The URL can be used to link to this page

04-17-25 Final SC Packet SC 04-17-2025 1 of 98 CITY OF CUPERTINO AGENDA lop CUPERTINO SUSTAINABILITY COMMISSION 10185 North Stelling Road, Quinlan Community Center, Conference Room Thursday, April 17, 2025 4:00 PM Members of the public wishing to observe the meeting may do so in one of the following ways: 1) Attend in person at Quinlan Community Center, 10185 N. Stelling Road, Conference Room 2) The meeting will also be streamed live on and online at https:Hyoutube.com/ecupertinocitycommission Members of the public wishing to comment on an item on the agenda may do so in the following ways: 1) Appear in person at Quinlan Community Center. 2) E-mail comments by 2:00 p.m. on Thursday, April 17 to the legislative body at sustainabilitycommission@cupertino.gov. These e-mail comments will also be posted to the City's website after the meeting. Oral public comments may be made during the public comment period for each agenda item. Members of the audience who address the legislative body must come to the lectern/microphone and are requested to complete a Speaker Card and identify themselves. Completion of Speaker Cards and identifying yourself is voluntary and not required to attend the meeting or provide comments. ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Subject: October 17, 2024 Sustainability Commission minutes Recommended Action: Approve October 17, 2024 minutes A-Draft Minutes POSTPONEMENTS ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Page 1 1 SC 04-17-2025 2 of 98 Sustainability Commission Agenda April 17,2025 This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the Commission on any matter within the jurisdiction of the Commission and not on the agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes. In most cases, State law will prohibit the Commission from making any decisions with respect to a matter not on the agenda. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS STAFF AND COMMISSION REPORTS OLD BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS 2. Subject: Chair and Vice Chair Elections Recommended Action: Make nominations and elect the Chair and Vice Chair of the Sustainability Commission 3. Subject: Fiscal Year 2025-2026 Capital Improvement Programs and Five-Year Plan Recommended Action: Receive presentation and provide input on the development of the proposed Fiscal Year 2025-2026 Capital Improvement Programs and Five-year Plan as related to Sustainability projects. Staff Report A-FY 24-25 CIP-Sustainability Status and FY 25-26 Proposal B-FY 25-26 CIP ProJect Narratives 4. Subject: Policy Options for Electrification of Cupertino's Existing Commercial Buildings Recommended Action: Receive presentation and recommend that City Council direct staff to pursue adoption of a Flex Path reach code for commercial buildings and develop an ordinance establishing an Energy Benchmarking requirement for buildings 10,000 square feet and larger, with the intent to phase in a Building Performance Standard to support the City's Climate Action Plan's existing commercial buildings emission reduction goal. Staff Report A-Commercial Building Energy Policy Options 5. Subject: Policy Options for Electrification of Cupertino's Existing Residential Buildings Recommended Action: Receive update 6. Subject: Electric Vehicle Charger Study Providing a Prioritized List of Locations Recommended Action: Receive report and presentation from ZeroQuest and provide input on further action. Staff Report A-Electric Vehicle Charger Study Page 2 2 SC 04-17-2025 3 of 98 Sustainability Commission Agenda April 17,2025 FUTURE AGENDA SETTING ADJOURNMENT In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), anyone who is planning to attend this meeting who is visually or hearing impaired or has any disability that needs special assistance should call the City Clerk's Office at 408-777-3223, at least 48 hours in advance of the meeting to arrange for assistance. In addition, upon request in advance by a person with a disability, meeting agendas and writings distributed for the meeting that are public records will be made available in the appropriate alternative format. Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the members after publication of the agenda will be made available for public inspection. Please contact the City Clerk's Office in City Hall located at 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014, during normal business hours. IMPORTANT NOTICE: Please be advised that pursuant to Cupertino Municipal Code section 2.08.100 written communications sent to the City Council, Commissioners or staff concerning a matter on the agenda are included as supplemental material to the agendized item. These written communications are accessible to the public through the City website and kept in packet archives. Do not include any personal or private information in written communications to the City that you do not wish to make public, as written communications are considered public records and will be made publicly available on the City website. Page 3 3 SC 04-17-2025 4 of 98 12 CITY OF CUPERTINO CUPERTINO Agenda Item 25-13887 Agenda Date: 4/17/2025 Agenda M 1. Subject: October 17, 2024 Sustainability Commission minutes Approve October 17, 2024 minutes CITY OF CUPERTINO Page 1 of 1 Printed on 4/9/2025 powered by LegistarTM 4 SC Attachment°A 5 of 98 DRAFT MINUTES MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE SUSTAINABILITY COMMISSION October 17, 2024 CUPERTINO Draft Minutes The meeting was called to order at 4:03 p.m. ROLL CALL: Present: Alexander Fung, Susan Hansen(VC), Sonali Padgaonkar(C), Steve Poon, Conny Yang Absent: None Staff: Victoria Morin, Staff Liaison- absent Others Present: Ursula Syrova, Environmental Programs and Sustainability Manager, Chad Mosley, Director of Public Works, Susan Michael, Capital Improvement Programs Manager, Daniel Lin, Sustainability Fellow, Jasmin Lu, Environmental Programs Assistant APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. July 18, 2024 Sustainability Commission minutes Commissioner Yang arrived at 4:05 p.m. MOTION: Vice Chair Hansen moved, seconded by Commissioner Fung to approve the minutes as presented. MOTION PASSED: 5-0 POSTPONEMENTS No Postponements ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None 1 Sustainability Commission Regular Meeting October 17,2024 5 SC 04-17-2025 6 of 98 STAFF AND COMMISSION REPORTS OLD BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS 2. Capital Improvement Program Photovoltaic Systems Design and Installation project Rishi Agarwal, public speaker, spoke about the photovoltaic item. MOTION: Vice Chair Hansen moved, seconded by Chair Padgaonkar to recommend to the City Council to: 1. Approve the Capital Improvements Program Photovoltaic System Design and have the City Council consider the below options: a. Approve the Installation Project's Conceptual Design for five City of Cupertino facilities: Quinlan Community Center, Community Hall, Cupertino Sports Center, Blackberry Farm, and Cupertino Library. b. If the above recommendation in bullet a is not passed by the City Council due to budget constraints, then the Sustainability Commission recommends the installation of the Photovoltaic Facilities in order of preference: Quinlan Community Center, Cupertino Sports Center, Community Hall, Cupertino Library, and Blackberry Farm. 2. Have the City of Cupertino pursue a funding agreement with Santa Clara County Library District. MOTION PASSED: 5-0 3. Update on 2021 Greenhouse Gas Inventory Results NO ACTION TAKEN 4. Garbage Post-Collection Services MOTION: Commissioner Yang moved, seconded by Commissioner Poon to recommend to the City Council to route collected garbage through a Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) to increase diversion before final disposal. MOTION PASSED: 5-0 5. Fall Event Tabling Discussion and Feedback 2 Sustainability Commission Regular Meeting October 17,2024 6 SC 04-17-2025 7 of 98 NO ACTION TAKEN FUTURE AGENDA SETTING • Presentation on Recycling: What do we do locally compared to neighboring jurisdictions • Update on business outreach regarding sustainable practices ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 6:23 p.m. SUBMITTED BY: Victoria Morin, Staff Liaison Note: Any attachments can be found on the Cupertino Website https://www.cupertino.or /og ur-city/agendas-minutes 3 Sustainability Commission Regular Meeting October 17,2024 7 SC 04-17-2025 8 of 98 12 CITY OF CUPERTINO CUPERTINO Agenda Item 25-13888 Agenda Date: 4/17/2025 Agenda #: 2. Subject: Chair and Vice Chair Elections Make nominations and elect the Chair and Vice Chair of the Sustainability Commission CITY OF CUPERTINO Page 1 of 1 Printed on 4/9/2025 powered by LegistarTM p SC 04-17-2025 9of98 is CITY OF CUPERTINO CUPERTINO Agenda Item 25-13889 Agenda Date: 4/17/2025 Agenda M 3. Subject: Fiscal Year 2025-2026 Capital Improvement Programs and Five-Year Plan Receive presentation and provide input on the development of the proposed Fiscal Year 2025-2026 Capital Improvement Programs and Five-year Plan as related to Sustainability projects. CITY OF CUPERTINO Page 1 of 1 Printed on 4/9/2025 powered by LegistarTM 9 SC 04-17-2025 10 of 98 CITY OF PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3354 • FAX: (408) 777-3333 CUPERTINO CUPERTINO.ORG SUSTAINABILITY COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Meeting: April 17, 2025 Subject Fiscal Year 2025-2026 Capital Improvement Programs and Five-year Plan. Recommended Action Receive presentation and provide input on the development of the proposed Fiscal Year 2025-2026 Capital Improvement Programs and Five-year Plan as related to Sustainability projects. Executive Summary As part of the City of Cupertino's annual budget process, staff gather and develop proposals for new Capital Improvement Program (CIP)projects. The City Council reviews these proposals and provides feedback. This process helps staff to refine and fully develop the annual CIP before presenting the proposal with the annual budget. The Fiscal Year(FY)25-26 CIP proposal is focused on providing safety through repair and revitalization of existing infrastructure to preserve existing facilities. In addition, the program aims to create future ongoing savings where possible. This approach aligns with the projected CIP funding of$2 million annually and focuses those funds on existing critical infrastructure. Reasons for Recommendation Development of the annual CIP is a multi-step process, as detailed briefly here: • Annually Staff compiles the needs identified through internal proposals from City departments and divisions, and reviews planning documents (e.g., master plans, and existing facility assessments) to connect the CIP with the City's strategic plans, as referred to in Attachment D. • April 2 City Council is presented with a draft CIP proposal and provides input on the proposed CIP and the five-year plan. • April 3, 16 and Staff reviews the CIP proposals with commissions that have goals 17 that align with the projects. This year the Parks and Recreation Commission(4/3),Bicycle and Pedestrian Commission(4/16), and 10 SC 04-17-2025 11 of 98 Sustainability Commission(4/17) will have CIP preview proposals on their April meeting agendas. • April 22 Planning Commission verifies that the proposed CIP recommendations are in conformance with the General Plan. The CIP discussion will go to the Planning Commission on April 22. • May/June The proposed CIP item returns to the City Council as part of the adoption of the annual Operating Budget. The proposed CIP generally includes a request for funding for current FY projects, as well as program support for the five-year plan. It is important to note that years two through five are included for planning purposes to identify potential future expenditures and workloads. These future projects are not funded with the approval of the FY 25-26 CIP. Background A capital improvement project is a project that enhances a unit of property, restores, or prolongs the useful life of a unit of property, or adapts the unit of property to a new or different use. The CIP Division of Public Works provides planning, design, procurement, and construction administration for all CIP projects including streets, sidewalks, storm drainage,buildings,parks,bicycle and pedestrian improvements, and other public facilities. The division ensures that the design and construction of the public improvements occur in accordance with community expectations, and applicable City and State of California standards. The CIP division places public health and safety as the highest priority in the planning and delivery of CIP projects. The City has several types of projects.A key factor that defines a CIP project, as opposed to maintenance projects, Special Projects, City Work Program (CWP)projects, or other capital initiatives, is the need for professional design services that require specialized expertise, analysis, or documentation. While CIP projects are typically focused on design and construction, there are instances where planning processes, such as feasibility studies or analysis projects, also require design and engineering services, classifying them as CIP projects. These general guidelines vary depending on the specifics of each project. Project Priorities Project prioritization is used as a tool to inform decisions regarding funding and the scheduling of resources. Staff evaluate and rank new project proposals based on the factors listed below. The highest priority is given to projects that require repair of existing facilities to address public health and safety and to protect public and private property. Other factors, including available funding and resources to complete a project, are then considered within the context of other City goals.Below is the criterion used: 11 SC 04-17-2025 12 of 98 TABLE 1: PRIORITIES FOR CIP PROJECTS,LEGEND LEGEND GHealth and Safety Improvements Council,Commissions and/or Community Priority High Prianties established through City's Moster Pions or Condition Assessment Reports Projects that are subsequent phases of existing projects: or projects in the queue[hat need to be cctivated Projects that have secured external fording,or which can result in positive fiscal impocls to the Cily • Health and Safety: assets that require repair or upgrading to protect public health and safety,including protection of public and private property, take highest priority. Example:Repair of Stormwater Drain Outfalls is a high priority to avoid further deterioration of public/private property. • Council,Commissions,and Community Priorities:Incorporates Council priorities, suggestions from Commissions, and Community input. Example: Lawrence-Mitty Trail and Park project is prioritized by the City Council, Parks and Recreation Commission, and members of the public. • Master Plan Priorities: The City's master plans have many stated goals and policies that affect the generation of CIP projects. Staff reviews the goals found in these documents,including stated priorities of commissions. Example:Projects to remove natural gas appliances from the City's facilities are prioritized by the Climate Action Plan as part of the City's decarbonization initiatives. • Ongoing phases: some projects advance as subsequent phases of existing/completed projects. Example:Regnart Road Improvements, Phase 2 project is a subsequent phase of the overall Regnart Road Improvements project, initiated in FY 16-17. • Fiscally Responsible: Improvements or projects that enhance fiscally responsible use of City resources, including staff time and City funds. Projects that have secured (or could secure) outside funding, such as grants, are also given priority. Example: The Bollinger Road Corridor Design project is included in the CIP because the majority of the study will be funded through a grant. 12 SC 04-17-2025 13 of 98 Staff Recommendations Using the priorities listed above, the following list identifies projects proposed for the FY 25-26 CIP: TABLE 2: PROPOSED FY25-26 CIP PROJECTS A. New Projects: Project name Project Description FY25-26 INTERNAL EXTERNAL Funding ADA This is an ongoing program, $110,000 $110,000 $0 (Americans funded annually,to improve with Disabilities accessibility of public Act) facilities throughout the Improvements City. (Annually funded) Citywide Implement priority $940,000 $940,000 $0 Facilities recommendations identified Condition in the Facility Condition Assessment Assessment reports. This is (FCA) an ongoing initiative due to Implementation the extent of improvements needed throughout City buildings. Outfall Repairs Repair various storm drain $950,000 $950,000 $0 outfalls following the recommendations of the 2024 Storm Drain Outfalls Assessment. subtotal $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $0 Existing projects are reviewed annually in the context of fiscal responsibility to confirm that continuing the project is the best course of action. Attachment A has more detail on the existing projects related to Sustainability, including a review to possibly defund projects. The review of existing projects this year has resulted in a recommendation to retain all existing projects and their current funding. Project narratives for each of the newly proposed projects can be found in Attachment B. Projects completed in FY 24-25, or which are scheduled for completion this year include: • Blackberry Farm Pool Improvements • De Anza Boulevard Buffered Bike Lanes • McClellan Road Separated Bike Corridor, Phase 3 • Vai Avenue Outfall-Repairs' • All-Inclusive Play Area&Adult-Assistive Bathroom Facility at Jollyman Parke 13 SC 04-17-2025 14 of 98 *The existing outfall was temporarily repaired, but the larger project to replace the outfall has not yet occurred. Refer to Attachment A for a summary of the project. *Project that is projected to be complete by July 2025 Staff anticipate that these projects will underspend their respective budgets by approximately$200,000. These underspent funds will be returned to the Capital Reserve (or other appropriate accounts based on the original source of any restricted funds). Public Works and Finance staff work together as part of the year-end process to close out completed projects,presenting this information as part of the first quarter report for the following fiscal year. Five-Year CIP Plan TABLE 3: PROPOSED FY 25-26 CIP FIVE-YEAR PLAN PROJECTS Note: Greyed text in Years 2-5 illustrates 5% escalation costs but are not proposed for implementation in that year and thus are not included in the totals below. Project FY25-26 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Funding FY26-27 FY27-28 FY28-29 FY29-30 Projected Projected Projected Projected Cost Cost Cost Cost ADA $110,000 $115,000 $120,000 $125,000 $130,000 Improvements (Annually funded) Citywide Facilities $940,000 $2,300,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 Condition Assessment(FCA) Implementation Outfalls Repairs $950,000 $600,000 $600,000 $600,000 $600,000 BBF Golf $1,433,250 �1,504,880 $1,580,150 $1,659,158 Renovation: minimal repairs totals $2,000,000 $3,015,000* $1,720,000 $3,305,150* $1,730,000 *Current annual CIP funding is$2M/year. Project estimates may be refined prior to requested CIP funding. Proposed annual CIP funding that exceeds$2M/year will require additional funds beyond the$2M annual funding being allocated to the program. Where possible, staff will search for external funding to address funding requests of more than$2M. In summary, the proposed FY 25-26 CIP includes ongoing funding for two existing facilities projects and funding for storm drain utility repairs. The projects proposed this year are a result of information from existing facility assessments,which show the need for extensive improvements and repairs to the City's aging infrastructure.Due to the extensive nature of the work needed, staff envision some of these projects becoming regular or even annual requests for the foreseeable future. The program has 28 existing projects that are a priority to close out.This year, the proposal for new projects was 14 SC 04-17-2025 15of98 driven by the need to implement health and safety-driven projects and was further impacted by limited staffing resources and$2 million in funding. The proposed five-year plan focuses on rehabilitating critical infrastructure that has aged beyond its life cycle.While the City has focused its rehabilitation efforts in recent years on revitalizing its pavement condition, the City must now shift some of this focus onto its buildings and storm drain system to address public health and safety issues. Sustainability Impact Future projects will be evaluated for sustainability impacts as they are developed. Fiscal Impact The FY 25-26 proposal for CIP includes an allocation of$2 million for new and annually funded projects from the Capital Reserve. Should grant funds be awarded, staff will return to City Council to make the necessary budget adjustments. If the proposal for FY 25-26 CIP is approved, the Capital Reserve is estimated to be$8.53 million in available fund balance for the CIP. The$8.53 million balance includes the$5 million minimum reserve balance for the fund. California Environmental Quality Act ,CEQA� No CEQA impact. Prepared by: Susan Michael, Capital Improvement Programs Manager Reviewed by: Chad Mosley,Director of Public Works Approved for Submission by: Ursula Syrova, Environmental Programs and Sustainability Manager Attachments: A-FY 24-25 CIP-Sustainability Status and FY25-26 Proposal B-FY 25-26 CIP Project Narratives 15 SC 04-17-2025 16 of 98 CITY OF PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3354 • FAX: (408) 777-3333 CUPERTINO CUPERTINO.ORG ATTACHMENT A FY2024—2025 CIP Status and FY2025—2026 CIP Proposal for Sustainability Projects The Fiscal Year(FY)2024-2025 Capital Improvement Program(CIP) contains 28 active projects. Four projects were successfully completed this fiscal year, with one additional project scheduled to be completed prior to July 2025. The FY 25-26 CIP proposal considers the current staffing levels and ensures that future projects are planned in a way that aligns with available resources for effective execution. CIP projects typically fall into four categories: Parks, Streets and Infrastructure,Transportation, and Facilities. This year we are introducing a fifth category—Sustainability projects. It is a more accurate reflection of the City's goals to highlight efforts towards Sustainability and Resilience. This document provides a summary of the Sustainability projects. For Sustainability projects in the CIP,you will find a summary of the existing projects, proposed projects,unfunded projects, projects that can be defunded, and the five-year plan for Sustainability. Allocation of each project into a'category' does not have financial implications and many projects could be placed into more than one category. However,the classification is useful for reviewing the distribution of funds to the type of assets receiving capital improvements. In this case, the CIP projects that have impact on the City's sustainability initiatives are included here. A. Existing Sustainability CIP Projects: There are two active and funded CIP projects that we consider Sustainability projects, and one other funded project that is in the queue. H 16 SC 04-17-2025 17 of 98 TABLE 1 -ACTIVE SUSTAINABILITY CIP PROJECTS # Project name Project Description Year Approved Project Total Remaining Initiate Funding Funds* d SU1 EVCS expansion The construction of electric FY24-25 $560,000 $560,000 $560,000 -Service Center vehicle charging station (EVCS) infrastructure for the electrification of the City's fleet. Working with SVCE for technical assistance. Estimated Completion: 2026 SU2 Photovoltaics This project will design- FY24-25 $6,300,000 $6,300,000 $6,296,600 Systems (PV) build PV systems at three Design & locations: Quinlan Installation Community Center, Cupertino Sports Center, and Community Hall. Estimated Completion: 2026 SU3Q Silicon Valley Provide electric vehicle FY22-23 $350,000 $350,000 $321,000 Hopper EV charging stations (EVCS) parking for SV Hopper (formerly VIA) fleet. Queued due to staffing resources. subtotal $7,210,000 $7,210,000 $7,177,600 *Table Note: The funds indicated in the "Remaining Funds"column are a calculation based on the transactions to date(3114125)and contracts encumbered on each project. It does not fully account for the amount of grant funds that are expensed/received to date. If the project were to be defended,for example, a more thorough accounting of the funds remaining on the project would be required. • The PV project contracts were approved in February and the design phase is underway. • CIP is working with SVCE to develop design and bid documents for the Service Center expansion of the EVCS for the City's fleet vehicles. • Silicon Valley (SV)Hopper EV parking: Cupertino was part of a successful Dept. of Transportation Charging Facility Infrastructure coalition grant application lead by SVCE and San Jose that would have provided around$500,000 for 7 dual-port level 2 chargers and 1 dual-port level 3 DC Fast Charger behind the Sports Center for public and Hopper use. That award is uncertain now under the current administration. This project is queued due to staffing constraints. B. FY25—26 Proposed Sustainability CIP Projects: none. FY25-26 CIP proposal and 5-year Plan—Sustainability Page 2 of 4 17 SC 04-17-2025 18 of 98 C. Evaluation of Sustainability CIP Projects to Defund • The EVCS expansion at Service Center project is necessary for the ongoing electrification of the City's fleet. This project is currently funded and supported through SVCE. • The PV project is in contract and will reduce the City's utility costs. • The SV Hopper EV parking would address the need for charging of the shuttles' fleet of electric vehicles. We do not recommend defunding these projects. D. Unfunded Sustainability CIP Projects The Sustainability team outlined a number of projects that may be proposed as CIP projects once scope, costs, and benefits are further developed. The list that follows notes the years proposed and projected cost in FY25-26 dollars. TABLE 2-UNFUNDED SUSTAINABILITY CIP PROJECTS Project FY Project Description Projected proposed Cost Building Electrification FY25-26 Analysis of top gas-consuming City facilities to -$30,000 Analysis examine the current appliance infrastructure, evaluate the building envelope, and explore available market alternatives for electrification.This will provide the required details for the cost and timeline of each facility's upgrade needs. Sustainability team is presently working with BayREN to analyze five facilities as a free service. Other facilities will require an engineering consultant team to be engaged and can be funded with CIP Prelim Planning& Design (420- 99-047)funds. Quinlan Community Center FY25-26 Quinlan Community Center has the highest gas -$8M Electrification consumption (33.54%of the City's overall gas usage) and requires an engineered solution due to roof and building space constraints, complex building envelope, and energy efficiency considerations. Library Electrification & FY25-26 As the second-highest gas user(22.59%of the City's -$8M Resiliency upgrades overall gas usage),the Library's electrification must be preceded by measures to reduce reliance on reheat energy.The project will optimize the HVAC system before replacing the HVAC and hot water boiler with an electric alternative. Electrification may be best pursued alongside a Resiliency Upgrade to the building, to facilitate use as the Community's Cooling and Heating Center.This will probably include a photovoltaic system and battery back-up system. CIP is currently working with SCCLD to develop a mutually beneficial scope of work. FY25-26 CIP proposal and 5-year Plan-Sustainability 18 SC 04-17-2025 19 of 98 Blackberry Farm Pools FY25-26 With high gas usage (approximately 14.27%of the TBD Water Heating Upgrades City's overall gas usage),the Blackberry Farm pool project presents an opportunity to integrate solar thermal storage.The plan involves replacing showers with primary solar thermal and storage and backup small air-source heat pump water heaters. The pool heaters could be replaced with air-source heat pump technology in conjunction with solar and storage. Electrification of other City FY25-26 Senior Center, Sports Center, BBF Recreation Buildings TBD Facilities (medium priorities), Monta Vista Recreation Center, Service Center, McClellan Ranch Preserve, and other Park Facilities (lower priorities) can be upgraded to electric appliances to provide long-term sustainability benefits and reduce operational costs. Replace Non-Functional Turf FY25-26 Government properties must stop watering non- TBD & Improve water efficiency functional turf by January 1, 2027, to comply with state mandate AB 1572. It is recommended to start replacement no later than early 2027 to avoid aesthetic concerns regarding landscaping. E. Sustainability CIP-5-year Plan: the Sustainability projects can be included in the five-year CIP plan when scope of work and project cost estimates are initiated for the projects listed above. Staff will look for external funding to support potential sustainability projects prior to proposing them. FY25-26 CIP proposal and 5-year Plan—Sustainability Page 4 of 4 19 Atta c h M 69Tt0$17-2025 20 of 98 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS FISCAL YEAR 2025 - 2026 and 5-YEAR PLAN PROJECT NARRATIVES LEGEND Health and Safety Improvements Council, Commissions and/or Community Priority {� High Priorities established through City's Master Plans or Condition Assessment Reports Projects that are subsequent phases of existing projects; or projects in the queue that need to be activated Projects that have secured external funding, or which can result in positive fiscal impacts to the City CIP FY25-26 • 5-YEAR PLAN ATTACHMENT B PROJECT NARRATIVES 20 SC 04-17-2025 21 of 98 City of Cupertino CI P: FACILITIES CIP FY25-26 • 5-YEAR PLAN PROJECT NARRATIVES 21 SC 04-17-2025 22 of 98 ADA Improvements Annually Funded Proposed FY25-26 City Funding $ 110,000 Total Funding $970,000 City Funding FY25-26 $110,000 External Funding $0 Remaining Funds(Feb 2025) $191,990 Funding Source,Approved Plan CR - Project Category Facilities Project Type Design and Construction Location Various Origin of Request Public Works Budget Unit 420-99-007,PVAR 002 Initiated:FY15-16 Project Description This is an ongoing initiative funded annually to improve accessibility at all public facilities throughout the City. Project Justification An update of the City's ADA Transition Plan was completed in April 2015.The plan identifies improvements needed and priorities to achieve compliance with ADA in public buildings,parks, and the public right of way. Prioritization Accessibility is an ongoing priority for the City. Projected Schedule/5-year Plan information This is an ongoing program,funded annually,to improve accessibility at all public facilities throughout the City. Funding Information [This initiative began in FY15-16 and has been funded annually for a total of$970,000 as of February 2025. Operating Budget Impacts There are no anticipated impacts to the Operating Budget. CIP FY25-26 • 5-YEAR PLAN PROJECT NARRATIVES 22 SC 04-17-2025 23 of 98 Facilities Condition Assessment Implementation Ongoing initiative to address Facilities Deficiencies Proposed FY25-26 Funding $940,000 Total Funding(pre-FY25-26) $2,429,890 City Funding(pre-FY25-26) $2,006,470 A. External Funding $367,951 (FY24 CDBG) $55,469(FY25 CDBG) Remaining Funds(Feb 2025) $1,536,282 Funding Source,Approved Plan GF,GPI Project Category Facilities 41-7 Project Type Design and Construction �[ Location Various Origin of Request Public Works Budget Unit 420-99-078,BAI 001 Project Description Ongoing initiative to implement projects from the prioritized recommendations of the 2017/18"Comprehensive Facility Condition and Use Assessment" and the"2022 Facility Condition Assessment" (FCA)reports. Project Justification The 2017/18 FCA report and the 2022 FCA report assessed the condition of nearly every City owned facility. Several projects were identified as high priority facilities with significant deficiencies that need to be addressed to avoid costly repairs and extended service interruptions. Prioritization [Addressing the high-priority FCA projects is the highest priority, as these projects address health and safety concerns. Projected Schedule/5-year Plan information Six projects have been initiated: Senior Center Fire Alarm system(FAS)upgrade,Quinlan Community Center(QCC) AC Chiller replacements,Sports Center Locker and Shower rooms improvements, and the replacement of three flat roofs(Sports Center,QCC, and Senior Center).Other completed FCA projects include Sports Center Fire Control Center panel replacement and the Sports Center Seismic Retrofit.Projects planned for FY25-26 are the upgrades of five FAS at Monte Vista,Creekside Park Rec,Service Center and Sports Center.Library FAS and Sports Center Shower/Locker rooms projects are planned for FY26-27. Funding Information This initiative began in FY18-19 and received additional City funding in FY23-24.CDBG grant funds were received for work on the Senior Center nronerty.in FY23-24 and FY24-25. Operating Budget Impacts As older equipment is replaced with energy efficient equipment and as building systems are upgraded significant, savings are expected in both maintenance and energy costs. CIP FY25-26 • 5-YEAR PLAN PROJECT NARRATIVES 23 SC 04-17-2025 24 of 98 City Hall Annex ' 10455 Torre Avenue Improvements Total Funding $3,000,000 City Funding $3,000,000 External Funding $0 Remaining Funds(Feb 2025) $1,872,539 Funding Source,Approved Plan GF,CCMP Project Category Facilities L Project Type Design and Construction Location 10455 Torre Ave. Origin of Request Public Works _- Budget Unit 420-99-248,CIV 011 Initiated FY21-22 Project Description Program,plan and build facility improvements to facilitate short-term and long-term use[s] of the building.The scope of work will include programming,planning,design,and construction.Emergency Operations Center(EOC)program and requirements added to the scope of this project in late 2022. Project Justification The proximity of this property to the Civic Center,and its central location within the City,lends itself to numerous uses,including a satellite and/or interim City Hall facility. Projected Cost information When the EOC scope was added,staff made the decision to delay the request for additional project funding for the EOC until the project was ready to award a contract to a general contractor for construction so that more definitive costs would be discussed.However,when cost estimates on the 65%set of drawings and specifications came in at $6.7M in 2024,the decision was made to pause the project until the City Hall project direction was decided,so that priorities and cost-cutting measures could be evaluated in a fuller context.An updated scope of work,with value- engineering options,and cost estimate would be required to continue work on the project. With the news of the inflated costs,numerous options were investigated,from scope reductions to a completely reduced program of'carpet-and-paint only,and other code required renovations such as accessible entries.The most reduced scope of work was estimated at$2M. While developing the program for the City Hall Annex building as City's Permit Center and EOC,staff identified additional cost impacts,including: • Increase of construction costs due to the addition of the EOC program and infrastructure.The early estimate was that the addition of the EOC would add approximately$500,000 in construction costs. • Increase of soft costs due to the addition of the EOC program.In October 2022,$101,700 was added to the Design professionals'contract for this reason.Cost estimate for soft costs is approximately$1.5M,leaving $1.5M for construction(which is less than required,see below). • An overall increase in the original construction estimate excluding the addition of an EOC.Staff has learned that the original construction cost estimate for the overall project was too low.2023 estimates for 2024 construction were estimated at$6.7M without moving/logistics cost,furniture,and other contingencies accounted for. Operation Budget Impact:Once construction is complete,Facilities and Grounds divisions will need to add this facility to their workload,including maintenance and janitorial. CIP FY25-26 • 5-YEAR PLAN PROJECT NARRATIVES 24 SC 04-17-2025 25 of 98 City Hall Improvements 0 G Programming, Feasibility, Design, Construction Total Funding $500,000 City Funding $500,000 External Funding $0 ■ Remaining Funds(Feb 2025) $378,036 5-year Funding Total $30M to$90M r' Funding Source,Approved Plan GF,CCMP - Project Category Facilities Project Type Design and Construction Location Civic Center A Budget Unit 420-99-250,ST 056 Initiated FY21-22 Project Description Program,plan and build facility improvements at the existing City Hall building site.The scope of work will include programming,planning,design,and construction.The Emergency Operations Center(EOC)moves to another facility, but this facility is planned as a"Risk Category IV" Essential Services facility as part of the structural system upgrades. Project Justification The existing building does not meet current or projected needs for workplace or meeting spaces;all infrastructure systems(structural HVAC,etc.)are well beyond their useful life and require full replacement. Prioritization Improvements to the existing building,whether in the form of a renovation project or a new City Hall facility,are the highest priority for the health and safety of staff and the community. Projected Schedule/5-year Plan information In the first fiscal year,the design can be initiated.Construction is projected for future fiscal years,depending on the scope and Environmental Review requirements. Funding Information Funding required for a renovated or new City Hall is greater than the CIP annual allocations.Alternative funding means are required. Operating Budget Impacts Renovations to the existing facility,or a new facility,are expected to improve operational efficiencies and ultimately reduce costs. CIP FY25-26 • 5-YEAR PLAN PROJECT NARRATIVES 25 SC 04-17-2025 26 of 98 y. Library Expansion - Landscaping Final scope of the Library Expansion project Total Funding $9,705,438 City Funding $8,705,438 External Funding $1,000,000 Remaining Funds(Feb 2025) $1,393,310 Funding Source,Approved Plan CR,GF Project Category Facilities Project Type Design and Construction Location Cupertino Library Origin of Request Public Works Budget Unit 420-99-077,CIV 007 Initiated:FY19-20 Project Description Update existing landscape areas adjacent to the Cupertino Library incorporating appropriate drought resistant plantings,pedestrian amenities including seating and shade structures, and other features to encourage community activation of the Civic Center.Grant funding awarded in 2024 can be applied to installation of a photovoltaic system, battery back-up,extension of an electrical service to Library Field,completing construction of exterior improvements such as the landscaping scope of work,parking and pedestrian improvements,improvements to the drainage and irrigation systems and water conservation efforts. Project Justification Some of the areas in and around the Cupertino Library lack appeal and appropriate facilities for residents who use the library and the Civic Center space.Providing more usable and efficient infrastructure,as well as better landscaping, will improve the positive experience of visiting the library and Civic Center. Prioritization The grant funding must be expensed by 2030. Projected Schedule/5-year Plan information Landscaping of the building perimeter and courtyard is designed,documented,and ready for a public bid process. Additional scope under consideration(building electrification,extending electrical junctions to Library field,etc.)will require supplementary engineering and documentation.Staffing needs are deferring this work. Funding Information The Library Expansion project completed the building scope of work,except the courtyard renovations and exterior landscaping,in 2022.The federal grant facilitated by Ro Khanna's office was awarded in 2024.The grant must be used for work that has not yet been completed. Operating Budget Impacts The expanded areas of landscaping may impact the operating budget slightly,but the improved irrigation will have a positive effect as well. CIP FY25-26 • 5-YEAR PLAN PROJECT NARRATIVES 26 SC 04-17-2025 27 of 98 City of Cupertino CI P: PARKS CIP FY25-26 • 5-YEAR PLAN PROJECT NARRATIVES 27 SC 04-17-2025 28 of 98 All Inclusive Playground - Jollyman And Adult-Assistive Bathroom facility Total Funding $4,891,347 City Funding $1,230,000+$850,000 External Funding $1,448,201+$1,000,000+ $25,000+$338,146 Remaining Funds(Feb 2025) $262,315 Funding Source,Approved Plan GF,Grant,PRSMP,DIL Project Category Parks,Facilities Project Type Design and Construction r Location Jollyman Park Origin of Request Public Works,Parks ,• Budget Unit 420-99-051,PVAR 007 Initiated FY18-19 - Project Description Design and construct an all-inclusive playground at Jollyman Park,and a new adult-assistive bathroom facility adjacent to the All-Inclusive Play Area. Project Justification Community input secured during the Parks and Recreation System Master Plan process favors having an All-Inclusive play area in Cupertino.The new"All-Inclusive Playground"(AIPG)project is intended to serve the broad needs of the [inclusive] community The added bathroom facility can serve all ages who require mobility assistance and will vastly improve the usability of the new play area. Projected Schedule/5-year Plan information Anticipated construction completion date is June 2025. Funding Information Santa Clara County All-inclusive Playground funding grant was secured in 2019 for$1,448,201.This requires $2,201,799 in matching funds and required fund-raising of$1M. CA Parks and Recreation department awarded a second grant in the amount of$1,000,000 as a Specified Grant program,which met the fund-raising requirement. PG&E also donated$25,000.Art In-Lieu fees were used to design,procure,and install the"kaleidoscope" art feature, with a budget of$338,146.The Adult-Assistive Bathroom Facility scope was funded by Council in FY22-23($850K) and added to this project funding. Operating Budget Impacts Anticipated to be a slight impact to the Operating Budget due to the specialized nature of the play equipment and the addition of a bathroom facility.By accepting the grant,the City agreed to construct and maintain the playground for 20 years. CIP FY25-26 • 5-YEAR PLAN PROJECT NARRATIVES 28 SC 04-17-2025 29 of 98 Lawrence-Mitty Park and Trail Plan Design and Construction Total Funding $6,850,909 r '. City Funding $6,850,909 External Funding $0 :' s�• Remaining Funds(Feb 2025) $4,422,565 �+ Funding Source,Approved Plan GF,DIL,PRSMP Project Category Parks ,,- Project Type Design and Construction Location Near Sterling Barnhart Park Origin of Request Public Works,Parks Budget Unit 280-99-009,PLM 001 Initiated FY18-19 Project Description Design and Construct(with programming,public outreach and environmental studies)a neighborhood park located on several acres of land adjacent to Saratoga Creek,near the intersection of Lawrence Expressway and Mitty Way. Project Justification The City is under-served for neighborhood parks to meet the level of service goal of the City's General Plan.The east side of the City is particularly under-served. Prioritization The design process is underway,after a conceptual design process with an enhanced public outreach component. Adding this park is important for the residents on this side of the city. Projected Schedule/5-year Plan information Land acquired in September 2020.Design process underway.Due to the extent of environmental permitting required, the project is expected to remain active until the Spring of 2027. Funding Information In FY18-19,Apple fees for their project development were applied to the purchase,annexation,and development of this park($8,270,994).The purchase and annexation costs were approximately$2,330,085.In FY23-24,additional operational funds were secured to reduce the existing berms on site.The berms reduction can occur once the design is more established. Operating Budget Impacts Adding a park to the inventory will have an impact on the operational budget.Public Works can evaluate more fully once the design is complete. CIP FY25-26 • 5-YEAR PLAN PROJECT NARRATIVES 29 SC 04-17-2025 30 of 98 Park Amenity Improvements G Multi-year initiative , Total Funding $600,000 City Funding $200,000 x 3years External Funding $0 Remaining Funds(Feb 2025) $427,010 Funding Source,Approved Plan GF,PRSMP Project Category Parks Project Type Design and Construction Location Various Origin of Request Parks and Recreation Budget Unit 420-99-086,PVAR 011 Initiated FY 20-21 Project Description Funding for various park amenities such as benches,hydration stations,outdoor table tennis,cornhole,shade (structures and/or trees),dog-off-leash,pickleball striping,etc. Project Justification Residents requested upgrades to the Park amenities,and this program provides the funding and staffing for the procurement and implementation. Prioritization This is a departmental low priority,however it has been a valuable resource to address community concerns in our parks. Projected Schedule/5-year Plan information The existing Park sites'Amenities were evaluated by staff and the Parks and Recreation Commission, and a prioritization schedule developed.Installations are underway. Funding Information [This initiative began in FY20-21 and was funded for three years. Operating Budget Impacts There are no anticipated additional impacts to the Operating Budget. CIP FY25-26 • 5-YEAR PLAN PROJECT NARRATIVES 30 SC 04-17-2025 31 of 98 McClellan Ranch - West Parking Lot Improvement 18 Mitigation Measure Monitoring & Reporting Total Funding $1,069,682 City Funding $1,069,682 External Funding $0 Remaining Funds(Feb 2025) $1,611 Funding Source,Approved Plan CR Project Category Parks ° Project Type Design and Construction Location McClellan Ranch Preserve Origin of Request Parks and Recreation Budget Unit 420-99-030,MRW 002 Initiated:FY16-17 `A Project Description The riparian mitigation site between the parking lot and Stevens Creek was planted in 2018 and replanted in 2023. Performance Monitoring and reporting is required for five years,starting in 2023. Project Justification The McClellan Ranch West site was used informally for staff and overflow parking without a suitable,stable surface, and which is not available for use during wet weather due to mud.The opening of the Environmental Education Center in 2015 increased the parking demand at McClellan Ranch Preserve.The removal of the Simms house on the site allowed for the installation of the additional needed parking with a suitable parking surface. Prioritization This mitigation measure performance monitoring and reporting is required to continue to meet the requirements of the Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement(LSAA;Notification No. 1600-2018-0207-R3)issued by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife(CDFW)on December 14,2018. Projected Schedule/5-year Plan information The mitigation measure performance monitoring and reporting will continue until 2027. Funding Information This project received City funding in FY16-17,FY17-18 and FY18-19.The monies that remain fund the mitigation measure performance monitoring and reporting required by the LSAA permit. Operating Budget Impacts Establishment of the native planting requires monitoring and irrigation that will decrease once the plantings mature. After 2027,the operational impact will decrease. CIP FY25-26 • 5-YEAR PLAN PROJECT NARRATIVES 31 SC 04-17-2025 32 of 98 City of Cupertino CIP: STREETS AND INFRASTRUCTURE CIP FY25-26 • 5-YEAR PLAN PROJECT NARRATIVES 32 SC 04-17-2025 33 of 98 Stevens Creek Bridge Repair ' Improve structural foundations Total Funding $860,000 City Funding $98,642 External Funding $761,358 Remaining Funds(Feb 2025) $860,000 Funding Source,Approved Plan GF/Grants,GP Project Category Streets and Infrastructure - Project Type Design and Construction Location Stevens Creek Blvd over Stevens Creek Origin of Request Public Works Budget Unit 420-99-267,ST 063 Initiated FY23-24 Project Description [Repairs to the bridge supports to include countermeasures to scouring(undermining)of the support bases. Project Justification The design of the existing bridge utilizes mat foundations for the bridge supports that have started to become undermined.This project will perform modifications to create a firm structural footing for the supports.The condition of the support foundations has been noted in recent biennial bridge inspection reports and the repairs are recommended by Caltrans.The repair work is funded by the FHWA Highway Bridge Program for 88.53%of the design and construction costs. Prioritization Improving the safety of our City bridges is a leading priority.Grant funding has been secured which enables the project team to proceed with preliminary engineering.The engineering firm is in contract with the City.This will provide insight into final scope and costs. Projected Schedule/5-year Plan information Engineering consultants have initialized the preliminary design phase of the project.Once the scope of work required is more defined,a projected schedule will be developed. Funding Information FHWA funding was awarded for this project.Funding for the design phase is currently programmed in the FTIP for the 2023/24 FFY and construction funding is programmed for'beyond 2025/26.'Staff will continue to work with Caltrans to identify opportunities to make construction funds available sooner to minimize time from end of design to the start of construction. Operating Budget Impacts [Construction of the project will not increase operating budget expenses. CIP FY25-26 • 5-YEAR PLAN PROJECT NARRATIVES 33 SC 04-17-2025 34 of 98 McClellan Road Bridge Replacement Projected Costs $8,000,000 City Funding $0 _4': . External Funding $5,850,000 y: Remaining Funds(Feb 2025) $5 850 000 Funding Source,Approved Plan GF,GP Project Category Streets and Infrastructure _ Project Type Design and Construction Location McClellan Road 300'east of Club House Lane Priority Medium Origin of Request Public Works Initiated FY24-25 Project Description Removal and replacement of the bridge on McClellan Road near the entrance to McClellan Ranch Preserve. Project Justification The existing bridge was constructed in 1920 and is beyond its design life.It does not meet current requirements for pedestrian access and lacks the width to facilitate bicycle lanes.A reconstructed bridge will enhance pedestrian facilities. Prioritization $5.85M in grant funding has been secured.Approximately$2.2M in funding is still required.Priority for Safety criteria,following recommendations from inspection reports issued by Caltrans.CIP is starting preliminary design in FY 24-25 to support efforts to obtain additional grant funding. Projected Schedule Design and Construction will be a multi-year endeavor,requiring environmental permits and Caltrans approvals for both design and construction procurement. Funding Information Design and construction will require approximately$8M in funding.Staff proposes to utilize the existing grant funding to initiate preliminary engineering design which will provide further opportunities to apply for grants to complete the project funding. Operating Budget Impacts Construction of the project will not increase operating budget expenses. CIP FY25-26 • 5-YEAR PLAN PROJECT NARRATIVES 34 SC 04-17-2025 35 of 98 Ill City Lighting LED Improvements Updates to meet Dark Sky requirements Total Funding $1,350,000 City Funding $1,350,000 External Funding $0 Remaining Funds(Feb 2025) $501,074 Funding Source,Approved Plan GF,GP Project Category Streets and Infrastructure Project Type Feasibility Location Various Origin of Request Public Works -— Budget Unit 420-99-258,ST 052 Initiated FY21-22 Project Description Develop a strategy to transition the City's streetlight infrastructure,and other City operated lights,from induction to LED fixtures to meet the"Dark Sky'requirements and reduce light pollution.Assess the costs,benefits,and opportunities of the proposed improvements. Project Justification In March 2021 the City ratified the"Dark Sky"night lighting requirements for private development.As City street lighting and other facility lighting may create unintended light pollution,and in some cases is nearing the end of its useful life,this study will evaluate lighting needs and compliance with dark sky requirements for the City's nearly 3000 streetlights,various path lighting and exterior facility lighting. Prioritization This project brings the City streetlights into compliance with the Dary Sky codes and reduces energy costs.It is a highly prioritized project for these reasons and because it is nearing completion. Projected Schedule Procurement is underway.The construction schedule is listed to be completed by December 2025. Operating Budget Impacts [There are no anticipated additional impacts to the Operating Budget bV this work. CIP FY25-26 • 5-YEAR PLAN PROJECT NARRATIVES 35 SC 04-17-2025 36 of 98 City Bridge Maintenance Repairs Repairs from Caltrans report Total Funding $2,176,105 a� r, ' ; '� City Funding $282,910 External Funding $1,893,195 Remaining Funds(Feb 2025) $174,347 Funding Source,Approved Plan TF,GP ~' Project Category Streets and Infrastructure Project Type Design and Construction Location Homestead/McClellan @ Stevens Ck.,Stevens Creek/Vallco/Miller/ Tantau @ Calabazas Ck. Origin of Request Public Works Budget Unit 270-90-960,ST 002 `L Initiated FY15-16 Project Description Design and construct 6 bridges'repairs as recommended in the Caltrans Bridge Report along with additional improvements to prolong the useful life of the bridges. Project Justification The City of Cupertino owns and maintains a total of eight vehicular bridges.Caltrans inspects these bridges and prepares a biennial report detailing the recommended repairs.Six of the eight bridges require rehabilitation;SCB over Stevens Creek has issues not covered by maintenance.The rehabilitation includes the required repairs as recommended in the Caltrans Bridge Report as well as additional work to prolong the life and use of the bridges. Approximately 88%of the project costs are eligible for Federal reimbursement through FHWA's Bridge Preventive Maintenance Program(BPMP),which is administered by Caltrans. Projected Schedule/5-year Plan information Construction is anticipated to be complete in April 2025. Funding Information The Federal Highway Administration(FHWA)grant funding begun as$571,151 and was increased since FY15-16 to be a total of$1,893,195.This grant will be a reimbursement and requires$245,284 in matching funds. Operating Budget Impacts There are no anticipated impacts to the Operating Budget. CIP FY25-26 • 5-YEAR PLAN PROJECT NARRATIVES 36 SC 04-17-2025 37 of 98 Streetlight Installation - Annual Infill Annually funded r Proposed FY25-26 Funding $0 Total Funding $430,000 City Funding FY25-26 $0 External Funding $0 Remaining Funds(Feb 2025) $139,741 Funding Source,Approved Plan GF,GP Project Category Streets and Infrastructure Project Type Design and Construction Location Various Origin of Request Public Works Budget Unit 420-99-056,ST 024 Initiated FY17-18 Project Description Design and install streetlights on an as needed basis,to infill lights and poles when requested by residents. Project Justification There are areas of the city where streetlight spacing is insufficient to meet current standards for illumination.Several locations are identified annually for infill with one or two lights.This annual appropriation allows these deficiencies to be readily addressed. Prioritization Providing these services and fixtures for resident safety and welfare is important. Projected Schedule/5-year Plan information Ongoing program. Funding Information This initiative began in FY17-18 and has been funded annually for a total of$430,000 as of February 2025.Most years had allocations of$75,000 per year.This amount was reduced in recent years to be$35,000.No request for additional funds in FY25-26.This may move to become Streets division"Special Project"in FY26-27. Operating Budget Impacts This program uses staff time for the installation of these lights.Additional annual energy costs will be extremely minor. CIP FY25-26 • 5-YEAR PLAN PROJECT NARRATIVES 37 SC 04-17-2025 38 of 98 Vai Avenue Outfall BEFORE Total Funding $490,000 City Funding $490,000 External Funding $0 Remaining Funds(Feb 2025) $438,756 Funding Source,Approved Plan CR/SD,GP/SDMP ,; F� Project Category Streets and Infrastructure Project Type Design and Construction Location Vai Ave outfall near Regnart Creek Origin of Request Public Works Initiated FY24-25 Project Description Investigate,design,and replace existing failing 36" corrugated metal pipe(CMP)storm drain line with new reinforced concrete pipe(RCP)or high-density polyethylene(HDPE)pipe. Project Justification In December 2023,the City was made aware of damage to this storm drain outfall.The City operates and maintains the storm drain facilities throughout Cupertino.The storm drain pipe in question has corroded,undermined the creek bank,and needs to be replaced before further erosion and property damage occurs. Prioritization Replacement of the pipe is necessary to ensure proper operation to protect public and private property and safety. Projected Schedule/5-year Plan Information The outfall was patched with a new section of CMP as a quick fix in October 2024.The repair should last one or two rainy seasons,then we can pursue full replacement of the CMP that has eroded.Site access is difficult and will require environmental permitting. Funding Information The initial repair used approximately$25,000.The proposed budget will enable design,construction,and environmental permitting of the CMP replacement.Storm Drain funds(210)will be used if available. Operating Budget Impacts No ongoing operational impacts are expected. CIP FY25-26 • 5-YEAR PLAN PROJECT NARRATIVES 38 SC 04-17-2025 39 of 98 Storm Drain Outfalls Repairs 0 (0 Priority projects from 2024 Outfalls report r i. Proposed FY25-26 Funding $950,000 ; 3 City Funding $950,000 External Funding $0 5-year Funding Total $TBD Funding Source,Approved Plan GF Project Category Streets and Infrastructure Project Type Design and Construction Location Near 10516 Whitney Way Origin of Request Public Works Proposed:FY25-26 — Project Description The 2024 Storm Drain Outfall Condition Assessment report assessed 205 pipe segments across 175 sites.Of the 117 outfalls three were in level 5 defective condition,and three were in level 4 defective condition.The FY25-26 funding requested will address the three outfalls that have the most severe damage and present as imminent failures.In following years,additional funding will be requested to address deficiencies noted in the report. The three locations for FY25-26 are:#SWPP398 is an 48-inch diameter corrugated metal pipeline(CMP)near the vicinity of Whitney Way and Pacific Drive, #SWPP1546 is an 15-inch diameter corrugated metal pipeline(CMP)near the vicinity of Richwood Court and Miller Avenue, and#SWPP3360 is an 30-inch diameter corrugated metal pipeline (CMP)near the vicinity of Finch Avenue and Stevens Creek Boulevard.All three show sign of corrosion and need to be rehabilitated. Project Justification The Storm Drain Outfall Condition Assessment Project completed in 2024 identified multiple structural defects of existing storm drain pipelines that need to be rehabilitated.These defects pose a significant risk to the integrity of the storm drain system.Addressing the issues through timely rehabilitation is crucial to maintain the functionality of the system. Prioritization This project will mitigate the defects to prevent further deterioration of the pipeline.The project is of high importance to address the risk of pipeline failure. Projected Schedule/5-year Plan information It is estimated that the construction of these three outfall repairs can be completed within a year. Funding Information Funding source for this project will be from either General Fund or Stormwater Fund.No grant funds are available. Operating Budget Impacts [There are no operating budget impacts to completing this project. CIP FY25-26 • 5-YEAR PLAN PROJECT NARRATIVES 39 SC 04-17-2025 40 of 98 City of Cupertino CIP: TRANSPORTATION CIP FY25-26 • 5-YEAR PLAN PROJECT NARRATIVES 40 SC 04-17-2025 41 of 98 Stevens Creek Blvd Class IV Bikeway - Phase 2A Separated Bikeway & Signal Upgrades Total City Funding $2,350,000 City Funding $2,350,000 External Funding $807,000(OBAG) ' External Funding $693,000(SB1) Remaining Funds(Feb 2025) $277,829 '{ _ Funding Source,Approved Plan GF/GF,BTP Project Category Transportation Project Type Design and Construction Location SCB:Wolfe to De Anza Origin of Request Public Works �++� Budget Unit 420-99-036,ST 053 and ST 059 Initiated FY20-21 Project Description Phase 2A includes design and construction of the separated bikeway along Stevens Creek Blvd(SCB)from Wolfe Road to De Anza Blvd.Improvements include traffic signal modifications at Wolfe Road and De Anza Blvd to provide separate bicycle phasing. Project Justification The 2016 Bicycle Transportation Plan identifies improvements needed and priorities to enhance and promote safer bicycle transportation in the City.The number one priority of the Plan was to provide a separated Class IV bicycle lane on Stevens Creek Blvd.This project is the second phase to address that priority. Prioritization Improving vehicular,pedestrian and bicyclist safety is a primary concern.The Bike Transportation plan named this the first priority,and the Pedestrian Transportation assigned this Tier 1 priority. Projected Schedule/5-year Plan information Design and Documentation,and community outreach for Phase 2A(Wolfe Road to De Anza Blvd.)is complete.The construction contract for Phase 2A was awarded in February 2025. Construction will be complete before the end of the calendar year.See Phase 2B project narrative for more information on the subsequent work on this project. Funding Information External grant funding has been secured for this project(OBAG and SB1 funding)and this will be used to reduce the City's costs on Phase 2A.The remainder of the funds allocated by the City for Phase 2 will be used on Phase 2B. Operating Budget Impacts It is anticipated that separated bike lanes will require additional maintenance to sweep bike lanes clean of debris.This cost will be in addition to normal street sweeping operations and will be included in the Operating budget. CIP FY25-26 • 5-YEAR PLAN PROJECT NARRATIVES 41 SC 04-17-2025 42 of 98 Stevens Creek Blvd Class IV Bikeway - Phase 2B Separated Bikeway & Signal Upgrades Total City Funding* $TBD City Funding* $0 External Funding $0 Remaining Funds(Feb 2025) N.A. _ Funding Source,Approved Plan GF/GF,BTP ' ' ip'_ Project Category Transportation Project Type Design and Construction Location SCB:De Anza to Highway 85 Origin of Request Public Works Budget Unit 420-99-036,ST 053 and ST 059 .. Initiated FY20-21 Project Description Phase 2B includes design and construction of the separated bikeway along Stevens Creek Blvd(SCB)from De Anza Blvd.to Highway 85.Upgrades to the traffic signal at Bandley Dr. and Stevens Creek Blvd.will include new conduit, wiring,traffic signal boxes,two new signal heads,and a split phase signal operation for vehicles entering onto Stevens Creek Blvd.*Note:SCB Phase 2A and 2B were jointly funded in design. SCB Bikeway Phase 2B and Bandley Drive Signal Upgrade projects are combined in design and construction to increase efficiency,however funding is noted separately because the Bandley intersection project is funded with DIL fees. Project Justification The 2016 Bicycle Transportation Plan identifies improvements needed and priorities to enhance and promote safer bicycle transportation in the City.The number one priority of the Plan was to provide a separated Class IV bicycle lane on Stevens Creek Blvd.This project is the second phase to address that priority. Prioritization Improving vehicular,pedestrian and bicyclist safety is a primary concern.The Bike Transportation plan named this the first priority,and the Pedestrian Transportation assigned this Tier 1 priority. Projected Schedule/5-year Plan information Design and Documentation of Phase 2B and the Bandley project is 95%complete.The project will be permitted,bid, and constructed once Phase 2A is complete. Funding Information *External grant funding has been secured for Phase 2A of this project and this will be used to reduce the City's costs on Phase 2A.The remainder of the funds allocated by the City for Phase 2 will then be used on Phase 2B.External funding may be available for Phase 2B. Operating Budget Impacts It is anticipated that separated bike lanes will require additional maintenance to sweep bike lanes clean of debris.This cost will be in addition to normal street sweeping operations and will be included in the Operating budget. CIP FY25-26 • 5-YEAR PLAN PROJECT NARRATIVES 42 SC 04-17-2025 43 of 98 Bandley Drive Signal Upgrades Traffic & Signal Upgrades Total Funding $150,090 City Funding $124,432 External Funding $25,658(DIL) Remaining Funds(Feb 2025) $142,210 Funding Source,Approved Plan GF&DIL/GF,BTP Project Category Transportation Project Type Design and Construction #= Location SCB&Bandley Intersection Origin of Request Public Works Budget Unit 420-99-070,ST044 Initiated FY18-19 ' 4 Project Description Upgrades to the traffic signal at Bandley Dr. and Stevens Creek Blvd.will include new conduit,wiring,traffic signal boxes,two new signal heads,and a split phase signal operation for vehicles entering onto Stevens Creek Blvd.Note: SCB Bikeway Phase 2B and Bandley Drive Signal Upgrade projects are combined in design and construction to increase efficiency.Funding is noted separately because the Bandley intersection project is funded with DIL fees. Project Justification The Bandley Drive Signal Upgrades will significantly enhance pedestrian safety and pedestrian connectivity across Stevens Creek Blvd within the Crossroads district by reducing pedestrian-vehicle conflicts.Vehicle safety will also be increased for vehicles exiting the Crossroads driveway and Bandley Drive. Prioritization Improving vehicular,pedestrian and bicyclist safety is a primary concern.This project will significantly enhance pedestrian and vehicular safety. Projected Schedule/5-year Plan information Design and Documentation of Phase 2B and the Bandley project is 95%complete.The project will be permitted,bid, and constructed once Phase 2A is complete. Funding Information External grant funding has been secured for Phase 2A.Additional external funding may be available for Phase 2B.The remainder of the City funds allocated for Phase 2 will be applied to Phase 2B once Phase 2A is complete.The scope of work for the Bandley intersection will be included in the Phase 2B scope of work for efficiency. Operating Budget Impacts The signal upgrades will not increase operational costs. CIP FY25-26 • 5-YEAR PLAN PROJECT NARRATIVES 43 SC 04-17-2025 44 of 98 Bollinger Road Corridor Study 0 G (* Traffic Analysis, Feasibility and Preliminary Design SPEED Total Funding $532,000 LIMIT City Funding $106,400 251, External Funding $425,600 5-year Funding Total $4,000,000 YOUR SPEED Remaining Funds(Feb 2025) $532,000 a Funding Source,Approved Plan GF,BTP&BCSS Project Category Transportation Project Type Design and Construction Location Bollinger Road,De Anza Blvd to Lawrence Exp. Origin of Request Public Works,BPC -F Budget Unit 270-99-270,ST 067 Initiated FY24-25 Project Description In December 2020,City staff initiated a safety and operational study of the Bollinger Road from De Anza Boulevard to Lawrence Expressway to identify improvements that will enhance pedestrian,bicycle,motor-vehicle,and transit operations as a safety corridor.This is a collaboration between the City of Cupertino and City of San Jose. Project Justification Further design and analysis work is required.This includes a topographic and utilities survey of Bollinger Road, preliminary engineering,and traffic analysis.The traffic analysis will determine the potential for the road diet (Alternative A from 2020 Feasibility Study)to increase congestion or divert traffic onto residential streets,and any corresponding mitigation measures to limit that impact(Alternative B from 2020 Feasibility Study). Prioritization External grant funding obtained;20%matching funds required.Improves safety and sustainable means of transportation and builds upon master plan priorities.Initial Traffic Study and preliminary designs can be initiated in this FY by PW. Projected Schedule/5-year Plan information Year 1 work includes preliminary design,feasibility,public outreach,traffic analysis,and topographic surveying.Year 2 will see continuation of Year One activities and initial preliminary engineering.Year 3 will encompass final preliminary engineering and preparation of final plans,specifications,and estimates. Funding Information Funding for analyses,public outreach,and preliminary plans,and estimates.Construction of improvements will require additional funding. Operating Budget Impacts T.B.D. CIP FY25-26 • 5-YEAR PLAN PROJECT NARRATIVES 44 SC 04-17-2025 45 of 98 Roadway Safety Improvements High Friction Pavement & Speed Feedback Signage Total Funding $3,561,800 SPEED City Funding $356,180 LIMIT External Funding $3,205,620 35 Remaining Funds(Feb 2025) $3,500,800 Funding Source,Approved Plan CR/grant,GP YOUR SPEEi7 Project Category Transportation Project Type Design and Construction Location Various Origin of Request Public Works Budget Unit 270-99-271,ST 068 Initiated FY24-25 Project Description High Friction pavement treatment and speed feedback signage added to seventeen locations within the City.Roadway segments include sections of:De Anza Blvd,Homestead Rd,Bollinger Rd,Wolfe Rd,McClellan Rd,Bubb Rd,Mariani Ave,Tantau Ave,Mary Ave,Blaney Ave,Rainbow Dr,Miller Ave,Stelling Rd,Valley Green Dr,and Calvert Dr. Project Justification Improves safety on roadway segments by reducing unsafe speed violations and rear end collision by implementing dynamic/variable speed warning signs at the curves along the corridor and improving pavement friction.This scope of work supports the Local Roadway Safety Plan(LRSP),which identifies transportation safety improvement needs for all ages,abilities,and modes of transportation for the purpose of reducing fatal and severe injury collisions.In July 2023,City Council accepted state funding from the Highway Safety Improvement Program(HSIP)grant for safety improvements on 17 roadway segments in the City of Cupertino. Prioritization $3.2M in grant funding has been secured, 10%matching funding required by the City.Priority for Safety criteria. Projected Schedule/5-year Plan Information The project is currently in design.The construction is scheduled to be completed in winter 2025/2026. Funding Information Funding will be applied to design and construction. Operating Budget Impacts Construction of the project will not significantly increase operating budget expenses. CIP FY25-26 • 5-YEAR PLAN PROJECT NARRATIVES 45 SC 04-17-2025 46 of 98 Tamien Innu, East Segment East Segment of the Trail Total Funding $2,536,000 City Funding $0 Dev Funding $600,000 K External Funding $1,936,000(VTA Meas B+TDA3) Remaining Funds(Feb 2025) $1,829,816 }_- Funding Source,Approved Plan AP/Grant,BTP,PTP == Project Category Transportation Project Type Design and Construction Location Wolfe Road to Calabazas Creek Origin of Request Public Works Budget Unit 420-99-036, ST 046 Initiated FY20-21 Project Description Design of an off-street bicycle and pedestrian facility parallel to the existing Junipero Serra Channel from De Anza Blvd.Wolfe Road(Central),and from Wolfe Rd.to Vallco Parkway(East). Project Justification Highly prioritized in the 2016 Bicycle Transportation Plan,the Tamien Innu is one of the trail segments that would make up"The Loop" to provide an off-street bicycle and pedestrian facility that runs parallel to the existing Junipero Serra Channel and Calabazas Creek and would provide a connection between the Don Burnett Bicycle—Pedestrian Bridge and Vallco Parkway when all the sections are completed. Prioritization Facilitating alternative means of transportation is a valuable resource for the City and its businesses. Projected Schedule/5-year Plan information Schematic design for both the Central and East segments have been submitted for environmental review.Construction and permitting documentation for the East segment are underway.The Central segment design and construction will progress once the first segment enters construction,and the environmental report is reviewed. Funding Information Developer funding was contracted in FY18-19,and Council added the project to the CIP in FY20-21.VTA Measure B and TDA3 funding has been awarded. Operating Budget Impacts Lisanticipated that trail will require additional maintenance.However,it is anticipated that these impacts will be inimal. CIP FY25-26 • 5-YEAR PLAN PROJECT NARRATIVES 46 SC 04-17-2025 47 of 98 (19 Tamien Innu, Central Segment *411 Central Segment of the Trail Total Funding $4,785,000 City Funding $0 Dev Funding $600,000 External Funding $460,000(VTA Meas B) External Funding $3,725,000(VTA Meas B) Remaining Funds(Feb 2025) $4,582,979 Funding Source,Approved Plan AP/Grant,BTP,PTP Project Category Transportation Project Type Design and Construction Location De Anza Blvd.to Wolfe Road Origin of Request Public Works Budget Unit 420-99-036,ST 050 Initiated FY20-21 Project Description Design of an off-street bicycle and pedestrian facility parallel to the existing Junipero Serra Channel from De Anza Blvd.Wolfe Road(Central),and from Wolfe Rd.to Vallco Parkway(East). Project Justification Highly prioritized in the 2016 Bicycle Transportation Plan,the Tamien Innu Trail is one of the trail segments that would make up"The Loop'to provide an off-street bicycle and pedestrian facility that runs parallel to the existing Junipero Serra Channel and Calabazas Creek and would provide a connection between the Don Burnett Bicycle— Pedestrian Bridge and Vallco Parkway when all the sections are completed. Prioritization Facilitating alternative means of transportation is a valuable resource for the City and its businesses. Projected Schedule/5-year Plan information Schematic design for both the Central and East segments have been submitted for environmental review.Construction and permitting documentation for the East segment are underway.The Central segment design and construction will progress once the first segment enters construction,and the environmental report is reviewed. Funding Information Developer funding was contracted in FY18-19,and Council added the project to the CIP in FY20-21.VTA Measure B and TDA3 funding has been awarded. Operating Budget Impacts It is anticipated that trail will require additional maintenance.However,it is anticipated that these impacts will be minimal. CIP FY25-26 • 5-YEAR PLAN PROJECT NARRATIVES 47 SC 04-17-2025 48 of 98 Tamien Innu, West Segment West Segment of the Trail Total Funding $600,000 City Funding $0 Al Dev Funding $600,000 Remaining Funds(Feb 2025) $600,000 r� Funding Source,Approved Plan AP/Grant,BTP,PTP Project Category Transportation - Project Type Design and Construction Location Don Burnett bridge to De Anza Origin of Request Public Works Budget Unit 420-99-036,ST 051 Initiated FY20-21 Project Description Design of an off-street bicycle and pedestrian facility parallel to the existing Junipero Serra Channel from De Anza Blvd.Wolfe Road(Central),and from Wolfe Rd.to Vallco Parkway(East). Project Justification Highly prioritized in the 2016 Bicycle Transportation Plan,the Tamien Innu Trail is one of the trail segments that would make up"The Loop"to provide an off-street bicycle and pedestrian facility that runs parallel to the existing Junipero Serra Channel and Calabazas Creek and would provide a connection between the Don Burnett Bicycle— Pedestrian Bridge and Vallco Parkway when all the sections are completed. Prioritization Facilitating alternative means of transportation is a valuable resource for the City and its businesses. Projected Schedule/5-year Plan information Schematic design for both the Central and East segments have been submitted for environmental review.Construction and permitting documentation for the East segment are underway.The Central segment design and construction will progress once the first segment enters construction,and the environmental report is reviewed.The design and construction of the west segment will follow the central segment. Funding Information Developer funding was contracted in FY18-19,and Council added the project to the CIP in FY20-21. Operating Budget Impacts It is anticipated that trail will require additional maintenance.However,it is anticipated that these impacts will be minimal. CIP FY25-26 • 5-YEAR PLAN PROJECT NARRATIVES 48 SC 04-17-2025 49 of 98 School Walk Audit Implementation CO g ' '' 0 Tier 3 Improvements Total Funding $1,245,852 City Funding $23,989 External Funding $1,221,863 Remaining Funds(Feb 2025) $939,405 + 4�. Funding Source,Approved Plan AP/GF,GP&PTP ' 1 Project Category Transportation Project Type Design and Construction Location Citywide,in the vicinity of 14 public schools Origin of Request Public Works Budget Unit 420-99-069,ST 034 Initiated FY18-19 Project Description This project will construct infrastructure-related improvements around schools that were identified as part of the comprehensive School Walk Audit study.Traffic improvements will improve walkability and safety around 14 Cupertino schools:Lincoln ES,Monta Vista HS,Lawson MS,Sedgwick ES,Hyde MS,Garden Gate ES,Homestead HS, Collins ES,Faria ES,Stevens Creek ES,Regnart ES,Cupertino HS,Kennedy MS,Eaton ES. Project Justification A walk audit is an assessment of travel behaviors for drivers,bicyclists,pedestrians(both parents and students), developed by observing a school pick up or drop-off period on and around school grounds.Walk audits provide insight into the specific barriers to walking and biking at each school.The assessment team included Alta Planning+ Design staff;City of Cupertino staff,nearby residents,and concerned parents.After the audit period completed, audit participants returned to discuss and document their findings on a large-scale school area map.Based on observations and input provided by school staff,audit participants,and others,the project team developed walk audit reports. Prioritization The walk audit items identify barriers to walking and biking to school and recommend ways to improve safety and traffic conditions around local schools.Health and safety are the first priority. Projected Schedule/5-year Plan information Tier 1 and 2 items are almost complete,and three Tier 3 items are being initiated:Hyannisport Drive at Fort Baker Drive intersection reconstruction,Phil Lane Drop-Off sidewalk widening,and Tantau Ave/Barnhart Ave sidewalk widening.It's estimated that design and construction of the project will have a 3-year duration. Funding Information In 2019,Apple,Inc.granted funds for the cost of implementing all the walk audit improvements in the City's ROW. Operating Budget Impacts There are no anticipated impacts to the Operating Budget. CIP FY25-26 • 5-YEAR PLAN PROJECT NARRATIVES 49 SC 04-17-2025 50 of 98 City of Cupertino CIP: SUSTAINABILITY CIP FY25-26 • 5-YEAR PLAN PROJECT NARRATIVES 50 SC 04-17-2025 51 of 98 EVCS expansion - Service Center 0 G Total Funding $560,000 City Funding $560,000 0 External Funding $0 - a Remaining Funds(Feb 2025) $560,000 Funding Source,Approved Plan GF,GP Project Category Sustainability,Facilities Project Type Construction Location 10555 Mary Avenue Origin of Request Public Works Initiated FY24-25 Project Description The construction of electric vehicle charging station(EVCS)infrastructure at the Service Center is needed for the electrification of the City's fleet in order to meet the Advanced Clean Fleet(ACF)regulation by California Air Resources Board(CARB).The scope of work follows the Silicon Valley Clean Energy(SVCE)report which identified the charging infrastructure needs to meet ACF regulation. Project Justification The SVCE systematic assessment of City fleet vehicles had the primary goals of identifying vehicle electrification opportunities,establishing an electrification timeline based on vehicle replacements and the City's climate action goals and regulatory compliance,and determining the costs and emissions benefits of fleet electrification. Prioritization State regulations require the conversion of City fleet vehicles to electric vehicles,and the EVCS infrastructure is needed to address operations in response to those requirements. Projected Schedule/5-year Plan information The design will be completed by the SVCE Consultant,Optony,Inc in Spring 2024.The City will need to coordinate with PG&E to obtain new electrical service which could take some time.It is currently anticipated that the project can begin construction in the latter half of 2025. Funding Information Funding for construction of the infrastructure required for operation of the EVCS.Procurement and installation of units,ongoing operation of the facilities,as well as potential upgrades to electrical service,may require additional funding. Operating Budget Impacts As EV infrastructure charging units are implemented,staff or contractor resources will be necessary for installation and maintenance of the units.It is difficult to determine the overall operation budget at this time.The maintenance of a Level 2 charger is estimated at$500 per station annually,and$3000 per station annually for Level 3 EVCS. CIP FY25-26 • 5-YEAR PLAN PROJECT NARRATIVES 51 SC 04-17-2025 52 of 98 Photovoltaic Systems Design & Installation Total Funding $6,300,000 City Funding $6,300,000 External Funding $0 Remaining Funds(Feb 2025) $6,296,600 Funding Source,Approved Plan CR,CAP Project Category Sustainability,Facilities _ Project Type Design and Construction Location Community Hall,Sports r Center,Quinlan s� Community Center Origin of Request Public Works Initiated FY24-25 Project Description In 2023 PG&E announced a rate decrease for electricity generated by photovoltaic(PV)systems(NEM 3)but provided a window to allow grandfathering the more economically-attractive NEM 2.0 rates if interconnection applications were successfully submitted and corresponding systems operational by 2026.NEM 2.0 Interconnection Applications were successfully submitted to PG&E for five Cupertino facilities:Blackberry Farm,Civic Center,Library,Quinlan Community Center&Senior Center,and Sports Center.This project aims to design and build PV systems at three locations.Council reviewed and approved the conceptual designs for Community Hall,Quinlan Community Center and Sports Center in December 2024 before awarding the Design Build contract in February 2025. Project Justification The City must connect the proposed photovoltaic systems to the grid by 4/15/2026 in order to take advantage of the NEM 2.0 applications,which provides 75—80%greater compensation than NEM 3 rates for electricity that is fed back into the electrical system.The savings in utility costs are projected to be$290K annually,and$13.4M over a 30yr lifespan. Prioritization Installation of the PV systems is projected to provide substantial savings on utility costs,going forward.The use of cleaner energy sources is a CAP goal. Projected Schedule/5-year Plan Information Conceptual Design development and cost analysis completed in 2024.Design-Build:March 2025 to April 2026 Funding Information The proposed budget will enable design and construction of the systems.Inflation Reduction Act credits projected for this project are approximately$1.4M.Staff will also pursue other grant funding opportunities. Operating Budget Impacts Installation of the PV systems is projected to save$290K annually in utility costs.While additional maintenance will be required for the PV systems,additional staffing will not be required for ongoing operations and maintenance. CIP FY25-26 • 5-YEAR PLAN PROJECT NARRATIVES 52 SC 04-17-2025 53 of 98 Silicon Valley Hopper EV Parking 14601, Electric Vehicle Charging Stations for the EV Fleet Total Funding $350,000Ti City Funding $350,000 External Funding $0 /* ` _s Remaining Funds(Feb 2025) $322,107 _ Funding Source,Approved Plan GF,GP Project Category Sustainability,Facilities Project Type Design and Construction Location Cupertino Sports Center Origin of Request Public Worksfrransportation Initiated FY22-23 Project Description Provide electric vehicle charging stations(EVCS)for Silicon Valley Hopper EV fleet[formerly Via shuttle].The Silicon Valley Hopper fleet requires dedicated EVCS. Project Justification Initiated as a pilot program by the Council in 2019 as Via-Cupertino,the nucrotransit rideshare program rebranded in 2023 as Silicon Valley(SV)Hopper when it partnered with the City of Santa Clara.Funding for SV Hopper comes from the Ca1STA Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program(TIRCP), utility fees from the City of Santa Clara,and the Cupertino General Fund.Beginning in July 2025,VTA Transportation for Clean Air(TFCA)funding will also support a portion of SV Hopper service for FY25-26. Prioritization Project budget includes design and construction.The budget is not adequate for additional electrical service upgrades, if required.External grant funding search is underway.Presently the EV fleet is parked and charged at De Anna College.Santa Clara is exploring the option of providing overnight charging at existing EVCS in a public park.They have been working with their utility provider for over a year,but the outcome is still uncertain. Projected Schedule/5-year Plan information TBD.Mav 2024: Engineering analvsis report completed Funding Information In March 2023,the City Council approved a$350,000 allocation to install EV charging stations at the Cupertino Sports Center to support the electrified service.This funding was subsequently transferred to the CUP budget for FY 2024-25 to cover the design and construction of the charging infrastructure.Additionally,Cupertino was part of a successful Dept.of Transportation Charging Facility Infrastructure coalition grant application lead by SVCE and San Jose that would have provided around$500,000 for 7 dual-port level 2 chargers and 1 dual-port level 3 DC Fast Charger behind the Sports.Center for public and Hopper use.That award is uncertain now under the current.administration. Operating Budget Impacts Future costs include ongoing maintenance of the EVCS,as well as a leasing/operating agreement for the EVCS. Additional staffing will not be required. CIP FY25-26 •5-YEAR PLAN PROJECT NARRATIVES 53 SC 04-17-2025 54 of 98 City of Cupertino CIP: COMPLETED PROJECTS CIP FY25-26 • 5-YEAR PLAN PROJECT NARRATIVES 54 SC 04-17-2025 55 of 98 Blackberry Farm Pool Improvements '�- Replaster the pools, and miscellaneous upgrades Total Funding $750,000 City Funding $750,000 External Funding $0 Remaining Funds(Feb 2025) $31,204 .� Funding Source,Approved Plan GF,PRSMP&ADA ' Project Category Facilities,Parks - .-- Project Type Design and Construction Location BBF Pools Facility Origin of Request Parks and Recreation Budget Unit 420-99-073,PVAR 012 Initiated FY21-22 Project Description Make improvements to the pools and facility related to safety,accessibility,and maintenance.The scope includes replastering the recreation and the slide pools,redirection of the existing deck drains to existing bioswale,and removing accessibility barriers within the pool house dressing rooms as identified in the 2015 ADA Transition Plan, the 2021 Site Accessibility Report and 2020 building permit application comments. Project Justification For multiple years,the two pools at Blackberry Farm have displayed all the signs that are indicative of the need to re- plaster a pool including mineral stains,peeling of the surface,and a rough surface area.The rough surface has been the cause of several injuries,including a worker's compensation claim.The replastering of pools at Blackberry Farm was last performed in 2009.This maintenance scope,as well as the sanitary and accessibility corrections required by the 2020 permit application process for this scope,are required to continue operations of the aquatic facilities beyond the 2021 aquatic season. Projected Schedule/5-year Plan information Completed in Summer 2024. Operating Budget Impacts [There are no anticipated additional impacts to the Operating Budget. CIP FY25-26 • 5-YEAR PLAN PROJECT NARRATIVES 55 SC 04-17-2025 56 of 98 DeAnza Blvd Buffered Bike Lanes Restripe De Anza Blvd for Bike lanes Total Funding $530,533 City Funding $364,274 _ External Funding $166,259 Remaining Funds(Feb 2025) $176,259 Funding Source,Approved Plan GF,BTP PP Project Category Transportation ' Project Type Design and Construction Location De Anza Blvd,entire segment within City IL limits(Bollinger Road to Homestead Road). Budget Unit 420-99-078,CIV 009 1 1 RIO `- Initiated FY22-23 Project Description Restripe De Anza Blvd to include a painted buffered zone between the existing bike lane and the vehicle lanes. Project Justification Project is identified as the highest of the Tier 2 priority projects in the 2016 Bicycle Transportation Plan.Project will install a painted buffer area between the existing bike lane and the adjacent vehicle lane.This will require restriping De Anza Blvd to narrow the vehicle lanes to provide room for the painted buffer.Design will be done in-house, funding is for construction only. Projected Schedule/5-year Plan information Construction was completed in early 2025. Funding Information TDA3 grant was secured in FY24-25 for$166,259.The project budget was not increased,but the grant funding will be used to reduce the City's expenses. Operating Budget Impacts FThere are no anticipated impacts to the Operating Budget. CIP FY25-26 • 5-YEAR PLAN PROJECT NARRATIVES 56 SC 04-17-2025 57 of 98 McClellan Road Separated Bike Corridor '� Q De Anza and Pacifica/McClellan intersection Total Funding $2,299,410 City Funding $164,410 External Funding $2,135,000 I Remaining Funds(Feb 2025) $99,273 kill, 1 Funding Source,Approved Plan AP/GF/Grant,BTP Project Category Transportation Project Type Design and Construction Location De Anza Blvd,McClellan Road, Pacifica Avenue Intersections Budget Unit 420-99-036,ST 047 Initiated FY20-21 Project Description Improves pedestrian and bicycle safety by realigning the intersection and reconfiguring the vehicle movements. Improvements include relocating two signal mast arms and poles,related electrical,concrete and striping work,and elimination of the free right turn lanes from eastbound McClellan Road and westbound Pacifica Drive. Project Justification Improve traffic flow,efficiency,and bicycle safety at this complex intersection. Projected Schedule/5-year Plan information The project was completed in the Summer of 2024. Funding Information Apple funding($160,000)and a VERBS grant($1,000,000)were awarded in FY19-20.SB1 funding was applied in FY23- 24 for$975,000. Operating Budget Impacts There are no anticipated impacts to the Operating Budget. CIP FY25-26 • 5-YEAR PLAN PROJECT NARRATIVES 57 SC 04-17-2025 58 of 98 is CITY OF CUPERTINO CUPERTINO Agenda Item 25-13897 Agenda Date: 4/17/2025 Agenda M 4. Subject: Policy Options for Electrification of Cupertino's Existing Commercial Buildings Receive presentation and recommend that City Council direct staff to pursue adoption of a Flex Path reach code for commercial buildings and develop an ordinance establishing an Energy Benchmarking requirement for buildings 10,000 square feet and larger, with the intent to phase in a Building Performance Standard to support the City's Climate Action Plan's existing commercial buildings emission reduction goal. CITY OF CUPERTINO Page 1 of 1 Printed on 4/10/2025 powered by LegistarT°" 58 SC 04-17-2025 59 of 98 CITY OF PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3354 • FAX: (408) 777-3333 CUPERTINO CUPERTINO.ORG SUSTAINABILITY COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Meeting: April 17,2025 Subject Policy Options for Electrification of Cupertino's Existing Commercial Buildings. Recommended Action Receive presentation and recommend that City Council direct staff to pursue adoption of a Flex Path reach code for commercial buildings and develop an ordinance establishing Energy Benchmarking requirements for buildings 10,000 square feet and larger, with the intent to develop and phase in a Building Performance Standard to support the City's Climate Action Plan's existing commercial buildings emissions reduction goal. Background Cupertino's City Council established a FY 24-25 City Work Program item to "Conduct public outreach, policy research, and coordinate with regional efforts to develop policy options for electrification of Cupertino's buildings in light of recent legal rulings inhibiting certain electrification efforts." This report focuses specifically on existing commercial buildings,which account for approximately 9% of Cupertino's total communitywide greenhouse gas emissions. Electrifying this sector is critical to advancing the City's climate targets, particularly Measure BE-3 of the Climate Action Plan 2.0,which calls for reducing annual commercial natural gas usage from 119 therms per person in 2018 to 90 therms by 2030 and 54 therms by 2040. Policy pathways for new buildings were addressed in a previous staff report and an energy efficiency reach code was approved by City Council in September 2024. Policy options for existing residential buildings will be addressed separately due to legal uncertainties from pending legislation and differing building characteristics. This report evaluates near-term policy options for reducing emissions from existing commercial and large multifamily buildings. 59 SC 04-17-2025 60 of 98 Sustainability and Environmental Programs staff,with support from Raimi+Associates, conducted stakeholder engagement and evaluated feasible policy approaches aligned with legal,technical, and community considerations. Reasons for Recommendation and Available Options Staff evaluated decarbonization policy options for existing commercial buildings based on legal feasibility, greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction potential, administrative burden, cost to property owners, and alignment with regional best practices. The attached memo provides detailed analysis of the two primary options: a Building Performance Standard (BPS) and a Flex Path reach code. Based on this analysis and stakeholder feedback, staff recommends pursuing a dual approach: • Adopt a Flex Path reach code as an amendment to the building or energy code. This policy would apply to renovation projects and allow property owners to choose from a menu of electrification measures to meet a target score.While this approach reaches fewer buildings each year,it can drive significant upgrades at the time of permit and is relatively simple to administer through existing processes. • Develop an ordinance establishing annual energy benchmarking for commercial and large multifamily buildings 10,000 square feet and larger. Benchmarking provides building owners and the City with essential data to understand energy use and emissions performance and lays the groundwork for building performance standard requirements. • Phase in a Building Performance Standard (BPS)in the near future. A BPS sets performance thresholds for energy or emissions intensity and provides flexible compliance options. Staff recommends a phased rollout that begins with benchmarking,followed by education and performance targets in later years. This approach can capture a broader share of the building stock and yield greater cumulative GHG reductions. This combined strategy represents the most effective path to reduce emissions from the commercial building sector and moving towards meeting our City's greenhouse gas and supports Cupertino's leadership role in sustainability. As a city committed to innovation and climate action, Cupertino must continue moving forward with bold, data-driven solutions that align with Climate Action Plan goals and regional trends. Additional options are available for the commission to consider, outlined below. Question 1: Should the City pursue a Flex Path Building Energy Code? Option 1:Yes, pursue a Flex Path reach code for existing commercial buildings. 60 SC 04-17-2025 61 of 98 • Benefit:This provides a cost-effective,flexible compliance pathway for property owners undergoing renovations. It supports incremental electrification aligned with state energy code updates and offers an additional decarbonization tool alongside the Building Performance Standard. • Drawback: Flex Path reach codes apply only to permitted renovations, which represent a small portion of commercial buildings each year.As a result, GHG reductions would be limited without broader adoption or complementary programs. Option 2: No,do not pursue a Flex Path reach code at this time. • Benefit:Avoids the cost and staff time required for code development, public engagement, and permitting integration. Removes an additional requirement for construction and property developers. • Drawback: Misses an opportunity to engage properties already planning upgrades and could limit decarbonization options in the near term. Question 2: Should the City pursue an Energy Benchmarking Ordinance? Option 1:Yes, move forward with developing an energy benchmarking ordinance for the City. • Benefit: Satisfies CAP 2.0 action BE 1.3 and lays the foundation for a future Building Performance Standard. Benchmarking provides data critical to understanding energy use and identifying opportunities for emissions reductions across the commercial sector. • Drawback: May pose a burden on property owners unfamiliar with energy reporting and would require upfront investment of staff time and resources for program setup and administration. Option 2:Wait for a regional effort to launch benchmarking requirements. • Benefit:Aligning with a regional program could reduce administrative burden on City staff and provide a more consistent experience for property owners with buildings in multiple jurisdictions. • Drawback: Delays local action, slowing progress toward Cupertino's climate goals.A regional program may use a building size threshold that excludes a significant share of Cupertino's building stock. Option 3: No,do not pursue development of a benchmarking ordinance. • Benefit: Saves City resources and avoids placing additional requirements on the commercial sector. • Drawback:Without benchmarking data,the City would lack a mechanism to track and reduce building-related emissions, undermining the CAP 2.0 targets and long-term decarbonization efforts. Question 3:What size buildings should be required to report?(Note:This question is only applicable if the City chooses to pursue a benchmarking ordinance.) Option 1: Require all commercial buildings 10,000 square feet or larger to participate. • Benefit:Aligns with CAP 2.0 goals and maximizes GHG reduction potential by covering more buildings across the City. • Drawback: Higher administrative workload for City staff and potential pushback from smaller property owners less familiar with benchmarking tools. 61 SC 04-17-2025 62 of 98 Option 2: Implement a phased approach starting with buildings 20,000 sq ft and larger. • Benefit:Allows City staff to build experience and streamline processes before expanding the program. Reduces the upfront workload and gives smaller property owners more time to prepare. • Drawback: Delays GHG reductions from smaller buildings,which collectively represent a substantial share of emissions. Option 3: Limit reporting to buildings 50,000 sq ft and larger,consistent with state requirements(AB 802). • Benefit: Many of these building owners are already reporting, minimizing new administrative burdens.Targets buildings with the largest energy footprints. • Drawback: Only a small portion of Cupertino's building stock meets this threshold, limiting the ordinance's overall emissions reduction impact. Question 4: Should the City pursue a Building Performance Standard (BPS)as part of the benchmarking ordinance?(Note:This question is only applicable if the City chooses to pursue a benchmarking ordinance.) Option 1:Yes, include planned future BPS in the benchmarking ordinance now. • Benefit:Signals the City's commitment to meaningful GHG reductions and accelerates implementation of a CAP-aligned policy. Performance standards can drive long-term efficiency and electrification while offering compliance flexibility. • Drawback: Increases the initial complexity and cost of the program. Requires additional technical support, staff capacity, and stakeholder engagement to set appropriate thresholds. Option 2:Wait to develop a BPS and consider adding it in a future phase. • Benefit: Gives the City time to build capacity and analyze benchmarking data before establishing performance thresholds.Allows property owners to acclimate to energy reporting requirements first. • Drawback: Delays the full emissions reduction potential of a benchmarking program and may reduce policy momentum. Option 3: Do not pursue a Building Performance Standard. • Benefit: Keeps the program focused solely on data collection and avoids the complexities of compliance enforcement. • Drawback:Without performance targets,the City loses a powerful tool to drive emissions reductions and may fall short of its CAP goals. Sustainability Impact Commercial and large multifamily buildings currently account for approximately 9% of Cupertino's total communitywide greenhouse gas emissions. Implementing a combined approach—adopting a Flex Path reach code and establishing energy benchmarking as a foundation for a phased Building Performance Standard—positions the City to make the most significant impact in this sector. 62 SC 04-17-2025 63 of 98 This strategy supports Measure BE-3 of the Climate Action Plan 2.0,which calls for reducing commercial natural gas use from 119 therms per person in 2018 to 90 by 2030 and 54 by 2040. Together, these policies can drive both near-term efficiency improvements and long-term emissions reductions while maintaining Cupertino's leadership in regional sustainability efforts. Fiscal Impact There is no immediate fiscal impact associated with this recommendation. The Flex Path reach code can be implemented using existing staff and permitting processes. The primary cost would be limited to code development, stakeholder engagement, and ordinance adoption,which may be supported through existing staff capacity or external partners. Implementation of a benchmarking ordinance and phased Building Performance Standard would require additional resources, particularly during program design and rollout. Future staffing or consultant needs,including opportunities for regional coordination,would be assessed before bringing a proposal to Council if so directed.. City Work Program(CWP) Item/Description Yes,FY 24-25 Electrification Study Conduct public outreach,policy research, and coordinate with regional efforts to develop policy options for electrification of Cupertino's buildings in light of recent legal rulings inhibiting certain electrification efforts Council Goal: Sustainability and Fiscal Strategy California Environmental Quality Act No California Environmental Quality Act impact. Prepared by: Victoria Morin, Sustainability Specialist Reviewed bv:Ursula Syrova, Environmental Programs and Sustainability Manager Approved for Submission by: Chad Mosley,Director of Public Works Attachments: A-Cupertino Commercial Building Decarbonization Strategy Options Memo 63 Attachment A SC 04-17-2025 . IS raiffti* Ik associates Memo December 14,2024 To: Victoria Morin, Ursula Syrova, and Sean Hatch, City of Cupertino From: Walker Wells and Sami Taylor, Raimi +Associates Subject: Cupertino Commercial Building Decarbonization Strategy Options Background This memo provides an analysis of policy strategies that could be used to promote the decarbonization of existing commercial buildings in the City of Cupertino. Cupertino has adopted the ambitious climate goals of a 50% reduction in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 2030 and carbon neutrality by 2040.To achieve these targets, each sector will need to substantially reduce emissions, eventually to zero.According to the greenhouse gas inventory used in preparing the City's Climate Action Plan (CAP)2.0, building related energy use is the source of 25%of communitywide GHG emissions,with commercial buildings accounting for 9%(see Figure 1). Figure 1: City of Cupertino 2021 Communitywide Emissions (437,190 MTCO2e) Solid Waste Wastewater Off-Road 2% r 3% Commercial Sources 2% IF emissions=40,590 �� MTCO e or 9% Energy z 20% Transportation 73% To achieve carbon neutrality,fossil fuel systems in buildings, including gas-powered water heaters, furnaces,clothes dryers,and stoves, must be replaced with zero-emission alternatives.While some transition will occur through the natural cycle of equipment upgrades and replacement, regulatory and programmatic interventions can accelerate the decarbonization of buildings in the city. 64 SC 04-17-2025 65 of 98 1 raimi+ ON associates Alignment with City Plan and Policies Cupertino's 2022 CAP 2.0' outlines several building-related strategies to reduce GHG emissions: • BE 1.3 Establish an energy benchmarking program in Cupertino that requires large commercial entities (over 10,000 square feet)to report their energy usage and energy procurement details. • BE 3.2 Develop a commercial building electrification strategy(CBES), building on the existing Baseline Buildings Study from SVCE (2020). • BE 3.3 Conduct engagement for the commercial sector to understand potential concerns and barriers to commercial electrification. • BE 3.5 Adopt an electrification ordinance for existing commercial buildings,which bans expansion of natural gas infrastructure, requires electrification of natural gas appliances at time of major renovation and time of replacement. • BE 3.7 Conduct engagement efforts for the commercial sector to identify ways the City can support commercial battery storage installations and improve local grid resiliency.' The above strategies direct the City to adopt policies and establish programs that will decarbonize residential and commercial buildings by switching to electric appliances and building systems. Strategy BE 3.7 related to battery storage is considered as part of this effort because installing on-site renewables and storage is a potential compliance pathway for the proposed policies. Electric building systems and appliances can capture the greatest environmental benefits by operating on the clean power supplied to the City by Silicon Valley Clean Energy(SVCE).3 BE 3.5 which bans natural gas is no longer feasible because of the "Berkeley Ruling." As such, local jurisdictions are pivoting from electric mandates and gas bans to other policies such as creating public health standards like the BAAQMD rules related to combustion appliances, discussed below, or establishing performance standards for carbon.These approaches can result in building owners choosing to electrify their properties,while meeting EPCA's preemption exceptions.' Alignment with Regional and State Policy and Incentives Cupertino's CAP 2.0 strategies align with State and regional efforts to decarbonize buildings (Figure 2). These trends include the following: 'The City of Cupertino's Climate Action Plan 2.0 is available on the city website here:https://www.cupertino.org/our- city/de, lability/c 2 More specific information about each measure can be found in the City's CAP 2.0.Available here: /www.cupertino.org/our-city/departments/environment-sustainabiLity/climate-action. 3 SVCE supplies 100%carbon neutral energy to customers.More information about electric sources and carbon intensity can be found in the 2022 Power Content Label available here: Commercial ADA.pdf. 4 The Berkeley Ruling refers to the Ninth Circuit decision in California Restaurant Association v.City of Berkeley which holds that Berkeley's gas ban violates the U.S.Energy Policy&Conservation Act(EPCA).The Ninth Circuit broadly interpreted EPCA preemption clause to prohibit state and local standards that interfere with"the end user's ability to use installed covered products at their intended final destinations"(Turner,Amy. 2023. "Ninth Circuit Holds Berkeley's Gas Ban Preempted by U.S. Energy Policy&Conservation Act."Columbia Law School Sabin Center for Climate Change Law. https://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2023/04/18/ninth-circuit-holds-berkeleys-gas-ban-preempted-by-u-s- energy-p! olicy-conservation-acts. 65 SC 04-17-2025 66 of 98 wol raimi+ ON associates • Bay Area Air Quality Management District(BAAQMD) Rules 9-4 and 9-6: Starting in 2027, only zero NOx(non-combustion)water heaters may be sold and installed, and in 2029, only zero NOx HVAC systems may be sold and installed within the district, using a phased approach.' • Building Code Update Cycle: California Building Standards Code (Title 24) and the associated Energy Code (Title 24, Part 6)and Cal.Green Standard (Part 11) are updated every three years. The next update,which goes into effect on January 1, 2026, includes electric heat pumps as the standard for operational efficiency.' • Regional Coordination on Reach Codes:Silicon Valley Clean Energy(SVCE) is coordinating with multiple cities to develop, revise, or replace electrification reach codes for new construction and existing buildings in order to comply with the federal Energy Policy Conservation Act(EPCA)and meet California Energy Commission (CEC) cost-effectiveness criteria.These actions are largely in response to the "Berkeley Ruling"which ruled that all- electric requirements were in conflict EPCA. • Incentives: Utilities, BayREN, and SVCE are encouraging voluntary electrification through financial incentives and rebates. • Assembly Bill 802:AB 802 is California's Building Energy Benchmarking Requirement adopted in 2015. It requires all buildings 50,000 square feet and larger to report building energy and water use to the State.' Figure 2: Regional and State Context for Building Electrification 2027 2029 2030 2045 BAAQMD Low NOx bill Low NOx CARE Zero-Emission California Achieves water heater space heater Appliance Standards Carbon Neutrality requirements requirements Gas water heaters and Statewide gas piping Tank-type gas water heaters Gas furnaces no longer sold space heaters no longer projected no longer sold in Bay Area in Bay Area sold,statewide decommissioning date s BAAQMD.2023.Rules 9-4 and 9-6 Building Appliances. tnq-//www.baagmd.gov/rules-and-compliance/rule- .Accessed September 25,2024. 6 The 2025 CALGreen building code efficiency standards are available here: ittps://www.eneray.ca.ciov/programs-and- topics/programs/building-energy-efficiency-standards/2025-building-energy-efficiency. 7 More information about the regulation is available here:https://www.energy.ca.gov/programs-and- toaics/programs/building-energy-benchmarking-program. 66 SC 04-17-2025 67 of 98 wol raimi+ ON associates Community Engagement The process of evaluating building electrification options is informed by input from the community, specifically commercial property and business owners.The City held a stakeholder roundtable in September 2024 to educate property owners about existing building decarbonization options and solicit feedback on prospective policies and programs. Retail, office, and large multi-family properties were represented, all had a majority positive response to the proposed options. Some of the most common comments are listed below: • Many property owners are already benchmarking their larger buildings and are familiar with EnergyStar Portfolio Manager. • Concerns about meeting performance requirements due to bottlenecks for efficiency upgrades such as fixed annual O&M budgets and organizational structure. • Concerns related to data privacy and anonymity. • Desire to align Cupertino's program with existing AB 802 reporting timeline. The City also hosted a small business resource fair in December 2024 to connect small businesses and property owners with resources and incentives for energy efficiency and electrification upgrades.The main takeaways from this event included: • 64%of attendees were supportive or very supportive of a new annual energy reporting requirement that helps reduce greenhouse gas emissions.The remaining attendees were neutral. • 57%of attendees are already tracking building energy use. • 29%of attendees have already made energy efficiency improvements to their buildings. The City made additional but unsuccessful attempts to reach out to targeted stakeholders including strip mall and shopping center owners and tenants as well as other smaller commercial property owners throughout the city.As a result, additional community outreach should be conducted as part of future building decarbonization policy or program development effort. Commercial Building Decarbonization Policy Pathways The City has considered several different policy approaches to encourage and/or require electrification in existing commercial buildings.The two policy options that are the most feasible are described and evaluated below.These are: • Building Performance Standard (BPS) • Flex Path reach code A growing cohort of cities nationally have adopted policies using both these approaches. Several local jurisdictions are also currently considering them through support from SVCE and neighboring Community Choice Aggregation (CCA) programs.These policies are designed to prepare buildings for future electrification upgrades or require electrification of building components at certain "trigger" moments, such as application for a building permit(major renovation). Evaluation Criteria Each of the policy options is evaluated using the following criteria: • Number of buildings covered/impacted • GHG reduction potential 67 SC 04-17-2025 68 of 98 wol raimi+ ON associates • Relative cost to property owners • Equity • Municipal administrative needs for implementation The BPS program approach and the Flex Path reach code capture different types, sizes, and numbers of buildings, resulting in different energy use reductions and GHG emission benefits.The number of buildings is a contributing factor to the impact that any existing building decarbonization policywill have. Cost is considered in two ways in this analysis.The upfront cost to individuals and/or property owners is estimated to convey the financial implications of the policy strategies.'The second component is the administrative impact to the City related to implementing the different strategies.The administrative impact of the programs is evaluated in terms of the ability to utilize existing City staff, programs, or processes;the need for additional staff; and the need for additional interdepartmental coordination. An essential aspect of an effective decarbonization policy or program is to ensure that the policy does not place disproportionate financial or other negative impacts on vulnerable populations and communities. Building electrification almost always has a cost to the property owner.A concern is that these costs could create a significant financial burden on low-or fixed-income property owners. Another concern is that the cost of electrification upgrades could result in unsustainable increases in rent for tenants. Policies should be structured to recognize vulnerable populations and provide protection from regressive economic impacts through the inclusion of green leases, pass-through cost prohibitions, etc. Access to electrification benefits can be increased by structuring programs and incentives in a way that recognizes the full costs of decarbonization retrofits,which may include upgrades to electrical panels and new wiring in addition to the cost of appliances or equipment. Many property owners have limited capital available for upgrades. Furthermore,the City can practice targeted outreach that connects resources with vulnerable populations, low-or fixed income individuals, and tenants. Building Performance Standard Program Description Building Performance Standards(BPS) are policies that require commercial and multifamily buildings over a specified size to meet certain established performance levels for energy use intensity(EUI)or greenhouse gas emissions intensity(kgCO2e) per square foot. Components include: 1.Annual Benchmarking of energy and water consumption with EnergyStar Portfolio Manager,2. Reporting results to the City/State, and 3. Buildings need to meet an established performance standard over time. BPS can be designed to allow for compliance through multiple pathways such as energy efficiency, behavior change, or electrification. Performance thresholds could be reduced in future compliance 8 Studies related to existing building electrification cost effectiveness can be accessed here: https://Iocalenergycodes.com/content/resources/?q=etticiency%20and%20eiectritication%20for%20additions%20and%20al terations. 68 SC 04-17-2025 69 of 98 1 raimi+ ON associates phases (years)to levels that would require either fuel switching, carbon capture and removal, or the purchase of certified carbon offsets to achieve building decarbonization. The greater the number of buildings included in the program,the greater the GHG emissions reductions. A building performance standard may produce only modest GHG reductions per building in each compliance period but apply to a larger number of buildings and thus result in a greater overall emissions reduction potential.Table 1 shows the number of buildings in Cupertino that could be impacted by a BPS. Table 1: Total Buildings in Cupertino Impacted by BPS reportingBuildingSize Total Number of Commerciat/ Comments MuLtifamity Buildings Above 50,000 sq ft 127 Currently reporting to state Above 20,000 sq ft 314 Above 15,000 sq ft 504 Above 10,000 sq ft 923 Threshold that is indicated in CAP 2.0 Total commercial buildings 3,280 Total excludes schools, parking lots, playgrounds, multifamily with <5 units,and public facilities There are three types of BPS: Benchmarking Plus, Energy Use Intensity, and Emissions Intensity. Beyond Benchmarking programs build on benchmarking programs and require improvements overtime if buildings do not meet the performance threshold. Many cities have included multiple compliance pathways including administrative (e.g. energy audit or systems retrocommissioning), prescriptive (e.g. a list of improvement measures), or performance (e.g. already meets performance requirements).' Cities that have adopted this type of BPS include San Jose, CA and Brisbane,CA among others.An Energy Use Intensity(EUI) BPS requires that covered buildings benchmark, report, and meet increasingly stringent energy use per square foot over each compliance period (kBtu/sf/year).An Emissions Intensity BPS requires that covered buildings benchmark, report, and meet increasingly stringent energy use per square foot(kgCO2e/sf/year) over each compliance period. For each type of BPS,the City can set the standard based on the average energy use or emissions of a building or occupancy type or relative to each individual building's performance. For example, Denver, CO, and New York City, NY, established targets based on data for each Portfolio Manager building type and Cambridge, MA established thresholds relative to individual building baselines (see Figure 3).10 9 The City of Brisbane,CA provides an example of Beyond Benchmarking requirements:https://www.brisbaneca.org/bbep. 10 The City of Denver,CO provides an example of EUI requirements:,_, .,.,..:ww.denvergov.org/Government/Agencies- Depa rtments-Offices/Agencies-Departments-Offices-Di rectory/Climate-Action-Susta i nability-and-Resiliency/Cutting= Denvers-Ca rbon-Pollution/High-Performance-Buildings-a nd-Homes/Energize-Denver-Hub/Buildings-25000-sq-ft-or- Larger/Performance-Requirements. 69 SC 04-17-2025 70 of 98 :i,raimi+ 00 associates Figure 3: Examples of Performance Thresholds Relative to Prototype Buildings and Individual Buildings EPA Portfolio Manager Building Type 2030EUI Target(kBtu/sf/yr.) 100% Non-residential large Adult Education 37.2 Properties�100,000 sq ft Ambulatory Surgical Center 60.7 Aquarium 30%EUI Reduction 80% Non-residential Automobile Dealership 42.8 Properties<100,000 sq ft Bank Branch 63.6 60% Bar/Nightclub 86.6 Barracks 46.3 Bowling Alley 50.5 40% — College/University 60.6 Convention Center 30%EUI Reduction Courthouse 51.2 20% - ——— Distribution Center 25.4 Enclosed Mall 45.6 �A a% Fast Food Restaurant 311.3 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 Financial Office 48.3 Fire Station 45.6 Individual:Cambridge, MA (Emissions Fitness Center/Health Club/Gym 50.5 Intensity) Food Sales 144.3 Food Service 76.9 Hospital(General Medical&Surgical) 165.2 Hotel 61.1 Prototype:Denver, CO(EUI) The BPS program would generally follow a timeline similar to the outline in Figure 4: Figure 4: BPS Timeline Program Development: Year 3-5 Conduct Baseline community Reporting:Bench mark and Compliance engagement, Period 1:Require report data to Compliance design program, performance p adoption City to establish improvements Period2:Require energy or over 3-year performance process. emissions improvements baseline. period;continued annual reporting over 3-year period;continued annualreporting 70 SC 04-17-2025 71 of 98 :i,raimi+ 00 associates Administrative Cost The administrative cost to the City for program implementation is likely the same for each type of BPS. The highest costs are incurred as part of program design, roll-out, and the first phase of implementation. Costs and the level of continuing staff time needed may vary slightly based on the number of buildings covered by the program. For reference,the City of Brisbane (population of 10,000 residents)spent nearly$300,000 on program start-up costs, utilizing grant funding and hiring a consultant for assistance." Depending on how the program is designed,the City could participate in a supporting role and shift most implementation costs to the property owners who would be responsible for setting up Portfolio Manager12(free energy management software provided by EPA),tracking and reporting their energy use, and potentially upgrading their buildings. Benchmarking and reporting would likely cost the property owner less than$1,000 per building per year based on research and quotes from consultants who provide these services. The role of city employees would be to design and administer the program.That role entails establishing performance requirements,tracking, reporting, and performance compliance, and likely some quality control of submitted data.These jobs would likely take 0.5-1 FTE annually, depending on the number of covered buildings,with workload corresponding to the reporting and compliance timing. Considerations when developing the BPS ordinance after benchmarking has been established: When developing a BPS,there are many elements to consider, like timing,the reporting process, support available, and enforcement.These questions and options listed belowwould be addressed in further reports if the City decides to pursue this approach. How should the City time phasing requirements be for the different building sizes? There are several options that other jurisdictions have adopted, and further research is needed before determining the feasibility for Cupertino's buildings. How should the thresholds be measured? Option 1: Energy Intensity Units (energy use per square foot) • Benefit:This is the method used by the state reporting, creating consistency. • Drawback: It does not consider the whole picture. Option 2: Greenhouse gas emissions per square foot • Benefit:This considers the source of energy such as renewable energy or nonrenewable energy sources. It also considers time-of use. • Drawbacks: It is harder to calculate and is more difficult for the average property owner to understand the details. According to a February 2020 City of Brisbane staff report approving the consultant contract for Beyond Benchmarking,the City budgeted$299,000 to adopt the ordinance,begin implementation,and develop user resources and conduct community education.The staff report is available here: jeetingspubliu ilob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/brisbaneca-mee 0198c62788436e99d306e82009a283/ITEM-Attachment-001-c0a492f2b26c4381 bd157ec5d24b6695.pdf.Accessed December 2,2024. 12 EnergyStar Portfolio Manager:https://www.energystar.gov/buildings. 71 SC 04-17-2025 72 of 98 1 raimi+ v,wON associates How should building performance and progress be measured? Option 1: City-established performance threshold (targets set by building type and use). • Benefit: Standardized goals for each building type. • Drawback:Technical expertise and data are required to establish prototypical building baselines.This expertise would likely exceed city staff capacity. Option 2: Individual building performance threshold (each building improves on its own score) • Benefit: Reduced technical expertise burden on city staff; provides option for mixed-use buildings because performance is relative to itself. • Drawback: Less standardized approach, potential for increased administrative effort by city staff each compliance period. There are additional questions that would need to be explored further, such as: • How should the City support property owners in complying(incentives,technical assistance)? • How would multi-unit properties collaborate with the building owner on reporting? • Should compliance flexibility be offered for BPS(e.g., offsets, Renewable Energy Credits)? These questions would be answered if staff is directed to pursue this ordinance. Flex Path Reach Code Reach codes can be applied to alterations and additions to existing buildings, in addition to new construction. Flex Path reach codes allow property owners and contractors to select from a weighted menu of measures to achieve compliance.This affords them the opportunity to pick measures that best suit their plans and values.The approach consists of a target score and a menu of individual measures with points weighted by site energy savings.Applicants may select a set of measures that meet or exceed the target. Figure 5 provides an example of options. The Flex Path generates GHG reductions and meets Federal and State requirements because it is based on energy consumption and does not restrict use of Federally approved appliances. It is also demonstrated to be a cost-effective compliance pathway by the CEC.13 Although this reach code is relatively simple to administer as an amendment to the CALGreen building code (Title 24 Part 11)or energy code (Title 24 Part 6), based on review of Cupertino permit data, its efficacy would be limited because very few commercial buildings undertake renovations each year. Permit data shows that fewer than 100 buildings pull permits for renovations annually. In 2023 there were 56 permits totaling 173,415 square feet of renovated space. 55%of those permits were less than 1,000 sq feet. and through November 2024 there were 68, all of which were tenant improvements.This limited reach would result in a small GHG reduction potential.A Flex Path reach code that requires upgrades to existing buildings at the time of remodel, may result in significant energy reductions for an individual building, but may only apply to a small number of buildings or appliances each year, resulting in a low overall GHG reduction. 13 For more information about the FlexPath code and to review cost-effectiveness studies visit: nups:nwcaienergycoaes.corni. 72 SC 04-17-2025 73 of 98 wol raimi+ ON associates Although no local jurisdictions have adopted a Flex Path reach code for existing commercial buildings, many cities have adopted Flex Path reach codes for existing residential buildings including Santa Moncia, CA and Santa Cruz, CA,with additional jurisdictions exploring adoption. Administrative Cost Reach codes have a simple administration process that is implemented through the City's existing plan check and permitting processes.Adopting a reach code would not require any additional staffing by the city.The largest cost to the city would be the reach code development process,which includes community engagement,ordinance adoption, and filing with the California Building Standards Commission. Summary and Recommendation Table 2: Comparison of Existing Commercial Building Decarbonization Pathways Building Performance Standard Flex Path Reach . . Number of buildings 127-923 <100 covered/impacted annually GHG reduction potential High Low Cost to property owner Medium-High Low-High Equity considerations Costs could create a significant financial burden on low-or fixed-income property owners or result in increases in rent for tenants. Policies should be structured to provide protection for vulnerable populations through the inclusion of green leases, pass-through cost prohibitions,etc. Municipal administrative High Low impact Code amendment Municipal Code Building Code(Title 24 part 11)and/or Energy Code(Title 24 Part 6) Who has done it? Brisbane,CA;San Jose,CA; Denver, None for commercial CO;Cambridge, MA; New York, NY Residential:Santa Cruz,CA;Santa Monica,CA For the City to meet its long-term climate goal and become carbon neutral by 2040, aggressive policy interventions are needed to capture the city's whole existing commercial building stock. The City could choose to pursue only a BPS,focusing on larger properties that have higher levels of energy use and thus greater potential for savings, or establish both a BPS and a local energy reach code like Flex Path to capture smaller properties when permits are pulled for renovations. Establishing a building performance standard is the most effective policy option to address emissions from existing commercial buildings in Cupertino at the magnitude and pace outlined in the Climate Action Plan. Depending on the program threshold,the BPS would apply to 314-923 commercial and Large multi-family buildings annually, representing 10%-28%of commercial buildings in the city.A Flex Path approach does not capture enough buildings annually to achieve the CAP 2.0 emissions reductions needed from the building sector. In 2023 only 56 commercial renovation permits were applied for,totaling 173,415 square feet or 2%of commercial buildings. 73 SC 04-17-2025 74 of 98 WO raimi+ VSO associates Additionally, a BPS program potentially has greater longevity than the Flex Path reach code for existing commercial buildings because it is likely that over the next two CALGreen building and energy code cycles (through 2028), many of the menu options will be incorporated into the building code and become required for major remodels. BPS also offers flexibility in compliance. Similar to New York City's BPS Local Law 9714 and Denver's BPS, performance compliance could be achieved initially through efficiency upgrades,fuel-switching, or the ability to buy verified carbon credits, renewable energy certificates (RECs), or offsets.The program can be designed to accommodate various building typologies and sizes. For example, prescriptive options could be developed for smaller buildings and allowances or incentives could be included for affordable housing. Furthermore,the program itself could utilize a phased approach that allows property owners time to prepare. For example,year one could focus on education,year two could focus on reporting accurate data to Portfolio Manager, and year three could include the rollout of the BPS. However, because the BPS would only cover buildings over a certain size,to achieve full coverage of the existing building stock and achieve its GHG goals,the City will need to consider additional education and outreach as well as incentives programs, including direct-install programs.This effort could be coordinated with SVCE, PG&E, and BayREN. Post-Berkeley ruling,without the ability to directly mandate building electrification,the City needs to be more creative in encouraging buildings to decarbonize.The BPS allows for both efficiency and fuel-switching improvements while providing flexibility to property owners and acknowledging existing high performing buildings. 14 More information about Local Law 97 can be found here: h ups:nwww.nyc.eovi a sse Lsi ou i is i ngsi uu i i presentations/2023bs1s/1197.pdf. 74 SC 04-17-2025 75 of 98 12 CITY OF CUPERTINO CUPERTINO Agenda Item 25-13894 Agenda Date: 4/17/2025 Agenda M 5. Subject: Policy Options for Electrification of Cupertino's Existing Residential Buildings Receive update CITY OF CUPERTINO Page 1 of 1 Printed on 4/9/2025 powered by LegistarTM 75 SC 04-17-2025 76 of 98 12 CITY OF CUPERTINO CUPERTINO Agenda Item 25-13899 Agenda Date: 4/17/2025 Agenda M 6. Subject: Electric Vehicle Charger Study Providing a Prioritized List of Locations Receive report and presentation from ZeroQuest and provide input on further action. CITY OF CUPERTINO Page 1 of 1 Printed on 4/10/2025 powered by LegistarTM 76 SC 04-17-2025 77 of 98 CITY OF PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3354 • FAX: (408) 777-3333 CUPERTINO CUPERTINO.ORG SUSTAINABILITY COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Meeting: April 17,2025 Subject Electric Vehicle Charger Study Providing a Prioritized List of Locations Recommended Action Receive report and presentation from ZeroQuest and provide input on further action. Background To meet the ambitious targets outlined in Cupertino's Climate Action Plan(CAP)2.0, Measure TR-3,the City must significantly expand its public electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure.This includes: • Reaching 35%ZEV adoption for passenger vehicles and 20%for commercial vehicles by 2030 • Achieving 100%ZEV adoption for all vehicles by 2040 Action TR 3.1 calls for the City to survey existing EV chargers and develop a prioritized list of new charger locations with a focus on equity, including access for residents of multifamily housing,low-and fixed-income households,underserved communities, seniors, and people with disabilities. The survey results are detailed in attachment A. The study was conducted in partnership with ZeroQuest, local residents with technical expertise in EV infrastructure who volunteered to support the City's sustainability goals. This action fulfills Action TR 3.1 and lays the foundation for Action TR 3.2,which calls for the installation of 719 new Level 2 and Level 3 public EV chargers by 2030. Reasons for Recommendation and Available Options The study provides a foundational analysis to guide future expansion of public EV charging in Cupertino. The findings will help inform staff decisions,identify funding opportunities, and support equitable charger deployment. Staff welcomes input from the Commission on the study's approach and priorities as the City moves toward implementation of related Climate Action Plan 2.0 goals. 77 SC 04-17-2025 78 of 98 Sustainability Impact Transportation is Cupertino's largest source of greenhouse gas emissions. Expanding public EV charging access will play a critical role in achieving improved local air quality and ensuring an equitable transition to zero-emission vehicles. Fiscal Impact No fiscal impact. City Work Program(CWP) Item/Description None California Environmental Quality Act No California Environmental Quality Act impact. Prepared by: Victoria Morin, Sustainability Specialist Reviewed bv: Ursula Syrova, Environmental Programs and Sustainability Manager Approved for Submission by: Chad Mosley,Director of Public Works Attachments: A-Electric Vehicle Charger Study 78 SC 04-17-2025 Attachment oA8 Z E R O Q U E S T a � o0 re EV Car Charger Study Release Copy, April 8th, 2025 City of Cupertino Climate Action Plan 2.0, Action ID TR3.1 79 SC 04-17-2025 80 of 98 l\\ Z E R 0 Q U E S T Section 1: Executive Summary 1.1: Objectives and Methodology The key objective of this Electric Vehicle (EV)Car Charger Study was to complete Cupertino's Climate Action Plan 2.0(CAP 2.0)Action ID TR 3.1 —which is to conduct a survey of existing EV chargers and develop a list of prioritized locations for new EV charging stations while considering various dimensions of equitable distribution of resources. A complementary objective was to position the city to complete the follow-on and related Action ID TR3.2—which is to leverage public and private partnerships to add 719 new publicly accessible Level 2 and 3 EV charging stations to the city by 2030. Towards that end,the ZeroQuest team developed a mapping tool based on Google My Maps with various layers added to define the city boundaries, NEVI grant-eligible regions, existing charger locations, and the locations of various city properties and other key places where charging might be needed. The team then used the CLEE UC Berkeley EV Equity Roadmap mapping tool to cross- check certain locations to verify the availability of high-voltage(480V)electrical service required for fast chargers and to investigate the distribution of particular target communities defined in the city's CAP 2.0 document. The specific locations and processes used to determine potential charger locations are spelled out in more detail later in this report. 1.2: Key Findings and Recommendations The result of the study is a prioritized set of lists of suggested charger locations (see Section 5 later in this report) based on the mapping tools we developed,the priorities provided from the Sustainability Group at the City of Cupertino, and information available from the U.C. Berkeley EV charging mapping tool. Fast (Level 3)chargers were prioritized for NEVI grant-eligible locations and other places(such as shopping centers)where charging time may be limited. Slower(Level 2) chargers,which are much less expensive to install,were prioritized for all other locations. Section 2: Introduction 2.1: Growth in the Adoption of Electric Vehicles According to the California Energy Commission Zero Emission Vehicle dashboard, 24,359 light duty EV and Plug-In Hybrid vehicles have been registered in one of the four Cupertino zip codes as of Q3 of 2024. Q3 Zero Emissions Vehicles (ZEV) registrations (which includes a very small number of fuel cell vehicles) represented 26.4%of new vehicles sold. These numbers reflect a significant shift toward zero-emission personal transportation, and is driven by incentives, a tech-savvy population, the increasing affordability and variety of EV models, and ambitious goals such as California's mandate for 100%zero-emission new car sales by 2035. See Figure 2.1 on the following page. 2 80 SC 04-17-2025 \\ Z E R 0 Q U E S T LIGHT-DUTY • LIGHT-DUTY CUMULATIVE SALES ANNUAL SALES ANNUAL SALES Sales through 2024 Q3 YTD Sales in 2024 Q3 Sales in 2024 24,633 2,856 Q3 Sales YTD Sales 438,367 1,349,988 BEV PHEV FCEV BEV PHEV FCEV Q3 ZEV Share YTD ZEV Share 19,558 4,801 274 2,566 284 6 26.4% 25.4% Fuel Type Range Number of New ZFV Sales z 200 miles 2,554 Year BEV a 200 miles 112 2024 Q3 ' PHEV =284 Map Filter FCEV 16 zP , ZIP r (Mumplevaiu ) Fuel Type (AII) To maintain the privacy of individual vehicle registrants,counts by make and model are withheld at the ZIP code level. Marlet5hare Pm.ph mOSM Number of Vehicles 1 300 For additional information about the data and how to cite this visualization,see the dashboard. Figure 2.1: California Energy Commission Zero Emission Vehicle Dashboard 2.2: The Need forAdditional Charging Infrastructure This rapid adoption underscores a critical need for robust charging infrastructure. Despite progress, the availability of public EV chargers—currently 200 to 300 in Cupertino—lags the growing demand. Projections from the city's Climate Action Plan (updated to version 2.0 in August of 2022) indicate the city will require 719 more chargers by 2030 to support this transition effectively. While many EV owners can charge at home, some live in multifamily dwellings or are commuters or visitors who require charging during work or leisure activities. In addition, drivers may need fast charging along major transportation corridors such as Interstate 280 and State Highway 85. To sustain the momentum of EV adoption, cities like Cupertino must focus on scaling charging networks while providing equitable access to all potential users. Meeting this growing need will not only support residents and visitors but also enhance Cupertino's reputation as a leader in sustainability. 3 81 SC 04-17-2025 82 of 98 l\\ Z E R 0 Q U E S T 2.3: Objectives of the Study The main objective of the study was to complete Action ID TR 3.1 from the City of Cupertino Climate Action Plan (CAP)Version 2.0. The specific wording of that action is shown below: TR 3.1 Conduct a survey of existing publicly accessible electric vehicle chargers, their locations, and their kW hour charging speed, and identify a prioritized list of locations for new electric vehicle charging stations with consideration for equitable distribution of chargers to residents of multi-family homes, low income and fixed income people, historically underserved communities, elders, and disabled individuals with access needs. Key Pillar: Studies&Plans Timing:Phase 1 Cost:Low-Medium A secondary, parallel objective of the study was to complement and lay the groundwork for the related CAP 2.0 Action ID TR 3.2,which states: TR 3.2 Leverage public and private partnerships to add 719 new publicly accessible Level 2 and 3 electric vehicle charging stations to the City by 2030. Key Pillar:Structural Change Timing:Phase 1-3 Cost:High 2.4: Data Sources for and Limitations of the Study Most of the data needed to complete the study was readily available online. See the Section 7 Appendix at the end of this report for a complete list of the sources used. However,there was little data available for certain segments of underserved communities, including the locations of residents by income level, age, or disabilities. This issue was addressed using the Association of Bay Area Governments(ABAG) Equity Priority Communities(EPC)data and the location of senior communities and senior centers as a proxy for the location of elderly citizens. Section 3: Context from the City's Climate Action Plan 3.1: CAP 2.0 Measure TR-3 Action IDs TR 3.1 and TR3.2 described previously are components of Measure TR-3 in the City of Cupertino Climate Action Plan 2.0,which discusses specific targets for zero-emission vehicle adoption within the city, along with estimated corresponding Green House Gas (GHG) reductions and the additional benefits of achieving those targets. The text for TR-3 from the CAP follows: Measure TR-3: Increase zero-emission vehicle (ZEV)adoption to 35% for passenger vehicles and 20%for commercial vehicles by2030 and 100%forall vehicles by2040. Co-benefits and specific quantitative GHG emissions reductions associated with implementation of Measure TR-3 are as follows: 4 82 SC 04-17-2025 83 of 98 06\ Z E R 0 Q U E S T Co-Benefits ■ Enhanced Public Health&Safety ■ Cost Savings GHG Emissions Reductions ■ 2030:0.457 MT CO2e/person ■ 2040: 1.960 MT CO2e/person Recommending and selecting locations for more EV chargers and working towards getting chargers installed in those locations directly supports the overall objective of encouraging and supporting the adoption of ZEVs,which in turn will reduce carbon emissions, enhance public health, and save the city money. Section 4: Methodology Section 4.1: Overview of Process The process began with reviewing the available data and then loading that data into the Google My Maps tool,which is available online for free. Key data was placed into different mapping layers and color-coded to make it easy to identify. By toggling layers off and on, users can quickly view specific types of information and use it to analyze potential charger locations. The following data was included: City of Cupertino boundaries, locations of existing Level 2 and Level 3 (fast DC)chargers, Interstate 280 NEVI Corridor, IRS 30C Eligible Census Tracts, existing EV chargers, parks, other city-owned property, schools, apartments, hotels, shopping centers, places of worship and restaurants. After all of the data was identified and loaded into the tool,the next step was to visually review existing charging locations versus desirable charging locations, considering criteria provided in CAP 2.0 Action ID TR 3.1,the location data for various categories of residential,work, recreational, dining, and worship establishments, high-traffic corridors, & priorities set by the city Sustainability and Environmental Programs group (see Table 4.1). Category Definition Priority Grant Eligible NEVI Formula Program Grant Area 1 Tax Credit Eligible IRS 30C Eligible 1 Accessible to General Public Desirable locations on city-owned sites 2 Private but Accessible to General Public Generally shopping/restaurants/churches 3 Privately Accessible and Owned Sites Generally,workplaces and office complexes 4 Serving Specific Communities Seniors 5 Serving Specific Communities Underserved 5 Serving Specific Communities Disabled 5 Serving Specific Communities Low Income 5 Serving Specific Communities Fixed Income 5 Serving Specific Communities Multifamily 5 Serving Specific Communities Cal-Enviro Screen Priority Area 5 Table 4.1: Priorities Set by City of Cupertino Sustainability Group 5 83 SC 04-17-2025 84 of 98 0\' Z E R 0 Q U E S T Section 5: Results and Recommendations 5.1: Locations of Existing EV Charging Stations Figure 5.1 below shows the locations of existing Level and Level 3 charging stations within the City of Cupertino. The following Table 5.1 lists the locations by address and charger type. Nearly all are located east of Highway 85, and most are located south of Interstate 280,with Stevens Creek Boulevard as a primary axis. In the following sections, recommendations for additional locations were designed to supplement and complement existing charger locations while expanding the geographic distribution of chargers within the city. SUNNYA l KOREATOWN COUNTRY CLUB SOUTH WRIGHTMONT PANAMA PARK LOS ALTOS CORNERS Loyola N I M I TZ WOODLAND ACRES-THE BIRDLAND HIGHLANDS NEIGHBORS 0 2 \ 2 Q - PeQ STEVENS CREEK Permanents 10 Z 16 Q2 2 MITTY CALABAZAS NORTH 'MGST cgnl ,POSE BROOKVALE - CHANTEL Figure 5.1: Locations of Existing Level 2(Purple Icons)and Level 3(Red Icons)EV Charging Stations 6 84 SC 04-17-2025 85 of 98 l\\ Z E R 0 Q U E S T Station Name Category Street Address Level 2 Level 3 Apple Visitor Center Workplace 1 0704/1 071 0 N Tantau Ave 84 Biltmore Apartments 10159 S Blaney Ave 2 Cupertino City Center Apartments 20350 Stevens Creek Blvd 6 Cupertino High School School 10100 Finch Ave 16 Cupertino Library City Property 10800 Torre Ave 6 Cupertino Quinlan 1,2 City Property 10185 Stelling Rd 4 Cupertino Village Shopping 10869 N Wolfe Rd 1 2 De Anza 1-10 School 21250 Stevens Creek Blvd 10 Essex Pointe(now called"The Point") Apartments 1 9900-1 991 8 Olivewood St 2 Homestead High School School 21370 Homestead Rd 20 2 Hyatt House San Jose/Cupertino Hotel 10380 Perimeter Rd 24 Juniper Cupertino Testa Dest. Hotel 10050 S De Anza Blvd 1 Main Street Cupertino Shopping 19500 Vallco Parkway 20 10 Monta Vista High School School 21840 McClellan Rd 14 2 Nineteen800 Apartments 19800 Vallco Pkwy 1 2 Ridge Vineyards-Testa Dest. Winery 17100 Montebello Rd 2 Target Shopping 20745 Stevens Creek Blvd 4 28 The Marketplace Shopping 19620 Stevens Creek Blvd 2 The Markham Apartments Apartments 20800 Homestead Rd 2 Whole Foods Market Shopping 20955 Stevens Creek Blvd 2 2 TOTAL 223 48 Table 5.1: Locations of Existing Level 2 and Level 3 EV Charging Stations in the City of Cupertino 5.2: Priority 1-NEVI Formula Program According to Table 4.1,the top priority for new charging stations is the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure(NEVI) Formula Program,which funds up to 80%of eligible project costs for fast DC chargers for locations that meet the program criteria(see Section 7 Appendix for a description of the program from the Alternative Fuels Data Center, U.S. Department of Energy). The area is defined by locations along designated Alternative Fuel Corridors(AFCs). Interstate 280 is defined as an AFC (Highway 85 is not) and the associated region was outlined in the mapping tool accordingly. Currently there are Level 2 and Level 3 charging locations available in the NEVI region, but they typically have a limited number of charging ports. The NEVI program requires fast charging(150kW minimum)and at least four charging ports per location. Possible new NEVI-eligible Level 3 charging stations locations, along with a minimum recommended number of ports for each location, are shown in the following Figure 5.2, and listed in Table 5.2. 7 85 SC 04-17-2025 \\ Z E R 0 Q U E S T SUNNYARTS KOREATOWN COUNTRY CLUB SOUTH WRIGHTMONT PANAMA PARK LOS ALTOS CORNERS Loyol WOODLAND ACRES-THE Homestead Hi hSchool BIRD D HIGHLANDS © g © © © NEIGHBO Homestead and Foothill © Homestead Square Shopp... © Vallco I©Center Quinlan Center/Cuperti... © © :3TE ENS CREEK —1 Cupertino High School DeAnza College ITTY C;ALABAZAS NORTH WEST SAN JOSE BROOKVALE CHANTEL Figure 5.2: Recommended Locations for NEVI-Eligible New Level Charging Stations Location Type of Location Number of Ports Quinlan Center/Cupertino Memorial Park City Community Center 8 Cupertino High School Public School 8 The Marketplace(Stevens Creek&Portal) Shopping Center 8 Homestead High School Public School 8* Homestead Square Shopping Center 8 Oakmont Square Shopping Center 8 Homestead and Stelling Shopping Center 8 Vallco Ice Center Shopping Center 16 Homestead and Foothill Shopping Center 8 De Anza College Community College 16 TOTAL(NET NEW) 94 Table 5.2: Possible Locations for NEVI-Eligible Level 3(Fast DC)Charging Stations Note: Homestead High School currently has 20 Level 2 and two Level 3 chargers. 5.3: Priority 1—IRS 30C Eligible Locations The IRS 30C Alternative Fuel Vehicle Refueling Property Credit program provides a tax credit of up to 30%of the charging station installation cost to businesses which install charging stations and meet certain other criteria, including being in an eligible census tract. Most of the census tracts in the City of Cupertino are not eligible according to the list provided by the IRS(see link provided in the Appendix of this report). However,three tracts are eligible. Seethe following Figure 5.3(brown and green regions). Of these, only one (GEOID 06085508305) includes a reasonable potential site which is the Forge Homestead Apartments at 20691 Forge Way. More information on the IRS 30C Alternative Fuel Vehicle Refueling Property Credit is available in the Appendix in Section 7. 8 86 SC 04-17-2025 \\ Z E R 0 Q U E S T 1 •� 30C Tax Credit • • • • Tract Status + q Eligible tract through 2029(2016-2020 NMTC tracts) , m q Eligible tract through 2030(2020 Non- Steens Creek Rrod Urban tracts) Cupertino C ' Bollinger Rd X Mao Lavers _ Eligible eractthrough 2024(2011-2015 NMTC r tracts) Eligible tract through 2029(2016-2020 NMTC traces) Eligible tract through 2030(2020 Non-Urban \ tracts) "'Which map layers should I use for my pr... 2km Esri,NASA,NGA,USGS,FEMA City of Cupertino,County of Santa_. Powered by Esri Figure 5.3: IRS 30C Tax Credit Eligible Locations 5.4: Priority2-Desirable Locations on City, County and State-Owned Sites Figure 5.4 below shows the locations of various properties and parks owned by the City of Cupertino along with schools. While the existing charging stations shown earlier in Figure 5.1 are conveniently located along major arteries in the northeast quadrant of the city,there is limited charging support west of Highway 85 and south of McClellan Road. Adding Level 2 charging support at park locations in those areas would dramatically increase charging access for the rest of the city. Table 5.4 lists the specific locations and recommended number of ports. WOODLAND i ACRES - THE BIRDLAND HIGHLANDS NEIGHBORS El © Garden Gate Elementary 0 0 STEVENS CREEK © William Faria Elementa Moma Vista Park ® ®Wilson P.a AbmhamLinca1r�l®emen..4 Eaton Elementary School ® MITTY © JollymanPar�ALABAZAS © NORTH q WEST SAN JOSE ROOKVALE © CHANTEL Hoover Park Figure 5A Location of Parks(Green Trees),Other City Property(Orange Shading),and Schools 9 87 SC 04-17-2025 88 of 98 06,(�'/'��`),) \ Z E R 0 Q U E S T Location Type of Location Number of Ports Jollyman Park City Park 4 Creekside Park City Park 8 Stevens Creek County Park 16 Linda Vista Park City Park 4 Wilson City Park 16 Varian City Park 2 McClellan Ranch Preserve City Park 8 Rancho Rinconada Recreation and Park District 4 Blackberry Farm City Park 8 Hoover Park City Park 4 Monta Vista Park City Park 4 TOTAL 78 Table 5.4: Desirable Locations on City-Owned(and One County-Owned)Sites for Level 2 Chargers 5.5 Priority 3—Publicly Accessible but Privately Owned Sites Figure 5.5 below shows the locations of publicly accessible but privately owned sites,which are candidates for Level 2 and Level 3 charging stations. These sites include cafes, restaurants, shops and shopping centers, hotels, and places of worship. (Note that NEVI-eligible sites were listed previously, and multifamily properties are listed separately in the next section, so specific sites in either category were excluded from the sites in this section to avoid redundancy.) While most of these types of locations are well-suited for Level 2 chargers,the shopping centers are good candidates for Level 3 chargers. Table 5.5 lists the specific locations and types. WOODLAND ACRES - THE BIRDLAND HIGHLANDS NEIGHBORS 0 ® � no STEVENS CREEK QD I��al�enie � A i ® ® ® MITTY CALABAZAS ORTH u WEST SAN JOSE BROOKVALE CHANTFI Figure 5.5: Publicly Accessible Privately Owned Sites for Level 2 and Some Level 3 Chargers 10 88 SC 04-17-2025 89 of 98 06\ Z E R 0 Q U E S T Location Type of Location Address Level 2 Level 3 Aloft Cupertino Hotel 10165 N De Anza Blvd 8 Bethel Lutheran Church Place of Worship 10181 Finch Ave 8 BJs Restaurant Restaurant 10690 N De Anza Blvd 8 Church Assembly in Cupertino Place of Worship 20075 Bollinger Rd 8 Courtyard San Jose Cupertino Hotel 10605 N Wolfe Rd 16 DeAnza Shopping Center Shopping 10620 S De Anza Blvd 16 Good Shepherd Christian Church Place of Worship 940 S Stelling Rd 8 Hilton Garden Inn Hotel 10741 N Wolfe Rd 8 Hyatt House San Jose Cupertino Hotel 10380 Perimeter Rd 24* Juniper Hotel Hotel 10050 S De Anza Blvd 8* Ko e Siasi'o Sisu Kalaisi'o a Kau Place of Worship 20125 Bollinger Rd 16 Lutheran Church of Our Savior Place of Worship 5825 Bollinger Rd 16 MACU TEA/Chipotle(S De Anza) Cafe/Restaur. 10445 S De Anza Blvd 16 New Life Church Place of Worship 20900 McClellan Rd 8 Pacific Rim Shopping Center Shopping La Roda Drive 16 Peninsula Bible Church Place of Worship 10601 N Blaney Ave 16 Portal Plaza Shopping 19725 Stevens Creek Bl 16 St.Joseph of Cupertino Parish Place of Worship 10110 N De Anza Bl 8 Tea Era/Homestead Bowl Cafe/Bowling 20990 Homestead Rd 16 The Blue Pheasant Restaurant Restaurant 22100 Stevens Creek Bl 8 The Crossroads Shopping 20750 Stevens Creek Bl 16 The Cupertino Hotel Hotel 10889 N De Anza Blvd 8 The Home of Christ Church Place of Worship 10340 Bubb Rd 8 Valley Church Place of Worship 10885 N Stelling Rd 16 TOTAL 232 64 Table 5.5: Publicly Accessible Privately Owned Sites for Level 2 and Some Level 3 Chargers *Note: Hyatt House already has these 24 chargers, and Juniper Hotel already has one charger. 5.6 Priority 4—Privately Accessible and Owned Sites Privately accessible and owned sites are primarily corporate campuses and offices. There is one large corporate employer in Cupertino,Apple,which has multiple sites throughout the city. Data on chargers for corporate locations is difficult to find,though Apple does have a large number of chargers available to employees and the general public at their headquarters location as noted earlier in this report in Table 5.1. There is another large employer,Amazon,with a location at 10201 Torre Avenue,though their EV charging support is unknown. Other office complexes and campuses are good Level 2 charging targets, but these have not been included in this study as the chargers would presumably only be available to employees and not the general public. 11 89 SC 04-17-2025 90 of 98 l\\ Z E R 0 Q U E S T 5.7 Priority 5—Serving Specific Communities: Seniors According to the 2020 Census, approximately 14.3% (8,632)of Cupertino's 60,365 residents are aged 65 years or older. (See"U.S. Census Bureau QuickFacts"in the Section 7 Appendix). Approximately 80.3%of those residents own their own homes and 19.7% rent. Those seniors who own their own homes have access to home EV charging should they decide to install it,though the city could consider a program to offer financial assistance to encourage installation if it chooses. Renters are distributed between regular apartments and senior-oriented facilities such as 55+ independent living apartments. There are also assisted living and memory care facilities;these were not included as presumably those residents are mostly no longer driving. Regular apartments are addressed in the Multifamily section later in this report. Senior apartments are listed in the following Table 5.6(and shown in Figure 5.9 in the Multifamily section), along with the Cupertino Senior Center and Cupertino YMCA, both of which provide programs for local seniors. For the senior apartments, Level 2 charging should be sufficient. For the Senior Center and YMCA, charging could be either Level 2 or Level 3, but having the Senior Center support a small number of Level 3 chargers would be one way to provide fast charging specifically for seniors. Location Type of Location Charger Level Number of Ports Chateau Cupertino Senior Apartments Level2 8 Forum at Rancho San Antonio Senior Apartments Level 2 16 Sunnyview Retirement Community Senior Apartments Level 8 Cupertino Senior Center Community Center Level 3 4 YMCA Non-Profit Level 16 TOTAL 52 Table 5.7: Serving Specific Communities-Seniors 5.8 Priority 5—Serving Specific Communities: Underserved, Disabled, Low Income, Fixed Income Data for the Underserved, Disabled, Low Income and Fixed Income communities was difficult to find for the City of Cupertino. The closest proxy seems to be"Equity Priority Communities"as defined by the Association of Bay Area Governments(ABAG),which"are census tracts that have a significant concentration of underserved populations, such as households with low incomes and people of color." The ABAG Equity Priority Community Map shows one small priority community area in Cupertino (shown in the red circle in the Figure 5.8 on the following page)which appears to be coincident with the census tract served by the IRS 30C tax credit. 12 90 SC 04-17-2025 \\ Z E R 0 Q U E S T Cupertino Campbell 17 Saratoga SANTA CLARA COUNTY ,n EQUITY PRIORITY COMMUNITIES (EPCS) os E PC Tract Corn pa rison Between �. Plan Bay Area 2050(ACS 2014-2018)and Plan Bay Area 2050+(ACS 2018-2022) . Plan Bay Area 2050+EPC ■ Plan Bay Area 2050EPC ■ Plan Bay Area 2050&2050+EPCs Urbanized Area Figure 5.8: ABAG Equity Priority Community in Cupertino There is one multifamily complex located in that tract, and it is targeted for Level 2 charging as noted in Sections 5.3(IRS 30C Tax Credit)and 5.9(Multifamily). However,geographically distributing EV charging resources across the city as described elsewhere in this report would help ensure that all the communities listed in this section have easy access to EV charging resources. 5.9 Priority 5—Serving Specific Communities: Multifamily Multifamily residential complexes are shown in Figure 5.9 below and listed in Table 5.9 on the following page. Each of these complexes should be targeted for Level 2 charging to provide residents with"charge at home"capabilities. Four complexes(The Biltmore, Cupertino City Center, The Pointe, and The Markham) already have from two to six Level 2 chargers. A fifth complex, Nineteen800, has one Level 2 and two Level 3 chargers. The others have none, at least according to publicly available records. Initially, having eight Level 2 chargers per location could dramatically improve charging access for the city's apartment residents. Ultimately,there should be at least one charging port per apartment unit as the population transitions to regular EV use. One complex,the Forge Homestead Apartments (shown in the top middle of Figure 5.9 on the following page), is in the IRS 30C tax credit zone, and could be encouraged to install charging stations usingthe benefits of that program. The others could be encouraged to add charging stations as an added incentive to attract tenants. In addition,the city could consider developing an incentive program specifically for multifamily housing. This approach would extend the benefits of home charging to numerous renters. 13 91 SC 04-17-2025 92 of 98 ,('/'`),) 1`\ Z E R 0 Q U E S T Although EV charging for senior housing was addressed in a separate section of this report,from a practical perspective senior apartments could be included as part of a general EV charger multifamily program by the city. WOODLAND ACRES - THE BIRDLAND 0HIGHLANDS NEIGHBORS tJ ® 0 ® ® ST. 0 40PC® ®� ..,per:„ �J "b STEVENS CREEK mal lenle 0 MITTY ®_ABAZAS —'NORTH WEST SAN JOSE BROOKVALE - CHANTEL Figure 5.9: Senior Apartments(Single Roof Icons)and Multifamily Complexes(Double Roof Icons) 14 92 SC 04-17-2025 93 of 98 06\ Z E R 0 Q U E S T Location Type of Location Charger Level Number of Ports Arioso Apartments Multifamily Level 8 Aviare Apartments Multifamily Level 8 City Gate at Cupertino Multifamily Level 8 Cupertino City Center Apartments' Multifamily Level 8 Cupertino Park Center Apartments Multifamily Level 8 Foothill Heights Apartments Multifamily Level 8 Forge Homestead Apartmentsz Multifamily Level 8 Glenbrook Apartments Multifamily Level 8 Holloway Apartments Multifamily Level 8 Main Street Cupertino Lofts Multifamily Level 8 McClellan Terrace Apartments Multifamily Level 8 Nineteen800Apartments3 Multifamily Level 8 Shadow Oaks Apartments Multifamily Level 8 Siena Apartment Homes Multifamily Level 8 Sonter Apartments Multifamily Level 8 The BiltmoreApartments' Multifamily Level 8 The Hamptons Apartment Homes Multifamily Level 8 The Markham Apartments5 Multifamily Level 8 The Podium Apartments Multifamily Level 8 The PointeApartments6 Multifamily Level 8 The Villages at Cupertino Multifamily Level 8 Village Green Apartments Multifamily Level 8 Village Heights Apartments Multifamily Level 8 TOTAL 184 Table 5.9: Serving Specific Communities—Multifamily Notes: 1) Cupertino City Center currently has six Level 2 chargers 2) Forge Homestead has no chargers but is eligible for the IRS 30C Tax Credit 3) Nineteen800 Apartments currently has one Level and two Level 3 chargers 4) The Biltmore currently has two Level 2 chargers 5) The Markham currently has two Level 2 chargers 6) The Pointe currently has two Level chargers 15 93 SC 04-17-2025 \\ Z E R 0 Q U E S T 5.10 Priority 5—Serving Specific Communities: CalEnviroScreen Priority Area The CalEnviroScreen priority area is defined as"the top 25%of census tracts experiencing disproportionate amounts of pollution, environmental degradation, and socioeconomic and public health conditions according to the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment's CalEnviroScreen 4.0 tool:' See the map in Figure 5.10 below. As apparent from the map, no census tracts found within the City of Cupertino meet the criteria to be defined as a CalEnviroScreen Priority Area. Therefore, no charging locations are recommended forthis item. Overall Percentile + Q CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Results — — ■>90-100(Highest Scores) ■>80-90 >70-80 Crfe tu5o jL (�fig. L 8 �qJj >50-60 °>40-50 jalll ■>30-401._ ■>20-30 mmo ova.. ■>10-20 ■0-10(Lowest Scores) Campbell CalEnviroScreen 4.0 High Pollution,Low Population Saratoga Esri,HERE,Garmin,FAO,NOAA,USGS,EPA,NPS Header,P7,P2,P3,P4,H1,and P5 Tables from U.S.... Powered b Esri Figure 5.10: CalEnviroScreen Map Showing Results for City of Cupertino Census Tracts Section 6: Results Summary, Recommendations and Next Steps 6.1 Results Summary According to the data publicly available and provided in Section 5.1 of this study,there are currently 223 Level 2 chargers and 48 Level EV chargers in the city for a total of 271 chargers(a ratio of 4.64 Level 2 to Level 3 chargers). Throughout Section 5,this study identified potential locations for an additional 518 Level 2 chargers and 162 Level 3 chargers for a total of 680 new chargers(a ratio of 3.20 Level 2 to Level 3 chargers). These results are summarized in Table 6.1 on the following page. While the total is slightly less than the 719 recommended by the city's CAP 2.0,the net result is likely close as additional chargers were very probably added between the time the CAP was updated and the time this report was published. Although the Level 2 to Level 3 ratio of recommended new chargers is slightly higher than the current ratio,the long-term ratio is likely to be similar as the current recommendations prioritize NEVI-enabled Level 3 chargers and underestimate the number of Multifamily Level 2 chargers that will be needed eventually. 16 94 SC 04-17-2025 95 of 98 06\ Z E R 0 Q U E S T Category Priority Level Level NEVI Formula Grant Area 1 N/A 94 IRS 30C Tax Credit 1 8 Public Parks/City Properties 2 78 Shops/Restaurants/Hotels/Places of Worship 3 208 64 Employers/Campuses/Offices 4 TBD TBD Seniors 5 48 4 Underserved/Disabled/Low/Fixed Income 5 See IRS 30C Above Multifamily 5 176 CalEnviroScreen 5 N/A N/A TOTAL 518 162 Table 6.1: Net Number of New Chargers Recommended by Category and Priority Level 6.2 Recommendations and Next Steps The following list shows recommendations for next steps for the City of Cupertino. 1) Pursue NEVI grants for Level 3 fast DC chargers in NEVI-supported areas for the specific Locations shown in Table 5.2 of this report. See the Section 7 Appendix for more information. 2) Collaborate with owner of Forge Homestead Apartments to pursue IRS 30C credit or a PG&E Multifamily Housing EV Charging Program grant for installation of Level 2 chargers onsite as per the line item in Table 5.8 in the Multifamily section of this report. More information on both programs is available in the Appendix in Section 7. 3) Apply for upcoming CALeVIP(California Energy Commission Center for Sustainable Energy) grant program expected to open in 2025 for funding fast DC(Level 3)charging sites. See the Section 7 Appendix in this report for more information on this program. 4) Determine funding strategy for chargers on city-owned sites(primarily parks) per the map and table shown in Section 5.4. This could include public/private partnerships or city- provided funding from tax revenues. 5) Develop program to encourage the installation of chargers on private property—including workplaces, retail establishments, hotels, and apartment buildings(see the details provided in the maps and tables in Sections 5.5,5.6,5.7 and 5.9). This program could include public/private partnerships and/or subsidies to share the cost of installation. 17 95 SC 04-17-2025 \\ Z E R 0 Q U E S T Section 7: Appendix 7.1 Summary of Resources Included This section includes information on the following programs and resources used in this study: 1) City of Cupertino Climate Action Plan (CAP)2.0 2) City of Cupertino Boundaries 3) National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure(NEVI) Formula Program 4) CLEE UC Berkeley EV Equity Roadmap 5) California Energy Commission Zero Emissions Vehicles Dashboard 6) IRS 30C Tax Credit 7) Department of Energy Electric Vehicle Charging Locations 8) PlugShare 9) Charge Hub 10) US Census Bureau 11) Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) Equity Priority Communities 12) CalEnviroScreen Priority Areas 13) PG&E Multifamily Housing EV Charging Program 14) CALeVIP(California Energy Commission Center for Sustainable Energy)Grant Program 7.2 Information and Links 7.2.1 City of Cupertino Climate Action Plan (CAP)2.0 https://www.cupertino.gov/files/assets/city/v/1/our-community/documents/cupertino- climate-action-p pdf 7.2.2 City of Cupertino Boundaries https://gis-cupertino.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/water-service-boundaries/explore 18 96 SC 04-17-2025 \\ Z E R 0 Q U E S T 7.2.3 National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure(NEVI) Formula Program $Pint^ National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure(NEVI)Formula Program Federal The U.S.Department of Transportation's(DOT)Federal Highway Administration(FHWA)NEVI state Formula Program provides funding to states to strategically deploy electric vehicle(EV) Jurisdiction Federal: charging stations and to establish an interconnected network to facilitate data collection, T Incentives Local Examples access,and reliability.Funding is available for up to 80%of eligible project costs,including: Type: Utility Programs Agency:U.S.Department of •The acquisition,installation,and network connection of EV charging stations to facilitate Transportation summery Tables data collection,access,and reliability; Po •Proper operation and maintenance of EV charging stations;and, Enacted:Nov 15,2021 •Long-term EV charging station data sharing. Technologies:EVs,PHEVs EV charging stations must be non-proprietary,allow for open-access payment methods,be publicly available or available to authorized commercial motor vehicle operators from more See all Fod ral Laws and Incentives. than one company,and be located along designated FHWAAlternative Fuel Corridors(AFCs). If a state and DOT and that all AFCs in the state have been fully developed,than the state can propose alternative public locations and roads for EV charging station installation. FHWA must distribute the NEVI Program Formula Program funds made available each fiscal year(FY)through FY 2026,so that each state receives an amount equal to the state FHWA funding formula determined by 23 U.S.Code 104.To receive funding,states must submit plans to the FHWA and the Joint Office of Energy and Transportation for review and public posting annually,describing how the state intends to distribute NEVI funds.The FHWA nced approval of all FV22/23 slate plans on September 27,2022 and approval of all FY24 state plans in November 2023. Additionally,10%of NEVI Formula funding is set aside each FY for DOT to fund grants for states and localities requiring additional assistance to strategically deploy EV charging stations under this Program.Additional funding eligibility and considerations will apply. For additional information,see the FHWA NEVI website and the Joint Office website. (Reference Public Law 117-58 and 23 U.S.Code 165) NEVI Program Web Page,Alternative Fuels Data Center, U.S. Department of Energy https://afdc.energy.ggov/Laws/12744 7.2.4 CLEE UC Berkeley EV Equity Roadmap https://evmap.cLimatepLans.org/ 7.2.5 California Energy Commission Zero Emissions Vehicles Dashboard https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/zero-emission-vehicle-and- infrastructure-statistics-collection/new-zev 7.2.6 IRS 30C Tax Credit www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/appendix-b-list-of-2020-census-tract-boundary-30c-eligible- tracts-v2-1-4-2024.pdf. 7.2.7 Department of Energy Electric Vehicle Charging Locations https://afdc.energy.ggov/fuels/electricity-locations#/find/nearest?fuel=ELEC 7.2.8 PlugShare https://www.pLugshare.com/ 7.2.9 Charge Hub https://chargehub.com/en/ 7.2.10 US Census Bureau QuickFacts https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/cupertinocitycalifornia/PST045222) 19 97 SC 04-17-2025 \\ Z E R 0 Q U E S T 7.2.11 Association of Bay Area Governments(ABAG) Equity Priority Communities https://abag.ca.gov/our-work/equity_priority-communities 7.2.12 CalEnviroScreen Priority Areas https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/l 1 d2f52282a54ceebcac7428e6184203/page/Ca LEnviroScreen-4 0/ How Priority Populations are Defined Per Senate Bill 535 and Assembly Bill 1550,35%California Climate Investments must be allocated to disadvantaged Communities, low-income communities and low-Income households,collectively referred to as priority populations.These communities are defined as follows: • Disadvantaged communities:The California Environmental Protection Agency(CaIEPA)is responsible for identifying disadvantaged communities.In 2022,CaIEPA released an updated designation of disadvantaged communities and currently defines disadvantaged communities as: o The top 25%of census tracts experiencing disproportionate amounts of pollution,environmental degradation,and socioeconomic and public health conditions according to the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment's CalEnviroScreen 4.0 tool. o Census tracts lacking overall scores in CalEnviroScreen 4.o due to data gaps but receiving the highest 5%of CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Pollution Burden composite scores; o Census tracts identified in 2017 as disadvantaged,regardless of their scores in CalEnviroScreen 4.o;and o Lands under the control of federally recognized Tribes. • Low-Income communities and households are those with incomes either at or below 8o percent of the statewide median o below a threshold designated as low-income by the Department of Housing and Community Development. https://www.cacLimateinvestments.ca.gov/priority_popuLations 7.2.13 PG&E Multifamily Housing EV Charging Program https://www.pge.com/en/clean-energy/electric-vehicles/ev-charge-program/muLtifamily- housing-and-small-business-ev-charger-program.html 7.2.14 CALeVIP (California Energy Commission Center for Sustainable Energy)Grant Program JPWeV/P Implemented by CSE for the California Energy Commission CALeVIP anticipates launching a new incentive project for DC fast chargers throughout CaLifornia X in 2025.Installation sites will not need to be in a disadvantaged or Low-income community to quaLify for funding. For the Latest updates on upcoming projects,subscribe to CALeVIP emaiLs or visit our Upcoming Rebates page. EV Charging for All The California Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Project (CALeVIP) offers substantial rebates for publicly available EV chargers. https://caLevip.org 20 98