reviewed based on current General Plan 2040 policies and strategies, which are largely unchanged 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 a ccommodated 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 d evelopment 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 a ccommodated 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 t he proposed Modified Project, the housing sites identified under the proposed Modified Project d o 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.

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 p olicies. 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 w ill 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.

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.

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” high- emissions 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 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 on- and 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 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 project- specific 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 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 per- dwelling 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.

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)
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” high- emissions 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).

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-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-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 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.

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) 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)
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 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” high- emissions 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 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.

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.

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 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).

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.

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.

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.

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-San- Francis.pdf, accessed August 9, 2022.
11 Santa Clara County, 2012, Santa Clara County Habitat Plan, https://www.scv- habitatagency.org/DocumentCenter/View/137/Executive-Summary, accessed on July 25, 2023.

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 region- appropriate 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 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 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.

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 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

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 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.

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.

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, climate- appropriate 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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;
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.

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 ground- disturbing 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 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
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 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 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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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-model- year-2024-2026, accessed January 26, 2024.

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.

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 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 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. 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 zero- carbon 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-and- topics/documents/energy/rps/2023/2023-padilla-report---final.pdf, accessed February 2, 2024.

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 single- family 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-appliance- efficiency-regulations-5104f7.pdf, accessed January 26, 2024.

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.

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.

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/our- work/programs/advanced-clean-fleets/about, accessed January 26, 2024.

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.

← All documents from this meeting