Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 05-19-2026 Item No. 1 Study Session Health and Safety Element Update_Staff PresentationCC - 5-19-2026 #1 Study Session: Health and Safety Element Update Presentation CITY OF CUPERTINO HEALTH AND SAFETY ELEMENT UPDATE CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION May 19, 2026 Agenda 1.Introductions 2.Health and Safety Element Overview 3.Key Updates 4.PC Study Session 5.Evacuation Study 6.Next Steps 7.Questions and Discussion City Council Study Session | May 19, 2026 3 Introductions City of Cupertino Luke Connolly, Assistant Director of Community Development Piu Ghosh, Planning Manager PlaceWorks, Consultant Eli Krispi, Interim Project Manager Tammy L. Seale, Principal (Zoom) Fehr & Peers, Transportation Consultant Daniel Rubins, Senior Associate Franziska Church, Principal HEALTH AND SAFETY ELEMENT OVERVIEW City Council Study Session | May 19, 2026 5 What is a Safety Element? Mandatory part of a General Plan. Identifies hazards of concern and related risks to the community. Sets policies to help increase resilience to natural disasters and other hazards. Current element adopted in 2014. City Council Study Session | May 19, 2026 6 Health and Safety Element Update Required after Housing Element update to ensure compliance with current State law. Addresses new statutory requirements and hazards, such as climate change, wildfire, and extreme heat. Incorporates Santa Clara County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update. Enhances eligibility for FEMA funding. Health and Safety Element Emergency Operations Plan Santa Clara County Community Wildfire Protection Plan Multi- Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Climate Action Plan 2.0 Short-term, focused plan with implementation actions Details the City’s approach for emergency response and recoveryNet-zero GHG emission roadmap; informs climate resilience policies Reduces fire hazards through increased information, education, and recommendations City Council Study Session | May 19, 2026 7 Changes to State Law SB 1241, adopted in 2012 (Govt. Code § 65302(g)(3)) •Update wildfire sections. •Identify responsible agencies. •Minimize risks for new buildings and essential facilities. SB 379, adopted in 2015 (Govt. Code § 65302(g)(4)) •Prepare climate change vulnerability assessment. •Develop goals, policies, and actions to increase adaptation and resilience. AB 2140 (Govt. Code § 65302.6) •Enables incorporation of local hazard mitigation plan (LHMP) into a General Plan’s Safety Element. AB 2684, adopted in 2024 (Govt. Code §65302.01) •Requires Safety Element update to address extreme heat upon next General Plan element update on or after January 1, 2028. •Requires ongoing review to identify new information on extreme heat hazards. SB 99, adopted in 2019 (Govt. Code § 65302(g)(5)) •Identify evacuation-constrained residential areas. AB 747, adopted in 2019 and AB 1409, adopted in 2021 (Govt. Code § 65302.15) •Identify evacuation route capacity, safety, viability and evacuation locations. •Evaluate evacuation under multiple hazard scenarios. KEY UPDATES City Council Study Session | May 19, 2026 9 Overview of Updates to Safety Element Updated and refined hazard sections, policies, and actions to align with State law and best practices. Aligned wildfire standards with updated State law and CAL FIRE mapping. Enhanced floodplain and critical facility protection standards. Expanded climate adaptation and resilience policies based on revised Vulnerability Assessment. Reinforced infrastructure resilience and continuity planning. Added new evacuation access and route management policies, based on findings from the 2025 Evacuation Route Capacity Assessment and Residential Constrained Parcel Analysis. City Council Study Session | May 19, 2026 10 Emergency Preparedness & Infrastructure Resilience Expanded emergency communications policies. Multilingual alert systems emphasized. Strengthened regional coordination. Strengthened evacuation communication and coordination protocols. Reinforced resilience of critical municipal infrastructure systems. Recognized Public Safety Power Shutoffs as an ongoing hazard risk. City Council Study Session | May 19, 2026 11 Wildfire Hazard Mapping & Risk Reduction Incorporated updated CAL FIRE Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ) mapping for Local and State Responsibility Areas. Replaced the prior Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Area (WUIFA) mapping framework with the adopted LRA FHSZ designations. Revised and added wildfire risk reduction policies to align with State law, consistent with CAL FIRE’s standard recommendations. City Council Study Session | May 19, 2026 12 Wildfire Risk Reduction Policies Existing Development Strengthened defensible space and vegetation management requirements (Public Resources Code §4291 and Government Code §51182). Roadway repair and maintenance to meet current fire safety and evacuation standards (California Building Code Part 7). Fuel break and emergency access route maintenance coordinated with CAL FIRE and Santa Clara County Fire Department. Discouraged electric security gates that impede emergency access. Recovery and redevelopment standards following major fire events to reduce future risk. New Development Early Fire Department review and response time evaluation. Ignition-resistant construction and Class A roofing (California Building Code Part 7). Fire Protection Plans required for new projects (California Building Code Part 7). Multiple ingress/egress and emergency access standards (California Building Code Part 7). Water service extensions and fire flow verification prior to approval. Restrictions on subdivisions and density increases in High and Very High FHSZs. City Council Study Session | May 19, 2026 13 Seismic & Geologic Hazards Updated landslide and steep slope hazard discussion and mapping for clarity and consistency with current data. Refined discussion of cascading impacts from seismic events to better reflect potential hazard interactions. Clarified discussion of potential infrastructure disruption affecting emergency access during seismic events. Clarified existing geotechnical review requirements for new development to align with current City and State regulations. Clarified limitations on grading on steep slopes consistent with existing City standards. City Council Study Session | May 19, 2026 14 Hazardous Waste & Materials Updated regulatory references to reflect current State and County oversight requirements. Reinforced environmental site assessment requirements. Maintained stringent risk reduction measures for development near known hazardous materials sites. Strengthened commitment to coordinate with regulatory agencies for ongoing cleanup and monitoring activities. City Council Study Session | May 19, 2026 15 Flood & Inundation Hazards Updated FEMA floodplain mapping. Clarified dam failure and inundation areas. Identified critical infrastructure and essential facilities in flood-prone areas. Strengthened standards for new development and redevelopment in flood-prone areas, while existing uses must meet federal and State requirements. Reinforced coordination with flood control agencies. City Council Study Session | May 19, 2026 16 Climate Vulnerability Assessment Integration Integrated SB 379 Vulnerability Assessment. Flooding, extreme heat, wildfire identified as highest risk. Identified vulnerable populations and critical infrastructure. Added adaptation and resilience strategies. Climate considerations integrated across hazard sections. Added policies and implementation strategies to expand emergency preparedness outreach, education, and support for vulnerable populations. City Council Study Session | May 19, 2026 17 Development Standards Mentions if the requirements apply to new development, redevelopment, or both, consistent with State wildfire planning requirements (Gov. Code §65302(g); SB 1241). Identifies risk reduction strategies for existing neighborhoods where many State building standards apply primarily to new development. Specifies policy triggers (e.g., subdivision size, change of use, site modification thresholds) to clarify when State and local fire safety requirements apply. Improves transparency and predictability in development review. Supports consistent implementation aligned with State wildfire safety and evacuation planning requirements (SB 99; AB 747; PRC §4290–4291; CBC Chapter 7A). City Council Study Session | May 19, 2026 18 Noise Element Part of the Health and Safety Element, but not part of the comprehensive update. Minor updates were made to ensure consistency with current municipal requirements. Revisions reflect input from the Planning Commission and Public Safety Commission during the 2025 study sessions. Added implementation strategies to guide review of new noise-generating uses, including public and private recreational activities near residential areas. Added consideration of restrictions on quarry truck operations during designated quiet hours. PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION City Council Study Session | May 19, 2026 20 Planning Commission Study Session Study Session to review Public Draft on March 9, 2026. Comments received from Commissioners and public Commission directed staff to: Incorporate additional supply-side evacuation strategies from the evacuation study (e.g., contra-flow, phased evacuation, system improvements). Strengthen heat-related policies (HS-9) by incorporating key findings and strategies from the 2026 State Heat Action Plan, including emergency alerts, improved services, building standards, and nature- based solutions. City Council Study Session | May 19, 2026 21 Planning Commissioner Comments Provide greater clarity on how wildfire and evacuation standards apply. Add emergency management and operations as a pillar in the Looking Forward section (p. 50). Expand emergency communication and add more information about Block Leader program. Add language about maintaining and improving the City’s FEMA Community Rating System score. Consider incorporating federal EPA standards for hazardous materials. Consider establishing objective noise standards for truck traffic. Clarify standards for law enforcement emergency response. Clarify shade requirements for parking lots and commercial development. City Council Study Session | May 19, 2026 22 Public Comments Consider designating additional evacuation routes and provide clearer standards around evacuations. Make information about evacuations more accessible. Increase the wildfire resilience of new development and incorporate the most recent wildfire hazard mapping. Retrofit City properties to better protect against earthquakes. Include objective noise standards, policies for freeway noise mitigation, and a noise contour map. EVACUATION STUDY Why the City Conducted this Study? State Requirements AB 747 and AB 1409: Identify evacuation route capacity, safety, viability and evacuation locations. Evaluate evacuation under multiple hazard scenarios. Planning-Level Assessment Provides a planning-level understanding of evacuation route capacity This study is not an evacuation operations plan Evaluates the evacuation route network under wildfire and compounding hazard scenarios Cupertino Evacuation Route Assessment Study Intent Identify evacuation route capacity bottlenecks Support updates to the General Plan Safety Element and emergency planning documents Inform future policy and investment decisions How the Analysis was Conducted Cupertino Evacuation Route Assessment Planning-level evaluation of evacuation demand, routing, and roadway capacity Scenario Summary Cupertino Evacuation Route Assessment Wildfire Scenario Description Vehicle Demand Scenario A (Wildfire) Fall 2:00 PM School In-Session All Roads Open 7,900 vehicles evacuating (residents, employees, students, and visitors) Scenario B (Wildfire + Earthquake) Summer 6:00 AM School not in Session McClellan Closure at Club House Lane 8,720 vehicles evacuating (residents, and some employees) Scenario C (Wildfire + Earthquake) Scenario A with roadway closures on Stevens Creek at SR 85 including SB SR 85 ramps Same as Scenario A What was Found: Key Results Evacuation Demand Approximately 7,900 to 8,700 vehicle, depending on scenario All Scenarios Most hillside evacuation routes exceed one-hour clearing capacity near the evacuation area Each primary evacuation route includes at least one segment that becomes capacity-constrained under one or more evacuation scenarios Major bottlenecks occur at and west of SR 85 and I- 280 Cupertino Evacuation Route Assessment Most Constrained Streets providing access to freeway gateways: •Foothill Boulevard •Stevens Creek Boulevard •McClellan Road Short Distances Evacuation routes are generally less than 2.5 miles More than One Hazard Increases Risk Scenario C Approximately 7,900 vehicles evacuating early afternoon Closure of Stevens Creek and SR 85 ramps Like scenario A, higher volume to capacity ratios on evacuation routes Effect of Closure Evacuation demand is redirected onto routes that are already over capacity, intensifying congestion and delay Major bottlenecks occur at and west of SR 85 and I- 280 Cupertino Evacuation Route Assessment Intensified Existing Constraints Streets providing access to freeway gateways: •Foothill Boulevard •McClellan Road •De Anza Boulevard Short Distances Evacuation routes are generally less than 2.5 miles What this means for the City Existing Foundation Unified multi-jurisdiction emergency coordination Battery-backed traffic signals on evacuation routes Established emergency communication protocols Supply-Side Strategies Targeted, flexible, emergency oriented capacity improvements Traffic control during evacuation Faster clearance of roadway closures Cupertino Evacuation Route Assessment Demand-Side Strategies Carpooling and vehicle reduction strategies Phased evacuation approaches Information-Side Strategies Early hazard detection Real -time traffic management Community preparedness Evacuation outcomes depend on coordination, operations, and behavior – not roadway widening alone. NEXT STEPS City Council Study Session | May 19, 2026 31 Next Steps Public Review Incorporate feedback from Planning Commission, City Council, and the public. CAL FIRE Review Submit draft for mandatory 90-day review prior to public hearings. CEQA Conduct environmental review. Public Hearings Planning Commission and City Council public hearings anticipated in Fall2026. WE ARE HERE City Council Study Session | May 19, 2026 32 Recommended action Receive the presentation and provide input on the Public Draft of the Health and Safety Element. QUESTIONS?